Yes

ID sylw: 100192

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Daniel Newington

Not on Green Belt.

Yes

ID sylw: 100301

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Deborah Carter

New development should focus on previously developed sites, not destroy protected Green Belt land. Urban and repurposed areas already have infrastructure in place, preventing additional strain on roads, schools, and healthcare. These locations are also closer to transport links and jobs, making them more sustainable. Using non-Green Belt land prevents irreversible environmental harm, safeguards biodiversity, and preserves important landscapes. It also protects communities from urban sprawl and helps to prevent flooding. By focusing on these sites, new housing can be delivered in a responsible way—without sacrificing the countryside or placing unbearable pressure on already stretched local services.

Yes

ID sylw: 100387

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Aimee Carter

New housing should be developed on land that has already been built on, not on protected Green Belt land. Urban areas and brownfield sites already have the infrastructure to support new developments, reducing the pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare.
Building in non-Green Belt areas also means:
• Less environmental damage and better protection for wildlife.
• More sustainable transport options, reducing long commutes and carbon emissions.
• Preventing towns and villages from merging and losing their unique identities.
• Reducing flood risks caused by overdevelopment.
Destroying the Green Belt isn’t the answer—there are much better options available.

Yes

ID sylw: 100598

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Support housing development on non-green belt land.

Yes

ID sylw: 100719

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Doug Wallace

Bidford would need a major road improvement to cope with any additional developments.

No

ID sylw: 100804

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Keith Waitt

Proposed growth is in an area of high visual impact and between two non-service villages. The land is currently actively farmed and the land is Grade 1 & 2 agricultural land. All plans are within 25 metres of rural listed buildings.
There is a significant lack of sustainable travel options:
- no train station or railway lines in the area.
- no active bus service.
- very narrow country lanes
-no pavements on most local roads for pedestrians
-A46 is the nearest trunk road but is single lane carriageway in our area with no MoT plans to widen.
-

No

ID sylw: 100967

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Jeremy bradbeer

Extending the developed area of Ardens and Temple Grafton by even a small percentage of the 19 hectare would swamp the villages, destroy the amenity of the conservation areas and add to the unacceptable traffic movements over the narrow lanes, already used as a rat run increasing the hazards of the Billesley Junction on A46. The Graftons are non Service villages with few amenities or public transport.
Extending Bidford North toward the Graftons to such a degree would again overload the already stretched services, spoil the amenity of the area, and defeat many of the Strategic Objectives of the Plan

No

ID sylw: 101260

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Kathryn Bellamy

In drawing up this plan what consideration has been given to :-

Conservation of historic villages
Environment and Wildlife
Education of Children
Medical Facilities
Flood defences if flood plain is compromised
Transport and Road system
Infrastructure

Yes

ID sylw: 101359

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Strategic Land - South of Avon Way, Bidford-on-Avon

Asiant : Marrons

As per the Preferred Options , “the majority of the SWLP’s strategic growth needs will be met within the priority areas 1 – 3”. The entirety of the Site south of Avon Way is within Priority Growth Areas.

70% of Site ID 473 is within Priority Area 2 of the Spatial Growth Strategy, with the remainder located within Priority Area 3. Land south of Avon Way adjoins a Priority 1 area.

Bellway Strategic Land agree with the proposed strategic growth location identified at Bidford-on-Avon (SG20) and would respectfully ask that land south of Avon Way, Bidford-on-Avon is allocated under SG20.

No

ID sylw: 101788

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Pauline James

SG20 is disproportionate to Bidford on Avon and is poorly conceived. Productive arable land and some horticultural land would be lost. Recent expansion was low density. Closer to the A46, small pockets of development are possible at densities of 160 dwellings per hectare to suit early career people aged 20-40.

River Avon and Small Brook are known to flood yet SG20 plans for houses there. I attach a www.getthedata.com map of flood risks. The floods on the River Avon are likely to worsen since because SWLP would increase runoff due to increased hard surface areas in the River Avon catchment.

Yes

ID sylw: 101974

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Peter Drew Contracts Ltd

Asiant : RCA Regeneration

Our client owns a site within SG20 and supports its proposed allocation as a Strategic Growth Location.

No

ID sylw: 102040

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Colin Peirce

The area does not provide for greater development due to limited educational provision, job opportunities, medical and health care provision for increased population, public transportation, and road capacity. Plus damage to the environment and infringement of beautiful countryside in the vicinity of the River Avon.

No

ID sylw: 102086

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr NICHOLAS MOBERLEY

SG20 & REFID16 are not sustainable in terms of:
- No effective public transport
- The proposed areas are surrounded by a network of narrow country lanes, where two cars passing is often difficult.
- Any developments would further impinge on the single lane A46 from oversley to Stratford, this road is already unable to
effectively cater for peak traffic, there are already numerous accidents occuring.
- there is insufficent schooling, employment and services in the area to support any significant expansion.
- the area comprises of historic/listed buildings/conservation all not sutied to this plan.

No

ID sylw: 102116

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr NICHOLAS MOBERLEY

The proposal is completely unsustainable in terms of surrounding road networks already being choked, country lanes already being used as 'rat runs', crime in the area is at an all time high and policing is cleary struggling to protect residents, there are no train networks to support such large scale developemnt, utility services are already struggling, secondary schooling is not available, the nearest hopsitals are all oversubcribed, buses are minimal, employment opportunities scarce.

Yes

ID sylw: 102558

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Phoebe Withnall

SG20 is a more suitable site for development because it is outside the Green Belt, meaning its inclusion will not contribute to the loss of protected countryside.

Yes

ID sylw: 102590

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Andrews

Development on non-green belt land should be prioritised over development on green belt. Total housing needs can be met without developing on green belt so morally not right to remove green belt without exceptional cause.
These areas are better supported with existing infrastructure and transport network without requiring major investment on more remote, less connected areas.
The opportunity in terms of yield is higher in these areas so there is a duty to fulfil the housing needs in the most responsible way considering this and the green belt obligations.

Yes

ID sylw: 102705

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Deeley Homes Dean Weldon

Deeley Homes supports the inclusion of SG20 as a location for Strategic Growth. This represents a logical extension of the village and avoids the areas of high traffic volume and flood risk in the proximity of the Stratford Road & Honeybourne Road, with a particular emphasis on the bridge over the River Avon. Deeley Homes also controls additional land in this location which has been incorrectly excluded from the boundary of SG20 – we support the ‘rounding off’ of this parcel to reflect the land within our control and have submitted a call for sites form on this basis.

Yes

ID sylw: 102743

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Liz Churchill

As a general rule, I would prefer to see non Green-belt sites being used.

Other

ID sylw: 102841

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Bidford - on - Avon (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has very high capacity constraints and medium environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. To accommodate growth at this site, extensive wastewater treatment works upgrades would be required. Overall this development site is considered a high risk location.

Yes

ID sylw: 102945

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Richborough - Salford Road, Bidford-on-Avon

Asiant : Turley

Support for SG20 and additional site information

Yes

ID sylw: 103331

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Keith Allan

If the construction of new houses is to proceed, it is more appropriate to construct on non-Green Belt land.

Yes

ID sylw: 103496

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carol Jones

Support strategic growth locations on non-greenbelt land.

No

ID sylw: 103534

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

SG20 Bidford-on-Avon: Bidford has suffered from loalised sprawl northwards for several decades. There has not been a coherent plan that sets limits to the village's expansion; in each Local Plan more housing is added. SG20 would perpetuate this pattern. It would also add housing areas to the east of Bidford, extending almost as far as the conservation village of Ardens Grafton to the NE. Bidford is not a sustainable location for major development, with one bus service (Stratford-Evesham).
Small sites on the north and west of Bidford to meet local need and provide social rented housing should be included.

No

ID sylw: 103541

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

Impact on the River Avon LWS must be avoided. Wildlife corridors should be maintained.

Yes

ID sylw: 103575

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

Because of its proximity to the A46, Bidford is a candidate for expansion, provided that proper infrastructure is provided in advance of any house building. Its medieval bridge should be protected.

No

ID sylw: 103604

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Daniel Bartley

Our objections (particularly the proposals to land between Grafton Lane and Georges Elm Lane in Bidford On Avon):

- Infrastructure capacity - Sewage systems are all on septic tanks in this area and there is no systems in place for additional houses. The work involved to install sufficient infrastructure would cause unnecessary damage to the environment. Changing road systems would cause major impact to nature.
- Agricultural land - the land is currently used for farming and removing this would further reduce the UK's future food security (which is already under pressure).
- Bidford is serviced by one Medieval bridge.

Yes

ID sylw: 103799

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Steve Churchill

I believe that all new development should be made only on Non Green Belt or Brown Field sites.

No

ID sylw: 103806

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Scott Haberton

Bidford has a deficit of facilities, and is one of the fastest growing settlements in warwickshire. 46% over 20 years.
It has poor infrastructure, limited schools in the area, and is becoming more and more deprived of culture.

If developed it needs to be sensitively, or brought up to proper specification. It cannot be the bigger brother of Alcester with zero facilties.

[Additional comments via email]:
Over the past twenty years, Bidford-on-Avon has nearly doubled in size. This rapid growth has highlighted both our limited infrastructure (schools, healthcare, transport) and our minimal local employment and retail opportunities. At the same time, our community is known for its quiet, rural character—an identity I feel we should maintain, even as we expand. In my view, new development need not be solely residential; it can also bring in shops, workplaces, and services if we plan carefully.

1. Balancing Infrastructure and Housing

· Schools: I believe any major housing development should include clear commitments toward local school capacity—whether through direct financial contributions or the creation/expansion of facilities. We must ensure children aren’t forced to travel long distances for secondary education.

2. Fostering Retail and Employment

· Retail Revitalization: I support the idea of including retail space in certain housing projects or encouraging new shops in the village centre. This would boost footfall and local spending.

· Light Industry and Offices: If we identify areas near the A46 corridor for carefully planned commercial or light industrial use, we can reduce commuting distances and create local jobs—enhancing Bidford’s economic resilience.

3. Transport and Connectivity

· Footpath Mandate: A topic I’m personally passionate about is requiring new and improved footpaths in every development. Planned, Continuous, well-maintained footpaths encourage walking, reduce congestion, and reinforce our village’s friendly character.

4. Preserving Bidford’s Identity

· Green Corridors: I believe developers should allocate green spaces, parks, and wildlife corridors in new estates—helping us remain a “quiet place with a nice environment” while welcoming growth.

· Design Standards: Period styling, or at least thoughtful architecture, can complement Bidford’s heritage. I recommend ensuring that new builds blend with our existing village aesthetic, thereby preserving the charm that defines our community.

5. Phased and Enforceable Development

· Infrastructure First: To prevent the pitfalls we’ve seen elsewhere, I suggest that housing occupancy be tied to specific milestones (e.g., new classrooms built, GP capacity increased, footpaths completed).

· Clear Oversight: I would welcome regular reviews, so that each development phase meets its obligations before progressing. This helps protect our existing residents from sudden, unplanned strains on local services.


Conclusion

I believe we can preserve Bidford-on-Avon’s quiet environment while seizing the opportunities that come with careful, balanced development—expanding local retail, jobs, and infrastructure in a way that truly benefits our residents. Any future developments must be contingent on the phased deployment of facilities, to overcome our current deficit.

Yes

ID sylw: 103993

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Nicola Sawle

non green belt with road links

No

ID sylw: 104189

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Amanda Waters

Difficult to see how additional residents could get to employment areas easily as there is not a great deal of employment in the surrounding area and no public transport links.