Yes

Representation ID: 99902

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Simone Delve

Under the National planning policy framework (NPPF) 2024 (see paragraph 144) states development on green belt is only permitted where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced are justified. On the basis that 46,500 homes are available via 7 of the proposed new settlement sites (E1, F1, F2, F3, G1, X1 and X2) that are not in greenbelt these should be prioritised and supported above all other proposed settlements.

No

Representation ID: 99912

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

I have lived in the village of Northend for 20 years, therefore, I represent the local community. The current road infrastructure, public transport, medical practises, school facilities will not meet the increase demand in these services. Due to the location, it is not a 'green' transport commutable area, increasing the use of cars. In addition, existing utilities do not support the increased housing units as Northend does not have a mains gas supply, we experience loss water pressure at times. The increase in 'hard' surfaces will increase rain run off into the local rivers which will increase downstream flows.

No

Representation ID: 99978

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs cynthia bettany

Initially I thought the location maybe appropiate for development, but on driving past the location, the actual lay of the land, quite hilly for Warwickshire, would overlook and be imposing over the new development at the old rugby cement works. One advantage to the development would be a re-established station at Deppers Bridge, but I believe that Network Rail have no intention of even considering it, they don't want a stop between Banbury and Leamington. If this is not an option, then the aim of reducing car travel will not happen.

Yes

Representation ID: 100010

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Only support because of employment opportunities at SG12 and SG14.

No

Representation ID: 100195

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 100361

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Thomas Hunt

This proposed site is badly situated. being a rural location, most residents of the new settlement would be using cars to commute as there is little to no public transport at present. The increased traffic would blight existing settlements and clog roads. The site would also further destroy the rural character of the area on top of the considerable damage already done to this part of the county by HS2. Any proposed development of the site would also be conspicuous from the Burton Dassett hills.

No

Representation ID: 100887

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Collyer

Links to random and public transport are not good enough to support increased housing in this area.

Yes

Representation ID: 101045

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Melissa Gillone

This site is significantly better than the BW site, as it lacks heritage constraints and does not contribute to the same level of urban sprawl.

No

Representation ID: 101073

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No call for sites submissions. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 101209

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pauline James

F2 is entirely rural. To develop it would create terrible sprawl from Bishop Itchington and Harbury. This is a very shortsighted use of scarce land.

It would be better to intensify land use at Bishop Itchington and Harbury with small areas built at 160 dwellings per hectare. This suits 20-40 year olds in their early career, who often dont want a whole house and garden to look after- and can't afford that!

No

Representation ID: 101552

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on local wildlife and reduce access to nature for people living in urban areas. Please consider wildlife site at Deppers Bridge Meadow PLWS.

No

Representation ID: 101731

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs MIchele Gill

That area has already had large scale development with minimal increase in infrastructure to support it. It needs no more.

No

Representation ID: 101794

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Limited

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No call for sites submissions. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 102100

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Michelle Polockus

As I live in bishops Itchington this settlement would be dangerous for all of the children in the village as it would cause our village to be the only way to the motorway.
Due to the size of the village the road network won't support the 10k more vehicles as they would run past the primary school and the roads struggle with current traffic due to on street parking.

No

Representation ID: 102251

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Will overload existing infrastructure.
Road network not suitable.
No amenities.
Poor public transport links.

No

Representation ID: 102762

Received: 07/03/2025

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: 102784

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Phil Head

Effectively merges Bishop's Itchington with Ladbroke and creates a new town.
Would overburden local road network and local services

Yes

Representation ID: 102845

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jem Brown

I agree this site is less suitable. It is a rural option with no infrastructure other than A423, although closer to settlements (Bishops Itchington and Southam) than F3 and G1. The site is within 0.5km of Harbury Cutting SSSI and is bisected by the River Itchen, which is a potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS). Adjacent to Bishops Hill and Bishops Bowl pLWS and contains Clear Pool pLWS.

Other

Representation ID: 103040

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development site will likely require treatment at Itchen Bank (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has medium capacity and very 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.

No

Representation ID: 103182

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Ellis

Land floods
Impact on wildlife and destruction of habitat
Increase in traffic

No

Representation ID: 103243

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

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

No

Representation ID: 103745

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

By prioritising sustainable, non-Green Belt sites, housing can be delivered responsibly—without destroying the countryside, harming biodiversity, or overwhelming local services.

No

Representation ID: 103897

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Harry Connell

Lack of suitable infrastructure. Removal of ecology and green space. Wellbeing and health impact on local communities. Increased competition on local resources (school, doctors, dentists). Building right along railway line is a healthband safety issue. Plenty of houses already available in the area. Bishops bowl is full of new build of poor quality that no one wants to live in.

Other

Representation ID: 103910

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Emma Taylor

Site F2 - unsustainable location, remote from employment opportunities, community and social infrastructure and urban areas, with poor public transport links. Circa 4,000 homes is not truly at the scale of a "new Settlement" and would provide insufficient population to be truly self sustaining. Given significant site constraints, and the infrastructure costs of bringing the site forward are likely to be significant, the site is likely to be unviable. It will encourage private car use, unacceptable highways impacts on existing communities that are not possible to mitigate, and impacts on social infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 104356

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

F2 Land at Deppers Bridge (between Bishops Itchington and Ladbroke): This is open countryside which includes the valley of the River Itchen, which runs north to join the Leam near Eathorpe. Recent development west of the main railway line is on a brownfield site, which this is not. The location is not sustainable; new stations between Leamington and Banbury will not be supported because of the speed and frequency of existing fast passenger services and the level of freight traffic. Access from the east would be through Ladbroke, a conservation village, along a minior road. F2 should not be pursued.

No

Representation ID: 104372

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Sally Shaw

Negative Impact on already over subscribed schools and doctors surgery, existing water supply and pressure resulting in regular leaks from pipes in Bishops Itchington. Village has already had fair share of development, spoiling green spaces and impacting people’s lives who want to live in countryside but ending up with a housing development on their doorstep.

Environmental impact to wildlife

No

Representation ID: 104411

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

F2 South of Deppers Bridge: new settlement proposals in the Felden area east and southeast of Leamington are in open countryside, would use valuable farmland (some BMV), are not near any existing large towns, and are not sustainable development. Proximity to the Banbury-Leamington (London-Birmingham) main line do not make such locations sustainable. No new stations are likely to be agreed as the line is full of fast passenger trains and intermodal and other freight trains. These locations should not be pursued further.

Yes

Representation ID: 104886

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Edwards

In response to the SWLP consultation, incorporating Deppers Bridge into the housing development strategy offers a balanced growth approach, aligning environmental sustainability, economic vitality, and community well-being.
The site's proximity to major transport routes and position on the main Chiltern railway line enhances connectivity to employment, education, and services, supporting the SWLP's goal of well-connected communities. The site is well connected to key settlements- Harbury, Southam, and Bishop’s Itchington.
New housing will stimulate the local economy, benefiting employers like Jaguar Land Rover and employees alike. Additionally, as non-greenbelt land, it aligns with NPPF priorities for sustainable development.

Yes

Representation ID: 105081

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emma Gurdag

not in Green Belt, proximity to industrial/employment centres.

Yes

Representation ID: 105085

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Huseyin Gurdag

As I do understand the need for new housing to be built, having reviewed the Preferred Options Consultation Interactive Map, I personally believe due to the better road conditions, less flooding possibilities and proximity to industrial/employments hubs the following areas would be a better fit: F2 and F3.