Yes

ID sylw: 100870

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Asiant : Knight Frank LLP

The landowner consortium generally supports the policy direction in consideration of the need for additional infrastructure, specifically to support large-scale development and new settlements. Detailed policies should be worded with sufficient flexibility to avoid onerous requirements detrimentally impacting the deliverability of sites.

No

ID sylw: 100934

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Princethorpe Foundation

Asiant : Sworders

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies the gaps in infrastructure provision and proposals to overcome such gaps but does not set out a timetable for delivery. It also states that funding from developer contributions will be insufficient to deliver all the infrastructure needs associated with future development. It appears to be very much a long-term vision and will not maintain the five-year land supply.

Whilst three of the overarching principles of the plan is to be climate resilient and net zero, providing a healthy south Warwickshire and to promote active travel, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not promote cycling infrastructure.

No

ID sylw: 100949

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Stuart Foreman

New infrastructure should be guided by a clear strategy, shaped by expert advice and modelling, and delivered either before or alongside development. Existing communities must benefit from this infrastructure from the start of new developments, not after completion. Developers should be required to provide S.106 contributions or deliver essential infrastructure at the commencement of development, avoiding delays of 6, 12, or 18 months. This proactive approach ensures that both current and future residents have access to necessary services and amenities, supporting a more sustainable and balanced development process that minimizes disruption to local communities.

Yes

ID sylw: 100991

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mac Mic Group

Asiant : Marrons

Mac Mic Group agree that development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, where justified, but the SWCs must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy.

Other

ID sylw: 100994

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Mark Stevens

Infrastructure has been raised by so many people who are concerned about the SWLP, with good reason. I understand that there are certain legal obligations for new settlements,however, it is the provision of adequate infrastructure (water sourcing, sewerage arrangements, doctors, dentists, schools, shops, hospital facilities, active transport, EV charging, rail services, which are key to all development. Adding houses 20, 50, 100 at a time, still increases the loading on currently creaking services today, so it is essential that irrespective of origination point, the infrastructure provisions should be sized proportionately. No excuses! Proactive monitoring is key to ensure compliance.

Yes

ID sylw: 101132

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Hallam Land Management Limited

Asiant : Mr Jack Barnes

Development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, but the SWC’s must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy. Regarding infrastructure requirements for strategic allocations, the SWCs should collaborate with those bringing the site’s forward to understand site-specific requirements. Allocations with overly onerous infrastructure requirements may delay the delivery of sites due to viability or feasibility concerns. Requirements for infrastructure should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

Other

ID sylw: 101134

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The consultation suggests, " the IDP will include an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule for each district. This IDP remains 'a live document' and the Local Planning Authorities will continue to work with infrastructure providers and other stakeholders to refine its contents up to submission of the Local Plan."

Our client considers there are some important points to make on this:
(1) this statement implies the critical technical work to justify the plan is not in place, and
(2) why should the IDP being 'live' only apply up to submission and not be continuous even post adoption?

No

ID sylw: 101253

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Bart Slob

I do not fully agree with Draft Policy Direction 5. The policy does not guarantee that schools, healthcare, and transport will be in place before development occurs, risking overburdening already stretched services. Areas like Kenilworth lack sufficient infrastructure, and further growth without upfront investment will worsen pressures. The plan relies too heavily on developer contributions, which may not be sufficient or timely. A stronger commitment to infrastructure-first planning is needed, with clear accountability for delivery. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) should be reviewed to ensure funding is adequate. Development must not outpace essential service expansion.

Yes

ID sylw: 101289

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Hallam Land

Asiant : Marrons

Development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, but the SWC’s must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy. Regarding infrastructure requirements for strategic allocations, the SWCs should collaborate with those bringing the site’s forward to understand site-specific requirements. Allocations with overly onerous infrastructure requirements may delay the delivery of sites due to viability or feasibility concerns. Requirements for infrastructure should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

Yes

ID sylw: 101361

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Zoe Leventhal

I support this approach because it is very important that infrastructure for new development is planned and delivered at the appropriate time. We have seen this first hand in Kenilworth where increasing numbers of houses are built but with inadequate road or pavement infrastructure (e.g. no walking routes to new Kenilworth school at Glasshouse lane from new neighbouring housing developments despite these being significantly occupied). Similarly public transport infrastructure is critical to sustainable communities.

Yes

ID sylw: 101373

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Andrew Crump

The objectives of providing both transport and employment infrastructure are fine in theory, but not likely to be achieved at Long Marston (E1) as this site is in a rural location, some distance from where new residents will already be gainfully employed and thus require private motor vehicles in order to travel to and from the site. Sustainability will fail if carbon emissions are increased as a result and the traffic congestion on the B4632 will be nothing short of horrendous, blighting the area for residents and tourists alike.

Yes

ID sylw: 101441

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Strategic Land / Ashberry Strategic Land

Asiant : Marrons

Development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, but the SWC’s must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy.

Regarding infrastructure requirements for strategic allocations, the SWCs should collaborate with those bringing the site’s forward to understand site-specific requirements. Allocations with overly onerous infrastructure requirements may delay the delivery of sites due to viability or feasibility concerns. Requirements for infrastructure should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

Yes

ID sylw: 101494

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alderley Holdings Trust

Asiant : Mr Jack Barnes

Development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, but the SWC’s must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy. Regarding infrastructure requirements for strategic allocations, the SWCs should collaborate with those bringing the site’s forward to understand site-specific requirements. Allocations with overly onerous infrastructure requirements may delay the delivery of sites due to viability or feasibility concerns. Requirements for infrastructure should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

No

ID sylw: 101503

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Yes

ID sylw: 101567

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Clive Henderson

The words are good but I have no confidence that that the majority of the Strategic growth areas around Lapworth and Hockley Heath can be made to comply them after taking into consideration the topology and the constraints of Green Belt, narrow rural roads with no pavements, street lighting, canal conservation area lack of sewage and power networks.
I am left wondering how the draft plan has even wasted its time including them as proposals when to meet these benchmarks appears impossible.

No

ID sylw: 101659

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Andrew Crump

There appears to be a cart and horse approach in this strategy. How can meaningful policies be formulated if infrastructure strategies have not been developed beforehand? It seems to be a case of working things out as one goes along, rather than considering vital components beforehand. What, for example, are the road infrastructure requirements for site E1? We are also in a multiple choice area envisaging anything between 3,500 and 25,000 new dwellings, a vast range for which there appears to be neither transport or employment infrastructure provision. This needs to be rectified as it impacts upon E1 in particular.

No

ID sylw: 101783

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Anne Page

SG04 South of Kenilworth Group
This area is a long way from Kenilworth town centre and even from shops in Oaks Precinct and Roseland Road, which will lead to an increase in car traffic on narrow roads. Walking and cycling are great in theory, but not when carrying heavy and bulky shopping. Bus routes have been cut.
Existing medical and dental practices are also distant and haven't been expanded with the recent large increase of housing. Kenilworth School is the far side of the town.
Hedgerows and ancient oak trees will be lost.
Negative impact on views from Kenilworth Castle.

Yes

ID sylw: 101793

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates

Asiant : Marrons

Development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, but the SWC’s must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy. Regarding infrastructure requirements for strategic allocations, the SWCs should collaborate with those bringing the site’s forward to understand site-specific requirements. Allocations with overly onerous infrastructure requirements may delay the delivery of sites due to viability or feasibility concerns. Requirements for infrastructure should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

Other

ID sylw: 101838

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Grevayne Properties Limited

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The consultation report suggests, "the IDP will include an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule for each district. This IDP remains 'a live document' and the Local Planning Authorities will continue to work with infrastructure providers and other stakeholders to refine its contents up to submission of the Local Plan."

Our client considers there are some important points to make on this:
(1) this statement implies the critical technical work to justify the plan is not in place, and
(2) why should the IDP being 'live' only apply up to submission and not be continuous even post adoption?

No

ID sylw: 101960

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1 (IDP) fails to address how infrastructure deficits at preferred sites will be met, risking the SWLP failing soundness tests. It omits analysis of key junctions, excluding M40 J13, J14, and Banbury Road, while only briefly mentioning J15. This flawed assessment ignores existing and future congestion impacts on X1, X2, SG9-SG11, and SG15, particularly from increased traffic on the B4087. Without proper infrastructure planning, the SWLP is neither effective nor justified, making it inconsistent with national policy and unfit for the Regulation 19 consultation.

Yes

ID sylw: 101972

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Joseph Dimambro-Denson

I agree, my only note is that as the local plan develops and future sites are chosen, the Local cycling and walking infrastructure plans and other such similar plans need to be updated. The LCWIP was always intended to be a living document, changing as the situation changes.

Other

ID sylw: 102006

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Savills (UK) Ltd

Our other representations argue for caution in selecting and allocating new communities. Availability of infrastructure such as public transport, services and facilities is a particular challenge for standalone settlements lacking a close functional relationship to an existing large town. Historic settlements contain more and a wider variety of services and facilities than would be planned for a new settlement as their commercial cores pre-date large supermarkets and internet shopping. It is inconceivable that a new settlement with a similar number of residents and households to Southam would have a similar range of services and facilities. These promote internalised trips and make communities more vibrant and attractive for residents.

Therefore we suggest a sustainable growth strategy should be focused in locations which already have a wide range of local infrastructure in close proximity. This will reduce need to travel and create attractive places to live consistent with the Vision and Strategic objectives. Investment can be focused on enhancing and supplementing existing infrastructure, to benefit both new residents and existing communities. Existing facilities will be available to the first residents of new developments rather than waiting for a critical mass before the first shop and school. Combined existing and future residents will provide greater critical mass to support sustainable public transport and provide opportunity to use existing services from the outset rather than subsidising lengthy new routes.

No

ID sylw: 102023

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Philip Alton

This policy is not based in reality. The geography of Warwick is such that its road system cannot be expanded to cope with the additional traffic that these proposals would create. Public transport is very limited, except for the train services to London and Birmingham. The Council has a poort track record concerning infrastructure projects - recent examples being the the Stanks Island "improvements" and the terrible ongoing congestion caused by the Tachbrook Park road project.

Yes

ID sylw: 102087

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: BDW Trading Limited

Asiant : Knight Frank LLP

BDW generally supports the policy direction in consideration of the need for additional infrastructure, specifically to support large-scale development and new settlements. Detailed policies should be worded with sufficient flexibility to avoid onerous requirements detrimentally impacting the deliverability of sites.

No

ID sylw: 102090

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Bianca Hollis

Where are the specific plans to invest in a new pedestrian/cycle bridge for Stratford?
What about free and regular public transport for local residents to reduce traffic pollution?
The town air is terribly polluted and the traffic is terrible!
Transport and air and water pollution must be addressed!

No

ID sylw: 102091

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Sue Cole

Development of smaller infill sites must not detrimentally impact on existing residents and appropriate infrastructure should be put in place at the beginning of the process not the end.

Where the call-for-sites has resulted in a number of proposals these should be looked at on a cumulative strategic basis so that impacts on existing infrastructure is properly assessed and mitigated. Local input should be encouraged.

Other

ID sylw: 102112

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: IM Land 1 Limited

Asiant : Turley

IM Land agrees with site specific infrastructure requirements being identified as part of allocation policies. Policy wording should be updated in accordance with h PPG (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 23b-001-20190315). The IDP should be developed further to establish a comprehensive itemised list of infrastructure needs across both districts to meet the total housing need.

Yes

ID sylw: 102125

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

No

ID sylw: 102152

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jennie Lunt

The draft policy does not make any reference to strategic growth locations that would inevitably impact on infrastructure of neighbouring councils and Authorities. The policy should specifically outline that neighbouring Councils and Authorities should be consulted and coordinate with with regards to infrastructure for any new relevant development within the SWLP. For example SG24 is being proposed with no infrastructure provision to support it.

No

ID sylw: 102153

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Lunt

The draft policy does not make any reference to strategic growth locations that impact the infrastructure of neighbouring councils and authorities. The policy should specifically outline that neighbouring councils and authorities should be consulted and coordinated with regards to infrastructure for any new relevant development. For example SG24 is being proposed with no infrastructure provision to support it.