Yes

Representation ID: 90640

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Alice Smith

This site is perfect given the existing road infrastructure and less disruption to the countryside

Yes

Representation ID: 90699

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: 90748

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

No

Representation ID: 90943

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Halfpenny

This area was left for wildlife and for the development for a place that people can go and enjoy the wildlife yet more and more of this land is trying to be taken it even has nature reserve boarding up and is suppose to be there from previous plans. The reason for building there is clearly unjustified

Yes

Representation ID: 91010

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree. Logical expansion and good connectivity. Better site than SG11

No

Representation ID: 91086

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Simon Robertson

The site has historic significance.
The site provides a distinct boundary between the village and Whitnash/Leamington Spa
The site is sloping and water logged and infrastructure to service the development is lacking being hemmed in by the village envelope and the country park.
The site is part of the flood plain.
The site be incorporated in to the country park servicing the local growing settlements. A greater range of services could be provided in a bigger park that would serve the community and be of economic importance as an attraction., and allow access the newly completed school

No

Representation ID: 91430

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Lucia Restall Orr

The proposal will impact the following Local Wildlife Sites: Oakley Wood, River Avon and tributaries LWS

No

Representation ID: 91488

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

This proposal with SG9 creates an urban sprawl spreading from Wellesbourne to South Leamington, losing the individual nature of the developments. The potential a new settlement at X1 further adds to this sprawl and loss of identity. This development will use valuable agricultural land further depleting our ability to provide food.

No

Representation ID: 91638

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

No

Representation ID: 91811

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Celia Whitehouse

I do not agree as Bishops Tachbrook needs to be recognised as a village with it's own character and benefits (it is not just a big housing estate) there is inadequate infrastructure to support any further houses and the drainage and roads really won't take anymore! I work at the hospital and there is no further capacity to keep up with the demand. Even a good ship can go down if over loaded! We need to respect culture as well as houses - we need communities that can care not just exist!

No

Representation ID: 91905

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Simon Robertson

SG10 provides habitat for numerous species of plant and animals that would be lost should the proposal proceed. There are amphibians including newts and toads , mammals including deer as well as bird species, some migratory, such as barn owls and red kite that would be displaced.

Yes

Representation ID: 91932

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James OShea

This is a suitable and sustainable location which has the relevant infrastructure to work with

No

Representation ID: 92079

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: mrs angela watkins

SG10
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.

Yes

Representation ID: 92124

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Deanna Fernie

Access to major road system M40; non-Green Belt.

No

Representation ID: 92171

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

The infrastructure will not match the schooling, medical, transport,etc needs which are already under immense pressure.

No

Representation ID: 92202

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Gibb

Have you driven around here at rush hour? There’s no room for more cars.

Other

Representation ID: 92301

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: 92541

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Madeleine Cox

SG10 risks undermining established planning principles and destroying the village identity of Bishop's Tachbrook, which has already had to bear a greater development burden than higher priority areas. This goes against the 2017 WD local plan and BT Neighbourhood Development plan of 2021. Use of this site is not justified or effective; the environment would be destroyed and prime agricultural land lost and traffic congestion would become untenable. The sewerage and water systems are already buckling. SG10 contravenes NPPF principles (environmental and regarding settlement identities). IEnough is enough and this rural village needs to be saved.

Yes

Representation ID: 92902

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ed Molloy

Not Green Belt. Extend recently developed areas. Good links to motorways, industry and shopping south of Leamington

No

Representation ID: 93068

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: 93098

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

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

Yes

Representation ID: 93108

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Naomi McAinsh

This would be a preferred area to build on as it is not greenbelt

Other

Representation ID: 93248

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: John Murphy

Reluctantly accepted as probably inevitable but will have devastating impact on BT and environs. It is absolutely imperative thgat the infrastructure must be in place before this is actually built and categorically before it is occupied.

No

Representation ID: 93261

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Mairi Mitchell

SG10 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: 93266

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Bower

SG10 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: 93426

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

Suitable for development, close to good road links

Yes

Representation ID: 93622

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

I feel this (along with SG09/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: 93623

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

I feel this (along with SG09/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.

No

Representation ID: 93986

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah THOMAS

While I agree more housing is needing. We need cheaper housing for young people. This area in particular is very expensive and as someone in my 20s, my husband and I really struggled to purchase in warwickshire due to the steep prices, new houses in this location are only going to be more expensive... I believe we should focus on new settlements rather than expanding the expensive towns of leamington spa/warwick/stratford.

In particular this locations risk Bishops Tachbrook becoming a suburb of Leamington Spa, putting added pressure on amenities and road links.

Yes

Representation ID: 94432

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Belinda Brown

This is non-green belt land and therefore a much more appropriate potential development site. No homes should be being built on green belt land as a part of this SWLP, when there are other sites, including this one, available!