No

Representation ID: 102852

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ellen Gardiner

The demand for new employment sites is recognised, but the overwhelming development of Greenfield land in this area is considered to be inappropriate and unjustifiable. It is not sustainable to continue developing Greenfield sites in rural areas at the rate that has been occurring in recent times.

No

Representation ID: 103042

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Scott

The proposed developments will lead to merging of our parishes which is at odds with protecting and enhancing our environmental assets a key objective 12 in SWLP assets. Bishops Tachbrook would virtually be subsumed and this appears to be at odds with SWLPs Strategic Objective 12 - protecting and enhancing our environment assets

Yes

Representation ID: 103071

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 103172

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Giles Harrison-Hall

The proposed site is on good agricultural land. There is no sensible public transport connecting that area with urban centres. The area and proposed population is large enough to be a town. Any new development of such a size ought to be close enough to the railway either to use an existing station, or to justify a new station. To build away from stations will encourage the use of cars which ought to be considered as part of the change in carbon footprint.

Yes

Representation ID: 103184

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Pike

An area such as this , not green belt designated and close to major road infrastructure seems more appropriate.

No

Representation ID: 103206

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Giles Harrison-Hall

To develop this area would effectively be an enlargement of Leamington Spa to include Bishop’s Tachbrook. Given the current developments near Europa Way, it is likely that a significant proportion of inhabitants would have to drive a significant distance for employment which would prevent the development being sustainable in carbon zero terms.

Yes

Representation ID: 103267

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

If building of new houses is to go ahead then building on non-Green belt land is more appropriate

Yes

Representation ID: 103302

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

If the construction of new houses is to proceed, it is more appropriate to construct on non-Green Belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 103475

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carol Jones

Support strategic growth locations on non-greenbelt land.

No

Representation ID: 103497

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

This area is already hugely congested.

Yes

Representation ID: 103520

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Nicholas

Here there is more access to local amenities such as supermarkets, motorway, road and train routes.

No

Representation ID: 103573

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Scott

The proposed development will lead to merging of our parishes which is at odds with protecting and enhancing our environmental assets a key objective 12 in SWLP plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 103738

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Churchill

I believe that all new development should be made only on Non Green Belt or Brown Field sites.

No

Representation ID: 103985

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Haycock

Deliverability is impossible due to infrastructure deficits, with no clear plans to mitigate traffic congestion or environmental degradation.
Inconsistent with NPPF principles, particularly regarding environmental sustainability and preserving distinct settlement identities i.e., that of Bishop’s Tachbrook village.
Conclusion
SG09 should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

Representation ID: 103989

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Abigail Simkin

This would be a very good area to develop as the land is not being used and is not important recreational/public space land. There is good infrastructure and amenities.

Yes

Representation ID: 104073

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

Near m40 and access to train travel. Existing employment in area

No

Representation ID: 104090

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Louis haycock

Deliverability is impossible due to infrastructure deficits, with no clear plans to mitigate traffic congestion or environmental degradation.
Inconsistent with NPPF principles, particularly regarding environmental sustainability and preserving distinct settlement identities i.e., that of Bishop’s Tachbrook village.
Conclusion
SG09 should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

No

Representation ID: 104106

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Louis haycock

Deliverability is impossible due to infrastructure deficits, with no clear plans to mitigate traffic congestion or environmental degradation.
Inconsistent with NPPF principles, particularly regarding environmental sustainability and preserving distinct settlement identities i.e., that of Bishop’s Tachbrook village.
Conclusion
SG09 should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

Representation ID: 104145

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jo Valentine Barker

Area has appropriate infrastructure

Yes

Representation ID: 104296

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Carl Bergstrom

good option

No

Representation ID: 104350

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Charlotte Moss

Banbury road already has tailbacks every morning up to the roundabout with Warwick bypass / europa way, this road would not be able to cope with the increased traffic from building on this site
Furthermore this is an area of great natural beauty and developing this area will be detrimental to the countryside, hedgerows and natural habitats here.
Barford and bishops tachbrook schools are already at capacity, where would any children go to school?

Yes

Representation ID: 104426

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Ward

I agree with the proposed strategic growth location SG09 because it directs development to non-greenbelt land, making use of existing infrastructure and reducing the need for new roads and utilities. This allows for necessary housing without harming rural landscapes, historic footpaths, or local heritage. Focusing growth in areas already equipped to support it is a more sustainable and sensible approach, ensuring that development happens where it fits best.

No

Representation ID: 104521

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Ailsa Chambers

The independent village characteristics of Bishops Tachbrook are under severe threat owing to the constant sprawl of development between the village and Leamington. It is not clear why this location has been selected over and above other options. The loss of prime agricultural land does not justify the proposal. We already experience traffic congestion as a result of previous developments and there are insufficient infrastructure plans to mitigate further population growth. The environmental loss of natural habitats from further development cannot be mitigated satisfactorily by any measure - too much has been lost already.

Other

Representation ID: 104546

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

YES ONLY IF the development is high density, linked with public transport and active travel infrastructure.

Do not build detached homes anywhere.
Painted bicycle gutters are NOT active travel infrastructure.
A bus is a bad public transport solution.

Yes

Representation ID: 104571

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Williams

This is not green belt land so it's okay.

Yes

Representation ID: 104619

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

Stop building sprawling car-dependent suburbia. You are killing people with these decisions. Cars kill people, stop making people have to get in their cars to get to places. Build high density walkable neighbourhoods with active travel infrastructure.

Paint is not cycling infrastructure.
Buses are bad public transport.
Don't build any detached houses.

Yes

Representation ID: 104651

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Newington

This would seem a good option, it’s close to the motorway with good road I fracture and most importantly it’s not destroying green belt

Yes

Representation ID: 104846

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Elizabeth Heath

This development does not take land out of greenbelt and therefore has a lower negative impact on biodiversity. It's also closer to existing infrastructure and services

Yes

Representation ID: 104930

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Holme

This could be a suitable site for development given existing development in the area. As long as the infrastructure is put in place to cope with additional traffic, give people local services, schools, health services etc

No

Representation ID: 105226

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

South of Europe Way – SG09 – OBJECT: Significant harm to the character of the landscape and increasing traffic congestion to Warwick and Leamington Spa plus the M40, further urganisation of the area, lack of access to GP and educational services.