No

Representation ID: 99517

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

XI is FAR too large for this area. It will suffocate surrounding villages and have a negative impact on current dwellers in North Wellesbourne.

No

Representation ID: 99520

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: 99712

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

Under the National planning policy framework (NPPF) 2024 (see paragraph 144) it 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) which aren’t on green belt land. Therefore these should take preference to all other new settlement locations.

Yes

Representation ID: 99914

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: 99947

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: 99975

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

The vast majority of new residents would still be travelling for work, amenities, and services, and there are no viable public transport options in this location

No

Representation ID: 100015

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Sarah Catlin

In siting a new settlement in this location it is effectively 'bridging' and therefore merging the village of Barford with the ever growing residential spread of Leamington/Warwick. This area has already become a sprawling urban desert of housing without adequate local facilities to support it and by expanding even further it is threatening the rural character of neighbouring villages that are becoming swallowed up by this expansion.

No

Representation ID: 100066

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Local roads already congested, not helped by the huge number of houses built and under construction close to this area.

Yes

Representation ID: 100128

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Susan Harrison

Good travel / road network and not green belt

Yes

Representation ID: 100210

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

This new settlement would be preferable to development on existing towns/villages. Good road connections nearby via M40. This settlement would avoid urban sprawl into greenbelt land.

No

Representation ID: 100268

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr colin roberts

As previously stated, Wellesbourne cannot cope with more development. The remaining countryside is being decimated and the village facilities and services (eg health/education) are at maximum capacity. The roads are congested and the volume of traffic, especially from the distribution park and motorway junctions, and associated speeding and reckless driving is increasingly dangerous for local residents- all of which again is contrary the visions and objectives in the SWLP

No

Representation ID: 100275

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Partridge

A large new settlement as marked X1 on the map would have a completely detrimental impact on this rural area, destroying farmland, trees, hedgerows and wildlife habitats. There would be no enhancement of the local environment with an increase in traffic, noise and air pollution producing a negative effect on the nature and biodiversity of nearby areas such as Oakley Wood. The developement would encroach on the boundaries of the village of Barford resulting in the destruction of the distinctive village community. There could be no benefit for existing local residents OR people moving into the new settlement.

No

Representation ID: 100307

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Partridge

A large new settlement in this area would have a hugely detrimental impact on the environment, destroying farmland, trees, hedgerows and wildlife habitats. The increase in traffic, noise and air pollution would have a negative effect on the nature and biodiversity of nearby areas such as Oakley Wood. The roads into this area from the west are small country lanes which could not handle the likely traffic. The development would encroach on the boundaries of the village of Barford resulting in the destruction of the distinctive village community and negatively impacting quality of life.

No

Representation ID: 100419

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

This is area would significantly impact on the current communities and there are far better alternatives available

No

Representation ID: 100537

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Chivers

After 30 years in a modern housing estate, I moved to Barford's proposed X1 settlement area to experience countryside living, The difference between suburban life and this rich, biodiverse landscape is profound, with owls, kestrels, woodpeckers, badgers, hares and fallow deer regularly spotted; species I had only seen in captivity. Last summer, I even found juvenile and adults newts in my garden. The thriving ecosystem, carefully maintained by organic farmers, would be destroyed by the industrial/housing developments. Alternative sites, such as 480 acres at Whitacre Hall and 750 acres at Kineton and New Farm Pebworth are for sale: https://www.uklandandfarms.co.uk/

No

Representation ID: 100578

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joan Collins

Significant harm to the character of the landscape
Destruction of Green Belt land and Local Wildlife Sites (see Warwickshire Wildlife Trust's objection)
Flood risk
Wellesbourne's lack of rail connectivity
Loss of best and most versatile farmland
Overdevelopment of Wellesbourne threatening its village status
Lack of educational and health facilities
Increased pollution from vehicle movements ​
Irreversible damage to the area's natural beauty
Significant threat to local wildlife and natural habitats

No

Representation ID: 100760

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ellen Gardiner

The proposed location of a New Settlement between the villages of Barford and Bishops Tachbrook represents a coalescence of settlements and would further contribute to a significant loss of rural greenfield land already taking place in the area. Infrastructure capacity in the area is already stretched and the development of a new settlement in this location would severely impact the local road network which has already been affected by new developments in the same location. The proposed site does not have a defensible boundary and would therefore be likely to spread further over time, destroying the character of Warwickshire villages.

No

Representation ID: 100785

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

This area has already been development with increased housing but a lack of community infrastructure . The temptation for planners/developers would be the large open flat land of the airfield. However, in my view this would be short-sighted.

No

Representation ID: 100980

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Loades

This proposed residential development, in it's size , is totally out of scale to it's beautiful surrounding rural landscape.
And would therefore severely damage the very valuable rural nature of this area and it's wildlife , to an unacceptable level.

Yes

Representation ID: 101039

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: 101195

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Charles Davies

Extension of development south of M40 should be resisted - an irreversible precedent, destroying rural character and habitat. Roads in vicinity, including in villages, cannot support the additional traffic. Already Wellesbourne and Banbury Roads (and M40 access) log-jammed some hours every day. No amount of road building or widening can remedy this. Hareway Lane is an ancient way (as is Wasperton Lane) and development would destroy the landscape archaeology (product of millenia of working), with its flora, fauna and ecological heritage. Area rich in prehistoric and medieval archaeology. Building next to motorway subjects residents to noise and particulate pollution, indefensible.

No

Representation ID: 101590

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs marilyn hall

It does not make sense to plan a new settlement so close to land that has been approved for a 'sand and gravel extraction' site.
I am concerned about the impact on the wild life of the area with such a huge settlement planned.
The road infrastructure does not support this size development.
There is so much development this side of Warwick/Leamington already it is making the entire area one huge new town.

Yes

Representation ID: 101775

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Perry

Road system already in place, close to motorway.
Rail system in Warwick/Leamington.
Schools system in place in Warwick/Leamington areas.

No

Representation ID: 101828

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Site X1, spanning 326 hectares, could accommodate 6,520 homes and employment space but faces major barriers. Assessed as red in the HELAA, it has multiple owners with no clear intent to sell or collaborate, making it undevelopable under NPPF guidelines. Lacking infrastructure, sustainable transport, and facing environmental harm, it would coalesce settlements and impact heritage assets. The Sustainability Appraisal ranks X1 highest but as the “best of a bad bunch.” Adjacent quarry plans pose health risks, and nearby roads require urgent upgrades. Without addressing infrastructure, the SWLP risks failing soundness tests at the Regulation 19 stage.

Other

Representation ID: 101890

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: John Watkins

No.

It is an entirely inappropriate location for a new settlement being remote from effective transport links and places of employment. Housing in this location will generate commuter traffic, cause traffic congestion, cause a loss of agricultural land and reduce the open land break between urban areas.

This is not in accordance with 3.1 Vision "well connected" and "well designed.

This is also not in accordance with 3.2 Strategic Objectives 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

Yes

Representation ID: 101980

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

Non Green Belt with substantional employment opportunity and motorway connectivity makes this one of the best and most sustainable settlement options.

No

Representation ID: 102216

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Bevan

Site X1 is unsuitable for development, contradicting the SWLP’s evidence-led strategy. It lacks infrastructure, public transport and proximity to employment, making it unsustainable. Identified as Priority Area 3, its allocation undermines strategic objectives. The HELAA flags multiple ownership issues, with only 14% of the land available, making delivery unrealistic. Development would harm ancient woodland, priority habitats, a scheduled monument, listed buildings and a Conservation Area. It also negatively impacts landscape character and Public Rights of Way. X1 fails national policy and soundness tests, making it unjustified, ineffective and inconsistent with sustainable development principles.

Other

Representation ID: 102261

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Needs north bound slip road, and southbound exit adding to motorway junction.

No

Representation ID: 102374

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katie Davies

There should be no development south of M40 - destructive of rural character, loss of agricultural land, habitat, natural beauty, landscape archaeology. Road network cannot support extra traffic. Already overfull. Pollution, noise pollution. Loss of residential amenity. Trees, hedges.

No

Representation ID: 102570

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Val Sassall

Up to 6000 homes here is ridiculous. Roads in the area unable tp cope with this additional level.
Power and water/sewage already not stable in the area.
Removes a lot of natural habitat which is currently enjoyed by the villagers and critical to mental health and well being.