Yes

Representation ID: 90286

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Liz Stone

n/a

Yes

Representation ID: 90382

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

Having lived in this area for 30 years, we have witnesssed extensive development of this area, with improved infrastructure in place. This area can accaommodate further developemtn.

Yes

Representation ID: 90674

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Averil Stewart

already largely dedicated to industry and housing meaning jobs are available on people's doorsteps, great services and shops here already

Yes

Representation ID: 90678

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Averil Stewart

nearer the M40 makes with ready made road infrastructure much better sense than on farmland where local/small braods are already struggling

No

Representation ID: 90694

Received: 04/02/2025

Respondent: Mr george Turrall

I believe we should pause consultations on future housing developments to assess the current pressures on our healthcare and school services. Warwick Hospital has declared a critical incident due to overwhelming demand and bed shortages, which risks patient safety and lowers living standards. Before approving new housing, we must ensure adequate medical and educational facilities are in place to support the growing population. If these resources are insufficient, development should be postponed. I urge our local MP to advocate for urgent funding from the Health and Education secretaries.

No

Representation ID: 90746

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Lori Herbert

I wish to formally object to the proposals for sites SG09, SG10, and X1. I have significant concerns about flooding due to developments on floodplain land, particularly impacting Barford and Wasperton villages. Expanding beyond the M40 threatens the character of historic villages and may lead to overdevelopment. Additionally, I oppose the loss of greenbelt land and the focus on larger housing over affordable options, often bought by investors rather than locals. Infrastructure, including road access and community facilities, must be prioritised before any further development. Without these considerations, I cannot support the proposed developments

Yes

Representation ID: 90766

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr N Ledger

THE AREA IS ALREADY DEVELOPED SO ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IS WORTH CONSIDERING

Yes

Representation ID: 91007

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree. Given the existing significant developments in this area then this is a good logical choice specifically because of the access to core infrastructure to attract business and employment opportunites.

No

Representation ID: 91317

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Caitlin Imray

I object to the houses being built in Barford. We already struggle with traffic, congestion and difficulties getting in and out of the village at busy times. There is not the infrastructure to support this! We are running out of green spaces which will affect the beautiful environment and there also a lot of flooding.

No

Representation ID: 91486

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

This causes over urbanisation from South Leamington to Wellesbourne with the loss of division between settlements and the loss of agricultural land. The proposed route of Stratford SW Relief Road goes to Wellesbourne and could be further developed to SG09 creating a one large urban area and losing the individuality identity of settlements.

Yes

Representation ID: 91493

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Beth Palmer

Appears to link in to an existing area that has been developed/developing

No

Representation ID: 91555

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Whitnash Residents Association

Agent: Whitnash Residents Association

Harbury Lane unsuitable

Urban sprawl from Whitnash

No

Representation ID: 91637

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Munson

I am raising concerns and objecting to the proposals for SG09, SG10, and X1 in the SWLP. My primary issues include development on floodplain land. This has already led to rising river levels and increased flood risks. I also oppose extending developments beyond the south west M40 corridor, fearing it will erode the character of historic villages. The infrastructure, particularly road access, is inadequate for increased traffic. Moreover, there is a lack of essential community facilities. I suggest creating a wetlands nature reserve for flood defence and ecological benefits. I oppose any further development without necessary infrastructure

Other

Representation ID: 91801

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Maxine Mayer

In principle I agree that this site should be included in the plan BUT only if the developer includes a new motorway junction. There are also issues with the road network south and west of the site. Wasperton and Hareway Lanes are very narrow and convoluting. To widen these roads would require consent from a lot of land and home owners. Consent that WCC Highways would find very hard to secure. The southern part of the site will significantly impact on Oakley Wood.

Yes

Representation ID: 92002

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Brown

This area is close to the M40 so will not have as much impact on local traffic as other areas. However provision for facilities such as schools and doctor / dentist should be made within any development plan.

No

Representation ID: 92055

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: mrs angela watkins

SG09
This suggested distribution park would create more traffic. The local traffic is already horrendous particularly in the mornings and afternoons. The Longbridge roundabout is frequently gridlocked as is the A429 going North and the M40 slipway up to Longbridge.

Other

Representation ID: 92299

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Harbury Parish Council

This is an appropriate location because of transport links, but it might eliminate Bishop's Tachbrook as a separate community.

No

Representation ID: 92533

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Madeleine Cox

This site risks undermining established principles to protect the distinct identity of Bishop's Tachbrook, which has already suffered disproportionate houses/ schools / additional traffic in its vicinity. There is little justification for using such prime agricultural land and no clarity on why this was selected over alternatives.There is no deliverability plan as the infrastructure for the existing village is at breaking point and traffic on this road is dangerous, fast and congested. SG09 is inconsistent with NPPF principles regarding environmental sustainability and preserving settlement identities. This site shoudl be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

Representation ID: 92898

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ed Molloy

Continue to extend areas recently developed

No

Representation ID: 93067

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Cathy Kennedy

Warwick and its environs have had their share of ‘growth’ in the last 10 years. Time to let another area enjoy the benefits.

Yes

Representation ID: 93097

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

Close to M40 junctions and rail link not to far for commuters

Yes

Representation ID: 93107

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Naomi McAinsh

I would be happy for this to go ahead as it is not greenbelt land

Other

Representation ID: 93247

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: John Murphy

Whilst noted as beneficial for S of Leamington/Warwick/Europa Way it must be recognised that it will have a devastating effect on BT, Ashorne, Barford and Sherbourne with extensive loss of natural habitat, damage to the landscape and tourist potential.
THE ONLY WAY it might be acceptable is if it FULLY FUNDED a new M40 intersection to replace (and remove) the very poor, and often very unsafe, junctions at J13 and J14.
Might this be a good site to relocate WARWICK HOSPITAL, which is already grossly over-capacity, even before the current Local Plan is complete, never mind the proposals in SWLP...

No

Representation ID: 93260

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Mairi Mitchell

SG09 as part of the SWLP infringes on the edge of the village of Bishops Tachbrook and reduces the separation the village has from the main town of Leamington Spa reducing the heritage and distinct character of the village. Additional development goes against previous development plans which brought in the designation of tachbrook Country Park as a buffer of green space between the village and Leamington Spa’s urban sprawl. The assessment does not provide clarity on why this location is selected and does not give clear direction on how key infrastructure issues will be addressed.

No

Representation ID: 93265

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Bower

SG09 as part of the SWLP infringes on the edge of the village of Bishops Tachbrook and reduces the separation the village has from the main town of Leamington Spa reducing the heritage and distinct character of the village. Additional development goes against previous development plans which brought in the designation of tachbrook Country Park as a buffer of green space between the village and Leamington Spa’s urban sprawl. The assessment does not provide clarity on why this location is selected and does not give clear direction on how key infrastructure issues will be addressed.

Yes

Representation ID: 93307

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Warwick District Council

This could be suitable with the correct transport links.

Yes

Representation ID: 93425

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

Good site for redevelopment, surrounded by existing main roads.

Yes

Representation ID: 93621

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

I feel this (along with SG10/SG11/X1 and X2) is one of the most suitable sites for housing of all. This is a logical extension to the well established and continued development of South Leamington. It is well supported by the current and additional infrastructure already being provided by this ongoing development including access to the M40 motorway junctions 14 and 14. Housing developments alongside motorway corridors are already established in relation to the M40 as elsewhere nationally and because of the motorway, the countryside here whilst valuable, is less pristine and less ecologically important than other sites under consideration.

Yes

Representation ID: 93635

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

I feel this (along with SG10/SG11/X1 and X2) is one of the most suitable sites for housing of all. This is a logical extension to the well established and continued development of South Leamington. It is well supported by the current and additional infrastructure already being provided by this ongoing development including access to the M40 motorway junctions 13 and 14. Housing developments alongside motorway corridors are already established in relation to the M40 as elsewhere nationally and because of the motorway the countryside here, whilst valuable, is less pristine and less ecologically important than other sites under consideration.

No

Representation ID: 93974

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah THOMAS

Building on this site could turn Bishops Tachbrook into a suburb of Leamington Spa, resulting in a loss of village community. The area lacks the amenities to support growth, & traffic is already a challenge. The Shires retail park is overcrowded, and commuting to surrounding towns, especially Warwick, is difficult due to poorly designed roads. While more housing is needed, new settlements should be prioritised over expanding existing villages.