Yes

Representation ID: 93297

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Duncan Taylor

It meets the criteria:
1) not part of green belt
2) not in a flood zone
3) close to urban business parkls and industrial estates (spatial growth strategy)
4) good public transport links

Yes

Representation ID: 93729

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

Access to the A425 and B4455 are appealing for this site, along with close proximity to both Leamington/Whitnash and Southam. A new railway station could be developed for Harbury to serve the current and proposed new communities.

No

Representation ID: 93840

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Patrick

Lack of services, doctors, shops, no cycle access to Leamington and Southam. No near schools. Busy road for children to commute to local schools. Access for work will mean using a car a only one Southam bus passes the site this would mean more cars on an already busy road.

No

Representation ID: 93845

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Patrick

Lack of services,schools,road access dangerous onto the Fosse which is busy at rush hours. No near doctors or schools. Bus service limited will mean people using more cars and therefore more congestion

Yes

Representation ID: 93994

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah THOMAS

I think new settlements make sense as long as they dont merge into existing towns. this location seems appropriate to meet the needs of the area without just expanding leamington/stratford/warwick which are already struggling adn expensive. as long as appropriate amenities are also provided

Yes

Representation ID: 94339

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Trevor Pickard

The land to the west of Upton is not within the Green Belt, does not suffer the traffic congestion that other proposed sites are subject to and has a limited population density. This would enable the required infrastructure to be developed in conjunction with the settlements development.

Other

Representation ID: 94769

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

We have insufficient knowledge of the location from which to make an informed comment

No

Representation ID: 94821

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Holden Kwasnik

I oppose the proposed development in the South Warwickshire Local Plan due to concerns over infrastructure, green spaces, and community impact. The loss of natural habitats threatens biodiversity and limits public access to vital green areas. Additionally, the plan risks increasing congestion and pollution, contradicting sustainability goals. A more balanced approach or alternative locations should be considered to preserve South Warwickshire’s character while ensuring responsible, well-planned growth.

Yes

Representation ID: 95462

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

Better to put an isolated hole in the Green Belt near transport links than induce sprawl of larger towns towards each other.

Yes

Representation ID: 95646

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Potential for a new railway station

No

Representation ID: 95807

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I do not agree with this site being included in the plan. My reasons are primarily that it is not in conformance with Strategic Objectives of the SWLP, with which I broadly agree.

Yes

Representation ID: 96102

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine Lee

This site is on non-green belt land and has good traffic infrastructure so it has advantages over proposed sites on green belt land.

No

Representation ID: 96284

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Burns

This site will create irreparable damage to the local environment through construction, cause massive damage to the local communities as it will not provide services that they need immediately such as more local schools

No

Representation ID: 96287

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

We agree that this site is less suitable.

Yes

Representation ID: 96406

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Parish Council

The SWLP has 12 sites, 5 of these are Green Belt land and seven are non-Green Belt land. These seven non-Green Belt land sites have room between them for 46,500 dwellings. This includes land west of Ufton. The existence of these sites means that there are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ to develop any Green Belt site.

In order to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024, all for these non-Green Belt sites such as land west of Ufton should be developed before any Green Belt site.

Yes

Representation ID: 96431

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Other

Representation ID: 96781

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) has no comment.

Yes

Representation ID: 96816

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Le Page

Site not in Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 96945

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Not in Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 97499

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Donovan

All sites outside the green belt have to be developed first, before green belt sites

No

Representation ID: 97604

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Anna Avino

Leamington has already exploded in the past five years. The roads are jammed, the services are overstretched and the vast housing developements and population explosion is changimg the character of the area and making it unpleasant. Infrastructure cannot cope with all the new 29,000 homes being concentrated in a few massive developments in the area particularly south Leamington and Whitnash which is gridlocked. These houses need to be fully dispersed across the whole of warwickshire with every town and village taking a handful of them. This would be a fairer, more sustainable appproach as the infratrusture will always play catch-up.

Yes

Representation ID: 97815

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97885

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs cynthia bettany

I am concerned that if this site was considered, then we are again losing valuable agricultural land, the site is alongside the Fosse way, only a short distance away from Harbury which would encourage further infill and then Harbury would be virtually connected to the edge of Leamington Spa, too much urbanisation in a rural area. Again concerns that it would be alongside the historical assets of the Fosse Way and in full view of the elevated view from Chesterton Mill.

No

Representation ID: 98281

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No Call for Sites submissions. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 98345

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Liverton

Insufficient local facilities, schools, medical & shopping . Local roads also currently at capacity

No

Representation ID: 98915

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: (1) AG Family Trust 2024 & (2) N. Holdsworth

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No Call for Sites submissions. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 99049

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Cat A

I object to this location as a potential new settlement. Not only does it occupy a large amount of open countryside which has been farmed for generations, it represents the inevitable sprawl of Leamington Spa, linking villages to towns with a huge loss of scenic open space and biodiversity habitats. The site lies just 500 meters from a SSSI (Ufton Nature Reserve). Much of the ancient woodlands in this area have already been decimated by HS2 in this area.
Ufton has little to no services itself, so would rely on entirely new facilities and infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 99264

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

It does not contain any Call for Sites submissions - why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 99288

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs JILL CHAMBERS

Site F1. - no infrastructure or employment potential currently on this site. Roads leading to / from the site in poor condition causing potential transport issues and worsening conditions for regular road users. Several landowners are not wanting to sell so deliverability in question. Transport links not good for rail and buses adding volume to the busy A425 and the Fosse Way could cause significant delays. Much of this area has been adversely affected by HS2 - transport (road conditions, route changes) environmentally (destruction of trees, hedgerows, verges and habitats) noise and air pollution - which this development will exacerbate.

No

Representation ID: 99499

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

Not sustainable, would rely too heavily on car transportation. Lacks suitable infrastructure and a clear plan to provide this