Yes

Representation ID: 101610

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

STC supports SG14 and SG13 as key locations for strategic greenfield development, alongside larger town expansion. With strong transport links and nearby employment, growth must be infrastructure-led to create sustainable communities, including schools, healthcare, community facilities, shops, parks, and transport links. Further refinement is needed before inclusion in future proposals.

No

Representation ID: 101977

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gaydon Parish Council

The reduction in the amount of agricultural land
Additional traffic flow leading to an increase in air and noise pollution
Extra lighting resulting in light pollution
Need for a detailed plan in the event of adverse weather for how the village will be protected from flooding
No availability of sustainable transport links including no public railway
Utility infrastructure is lacking

Yes

Representation ID: 102075

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

Should be considared along side SG13 to produce a larger site well situated for motor industry employment and M40 access. To discourage comuter car travel across SWLP area.

No

Representation ID: 102222

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Roads insufficient going North East from the motorway junction.

Yes

Representation ID: 102580

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: 102605

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

SG14 is a more suitable site for development because it is outside the Green Belt, meaning its inclusion will not contribute to the loss of protected countryside and habitats and make South Warwickshire worse for everybody.

No

Representation ID: 102694

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Louisa Smith

With the potential development as part of SG13, this feels like overkill. SG13 would already result in a significant increase in housing and to then encroach on surrounding villages such as Bishops Itchington, with existing communities, this feels like too much. I would not support this.

Yes

Representation ID: 102724

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Liz Churchill

As a general rule, I would prefer to see non Green-belt sites being used.

No

Representation ID: 102754

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Phelps

This growth area is not proportionate in scale, severely detrimental to the character of the landscape and the environment of the historical villages of Gaydon & Bishops Itchington. As there are no rail links, the proposed development area would entirely be dependent on the already overloaded and congested road network.

Other

Representation ID: 102789

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 constraints 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.

Yes

Representation ID: 103115

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: 103128

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

SG14 East of Gaydon: Thsi is across the M40 from Gaydon-LIghthorne Heath. GLH is a new settlement in the adopted Stratford Core Strategy. Development has been slow and will take years to complete to the size approved. GLH is not a sustainable location; it is dependent for access largely on the M40 through Junction 12, and the motorway's purpose is to carry national through traffic, not to provide for local journeys. The suggested location would extend GLH across the motorway and develop farmland and woodland, with no viable form of public transport. SG13 should not be included.

Yes

Representation ID: 103196

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Andrea Billingham

SG15- North of Wellesbourne Site
My main concern is the additional traffic on the A429 between the Longbridge roundabout and Wellesbourne.
The junctions from Wasperton, Barford and Sherbourne villages to this road are extremely dangerous especially at peak times and the traffic generated by development at this site will only exacerbate this situation.
Significant improvements/changes to these junctions must be made BEFORE the site is developed. This is required to satisfy Strategic Objective 3: "Providing infrastructure in the right place at the right time".

Yes

Representation ID: 103221

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Stevens

Nearer to established transport links and employment

No

Representation ID: 103251

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Giles Harrison-Hall

This area is a long way from the railway network. To develop here would be to encourage car use.the local roads would be unable to cope with the additional traffic.

Yes

Representation ID: 103314

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.

Other

Representation ID: 103523

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

Impact on the following should be avoided Oakham Coppice LWS, River Avon LWS, Itchington Holt and the Centenary Way

Other

Representation ID: 103553

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr ROLAND CHERRY

Many houses have already been built in the Gaydon area and I suspect enough already to satisfy local employers JLR and AML, but people will have access to J12 of the M40 to commute south to Banbury and north to Leamington and Coventry, but the danger remains that the character of local Warwickshire villages will be blighted forever and biodiversity will also suffer. In conclusion this is an appropriate area for some additional housing within moderation, and that judgement needs to be made within the wider ambitions of the SWLP. It is noticeable there are few local services currently available.

Yes

Representation ID: 103698

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.

Yes

Representation ID: 103871

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

This area has good transport links and local job opportunities for a growing population. It will have less impact on green belt than surrounding areas and less congestion on Stratford.

Yes

Representation ID: 104020

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

Non green belt , M40 links and would serve the industrial development in the area

Yes

Representation ID: 104089

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

Close to M40 links to Oxford and Banbury with employment (in addition to existing employment at Gaydon)

No

Representation ID: 104124

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

As for SG14, no existing local employment, no secondary school and little transport infrastructure, as well as the detrimental effect on the countryside makes this an inappropriate area for development.

Other

Representation ID: 104210

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

This site does not have close access to an existing community healthcare property and will therefore require more significant infrastructure investment to support sufficient provision of out of hospital services for any significant size of development.

No

Representation ID: 104275

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Sally Shaw

Na

No

Representation ID: 104289

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Yvonne Barnes

I object. 1. The character and nature of the area would be severely negatively impacted. 2. It is prime farming land for human and animal crops. 3. The roads will be unable to accommodate the extra traffic. The recently upgraded M40 Gaydon junction is already overstretched, with frequent queuing for vehicles joining or exiting the motorway. And the rail that is in close proximity is an MOD railway, not the national rail network. 4. GP surgeries, schools, village stores would be significantly overstretched. 5. Public Loss and a detrimental impact on Burton Dassett Hills, a Special Landscape Area.

Yes

Representation ID: 104309

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Carl Bergstrom

Great potential

Yes

Representation ID: 104451

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Ward

I support the proposed strategic growth location SG14 because it focuses development on non-greenbelt land, using existing infrastructure rather than requiring costly new roads and services. This approach enables much-needed housing while avoiding damage to rural landscapes, important footpaths, and the area’s heritage. By building where facilities and transport links already exist, SG14 supports sustainable, well-planned growth that fits the local context. It offers a practical way to meet housing needs without harming the environment or quality of life for residents, making it a responsible and balanced option for future development in the area.

Other

Representation ID: 104554

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: 104590

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Williams

not green belt so do it