No

Representation ID: 96986

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Squire

The volume of houses built in the area during my lifetime is staggering, and now the council wants to further destroy the county’s character by adding more. Progress shouldn't be measured by the number of houses built, but by the quality of life for the people who live here and pay taxes to make it a pleasant place. Building new towns that nobody wants is not the solution. We should focus on developing urban areas instead, where infrastructure and services are already in place, rather than continuing to encroach on our countryside and natural spaces.

Yes

Representation ID: 97018

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Fearon

Large scale new town developments on airfields and brown-field industrial land would be better than continually tagging on extra housing, field by field, to current towns and villages that has a very negative impact on their character (no longer quiet, quaint and pleasing for example).

Long Marston Airfield development should be finished and even extended and another great option that wasn't in the list would be Gaydon as that already has a large and proper M40 connection.

No

Representation ID: 97101

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Many of the Potential New Settlement areas would not be considered if the NSM were not used.

Yes

Representation ID: 97228

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Squab Hall Farm

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The Family (Evans Family Trust) agree to the inclusion of the X2 as an option for a New Settlement. The Family have prepared a separate submission on behalf of all of the landowners who control land within the X2 New Settlement option.

Other

Representation ID: 97331

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy White

I am concerned with the impact on schooling and road traffic in the area . Particularly the the increase in traffic onto the A46 via Welford and Binton

Other

Representation ID: 97351

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Daniel Hatcher

Whilst Rosconn Group consider New Settlements can play an important role in contributing the future housing needs of the area, due to the long lead-in time before housing is actually delivered, their contribution is only likely to make a contribution to housing needs during the second half of the plan period. It is also essential that the selected site or sites are viable and deliverable. As such, our view is that only one New Settlement would be appropriate, forming part of a mixed portfolio of site sizes to ensure housing delivery is secured throughout the plan period.

Yes

Representation ID: 97450

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

We support recognition that new settlements and expanding settlements are required to meet the housing and employment growth requirements in the most sustainable way. However, these large-scale proposals should be complemented by smaller scale allocations in sustainable locations that are deliverable in the short term.

Yes

Representation ID: 97516

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

I agree

No

Representation ID: 97543

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ellie Salmon

The release of 100ha from JLR appears plausible for reallocation recognising the development designation in place saving the need to look for other virgin land in the area. However,J12 appears to have attracted greater volumes than expected with traffic from local roads towards the junction. Poor transport integration remains challenging, the strategy should be to align freight over rail and utilisation of the DIRFT Hub and exploit land opportunities closer to the hub and Coventry Airport

No

Representation ID: 97567

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Winter

Given the rural nature of south Warwickshire, an approach of spreading development across the region is more proportionate than looking for large sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 97571

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Clive Henderson

If we are to build the exaggerated number of homes dictated by Westminster then some new settlement(s) are probably needed. The main existing settlements at Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth cannot cope with all that appear to be 'required'.
The target seem illogical. The census data does not indicate growth in population in South Warwickshire that will require that number. How many schools, healthcare, leisure and retail acres will be needed to provide for all these new residents, where will they work? How can the power, communications and infrastructure needed for sustainable homes be provided in the county?

No

Representation ID: 97578

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Toni Sharp

NO

No

Representation ID: 97608

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Anna Avino

Leamington has already exploded in the past five years. The roads are jammed, the services are overstretched and the vast housing developements and population explosion is changimg the character of the area and making it unpleasant. Infrastructure cannot cope with all the new 29,000 homes being concentrated in a few massive developments in the area particularly south Leamington and Whitnash which is gridlocked. These houses need to be fully dispersed across the whole of warwickshire with every town and village taking a handful of them. This would be a fairer, more sustainable appproach as the infratrusture will always play catch-up.

No

Representation ID: 97644

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Catherine Mitchley

Large 'settlements' (commuter new towns) on greenbelt land with poor/inadequate public transport links, no scope to improve essential road connections should not be considered. Funding will not be available to meet infrastructure needs thus placing enormous stress on neighbouring towns. Limited employment options, there is no appetite for industrial units locally - units empty/to let for years. Business sites in Henley converted into housing: numerous empty/to let offices in Stratford/Warwick/Leamington. The destruction of quality farmland, wildlife habitats and decline of rural villages is too high a price to pay for further isolated and poorly connected car dependent developments.

Yes

Representation ID: 97696

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Elkington

Looks ok

No

Representation ID: 97807

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

The approach is flawed in relation to several of the potential sites there is no clear evidence that trips can be predominantly internalised, that the infrastructure necessary for this will be provided and that transport within the site will be environmentally friendly eg. the wide use of electric vehicles is by no means certain for the foreseeable future. Also, some sites would have little opportunity for employment within them.
With regard to site BW the above applies. Residents would need to leave the settlement for daily needs especially employment but the surrounding transport infrastructure would not support this.

No

Representation ID: 97994

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Sharp

The site at B1 (Hatton) should not be included as a Preferred Option. The proposal is fundamentally flawed, being based around developing Hatton railway station, which is financially and logistically impossible. Please see my comments in my letter attached to my B1 objection.

Other

Representation ID: 98010

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: E Innes

A number of proposals are adjacent to the train line as if this makes them more suitable but will give the impression of overdevelopment and Warwickshire consisting almost entirely of suburbs, not the rural beauty it is currently. Its unclear why new proposals don't acknowledge or take advantage of other infrastructure already in development such as HS2. Some of the proposed settlements are also significant in scale, representing new small towns in close proximity to existing towns where existing infrastructure is already insufficient. Developers will build housing first even if amenities are planned causing shortages of key services for all.

Other

Representation ID: 98011

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janet Le Tocq

Warwick district is much smaller than Stratford although it has a similar population and the density is thus far greater.
However, the housing allocation for Warwick district is similar to that for Stratford.
As this is a joint plan this makes no sense and is thoroughly unfair.

No

Representation ID: 98052

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jake Salmon

I fundamentally do not agree. No genuine thought has been allocated to the potential new settlements. especially around Gaydon and Knightscote.

Yes

Representation ID: 98081

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine McComiskey

Yes, so long as people can fulfil most of their day-to-day requirements from within the new settlement, using the 20-minute neighbourhood principles. This means that schools are provided along with shops and community buildings along with green spaces to enjoy. A much better option to reduce car use and build a community as opposed to using up protected green belt land and urban sprawl.

No

Representation ID: 98090

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Elias Topping

Given the time it is likely to take for large-scale new settlements to come forward, as acknowledged in the draft text, and in light of the joint councils' expected shortfall of housing supply under the 2024 Standard Method, stronger support is needed for the development of small and medium sites which can be developed in a shorter timescale.

Other

Representation ID: 98143

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Thwaites Estates

Agent: Lavata Group Limited

The Preferred Options Consultation is still suggesting that the identified strategic growth locations could accommodate in excess of the housing need and it not expected that all these sites will be needed, and further work will be done for the Submission Version to identify the areas/land to be allocated. So at this stage despite knowing the number of homes that need to be provided there is still no clear direction of where these sites will be, despite saying that all the Sites are not required.

No

Representation ID: 98232

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

No

Representation ID: 98244

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

Yes

Representation ID: 98269

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barry Elkington

The ‘new settlements’ in the existing District Local Plans (Long Marston Airfield, Gaydon-Lighthorne Heath, Kingshill between Kenilworth and Coventry) should be fully developed and then additional ones added. New settlements offer a viable alternative to the growth of existing settlements, planned and sited with appropriate infrastructure for optimal sustainable development. These will create self-sufficient communities with the provision of shops, new doctors’ surgeries, etc. and avoid the merging of existing towns and villages with the resulting loss of identity and character.

Yes

Representation ID: 98272

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

This aligns with the proposals at the Issues & Options stage. A New Settlements strategy is supportive to curbing the over-development, and thus the very nature of existing settlements.

No

Representation ID: 98294

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No, we fail to understand why some of the specific new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Call for Sites exercises. We would also question the integrity of inviting further Call for Sites submissions where none were previously submitted. Were prospective new settlements to be identified then they should not only have drawn on the Call for Sites results but, also have considered the site of former RAF Honiley as a potential location. Our clients regard this omission as serious and unjustified.

No

Representation ID: 98318

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

The approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 broadly aligns with Paragraph 77 of the Framework. However, the need for significant new infrastructure and facilities to support the Potential New Settlements will mean that these growth locations are unlikely to be delivered until towards the end of the Plan Period to 2050. Clearly, there is a requirement for smaller allocations to meet the identified housing needs in the shorter term, in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework.

Other

Representation ID: 98341

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

I agree with the concept of providing new settlements which can be developed into a self-contained small town over time. However, in this draft plan, most of the suggested areas ar far too small to fit this model. This seems to be because the concept is, once again, driven by the land which has been offered up rather than srategic planning. Several of the areas are in the green belt, with no "exceptional circumstances" justifying their inclusion. This strategy needs to be far more refined to create a realistic long-term plan.