No

ID sylw: 106417

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: John Stimpson

Our existing health services are already very over stretched. The traffic congestion is already difficult and will only become much worse with any further development. Road network is poor and our nearest train station is at Morton. We already suffer with severe flooding at Fell Mill Lane (ref 148 and 747).

No

ID sylw: 106419

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Heather Addy

Shipston is already struggling to cope with the influx of residents due to the Campdon Road development. It is wholly irresponsible to build houses without improving the local infrastructure. The existing medical centre cannot cope as it is, the local school is already over subscribed; the bus services to Stratford have recently been reduced and flooding (with leaking sewerage) is a reoccurring issue. Shipston is an attractive and historic town on the edge of the Cotswolds. Further over-development without additional investment in infrastructure will irreparably damage it.

No

ID sylw: 106490

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rachel Hogg

Hello,

I would like to comment on the proposed planning for SG17. I have serious concerns and objections with the proposals for growth within Shipston on Stour for the following reasons:

Local Amenities

I note the proposed plans for Shipston on Stour would increase the number of properties in Shipston by 3,000. There is only ~2,800 households in Shipston today, so this would mean doubling the size of the village. Shipston is already struggling with the current population, for example, the high school is already over-subscribed and does not have a Sixth Form facility, so where will the children from the new houses go to school?

The proposed development also goes over the existing recycling centre, this is an important local facility that improves the environmental impact of the local residents. Without a local recycling centre there is a risk of localised fly tipping.

Employment

There are no significant employment opportunities within Shipston. Shipston is located a fair distance away from major towns and employment hubs meaning new residents would need to be using cars to get to places of work, therefore increasing traffic and pollution. It would be more appropriate to develop sites closer to major towns where previous high streets have been left derelict.

Public Transport

Shipston does not have a train station, nor does it have any regular bus services. This would further increase the traffic within the village as the 3,000 new households would have to be using cars on a daily basis to commute to places of work. The traffic in the village is already a problem, making it quite dangerous to walk around the town centre.


Road Network

The development on Fell Mill site would need to be accessed via a single track bridge at Honington. This bridge is not going to be able to cope with 3,000 households worth of traffic on a daily basis.


Flood Risk

There has already been significant flooding on the proposed Fell Mill site this year (2025)- pictures attached. Over 40% of the proposed Fell Mill Site is in flood zones 2 & 3. Adding further development onto green fields will only increase the flooding as these fields are currently draining off any over run from the River Stour.

Suggestion:

It would be far more appropriate to re-develop areas in towns such as Stratford Upon Avon that have been left abandoned and derelict when businesses and high streets have closed down than to develop green field sites on the outskirts of villages that are already at maximum capacity. This would have a much better impact on the local environment, lower vehicle usage, and encourage more people back into high streets and towns, therefore encouraging economic growth.

No

ID sylw: 106523

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Carolyn Henderson

We would like to register our objections to the proposed local plan particularly in regard to Shipston on Stour where we have lived for 6 years. During that time a number of housing developments have already taken place and the town already is frequently congested because of increased traffic on its tiny streets.

While Shipston currently retains its identity as a small market town, the size of proposed future developments would have a considerable detrimental effect on its appearance, nature and services, the latter of which are already stressed. It is hard to imagine how our excellent GP surgery could possibly cope with hundreds if not thousands more patients, and it is of course already impossible to register with an NHS dentist here. Their list is already full.

Since we don’t have school age children we can’t personally comment on adverse effects in this regard, but common sense tells us – more houses, more children…but more schools?? Highly unlikely. Other public services such as drainage, water supply etc would also be impacted. How would this work?

No

ID sylw: 106530

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rod Moseley

I am a Shipston resident and would like to register my objection to any further new housing development please.

I feel that for a small town with limited services we do not have sufficient infrastructure for further development.

No

ID sylw: 106723

Derbyniwyd: 06/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs David Fitch

Nifer y bobl: 2

We attended separate exhibitions about beds at the Ellen Badger Hospital and hundreds of new homes in Shipston. Both were poorly organised, and had a shortage of knowledgeable staff to interact with the public. Neither exhibition could address their issues comprehensively.

There have been issues with flooding and sewage since the development of 500 homes on the Norgren site because infrastructure needs have not been addressed. Why are there commercial and social areas in the new hospital such as a coffee shop but no beds? There are other places to eat, drink and socialise in the town. The beds are valuable to the community as a stepping stone from hospital and homes. Please come to a sensible conclusion on both schemes.

No

ID sylw: 106764

Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr James Kerr

Objections to Planning at SG17

I am general agreement for government policies promoting more housing, particularly social housing and affordable starter homes. However, I raise objections to the proposal of building 1,600 houses on the Fell Mill site (Ref-148, 747, 552) for several reasons:

1. Employment: Shipston on Stour lacks sufficient local employment, meaning residents would need to commute long distances, primarily by car, which would increase carbon emissions, traffic congestion, and delays. There is no railway station and public transport not fit for purpose.

2. River Stour: The development lies mostly east of the river, with inadequate infrastructure to support the increased traffic. The two existing bridges servicing the site—one narrow and congested on B4035 and at Honington, a grade 2 listed, single-lane bridge—and are totally unsuitable for the potential increase in commuter traffic. A new large, elevated bridge with upgraded roads would be required on the Fell Mill site further complicating and adding vast expense to the development.

3. Flooding: Recent years with advent of global warming and higher rainfall, the area floods several times a year, with the river acting as a large flood plain on the Fell Mill site. The development would exacerbate flooding issues, affecting surrounding areas. Additionally, it will harm precious local riverside habitat and ecosystem. Fell Mill site is within the 3km buffer zone of CNL (AONB) and is part of Feldon National character area.

4. Infrastructure Needs: The massive population increase would overwhelm local infrastructure, such as schools, medical services, sewage, and roads.

I am opposed to the development unless these concerns—related to bridges, flooding, and infrastructure - are properly addressed and paid for.

Other

ID sylw: 106924

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Historic England

Partially within Shipston-on-Stour CA & close to many LBs, including Church of St Edmund (GII*).

Recommend: HIA prior to allocation

No

ID sylw: 107070

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Summary from intro:
Shipston-on-Stour, which is located within the setting of the CNL, has been identified, in the draft SWLP, as a strategic growth location. This includes two large sites on the east side of Shipston, which would bring built development considerably closer to the CNL and which would be clearly visible in views from the CNL.
We recommend that these two sites should not be taken forward, at least not in their entirety.

Full response:
Strategic Growth Location 17 (Shipston-on-Stour Group): Do you agree with the proposed Strategic Growth Location being considered for inclusion within the plan?
No, based on the evidence currently available, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board does not agree with the proposed Strategic Growth Location (SGL) 17 (Shipston-on-Stour Group) being considered for inclusion within the Plan.
The Sustainability Appraisal states:
•The Shipston-on-Stour SGL is likely to impact long-reaching views from the Cotswolds National Landscape. The closest point to of the SGL in the east lies 1.6km from the National Landscape, whilst the southernmost point of the SGL is located approximately 3.2km from the designation. Ebrington Hill is the tallest hill in the Plan area which lies in the south west of the Stratford-on-Avon District with an elevation of 261m. The SGLs in proximity to Ebrington Hill, most namely Shipston-on-Stour, have the potential to impact views from the peak. However, it is worth noting that Shipston-on-Stour is surrounded by built form. Overall, a minor negative impact is expected for Shipston-on-Stour on landscape.
The largest sites within SGL 17 and, therefore, the sites that are likely to be the most visually intrusive, with regards to views from the CNL, are sites RefID 148 and RefID 747, on the eastern side of Shipston-on-Stour, which, together, cover 81ha. RefID 689, which protrudes incongruously into the open countryside on the north side of Shipston-on-Stour, could also have an adverse impact on views from the CNL.
Given the quantum of development proposed for SGL 17, we are also concerned about the potential increase in traffic movements on roads within - and along the boundary of - the CNL.
We recommend that further assessments should be undertaken with regards to:
•the potential impact of SGL 17 on views from (and to) the CNL; and
•the extent to which SGL 17 would increase traffic movements on roads through - and along the boundary of - the CNL.
Overall, we recommend that Sites RefID 148, RefID 747 and RefID 689 should be sifted out.
The other sites within SGL 17 would potentially be acceptable, from a CNL perspective, as they are smaller in scale and more in keeping with the existing settlement pattern.

No

ID sylw: 107212

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs G.C. Tillott

We as residents are completely opposed to the housing plans in and around Shipston-on-Stour particularly to east of town Fell Mill Road development.

The town already lacks infrastructure.

- Doctor's surgery capacity
- Dentists - NHS lack of capacity
- Schools
- Parking in town centre - residents street parking being used by anyone passing by

If all this housing went ahead would more than double the population which town cannot support let alone traffic over Shipston bridge.

No

ID sylw: 107403

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Oxhill Parish Council

There are limited transport links and the proposed improvements will have little or no impact as there are no direct rail links from Shipston, there is a limited bus service, and the roads are already heavily used A roads. Access to the major conurbations e.g. Stratford on Avon, Leamington and Banbury are already heavily congested, particularly at peak times making it lengthy and difficult to access these for employment. Traveling great distances for employment does not meet the principle well- connected, net zero or climate resilient. There is very little employment in SG17 therefore requiring residents to travel for this. There are very few services, the town has 3 small supermarkets which are more expensive than those in the larger towns, not supporting those on lower incomes. The library operates part time. The doctor’s surgery is oversubscribed making it difficult for residents to access basic health care, as yet the hospitals future is undecided, but currently there is no A&E or minor injuries provision that is easily accessible. The high school based in the town currently has no provision for 16+ education which is now a requirement for students of this age requiring them to travel to other schools and colleges usually Chipping Campden, Leamington, Stratford or Banbury, increasing numbers will contribute to the congestions already experienced. Part of the proposed sites sits on the flood plain for the river Stour which passes through the town, it is difficult to see how this can be considered when with heavy rain this see significant flooding. This land also sits a considerable distance for those services that are available in the town and have limited access this being over bridges crossing the Stour which are inaccessible for part of the year due to flooding.

No

ID sylw: 107428

Derbyniwyd: 16/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Moreton Morrell Parish Council

Increased risk to existing flooding issues and sewage infrastructure, lack of rail connectivity.

No

ID sylw: 107484

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Nick Frazer

I wish to register my objections to the proposed housing developments around Shipston on Stour but also and in particular to those on Fell Mill Lane, 747 and 148.

Whilst I understand and support the need to housing to reduce house prices, waiting lists and eradicate homelessness, they need to be in the right place.

Shipston does not have the infrastructure to support many more houses in my view. It will harm the character of the landscape so close to the Cotswold AONB.
Transport links are insufficient including a narrow bridge over the river Stour.
The sites proposed for Fell Mill Lane will only increase traffic over this narrow bridge but also onto single track country lanes. This could potentially increase traffic over the narrow bridge at Honington which, I believe can only take certain weights.
Flooding is an ever more prevalent issue that affects this area.

No

ID sylw: 107485

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Anna Frazer

Objection to the proposed building of houses for sites 148 Fell Mill Lane and 747 Leasow Farm.
Traffic routes are unsafe because of the single track roads (forced off by incoming traffic), potholes, titled decaying camber and edges. The alternate route uses the historic Honington Bridge. There is no way that these two routes can sustain any more traffic whatsoever. The narrow bridge at Shipston is suffering too.

Both routes flood frequently. Any building would be susceptible to flooding and possibly instability as a result.

The “Honington Loop” and Shakespeare Way are extremely popular with walkers, runners, dog owners, cyclists, families with children on a country walk along the edge of this area of natural beauty less than 3km from the Cotswolds AONB -which surely is within the buffer zone? To take away this amenity from Shipston residents would be a travesty.
There are not enough school places and doctors and dentists are struggling to cope as it is. There is very limited public transport nearby.
In one sentence: The infrastructure cannot bear any more development.
Please register my objections.

No

ID sylw: 107782

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Yates

Objection to Strategic Growth Location SG17

Shipston has been subject to more than its fair share of new housing in recent years - there are however a large number of other reasons why I cannot support this location:

> Supporting infrastructure and services are already under extreme pressure
> The schools are already oversubscribed and Shipston High does not have a sixth form so students would need to travel out of the area to be able to go to sixth form
> Health services are inadequate for the population. The medical centre is struggling and the hospital is being scaled back with beds taken away
> Proposed land includes the waste and recycling centre, which is proposed to be taken away, further reducing facilities available in Shipston
> Land proposed regularly floods. Further development on this area would exacerbate flooding problems in the area and push problems downstream
> Shipston has no train station and has inadequate bus and other public transport services - development of this size would encourage massive extra car use and the local roads are not ready for this. The roads in Shipston are already struggling to cope with the volume of traffic and it would be essential to use the car to commute to work.
>Major commuter routes are at least 15 miles away
>The sewerage system is already over capacity - sewage leaks are common and there appears little appetite to improve this.
>Shipston town centre is small, with limited parking. The character of the town would be destroyed with such a development. The volume of traffic using the historic bridge to access already stretched local services would massively increase.

Shipston cannot cope with further development, especially something of this proposed scale, without significant investment in infrastructure and services.

No

ID sylw: 107895

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Richard Adams

I object to housing development in Shipston. Most of the land identified is unsuitable. There will be flooding issues on all land east of the River Stour. The fields have always flooded. This is worsening due to climate change and increasing rainfall. Recent action has allowed the Stour to accommodate more water than previously but the water level rises rapidly during heavy rain and it floods car parks etc close to the old Mill Hotel. Even if the Stour could accommodate extra water it passes this towards Stratford where it joins the Avon. Hundreds more houses will worsen the situation hugely.

Shipston is close to the Cotswold AONB.

Land to the west off Shoulderway Lane should not have been included. Planning Application 15/01478/FUL for 106 dwellings was REFUSED! Read the reasons for refusal and they still apply. Some of the reasons for refusal also apply to land east of the Stour, namely access to Shipston. For cars, the B4035 enters Shipston via a narrow, fragile bridge. Additional traffic would endanger pedestrians. The only alternative is an even narrower and totally unsuitable bridge over the Stour at Honington. People prefer to use their cars even if regular buses are provided. I don't believe they would be.

Additional infrastructure promised following recent large housing developments is still not fully in place. What assurance would the town have of sufficient provision if these 1600 new houses were built? I believe for planning purposes every new dwelling is calculated to produce 2.2 children. 1600 homes therefore require 3520 extra school places. The medical centre is already over capacity. The only NHS dentist is full and won't take further patients.

Shipston has no railway access and limited bus services. New residents will clog up the roads driving to access services elsewhere and go to work. Only limited employment is available in the town. Shipston's Household Waste Site is currently being considered for closure by WCC. There would be fly-tipping if 1600 new houses are built.

The solution if one must be found in the extreme south of the District is to focus on Long Marston.

No

ID sylw: 108024

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Nikkinmike Greengoodbourn

oppose all future large housing developments in Shipston
Below is a brief summary of my objections:
1/ Flood Risk: Shipston is a high flood-risk area, with frequent flooding events in and around the town centre. Could homes built on the land around Shipston be uninsurable?
2/Schools are at full capacity and do not have sixth-form facilities.
3/Healthcare resources are inadequate, with long GP appointment waiting times and very long distances to a hospital
4/The central gyratory system clogs frequently as soon as here is a hold up, due to the size of the roads and mutually dependant giveaway junctions - quite often the whole town stalls while the bus is at the bus stop. Very little parking available to access town centre amenities.
5/Minimal public transport options for residents to travel to other areas, leading to more congestion and CO2 production.
6/Very little employment opportunities in Shipston - so more people will have to travel out of town.

No

ID sylw: 108148

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: jo sweby

I am objecting to further development in Shipston, particularly on the land out of town on the Brailes Road and towards Honington, for a number of reasons.

Shipston does not have the infrastructure for this level of development (schools, Doctor, hospital, parking in town etc).

Some of this land is prone to flooding, already a serious problem for Shipston and only like to be exacerbated by further building.

Consider the amount of new houses built in Shipston over the last few years and please do not proceed with these developments. The town cannot sustain such growth.

No

ID sylw: 108202

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Paul Weston

Shipston on Stour is a very historic and traditional Cotswold town which has had no real investment in its infrastructure consequently it is already on the limit of its functional capability. The town has seen massive overdevelopment and it cannot sustain any more. It is my opinion therefore that absolutely no more building of residential properties should be allowed within its boundaries.

Yes

ID sylw: 108363

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

3.11 Part of the ‘Draft Policy Direction 1 – Meeting South Warwickshire’s Sustainable
Development’ focuses on Strategic Growth Locations’ [SGLs]. The PO document has
identified twenty-four areas as locations for potential strategic growth, however, it is
acknowledged that not all of those locations will be allocated.
3.12 The PO document has identified SG17 as comprising land to the east of Shipston on Stour.
Mackenzie Miller Homes is highly supportive of the SG17 (Shipston-on-Stour) which would
enable the delivery of development on non-Green Belt land and in a sustainable location
adjacent to the centre of the town.
3.13 It is noted that the Interim Sustainability Appraisal [SA] for Regulation 18 SWLP assesses
the SGLs against each of the 13 SA Objectives and that currently, all assessments are based
on a desktop review of available data provided by the SWCs and information publicly
available about receptors and sources. The SA specifically does not include potential
mitigation within the assessments for each of the sites and which Mackenzie Miller Homes
would suggest will need to be factored in as part of a stage 2 assessment as the Council’s
moves towards a Regulation 19 Local Plan.
3.14 Based on the SA conclusions, SG17 performs well compared to the other twenty-four SGLs
in terms of best and worst-performing sites.
3.15 Mackenzie Miller Homes highlights that SG17 is one of the best performing in SA Objective
10: Health. Shipston-on-Stour SGL is expected to result in positive impacts on access to
leisure and greenspaces.
3.16 In addition, SG17 is also one of the best-performing sites in SA Objective 11: Accessibility.
Shipston-on-Stour SGL is in close proximity to existing food stores, and bus stops and lies
within Priority Area 2. In this respect, SG17 will deliver development immediately adjacent
to the town centre and will enable the creation of a 20 minute neighbourhood concept
where all of the day to day needs of residents are available within a short walk or cycle. 3.17 Whilst Mackenzie Miller Homes notes that the Site does not perform particularly high in SA
Objective 2: Flood Risk it is considered that these matters are resolvable through
appropriate mitigation – indeed, as stated within the SA: “Mitigation has not been
considered when ranking the SGLs, given the options requiring less intervention are likely
to be more sustainable choices.” Indeed, the supporting Vision Document demonstrates
that no development would be located in areas susceptible to flood risk.
3.18 Mackenzie Miller Homes fully support the proposition that greater development should be
located adjacent to existing urban centres and consider that there are several benefits to
such an approach being adopted within the SWC’s strategy for accommodating growth as
this would; :
1 It would support the well-being of those settlements that have the capacity to
accommodate growth;
2 By concentrating development around existing and proposed new infrastructure, it
would also ensure that it benefits from a sustainable location with good access, such as
at SG17. Such an approach would allow the SWAs to capitalise on opportunities
presented by existing or planned infrastructure when considering options for largescale
new residential developments, in accordance with paragraph 77a of the NPPF;
3 It can ensure that a sufficient supply of homes, within close proximity to existing and
future employment opportunities, such as those at Shipston on Stour, contributes to an
efficiently functioning economy. This can also aid in minimising housing market
pressures and unsustainable levels of commuting (and therefore congestion and carbon
emissions); and
4 Similar to the above, this also has the added benefit of minimising housing market
pressures and unsustainable levels of commuting (and therefore congestion and carbon
emissions).
3.19 Indeed, paragraph 83 of the NPPF is clear that planning policies should identify
opportunities for communities to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local
service. Directing growth to existing settlements supports local services and also ensures
development is located sustainably in line with the NPPF (Para 11a). Existing settlements
often have access to education, healthcare, retail, jobs, and public transport, and should
therefore, be considered as ideal locations for growth. Further growth can also broaden the
scope for these settlements to seek improvements to services and infrastructure, helping to
address imbalances between the rural and urban areas in terms of provision and access to
facilities.

Potential at Land at Fell Mill and Leasow Farm,
Shipston-on-Stour
3.20 SG17 has been identified as one of the SGLs outside of the Green Belt within the South
Warwickshire Local Plan Green Belt Review Stage 1 Report (September 2024). It is noted
that, unlike many other SGLs within the District, the settlement of Shipston-on-Stour is not
surrounded by, nor within, the Green Belt, which creates an opportunity for the settlement
to accommodate higher levels of growth without requiring the release of Green Belt land.
3.21 Mackenzie Miller Homes considers that it is essential that the Council adopts a sequential
approach when considering land allocations for development where non-Green Belt sites should be prioritised for housing development before any consideration is given to the
release of Green Belt land.
3.22 The revised NPPF provides a sequential framework for Green Belt land release. Paragraph
148 states that “Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans
should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt land which in
not previously developed, and then other Green Belt Locations.”
3.23 Mackenzie Miller Homes believes that the Council should first identify and prioritise non-
Green Belt sites, including sites such as land at Fell Mill and Leasow Farm, Shipston-on-
Stour. It is considered that such an approach is fundamentally required by the NPPF, and
once this sequential approach has been satisfied, the Council can then release land from the
Green Belt.
3.24 The SWCs will also be aware of the importance of demonstrating the deliverability of all
sites that are proposed for allocation when the emerging Local Plan is examined for
soundness. The Vision for the Site will be predicated upon evidence which ensures that
there are no unresolvable environmental or technical constraints to the development of the
Site.
3.25 In addition to this, the SWC’s can be confident that the Site could be delivered in the
timescales envisaged and could begin delivering in the first five years of the plan period.
3.26 Mackenzie Miller Homes will directly deliver new housing and as such there would be no
need for the Site to be sold prior to seeking planning permission and commencing
housebuilding.
3.27 This further demonstrates the deliverability of the Site. If allocated, it is considered the Site
could be developed in the short-medium term. In this regard, Annex 2 of the NPPF states
that to be considered deliverable, “sites for housing should be available now, offer a
suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that
housing will be delivered on the site within five years.” In this regard, Mackenzie Miller
Homes can confirm that the Site is ‘suitable, available and achievable’.
3.28 Furthermore, the town itself offers many services and facilities, which support the local
community. Conveniently accessible by public transport or on foot, these include – Tesco
and other convenience stores, post office, cafés, restaurants, pubs, takeaways, pharmacy, a
leisure centre and many other facilities. The settlement is also served by Shipston-on-Stour
Primary School and Shipston High School.
3.29 The Illustrative Masterplan (within the appended Vision Document in Appendix 1) shows
its capacity to support residential development that aligns with the settlement’s character
and addresses both local and wider rural housing needs.
3.30 In this regard, the Vision Document (Appendix 1), submitted in support of these
representations, demonstrates how the Site could deliver a medium-sized sustainable
development of up to 1,150 new market and affordable homes. Mackenzie Miller Homes
vision for the site would focus on delivery of five key themes to include;
Place making- a landscape led approach
• Potential for delivery of a new bridge across the River Stour;
• Provision of a riverside park, public open space, and play areas for children will provide
opportunities for social interactions. Additionally, creating a central green focal point
within the new centre of Shipston-on-Stour will further enhance community cohesion
and provide a vibrant, accessible space for local people to gather and engage in various
activities.
Community and Social Facilities
• Provision of a local centre;
• Provision of a 2FE Primary School; and
• An 80-bed care facility.
Active Travel
• 20-minute walkable neighbourhood;
• Provision of green pedestrian and cycle lane connections; and
• Easy access to local services and facilities, including the proposed local centre within
the site.
Biodiversity Net Gain
• Delivery of at least 10% biodiversity net gain, with the potential to exceed this target
due to the size and arable nature of the site. Additionally, opportunities to enhance the
waterway will be explored to further improve biodiversity net gain; and
• Habitat creation and improvements to hedgerow and the tree stock.
Energy Efficiency and Towards Carbon Neutrality
• Delivery of energy efficient homes and potential use of renewable energy.
• Eliminate the use of gas boilers and utilisation of high-efficiency electric heating
systems such as heat pumps.
3.31 The Site would include for delivery of a 2FE Primary School, a small local centre
incorporating community facilities, public open space, play areas for children, including a
locally equipped area for play (LEAP), natural green and blue spaces and riverside. The Site
also provides an opportunity for a c.80 bed care facility. In addition, pedestrian and cycle
lanes would be provided throughout the Site to promote active travel, along with the
potential for a new river crossing to enable access to the town centre.
3.32 Mackenzie Miller Homes considers that the Site presents a logical location for residential
development, outside of the Green Belt, that would support the sustainable growth of
Shipston-on-Stour and strongly believes that SG17 should be allocated for housing
development in the SWLP to help address the SWC’s housing needs, as well as the unmet
need from the neighbouring authorities.