Other

ID sylw: 103943

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

You say one thing but then contradict it. You will support flood risk attenuation but want to build on the Stour floodplain; you will support ecology within the context of development but your proposals affect dozens of local wildlife sites.

Yes

ID sylw: 103974

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Chris Creighton Thomas

Lack of new facilities and suitable infrastructure has blighted many new developments which has meant that new residents suffer and existing residents nearby suffer as people try to use existing faculties which then get overloaded

No

ID sylw: 104188

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Rachel Pope

At the moment it is not sufficiently detailed or stringent. It will need to 'have teeth' to ensure that infrastructure promises and visions really happen. Infrastructure should be put in place before housing so that it cannot be delayed or forgotten about, as has happened with other schemes locally. At the very least, housing and infrastructure should be built on parallel timelines once both have been agreed, funded and meticulously planned, with no back-out options for developers.

Yes

ID sylw: 104221

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Nicola Sawle

yes but would need to be followed, at present the northwest green belt (Henley)suggestions would not meet those requirements

Other

ID sylw: 104276

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Amanda Waters

DPD 5 should be much stronger, eg including specifically the need to include the full range of infrastructure (retail, schools for all ages, GPs etc) to avoid the need for journeys outside the area and block surrounding roads, many of which would be unable to accommodate the additional traffic otherwise.

Yes

ID sylw: 104353

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We welcome the active engagement of all infrastructure providers on an overarching IDP, and would support the development of shared multi-functional spaces to bring communities and services together.

As a Trust our infrastructure needs are likely to require additional acute and community healthcare facilities in the coming years to meet the growth in demand. SWFT also require sufficient infrastructure contributions towards primary care so that demand can be managed in an appropriate setting.

We would seek to link the wording in this section with Draft policy Direction 30, and a commitment within the plan for defined financial S106 commitment.

No

ID sylw: 104395

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Mary Harman

This policy assumes the peoples agreement for unitary council and is so full of words without implications it sounds like a blank cheque to proceed whatever.

Other

ID sylw: 104530

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Andrew Milton

It is important that infrsatructure comes before housing.

Commitment to active travel is essential. These must be firm commitments, not optional.

Other

ID sylw: 104655

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

Transport, utilities and civic infrastructure should be planned, financed and delivered in advance of every development to facilitate the building of homes, to foster community cohesion, and to provide employment opportunities. It cannot be left to house builders as an afterthought. In order to achieve this for New Settlements or major growth areas, it is suggested that a form of Development Corporation incorporating all tiers of local government and public sector investors, would deliver the best outcome.

No

ID sylw: 104662

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Dunning

The transport strategies are weak and do not go far enough.
They all assume the car as the dominant mode-share for journeys. This is because you keep letting sprawling car-dependent suburbia be the default when homes are built.

We need a system-wide overhaul strategy to create proper active travel infrastructure all over Warwick District, and we need a proper segregated public transport tram system for our growing city.

Stop building more car lanes and roads. The only solution to congestion is viable alternatives to car travel.

Yes

ID sylw: 104688

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Susan Ingleby

As well as improved bus services we need more cycle paths. New estates should also have local shops and a community hub with facilities like youth clubs. Teenagers desperately need somewhere safe to go and meet their friends.

Yes

ID sylw: 104697

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Fern Arnold

You say infrastructure is essential and I agree. But in the past it feels like an afterthought. There needs to be legally binding agreements with the developers to make sure there is no slipage and no excuses. Perhaps contracts with 'Lane rental' type clauses that they have on major road contracts where there are financial penalties for delays. There also needs to be better working relationships between WDC and WCC and other bodies like health and water.

Yes

ID sylw: 104978

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Charlotte Holme

The approach is good but WHEN has this ever been put into practice? When has infrastructure promised ever been delivered by developers? In Sweden the infrastructure for a new development (pavements, community buildings, roads etc) must be put in place before house building begins. Developers wriggle out of their infrastructures commitments again and again. Example - development outside Kenilworth between St Johns and the A46. NO new pavements or pedestrian crossing installed to enable the residents to walk into town!

No

ID sylw: 104991

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Charlotte Holme

There needs to be absolute enforcement of infrastructure provision. However it is to be paid for, infrastructure needs and commitments must be adhered to. Again and again the infrastructure elements of a new development fail to materialise. From simple provisions such as safe walkways to promised commercial or community spaces. This MUST change and the needs of new and existing communities must be put first.

No

ID sylw: 104993

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Hannah Green

Cars are going to be main mode of transport which will increase pressure on already congested roads.
cycle lanes not safe or adequate
Train stations not viable for increased numbers of travellers as would need massive alterations to make them meet the required criteria.
hospitals, policing etc already struggling to meet the needs on them now.
Roads need extreme overall to make them viable, cost and impact will be horrendous in monetary terms and environmental terms

No

ID sylw: 105032

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Anthony Lewenz

Lack of sustainable travel infrastructure and the timescale of any new delivery will mean more private car use contrary to the Climate change policies and the aim of the SWLP

Yes

ID sylw: 105099

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

St Philips agree with the SWA's approach to requiring developments to contribute to infrastructure delivery, ensuring they mitigate their impacts appropriately. Contributions must be necessary, directly related, and proportionate to the development. It is essential that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies the necessary infrastructure for proposed allocations, especially for SGLs or New Settlements. Furthermore, planning policies must be clear and consider the economic viability of sites, supported by a Viability Assessment that tests the impact of policies and infrastructure on site viability, including any Community Infrastructure Levy.

Other

ID sylw: 105581

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sian Kellaway

Where is the infrastructure? What services are included to support the already overloaded road network - nearest train stations?!

Other

ID sylw: 105599

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Martin Neal

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Looking at the conclusions relating to infrastructure delivery, the report highlights that significant funding gaps need to be resolved to ensure timely delivery of essential infrastructure. Until necessary funding has been identified a final selection of development sites should be put on hold.

Yes

ID sylw: 105766

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Wates Developments Ltd

Asiant : Savills

Wates Developments support the policy direction, emphasising that development must provide necessary infrastructure, as per Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. The January 2025 Infrastructure Delivery Plan highlights that the “Sustainable Travel and Economy” strategy will enhance community facilities, promote active travel, and improve access to local employment. Comprehensive development in the SWLP area will generate the critical mass needed for essential infrastructure through developer contributions. Specifically, the Coppington Farm allocation would complement the University of Warwick’s Innovation Campus growth and improvements to infrastructure, including upgraded pedestrian and cycle access along the A429.

No

ID sylw: 105982

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Nick Chambers

Funding for Infrastructure is a known deficiency within the Planning system, as demonstrated locally within Shipston-on-Stour. Despite a doubling of the housing stock, there has been a clear lack of infrastructure development.
The roads in and around Shipston-on-Stour have not been upgraded to cater for increased traffic; indeed they are in poor condition and are maintained endlessly.
The River Stour overflows more regularly, as a result of increased drainage from new developments.
The sewage treatment works struggle to cope with increased demand.
The mobile telecommunications network cannot cope with demand, as evident from frequent signal deterioration.
The replacement building for the Ellen Badger hospital is inferior in its medical facilities, with no Accident & Emergency nor Doctor Surgery.
There is no longer a Police nor Fire Station.
As neither Stratord-on-Avon nor Warwick District Council are responsible for the provision of most of this infrastructure, it is very misleading to claim that they are “very successful in providing funding to deliver infrastructure in South Warwickshire to date.”

Other

ID sylw: 106139

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Julian and Emma Philcox

Nifer y bobl: 2

These documents do not have regard to local knowledge and detail and indeed they broadly acknowledge this. In Stratford-upon-Avon the document misses the significance of the historic and congested road network and limited crossings. This is also true for the rural area to the west and southwest which is served only by bridges at Binton/Welford and Bidford. These need regular attention and reliance on them is precarious. In Stratford-upon-Avon the strategic road network (A46, M40 and M42) lies to the north of the river and town and all rail connections lie north of the river. The park and ride is located to the very north of the town. All secondary schools are north of the river. All of Alcester's secondary schools and Henley schools are north of the river and town. To the south of the river there are no rail stations in Stratford-upon-Avon, no access to the strategic road network and limited bus services, and traffic competes on the town bridges to access services.

Other

ID sylw: 106166

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Cameron and Mrs Elizabeth Meades

Nifer y bobl: 2

To first address a general issue, we are deeply concerned regarding the lack of green spaces that have so far come to fruition from current housing developments. They represent a vital factor in mental wellbeing, community spirit, and environmental stewardship. We would urge you to seriously consider how you, our councillors, are upholding your ethical duties in safeguarding these spaces for your constituents.

Furthermore, we are no further forward with developing the necessary infrastructure to make living in these new homes practical: medical and dental facilities, adequate and high-quality nursery and school provisions, affordable grocery and convenience stores. All of these are within your control, should you choose to hold developers to account.

Yes

ID sylw: 106192

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Acres Land & Planning

I broadly support the draft policy, in as far as it goes.

Other

ID sylw: 106217

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cala Homes (Cotswolds)

Asiant : Lichfields (London)

Cala agrees with the general approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 5 but recommends further work is undertaken to clarify the items and amounts required across the districts. This includes the new proposed settlements. Cala generally supports the transport hierarchy in the IDP. However, even with an emphasis on active travel and public transport there will still need to be significant investment in improving the road network to accommodate future housing and ensure communities are well-connected across the districts. The IDP must set out specific requirements and expected levels to avoid unexpected items rendering a development unviable.

Cala welcomes the commitment to carry forward existing safeguarding measures, which will ensure the option to deliver the SWRR is not prejudiced by other development along the route. While supporting a larger proposed settlement at E1 Cala notes the importance of ensuring transport capacity requirements can be met with requisite infrastructure. As delivery of the Garden Village has commenced it is important that additional development does not compromise the ability of the existing allocation to be delivered. Whilst the SWRR is a key piece of infrastructure for a potential new settlement at LMA and undeed the full extent of Cala’s existing allocation of c.3,100 remaining homes, delivery of such infrastructure should not impede upon delivery of interim phases at LMA, and where viable, measures to speed up the delivery of much needed-housing should be explored.

Yes

ID sylw: 106366

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium (WMHAPC)

Asiant : Tetlow King Planning

The WMHAPC welcomes the prospect of developments which will help to deliver the necessary infrastructure to communities. However, as currently worded, the policy direction does not take into account the viability aspect of 100% affordable housing schemes. The WMHAPC recommends that the level of financial contribution towards the provision of infrastructure should be exempt or reduced on 100% affordable housing sites in order to practically deliver the affordable homes without compromising on viability.
The Council should explore joint approaches and alternative funding mechanisms such as S106
agreements of neighbouring developments to aid in the improvement and development of new infrastructure of 100% affordable housing projects.

Other

ID sylw: 106391

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rachael Newsome

I believe that more consultation with the additional factors which are required to build all these house and commercial sites.
For example road structures, can existing roads cope with volume of traffic? Hospital facilities need improving and building, schools need providing, doctors surgeries etc

No

ID sylw: 106469

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: McCarthy Stone and Churchill Living

Asiant : The Planning Bureau Ltd

Although we appreciate this consultation is an early stage of plan production, we note that no supporting viability evidence has been published. A Viability Assessment will be a crucial element of the evidence base informing policy and deliverability directly, and must be open
to scrutiny and comment.


RECOMMENDATION:
We strongly recommend that for any policy for older persons’ housing to be considered justified, a viability assessment is run for sheltered and extra-care housing using the assumptions set out within the RHG guidance. These assumptions reflect the inputs and assumptions consistently agreed on a site-by-site level and are therefore appropriate to apply as part of a plan wide viability assessment. Our extensive experience is that the viability of specialist housing for older people will differ
from mainstream housing. Policy targets which reflect actual viability constraints will allow providers of specialist housing for older people to derisk the planning process and provide confidence for investors in the sector.

Other

ID sylw: 106508

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Wychbury Developments

Asiant : Cerda Planning Ltd

We recognise that all development proposals should provide appropriate on and off site infrastructure
requirements.
This is subject to those requirements meeting the CIL tests.
Where infrastructure goes beyond that necessary to mitigate the impacts arising from development, this
should be offset against other development management requirements, and/or put in the planning balance
as a matter of significant weighting.
We are very concerned that the SWLP is advancing with infrastructure requirements not yet identified, to
be delivered by sites in spatial growth locations where yield and capacity is not specified. It is impossible at
this stage to establish the viability – and thus deliverability – of sites in the spatial growth locations. This is
not a matter to be deferred to the Publication Consultation (this being the final consultation prior to the
SWLP being submitted for examination).
We consider that infrastructure requirements and site capacity be the subject of detailed work prior to any
work progressing on the Publication draft SWLP. The detailed work should be in collaboration with site
promoters so as to bring forward genuinely deliverable site options. The process should be workshop
based, with a Statement of Common Ground prepared for the first workshop meeting and updated for each
subsequent workshop – to get to an agreed position by way of an iterative process. In so doing, the SWLP
can be progressed and put to examination with a suite of completed SoCG’s underpinning each chosen
site within the spatial growth locations, such that the Councils can be confident about the deliverability of
each site and thus the soundness of the SWLP as a whole.

No

ID sylw: 106568

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Muntz

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. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan appears to be very much a long- term vision later in the plan period 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.