Yes

Representation ID: 99012

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynda McCarthy

again not designated 'green belt' land and more suitable for development withour impacting on biodiversity

No

Representation ID: 99071

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Tom Hainey

Hugely increase traffic on A429, especially to M40 and through Barford towards Leamington Spa (rat run). Without major road development this will result in major traffic issues in this area.
If quarry development goes ahead feeding 200 Lorries per day onto A429, with associated traffic lights, this will result in severe congestion on this road

Yes

Representation ID: 99146

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Jones

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

Other

Representation ID: 99168

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Natalie Wride

Yes - Provided additional transport infrastructure would be built to accommodate the significant increase in traffic south of Stratford that would be expected from developments south of the river.

Yes

Representation ID: 99250

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

Land to the west of Newbold Road, Wellesbourne should be allocated for housing.

Other

Representation ID: 99293

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Billingham

SG15: North of Wasperton Group
The existing road junctions to the three villages of Wasperton, Barford and Sherbourne are already very hazardous at peak times due to the very heavy volume of traffic. The traffic assessments undertaken for the Wellesbourne Innovation Campus site do not take into account this dangerous condition. 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.

No

Representation ID: 99326

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Claire Christian

As a concerned resident of Wellesbourne I object to the proposed South Warwickshire Local Plan.
Flood risk is a major concern. The area is already vulnerable, and further development would increase surface water runoff, heightening the risk of flooding.
Already overstretched local roads means worsening traffic congestion and pollution.
There is no clear plan to provide additional schools or healthcare services.These are already under pressure, and the proposed increase in housing would place even greater strain on them.
Any development needs to be in the main housing for single and young adults, we don't need any more large detached properties

No

Representation ID: 99359

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Keith James

Given the serious risks of flooding, the lack of sufficient infrastructure to support additional housing, the worsening traffic conditions, and the negative environmental impact, I strongly urge the planning authority to reconsider the allocation of SG15 in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. Development in this area would be unsustainable and detrimental to both existing residents and the natural environment.

No

Representation ID: 99416

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See previous comments

No

Representation ID: 99417

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Newbold Pacey is an historic hamlet. We do not need more traffic in the area. The roads cannot take it as it is. Demolishing the countryside around this area will destroy its identity, along with the sole purpose for why people moved to the countryside and this area: peace and quiet. It will also have a horrendous impact on beautiful wildlife in the area (including red kites, bats, muntjac deer, barn owls, hedgehogs). This is a CONSERVATION AREA, please CONSERVE it!!!

No

Representation ID: 99463

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

The proposed scale of the development of North of Wellesbourne is frankly shocking. Wellesbourne struggles enough as it is with traffic and even changing the road system will not effect the amount of cars flowing through the small village. North Wellesbourne do not need the amount of proposed housing. Focus should be on Stratford Upon Avon, although Wellesbourne do NOT need joining up with Stratford. Please keep these areas separate! An increase in housing does not equal an improvement of an area.

Yes

Representation ID: 99472

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

Seems OK

No

Representation ID: 99506

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Afolabi Okeshola

Although not designated green belt land, this land is either current or potential farmland which should be preserved as such to maintain food security and biodiversity. In addition, the road networks are too narrow to support such a development and will undoubtedly lead to traffic problems.

Yes

Representation ID: 99719

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Sabrina Hasnaoui

Agree with development due to this not being green belt land.

Other

Representation ID: 99777

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Simpson

I cannot comment on if this should be allowed or not.
But what I can say is that if SG15 & SG16 are to be developed this would double at least the size of the Village of Wellesbourne.
I used to live there and still have connections and need to travel. I cannot see how the local roads will cope with this, especially the M40/A46 Junction which is already busy at the best of times.

No

Representation ID: 99823

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Development will allow Wellesbourne to join up with Charlecote and Hampton Lucy to make one long settlement along the A429. This could make area very busy without improvement to infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 99840

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Roads okay, but shame to lose beautiful countryside.

No

Representation ID: 99863

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Helen Allman

SG15 is on the edge of a village that has already had several large estates built in recent years and the infrastructure can’t cope. Schools are now oversubscribed, there are power and water issues, there is no access to rail services, poor bus services and all this would add to the existing traffic problems.

Yes

Representation ID: 99873

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Eaton

Support required development on non green belt land.

No

Representation ID: 99917

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jill Whittingham

The houses are not needed. Stratford District already has sufficient housing stocks agreed already.. It will change the whole feel of Wellesbourne from a village to a massive development. We do not have the local infrastructure in terms of doctors. Schools etc. The additional traffic and pollution would be intolerable. It is already unbearable on Saturdays in summer with the village becoming gridlocked due to the market. Perhaps time and effort could be directed to solving that issue by the council? It will change the whole rural landscape. I strongly object to this application as a resident of Wellesbourne.

No

Representation ID: 99941

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss CHLOE CROFT

This proposal is not ok with the area a small village the impact would be devastating and the pressure on local amenities would not be ok. Not to mention traffic and the local surrounding areas.

No

Representation ID: 99944

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

The site does not align with the stated objectives for sustainable development as any further development will only negatively impact what little flora and fauna currently clings on amidst a cacophony of human activity. The site does not have adequate access to suitable infrastructure, local amenities, and public transport, and would inevitably lead to increased destruction of the natural world in a country which is already one of the most nature depleted countries in the world.

No

Representation ID: 99988

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Sarah Catlin

I'm a resident of Wellesbourne and am extremely concerned about the provision of schooling, both Primary and Secondary, in the village should expansion plans go ahead. The local Primary school is already over capacity (some children living in Wellesbourne cannot get a space even as their first choice school). There seems to be no consideration of issues around the impact on demand for school places that will come with this scale of development , as well as increased pressure on local services including doctors and dentist.

Flood risk - area is already vulnerable, further development would increase runoff and flooding.

No

Representation ID: 100019

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Julie Inglis

Schools full to capacity. Pupils being offered places outside the village. Doctors,dentist and other health services already stretched to the limit. No capacity for 300+more patients. Access to proposal on a c road therefore unsafe and impractical. 300+ more vehicles added to the already very busy roads throughout the village. Plus increase in pollution to the air. Detrimental effect on wildlife. On proposed site there are regularly hares,deer,foxes,birds of prey to name a few. Inadequate proposals for drainage,paths,bus routes, play areas.Already several areas that flood,this proposal will increase that risk.Drainage system not sufficient to cope with so many more houses.

Yes

Representation ID: 100111

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. This site is particularly attractive due to its proximity to significant housing and industrial development, concentrating construction in a single area and minimising the impact on other locations. With 461Ha available, it offers substantial capacity for growth. Using brownfield land prevents environmental damage, protects biodiversity, and preserves historic landscapes while ensuring responsible, sustainable development without harming the countryside.

No

Representation ID: 100171

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Partridge

The Wellesbourne area has already been subject to a large amount of housing development and local services (particularly the School and Drs Surgery) are at full capacity. The A429 between Wellesbourne and the M40 already carries a very high volume of car and lorry traffic, making it difficult to get out of the villages of Barford and Wasperton at peak times. The bus service is infrequent and there are no useable cycle paths so local residents are forced to use their cars. Further housing development off this road would worsen the problem.

No

Representation ID: 100238

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Partridge

Wellesbourne has already been over developed adversely impacting the character of what was once an attractive village. It's local services (particularly the school and doctors surgery) are at full capacity. The A429 between Wellesbourne and the M40 already carries a very high volume of car and lorry traffic, making it difficult and dangerous to get out of the villages of Barford and Wasperton at peak times give the poor design of the junctions. Developing this area is also incompatible with the proposed sand and gravel quarry on the fields between Barford and Wasperton.

No

Representation ID: 100242

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr colin roberts

Wellesbourne is already struggling to cope with the rapidly developing new housing areas- in terms of medical, social, educational provision and general infrastructure. The village is gridlocked at various times and any 'beautiful' areas are being destroyed already, contrary to the visions and objectives in the SWLP.

Yes

Representation ID: 100295

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

New development must prioritise previously developed sites rather than destroy the Green Belt. Urban and repurposed land already has infrastructure in place, reducing pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare. This location is particularly suitable due to its proximity to housing and industrial areas, ensuring that construction is focused in a single area rather than spreading into untouched landscapes. With 461Ha available, it provides ample space for new housing without causing further environmental destruction. Using non-Green Belt land protects biodiversity, preserves historic landscapes, and ensures responsible development without harming the countryside.

Yes

Representation ID: 100381

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.