No

Representation ID: 87707

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Ellison

SG06 is entirely unsuitable for development. It contradicts the Local Plan’s sustainability goals, relies on flawed assessments, and ignores policies protecting the Green Belt, farmland, and biodiversity. Removing this land would set a dangerous precedent for urban sprawl, permanently damaging North Leamington’s character and environment. I urge the Council to remove SG06 from consideration and prioritize sustainable, non-Green Belt locations that align with planning principles and community needs. Approving this development would cause irreversible harm to our environment, infrastructure, and quality of life.

No

Representation ID: 87722

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Simon & Nicola Skellon

This prime agricultural land also serves as green lungs to the local area. It is the only accessible open space by foot from this part of north Leamington. It is used extensively by local residents for exercise, enjoying the Precious wildlife and linking to Warwick/ Leek Wootton on foot or bike. Without this green space the area will sprawl to a mass of houses that would need cars to get anywhere. Its already impossible at times to drive south from this location through Leamington. This is why housing was rejected in 2017, This is amplified in 2025.

No

Representation ID: 87723

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Terence Villars

I am totally against this proposal - I moved here 2 years ago because it's on the edge of town and near open spaces - this development will destroy this and create a huge amount of traffic on small roads, which are busy enough as it is especially when going to work in the mornings, Old Milverton will be severely disrupted - and top it all it's green belt land which is supposed to be protected - again one of the reasons I moved here in the first place. This would be a disaster.

No

Representation ID: 87726

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Henson

Milverton is a village. To build around there would impact the small roads. Guys Cliffe Avenue has two schools already which generates quite a lot of traffic. Building in the fields between the two would create bedlam. It is difficult now to get around the area. Also think about the damage to wild life and the environment. It’s utter madness.

No

Representation ID: 87729

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Jane Sayce

The Green Belt land north of Leamington Spa should remain protected to preserve its environmental, social, and economic value. It plays a crucial role in biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and flood prevention. Development would lead to urban sprawl, increase traffic congestion, and reduce access to green spaces, negatively impacting public health and community well-being. The loss of this land would also erode the area’s heritage and identity. Alternative solutions, such as redeveloping brownfield sites and focusing on sustainable urban growth, should be prioritized over encroaching on Green Belt land. Protecting the Green Belt is essential for long-term sustainability.

No

Representation ID: 87731

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rochelle Dix

The SWLP Plan has capacity for enough homes without building on green belt.
It is not lawful to build on green belt land if capacity can be met elsewhere.
SG06 is not a ‘sustainable location’. It will take between 30 minutes - 1 hour walk to Leamington train station.
The public footpaths are used and enjoyed by thousands of local residents and visitors.
The area provides habitat for wildlife including:
- deer, badgers, foxes
- birds on the RSPB’s conservation ‘red list’ - skylarks, swifts, fieldfares, house sparrows, starlings
- birds of prey - sparrowhawks, peregrine falcons, kestrels, buzzards.

No

Representation ID: 87733

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Steven Roberts

I stronly object to the inclusion of this area (SSG06) being included in the growth plan. This is valuable agricultural land, that also makes a vital and important contribution to biodiversity, the environment, local amenity, enjoyment of the countryside and well being of the local community (including myself). Arguments for its inclusion seem be flawed, housing requirements can be met within existing plans and there is no need to build on the green belt which should be maintained.

No

Representation ID: 87748

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Harris

THe use of green belt land is not needed as there is other alternative sites. This is valuable farming land. Housing will have a massive environmental impact, especially on the river and wildlife habitat.

No

Representation ID: 87749

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Hardy

Leave some green spaces for all to enjoy, not just parks in the town which are lovely, but less organised space to enjoy walks in the fresh air.
Already too many traffic jams to get to the main retail areas, building here would put on even more pressure. The centre of town is like a ghost town with barbers and charity shops, develop that by lowering business rates etc in Royal Priors so that not everyone needs to go south of the river

No

Representation ID: 87769

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emma Moon

This area does not fall into requirements of local plan. It is green belt , with nature and public paths through . It is also too far away from local amenities.

No

Representation ID: 87772

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Samuel Sharples

SG06 would make the already busy roads and areas unbearable for residents and would remove some of the lovely greenbelt and agricultural land which was one of the big draws for moving here. The local infrastructure cannot cope with several thousand more houses and Offchurch would be even more vulnerable to flooding from all the houses built removing natural drainage

No

Representation ID: 87779

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Katarzyna Wielis

SG06 would make the already busy roads and areas unbearable for residents and would remove some of the lovely greenbelt and agricultural land which was one of the big draws for moving here. The local infrastructure cannot cope with several thousand more houses and Offchurch would be even more vulnerable to flooding from all the houses built removing natural drainage

No

Representation ID: 87797

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Helen Stone-Johnston

heavily populated area already, no infrastructure, one main road into town/south of leamington where all the supermarkets/retail parks are. Already clogged. Limited schools/secondary - North Leamington will be hugely over subscribed. Pollution caused by yet more cars driving down one road. And loss of distinction between different areas of cubbington/lillington. We need to protect all of our green belt - not downgrade it to build on.

No

Representation ID: 87826

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Hotten

There are no exceptional circumstances to warrant development in the green belt as there are sufficient strategic growth locations outside of the green belt.

No

Representation ID: 87841

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs vivien bryer

I object to the use of GS06 for housing due to its biodiversity and the environmental importance of the fields north of the A445. The Arup document I reference fails to accurately reflect the habitat, overlooking the significant wildflower planting by the farmer. These fields contain a variety of wildlife and habitats that would be lost if developed. Additionally, the area's visual appeal contributes to local tourism and well-being. I urge prioritisation of food security, as these Grade 3a agricultural lands are vital. I hope you will honour the 30/30 aspiration and protect this greenbelt.

No

Representation ID: 87858

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Bernamont

The more northerly half of SG06 is set conveniently between 3 main access roads into Leamington, making it the best option compared to SG05 and the easterly half of SG06. This easterly half of SG06 provides particularly lovely views and well-used footpaths across farmland to/from the village of Old Milverton.

No

Representation ID: 87872

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Alana Campbell

It is my understanding that there is already an adequate supply of land earmarked for development, without the need to encroach upon greenbelt. This site is home to numerous species of wildlife and serves as an important natural habitat, construction would result in the loss of valuable biodiversity.
This land offers more footpaths per SqM than the whole of the West Mids dev land. providing a natural environment for walking and a connection to nature, contributing to the physical and mental health of the community. I personally walk on these paths daily, as do thousands of local residents.

No

Representation ID: 87882

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Sean O'Rourke

I firmly believe that sustainable growth does not require encroachment on green belt land. By focusing on brownfield development, urban regeneration, and town centre planning, local development can achieve a balance between growth, environmental preservation, and social well-being. This approach aligns with long-term sustainability goals and enhances urban resilience.

The provision of an integrated public transport system to reduce our dependency on cars alongside urban development will provide an effective & sustainable plan to achieve the required growth in housing, led by an environment protection philosophy. This is in my opinion.

Yes

Representation ID: 87905

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Ellerington

This area can be supported by local infrastructure and amenities.

No

Representation ID: 87916

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ann Carr

Land proposed is regularly used by dog walkers and people taking exercise. Is a habitat for wildlife, with recent sitings of otters and badgers. There is a tributary within the area highlighted, from the river which during episodes of heavy rain has flooded. Certainly a risk for potential residents.
Pressure on traffic would be concerning, highlighted recently during the congestion caused by roadworks on the Kenilworth Rd. I.E queuing traffic along Northumberland Rd, speeding and road surfaces markedly deteriorating.

No

Representation ID: 87921

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: MRS SARAH HEAVEN

I do not agree with SG06 being included in the plan for the following reasons:

1) Schools and infastructure - How will the schools cope this this massive influx of students.
2) Green Space this space serves as critical recreational areas for walking
3) Road Infactructure - The entire road system already sees a great deal of traffic. Houses in this new development would be reliant on having to use cars.
4) - Shops - There are no shops of any size north side of the river. Again this means for everything

No

Representation ID: 87924

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Bridget Edwards

South Warwickshire's housing need can be met without building on green belt land.
SG06 is no a "sustainable location". Building houses in SG06 would promote car use rather than reduce it.
The Green Belt around North Leamington continues to fulfil the stated purposes of Green Belt land.
The Green Belt Review (Arup 2024) informing the Plan is flawed.
The farmland is high quality agricultural land and makes an important contribution to sustainability and security of food supply.
The same proposals were rejected in 2017.
SG06 contributes to the principles "healthy, safe, inclusive" and "biodiverse and environmentally resilitent"

No

Representation ID: 87926

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr STEPHEN WARREN

The land forming SG06 is taken from high quality farmland and green belt and as such is inappropriate for development. Other than being high quality agricultural land the area is crossed by public footpaths that are used extensively by the public as a means of access to coutryside. In addition the proposed development are would have the effect of linking greater Leamington Spa with the village of Milverton. The village should remain separated

No

Representation ID: 87928

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Claire Ralley

Increased pollution. Proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework, by removing open space and causing urban sprawl. The local roads here are already busy, the crossroads is dangerous and the increased congestion would cause a safety risk for pedestrians and cyclists. May I request to be kept informed on any updated in relation to SG06.

No

Representation ID: 87933

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Jones

We cannot allow the destruction for these beautiful rolling fields that support health and wellbeing of the local community and its wildlife. This is green belt land and building on it is unlawful, this must be protected to avoid setting dangerous precedent for future development. To add houses in this area would also give an infrastructure concern with road networks are working currently but would be dangerously over subscribed with any further development. A development on SG06 will never get my vote.

No

Representation ID: 87934

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Heather Haslett

The green belt should only be considered for development when there are exceptional reasons for using the land, as it's important to retain a break between towns. SG06 is important for agriculture and wildlife. However, SG06 is a logical extension to the town, with good access to schools. Access by car to the town centre, doctors and railway station is similar to that of adjacent areas. Nevertheless, SG06 cannot be considered "sustainable" as it's a long walk (30mins+) to local shops, existing bus services, and the station. A significant increase in bus services would be needed.

No

Representation ID: 87937

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amy Ridyard

The proposed new homes will significantly increase the demand for school places, yet there is no clear plan to expand or improve existing educational facilities to accommodate this growth. Local secondary schools are already at capacity, and without concrete measures to address this shortfall, the development will put further strain on an already overstretched system.
Without adequate provision for education, this development risks negatively impacting both current and future residents, leading to larger class sizes, reduced quality of education, and increased pressure on families forced to travel further for schooling.

No

Representation ID: 87939

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Mary Crisp

I am very concerned about the loss of green belt land.

So many people benefit from the space, wildlife and countryside.

No

Representation ID: 87944

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Chris Baxter

Insufficient local infrastructure, local habitat provided, provides mental health benefits to local residents who can use public footpaths to exercise or walk their dogs. Not sustainable location as 30 mins walk to train station

No

Representation ID: 87947

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Antoni Reszka

The plan has enough capacity without the need to build on green belt land. It is not lawful to build on green belt land if capacity can be found elsewhere.
SG06 is not a 'sustainable location' - at least 30 mins walk from the nearest point to Leamington railway station and one hour from the furthest point.
SG06 is the 'lungs' of north Leamington with easy, accessible walks enjoyed by local residents and visitors.
The area is home to protected species and diverse habitat.
Road infrastructure north-south through the town is already saturated, more traffic volume is not needed.