No

Representation ID: 85972

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: 85992

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sian Corrie

I support the concept of new settlements, the allow for infrastructure to be considered at the planning stage and do not damage smaller existing settlements.

No

Representation ID: 86151

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Holly Smith

No road infrastructure, no busses, no footpaths, no local facilities.

Yes

Representation ID: 86162

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Morris

Having recently moved to the area I greatly appreciate the farming of the local fields and surroundings and wish to support the farming and biodiversity provided to the area. The outlook was the reason I chose this property in this location.

Other

Representation ID: 86170

Received: 13/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Francesca Ellicott

If this site is to be built on the current primary schools are inadequate for the current residents of Deppers, ST James is a failing school and Harbury is often unable to accommodate the pupil volumes in the area. Therefore any increase in housing would need an increase in primary schools and a growth in the secondary schools to accommodate. A development of safe walking route to southam would greatly benefit the settlement and its attractiveness. The current highway with traffic calming already has daily near misses so would need careful planning and resolution.

No

Representation ID: 86576

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

This is encroaching into the recreationally valuable areas of the Dasset Hills

Yes

Representation ID: 87049

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Corless

This would be a good area for housing. Good transport links

No

Representation ID: 87065

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Prof David Pink

The part of this land north of Ladbroke road floods and is unsuitable for housing. Ladbroke Road is unsuitable as access, it already carries far more traffic than it was built for because the chicanes in Deppers Bridge mean it is used as a 'rat run' for traffic going to the M40 or JL/AML workers.

Yes

Representation ID: 87257

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Stockton Parish Council

Na

No

Representation ID: 87307

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Helen Buttrick

This development would cause significant harm to the character of the landscape, there is no really available instructure here such as GP surgeries and no rail connectivity.

No

Representation ID: 87541

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.

Yes

Representation ID: 87543

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

Suitable site

Yes

Representation ID: 87945

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Elliott snell

My comments are crystal clear. This is an attack on our right to enjoy the land we live and with that gone your left with nothing but a town/city and we have those already. I would invite any so called expert to Bishops Itchington so I can personally show them what exactly they're destroying not just for the current proud folks of Bishops Itchington/Ladbroke but also the future generations who have the right to explore the open country side not some council estate. Houses or country side? You look at your own integrity and stop looking at the profits.

No

Representation ID: 88120

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

Impact of neighbouring Southam, which has already expanded considerably and suffers from impact of HS2 construction.

No

Representation ID: 88285

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Burns

This settlement will be detrimental to the already established neighbouring settlements, In particularly Bishop's Itchington. You have not considered how people will travel to the motorway from this new estate, you will be turning Bishop's Itchington into a thoroughfare and causing massive traffic issues. The only way out will be through bottlenecks and past the school, making it dangerous for our children. The ancient roads in the area are not designed for high traffic volumes and will suffer because of this. The villages infrastructure can not take this increase in demands. Go elsewhere

No

Representation ID: 88513

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Sanders

Massive encroachment onto the greenbelt.
Overdevelopment.
Impact on rural life and loss of farming.
Destruction of wildlife by removal of habitat.
Lack of access to retail outlets and supermarkets.
Lack of access to schools.
Lack of access to doctors and hospital.
Lack of access to rail and public transport links.
Increase traffic on rural roads posing danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
Infrastructure disruption to water, sewage and electricity.

No

Representation ID: 88518

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anita Sanders

Massive encroach from onto the green.
Over development.
Impact on rural life and loss of farming.
Destruction of wildlife by removal.
Lack of access to retail outlets and supermarkets.
Lack of access to schools.
Lack of access to doctors and hospitals.
Lack of access to Ryland public.
Increase traffic on rural roads opposing danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
Infrastructure disruption of water, sewage and electricity.

Yes

Representation ID: 88608

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Partial development agree.

No

Representation ID: 88721

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Darren Quinney

The ongoing developments in an around Knightcote/Lighthorne/Gaydon and Kineton are having a detrimental effect with heavy traffic and delays due to the vast amount of builds over the past 5 years. In typical SDC behaviour its all about the money from land and build house after house. I have seen zero investment on infrastructure to support and no signs the council will do so moving forwards. It scares me how your constituency wastes local tax payers' money.

No

Representation ID: 88964

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Nigel Rock

We 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.

No

Representation ID: 89462

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Group (Stratford District councillors)

Annotated as 'less suitable' in consultation - not in conformance with Strategic Objectives - not a sustainable location - new railway station would be required - not realistic and therefore residents continue to rely on cars - services are sporadic and require a car to access during development which would be a long period over the plan period placing pressure on existing services - Jacob's Transport Assessment designates the site as "minus 18 red" in both phases - biodiversity not increased by building over open countryside and actively damages environmental assets

Yes

Representation ID: 89541

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

Go ahead as this is non green belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 89617

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Smith

not in greenbelt and good access to quality existing road infrastructure

No

Representation ID: 89925

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Heath

Completely unsuitable due to location, road infrastructure and access to local amenities.
The road from Southam to Harbury and Bishop’s Itchington is already congested and getting severely damaged from over use. Deppers bridge turn is not a good junction currently and will cause congestion issues as people inevitably use cars to get anywhere rather than use local amenities by walking

No

Representation ID: 90021

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Burns

I oppose this development as it would put too much pressure on local infastructure and public services. It would also turn Bishops itchington into a cut through for the development. We need more schools and medical facilities first not more homes.

No

Representation ID: 90167

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah Price

F2 is not suitable and should not be included in the plan

No

Representation ID: 90204

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Harriet Bunning

The local area is particularly struggling with infrastructure currently. For example, we have large amounts of problems with water mains in bishops Itchington. Also the local schools are already full.

No

Representation ID: 90310

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: David Price

F2 is within a few hundred yards of a village a lot smaller than the proposed settlement, it would devastate the existing community.

Sustainable transport networks have been identified as key. This site has no chance of a rail connection, poor bus links and the road link to the motorway goes right through existing villages creating pollution and safety issues. It is a poor site from a sustainability perspective.

It is very close to oversubscribed exiting infrastructure (schools, doctors etc). New infrastructure would be expensive and inappropriately close to existing facilities.

No

Representation ID: 90332

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

We 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. We reference those objectives.

No

Representation ID: 90356

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Julia Gibson

Destruction of green belt and farmland, insufficient infrastructure, unacceptable impact on existing rural communities.