BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 106020

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Steve Butler

1. Flood Risk and Historical Precedents
SG17 is located on a Tier 3 floodplain, indicating a very high risk of flooding and is marked by the Council as “An area of Restraint”. Developing this area will significantly exacerbate surface water runoff, increasing flood risks both within Shipston, Stratford and downstream communities. Providing effective mitigation at this scale would make the development unviable and despite their promises, developers have a very poor track record of implementing effective mitigations.

2. Lessons from Past Flooding Incidents
A recent case study from Yorkshire serves as a stark warning. A new housing development on a tier 3 floodplain flooded shortly after completion, leading to a costly class-action lawsuit against both the developers and the local authorities that approved the project. Proceeding with this development in Shipston could expose Stratford District Council to similar legal risks and contingent liabilities.

3. Lack of Essential Infrastructure
Shipston’s existing infrastructure is already struggling to cope with current demands. An additional 3,000 houses would introduce over 6,000 more vehicles, worsening congestion on already burdened roads. Public services such as schools, healthcare facilities, and emergency response units are stretched thin and would not be able to support such an influx without massive, costly upgrades.

4. Bypass Requirement and Logistical Challenges
A development of this scale would necessitate a bypass for Shipston. However, the feasibility of constructing such a bypass is uncertain due to land constraints and environmental concerns. Approving this development without a clear plan for mitigating traffic impacts would be highly irresponsible.

5. Strategic Plan Conflicts
The Council’s strategic development plan has designated this area as high flood risk and unsuitable for large-scale housing projects. Approving this development would contradict the Council’s own planning policies and could undermine the credibility of the strategic planning framework.

6. More Suitable Alternative: Long Marston
A more viable alternative would be an existing planned area such as Long Marston, which does not face the same flooding issues and has better transport links. Directing development to safer, more sustainable locations aligns with responsible planning principles and long-term environmental considerations.

7. Environmental and Community Impact
Beyond exacerbating flood risks, the proposed development threatens local biodiversity and green spaces. The River Stour and its surrounding habitats support diverse wildlife; increased urbanisation could lead to habitat loss and decreased biodiversity. Additionally, the town's Victorian-era drainage system is ill-equipped to handle increased runoff, potentially leading to more frequent and severe flooding events.
The local community has actively voiced opposition to large-scale developments due to flood risks and infrastructure strain. A public drop-in event at Shipston Leisure Centre on January 28, 2025, saw residents expressing frustration with proposed plans, emphasizing the need for the Council to heed local sentiments. One resident stated, "The council needs to start listening to the residents. We don’t need any more houses in Shipston."

8. Instances of Unfulfilled Infrastructure Promises
There is a track record of developers and government failing to implement committed infrastructure supporting new developments.

9. Systemic Issues with Infrastructure Delivery
• Financial Contributions Not Utilised: Developers often provide financial contributions to local authorities, intended for infrastructure development. However, reports indicate that some councils have not effectively utilised these funds, leading to a lack of necessary services and facilities in new developments.
housingtoday.co.uk
• Viability Assessments Affecting Commitments: Developers may submit viability assessments during the planning process to demonstrate the financial feasibility of a project. Critics argue that these assessments can be manipulated, allowing developers to renege on commitments to provide affordable housing or infrastructure improvements, citing financial constraints.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk