Yes

Representation ID: 98741

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 98824

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Bryer Estates Ltd

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

This submission is made on behalf of Bryer Estates Ltd, in relation to their interests at land at Park Farm, Warwick (Site Ref. 57).
It is considered that Park Farm, Warwick is deliverable, available and suitable to deliver a high-quality mixed-use development that will significantly assist in meeting South Warwickshire’s identified housing and employment needs as well as any unmet needs arising from Coventry and from Greater Birmingham and the Black Country.

No

Representation ID: 98827

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catherine Horsfall

The local road network is already overloaded and struggles to cope when there is an accident or issue on the M40. Barford village is used as a rat run around the problems and issues on the main road.
Locating an industrial area here will increase pressure on the local road network even further making lorries and large wagons route through village roads where cars are routinely parked down one side of the road, making it hard to pass.
I strongly challenge the costings that the developer has put forward for the rebuild of the road junction.

No

Representation ID: 99033

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Ashley

Objection based on placing additional pressures on existing infrastructure which already cannot cope, increased traffic, noise and pollution, destruction and loss of ecology in an area which has already lost much due to major house building at The Asps, Europa Way and Gallows Hill, destruction of rural views and picturesque approach into Warwick town

Yes

Representation ID: 99124

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Jones

Development of an area not containing green belt land.
Size of development opportunity.

No

Representation ID: 99149

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Val Sassall

Understand how the Red House Farm proposal is attractive with funding of M40 junction proposals but coming south of the M40 with part of the site impinges on critical environments close to BARFORD.
The noise and additional traffic to Europa Way will cause worse traffic delays at this key clogged up point already.

No

Representation ID: 99192

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

There will be not enough access to GP surgeries.
There will not be enough access to hospitals.
There will not be enough school places. The local schools are already at capacity and have no space for development.
The increase in traffic will create more wear and tear on the roads, cause longer delays getting into Leamington and put more strain on parking facilities in Leamington.

Yes

Representation ID: 99290

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Phelps

n/a

No

Representation ID: 99408

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See previous comments

Yes

Representation ID: 99421

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

Appears to be well serviced by existing Road Network, Transportation hubs, Healthcare facilities and Education establishments

Yes

Representation ID: 99676

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Sabrina Hasnaoui

Support of development on non green belt land. Access to M40 leading. Moderate sized site.

Yes

Representation ID: 99776

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 99780

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Local roads already far too busy to accommodate further development

Yes

Representation ID: 100030

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Evan Bailey

SG09 is surrounded by big roads so may as well be used for businesses.

Yes

Representation ID: 100036

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Development should prioritise brownfield sites over Green Belt land. Urban and previously developed areas already have infrastructure in place, reducing pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare. These sites are closer to transport links and jobs, making them more sustainable. Using brownfield land prevents environmental damage, protects biodiversity, and preserves historic landscapes. It also helps maintain community identity by preventing urban sprawl. Additionally, brownfield areas are often better suited for flood mitigation. By focusing on these locations, new housing can be delivered responsibly without harming the countryside or overburdening local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 100059

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Brooker

If more houses are needed this Location is more suitable for development than others in the district.

Yes

Representation ID: 100278

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

New development should focus on previously developed sites, not destroy protected Green Belt land. Urban and repurposed areas already have infrastructure in place, preventing additional strain on roads, schools, and healthcare. These locations are also closer to transport links and jobs, making them more sustainable. Using non-Green Belt land prevents irreversible environmental harm, safeguards biodiversity, and preserves important landscapes. It also protects communities from urban sprawl and helps to prevent flooding. By focusing on these sites, new housing can be delivered in a responsible way—without sacrificing the countryside or placing unbearable pressure on already stretched local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 100371

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

New housing should be developed on land that has already been built on, not on protected Green Belt land. Urban areas and brownfield sites already have the infrastructure to support new developments, reducing the pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare.
Building in non-Green Belt areas also means:
• Less environmental damage and better protection for wildlife.
• More sustainable transport options, reducing long commutes and carbon emissions.
• Preventing towns and villages from merging and losing their unique identities.
• Reducing flood risks caused by overdevelopment.
Destroying the Green Belt isn’t the answer—there are much better options available.

No

Representation ID: 100585

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

SG09 is land south of Europa Way. It is rural land between the Banbury Road (A425) and the M40. It is beyond the limit of housing development in the Harbury Lane/Europa Way spread, and is farmed land of good quality. It appears to be an option for employment land. Red House Farm would effectively disappear.
The WMSESS report on regional employment land potential has selected this location, though without any justification. It would not be easy for workers to reach and would depend on car access. As a location for B8 warehousing it would be wasteful of land.

Yes

Representation ID: 100588

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Support housing development on non-green belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 100589

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Support housing development on non-green belt land.

Other

Representation ID: 101241

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough Commercial

Agent: Delta Planning

Richborough Commercial notes that SG09 requires a new motorway junction to release the site for employment. As such, if deliverable (and that in itself has to be questioned), this will clearly be a growth option that is only deliverable in the latter stages of the plan period and would not be in a position to meet short- or medium-term needs.

No

Representation ID: 101313

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Charles Davies

This area is valuable agricultural land and its loss will irreparably harm the rural character of the area, creating urban sprawl. Building next to the motorway subjects residents to harmful noise and particulate pollution. The roads cannot support the extra traffic. Even now they are overloaded at peak times. Road widening and building will not alleviate this, since villages and towns (e.g. Barford (used as rat run) and into Warwick over bridge) are pinch-points. The development would harm the landscape and be to the detriment of residential amenity. Unnecessary, retrograde approach – urban development far sounder.

No

Representation ID: 101747

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Janet Neale

This area is already over populated and infrastructure cannot cope.
We cannot continue to grow areas that are already broken.

No

Representation ID: 101830

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Site SG09 – South of Europa Way would have major adverse impacts, including increased carbon footprint and waste, harm to listed buildings and registered parks, and loss of high-quality agricultural land. It contradicts the SWLP’s evidence-led approach by failing key sustainability criteria: it is open countryside, lacks public transport links, and relies on private cars. The site is not in an area of deprivation and does not align with national planning policy, failing NPPF para. 77 due to poor infrastructure and accessibility. While it provides housing/employment land, its development would not be sustainable or justified under the SWLP’s strategy.

Yes

Representation ID: 102185

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

Non Green Belt, compliments existing employment areas. Well served by motorway connections.

No

Representation ID: 102390

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katie Davies

loss of valuable agricultural land, harm to rural character and residential amenity. Harmful noise and pollution to proposed residents. Roads incapable of supporting additional traffic - already overloaded. Villages, entry points to Warwick etc. cannot support this. Would encourage more rat runs through Barford.

Yes

Representation ID: 102571

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Andrews

Development on non-green belt land should be prioritised over development on green belt. Total housing needs can be met without developing on green belt so morally not right to remove green belt without exceptional cause.
These areas are better supported with existing infrastructure and transport network without requiring major investment on more remote, less connected areas.
The opportunity in terms of yield is higher in these areas so there is a duty to fulfil the housing needs in the most responsible way considering this and the green belt obligations.

Yes

Representation ID: 102703

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Liz Churchill

I prefer to see all non Green-belt sites being used.

Other

Representation ID: 102750

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Warwick - Longbridge (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has medium capacity and high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a medium/high risk location, there is some capacity however in order to accommodate growth, infrastructure upgrades will be required and we would need to work closely to understand build timelines, in order to plan accordingly.