No

Representation ID: 85975

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Graham Ball

With a sustainable land supply, continual new settlements are not sustainable, therefore it should not happen. Moreover, the fertility rate in the UK is less than 2 therefore there is no need for new development in the UK.

Yes

Representation ID: 87256

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Stockton Parish Council

Na

No

Representation ID: 87542

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Michaelina Jakala

I absolutely do not support - too much development with too little infrastructure. The roads cannot handle the traffic, the water mains constantly burst, the schools are oversubscribed, the GPs are in desperate need of updating and cannot handle the current number. Lack of other services, etc. No I will never support.

No

Representation ID: 88050

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr steve dover

Inadequate infrastructure and drainage
High risk of flooding
High risk of sewage and wastewater pollution of natural watercourses and artesian wells
Lack of community facilities

No

Representation ID: 88118

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

Significan harm to character of landscape, unsustainable location with lack of public transport links.

No

Representation ID: 88607

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Absolutely not. Poor decision for a location without significant investment in infrastructure to serve the area.

Other

Representation ID: 88709

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

No

Representation ID: 88963

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Nigel Rock

I do not agree with this site being included in the plan. We observe that it is annotated as ‘less suitable’ in the consultation. Our reasons are primarily that it is not in conformance with Strategic Objectives of the SWLP, with which we broadly agree.

Yes

Representation ID: 89081

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sara Bird

Whilst I believe growth of existing settlements is a better option that potential new settlements I do understand that a certain amount may be necessary and that this site has some potential in that area. It is well connected to the A425 and to the sustainable transport and facilities in Leamington Spa.

No

Representation ID: 89188

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Carvell

I consider this development of historic agricultural land to be unbalanced growth a long way from a town centre. There are few services in the Ufton area requiring a car to drive to local amenities- Doctors are at capacity, schools at capacity, buses that stop 5 times a day! Mainly B roads unsuitable for cycling. There is a train station in Leamington but services to and from London will reduce once HS2 is up and running! The F1 site is not close to any existing facilities or jobs making sustainable travel unappealling.

Yes

Representation ID: 89192

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzanna Hughes

In my mind new settlements are more prefererable. The proposed site could help reduce congestion in Stratford while meeting housing needs with minimal environmental impact, preserving Green Belt land. New settlements prevent urban sprawl and its strain on infrastructure. The area offers potential rail connections via the Honeybourne Line and the rail innovation centre. With ample space, essential infrastructure like schools and healthcare facilities can be integrated into the development. Strategic opportunities, rather than just land availability, should guide planning.

Yes

Representation ID: 89196

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzanna Hughes

New Settlements are preferable. The development benefits from excellent transport links, with well-connected roads, a potential Chiltern Line station nearby, and HS2 offering faster commuting options. It could ease congestion in Stratford while fulfilling housing demands with minimal environmental harm. Establishing new settlements would help safeguard Green Belt land and existing infrastructure by preventing urban expansion. Planning should be driven by strategic opportunities rather than just land availability.

No

Representation ID: 89450

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Group (Stratford District councillors)

Annotated as 'less suitable' in the consultation - non-conformance with Strategic Objectives - new railway station would be required to avoid residents travelling to existing railway station by road and continued reliance on motor vehicles - Jacob's Transport Assessment scores Phase 1 minus 15 red and Phase 2 minus 12 red - infrastructure sporadic across the area and a car trip would be required to access these as no existing infrastructure and therefore new infrastructure would be required at significant financial and environmental cost - biodiversity is not increased by building over open countryside and actively damages existing environmental assets.

Yes

Representation ID: 89540

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

Non green belt land so go for it!

Yes

Representation ID: 89926

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Heath

Close to main high volume roads, easy access to to Leamington and amenities.

No

Representation ID: 90313

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Liz Stone

n/a

No

Representation ID: 90735

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Edge

Residents will want to travel info Leamington and Warwick, road infrastructure is inadequate and there is little opportunity to improve this from Radford Semele. At peak periods it often currently takes 30mins to travel from Ufton to Central Leamington.

No

Representation ID: 91065

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Disagree.

No

Representation ID: 91106

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

We agree with the assessment in the consultation document that this site is not suitable for development.

No

Representation ID: 91378

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Michelle Mendoza

F1 not ideal in terms of transport, or walking links.

There is one bus service, Stage Coach 63, which goes down past the area along the A425. Additional buses would need to be laid on, with extra bus stops. This is likely to cause additional traffic blockages during peak times, as not all parts of this road allow overtaking.

There aren’t any local facilities that residents can walk to, or anywhere to walk to for pleasure, and is quite isolated. In addition, it will adjoin the large areas of green field land in which solar farms already have been approved

No

Representation ID: 91389

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Michelle Mendoza

I’m not sure which Comment section this should go to, but it’s specifically in relation to employment opportunities for rural site F1.

Being such an isolated location away from transport connections (albeit the once an hour or longer bus 63 service along A425 as mentioned in a previous comment), it makes it difficult for the typical family household to access local employment, unless they are a two car family. For lower income families who may be attracted to lower price housing, they are unlikely to have more than one car.

Other

Representation ID: 91477

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Michelle Mendoza

The proposed site F1 has only minimal access to public transport, and by not being within walking distance of any facilities, would mean the normal transport would be by car.

Guarantees that at least an increased 63 bus service, or additional services would be set up to service the site would be vital.

No

Representation ID: 91663

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Looney

1.In 2023 SDC granted planning permission for solar farm on much of the Site.
2.The land rises from 220 to 400ft. A steep escarpment which can't be built on crosses the Site
3.Access could only be from the Fosse Way or A425, two busy, dangerous roads
4. Ownership of the land fragmented and a major land owner against the plan.
5, Transport links poor. Buses limited and constrained by road issue above. Site bounded by railway, but no possibility of new station
6. No capacity at local schools before permanent schools built.
7. No realistic opportunities for local job creation

Yes

Representation ID: 91969

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James OShea

This is a relatively suitable and sustainable location with close proximity to main highways and rail infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 92178

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: 92330

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Wilkinson

The area floods regularly and is not suitable for building.
There is no infrastructure at all and would lead to an isolated unpopular settlement with no community.
The area is an important side for ground nesting birds and has an important and increasingly rare breeding LAPWING population as well as other wading birds such as SNIPE.
The land has existing permission for a Solar Farm.
There is no potential for local employment existing or new.
Transport links are poor with only a very limited service to Leamington or Rugby.
Roads are busy, potential new junctions on the Fosse dangerous and expensive.

No

Representation ID: 92342

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Harbury Parish Council

there is no public transport option here and the road network is already congested, and it would merge Radford, Harbury and Ufton. The site is currently being used for a solar farm meeting our energy needs.

No

Representation ID: 92716

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Luke Kempton

This site will create an urban sprawl between Leamington and Southam and destroy the scenic views of the Ufton ridge. The traffic along the Fosse Way is bad enough already (with significant traffic going to Gaydon from the Coventry area) and a settlement here will make it even worse.

No

Representation ID: 92838

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

Do not agree with inclusion - site is not sustainable and would increase car usage, against the environmental objectives of the SWLP.

Yes

Representation ID: 92935

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ed Molloy

A new development is preferable to towns and villages sprawling into each other. Good location for local people travelling to JLR site