Yes

Representation ID: 96691

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Janet Gee

All roads should be safe cycle routes as part of infrastructure development , as this would meet a number of your strategic objectives.

No

Representation ID: 96728

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Nicola meldrum

West Midlands Railway struggle to provide a reliable service as it is. Roads are already congested. Just don't see how the local infrastructure will cope.

Other

Representation ID: 96822

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) believes that this Policy Direction should specifically state at the start that appropriate infrastructure must be delivered before or with development.
All development must identify necessary infrastructure early in the process.

Other

Representation ID: 96937

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

in the SWLP Strategic Transport and Education Assessment October 2024 it states that for BW the transport options would be challenging and costly
Not viable as the roads surrounding BW eg Featherbed Lane and the A3400 will not cope with the extra traffic. There are traffic bottlenecks now without the proposed increase in traffic.
Any changes to these roads to accommodate extra traffic will be extremely expensive and will impinge on Green Belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 97109

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 97243

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

Although I support the words, there is little evidence that any attempt has been made in recent developments to improve public transport, particularly bus services, so words alone will not do. But where do the funds come from?

Other

Representation ID: 97328

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy White

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 97369

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments acknowledge and accept that all new development must provide appropriate on and off-site infrastructure. However, it is contended that the level of infrastructure should be relevant and proportionate to the development being considered by the Local Planning Authority. Requests for contributions should be based on evidence otherwise this can have negative consequences relating to viability and therefore affect the deliverability of development.

No

Representation ID: 97456

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

Infrastructure requirements for the new settlements should be identified sooner rather than later so it is known what is required and that it is deliverable.

Other

Representation ID: 97556

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

It must be ensured from the otset of new develoment that adequate infrastructure such as schools, shops, public transport will be available for expaned populations

No

Representation ID: 97579

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Toni Sharp

NO

Yes

Representation ID: 97705

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: William Davis Limited

Agent: 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

Representation ID: 97804

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Transport requirements for all proposed settlement sites must be identified but assessment has not been carried out.
SWLP Strategic Transport & Education Assessment October 2024 concludes that for BW transport options would be challenging and costly.

No

Representation ID: 97927

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Thomas Maccoy

This area of sg06 is of exceptional natural English picturesque beauty of which is becoming rare to find and with all the arguments for developing it really we should be aware that it is an irreversible act to destroy such natural beauty and the benefits of preserving it are so rich to our health that we should be ashamed devopment is even being considered. We must not make hastily decisions in response to demands put upon us by powers that do not know our land in person. I know this land and have a passion to love and save it.

Other

Representation ID: 97975

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: E Innes

The scale of propsed site B1 will have a negative impact on the local areas infrastructure and result in worsening outcomes for existing residents. Proximity of B1 to Hatton Station appears a good strategic move but being north of Warwick Parkway, Warwick and Leamington Spa will result in fewer seats available on trains to London - likewise trains to Birmingham are already full during peak times, being overwhelmed by new housing at Hatton. Train capacity is not something that can be scaled inline with additional development proposals.

No

Representation ID: 98053

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jake Salmon

I fundamentally disagree with this approach and do not understand the need for delivery so far south of Warwick and Leamington Spa. This delivery should be focused on edge of dwelling improving and enhanced well established and already well connected areas.

No

Representation ID: 98241

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

Other

Representation ID: 98260

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

There are issues with the manner that S106/S278/CIL monies are assessed and applied. Healthcare, emergency services, education, and green and blue infrastructure provision are inadequate and could not support an increased population in Shipston-on-Stour. The frequency and severity of river and surface water flooding is increasing. Water supply is subject to leaks and failures due to the age of pipes.

There are fundamental flaws with IDP Section 4.7.2.4 Water supply and Sewerage. Developers are responsible to their site boundary and connection to the adopted sewer network and then Severn Trent is responsible for the network and treatment works. There are many examples of new development overloading the existing network leading to surface and foul water flooding downstream.

There is reason to question the validity of the IDP. One example places the Portabello Crossroads in Shipston as still being a future project. It was completed in full some three years ago. The document cannot be trusted as evidence.

Yes

Representation ID: 98359

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

Although we support the words, there is little evidence that any attempt has been made in recent developments to improve public transport, particularly bus services, so words alone will not do. But where do the funds come from?

No

Representation ID: 98409

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

"Once finalised, the IDP will include an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule for each district that provides details of specific infrastructure requirements identified in the Local Plan. 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."

Important points 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?

Other

Representation ID: 98472

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

The IDP cannot be trusted. It appears to be out of date. For example, the Portabello Crossroads is listed as a future project (4.8 in the South Warwickshire LOCAL PLAN Part 1). This was completed some three years ago and has been fully operational for years. There is no telling what other errors are embedded in this document.

Other

Representation ID: 98517

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr THOMAS RASTALL

Put infrastructure in place before building new houses.

If you know there will be X number of houses and new residents, make sure the schools, doctors, road network etc can all cope with the influx of new residents BEFORE they move in.

Yes

Representation ID: 98671

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: X2 New Settlement Consortium

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The Consortium agree with the approach set out and will work alongside the West Midlands Rail Executive, Warwickshire County Council and both District Council’s to gain a thorough understanding of the infrastructure required for the New Settlement.

The SWCs must acknowledge that for New Settlements, infrastructure may not be set out in strategies or plans due to their position within the planning process. Infrastructure for New Settlements should follow the outcomes of assessments and discussions with statutory bodies, alongside prepared strategies.

Yes

Representation ID: 98702

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

Roads and transport improvements are a pre-requisite to any development in South Warwickshire which largely has an hopelessly out-of-date system that can not cope now. Stratford-Upon-Avon must have a proper southern by-pass befor4e any further housing development is even considered.

No

Representation ID: 98753

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Roger Shimmin

Infrastructure requirements must be met in advance or concurrent with any housing development. Where this requires a contribution from the developers, past experience has shown that there has been a reluctance to fulfil their responsibility and for major infrastructure requiring council/government contribution a change of priorities can lead to ghost town developments.

No

Representation ID: 98764

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helena Foreman

New infrastructure should be the result of a clear defined strategy that has been informed by expert advice and modelling. Infrastructure should be committed and delivered in advance or at the same time that development is brought forward. Existing communities should benefit from new infrastructure at the outset of new development commencing not at the end and to this end developers should be required to pay S.106 payments or deliver the necessary infrastructure at the commencement of development not 6, 12,18 months after development commences.

Other

Representation ID: 98808

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council

The draft policy is not explicit enough. New development should only be allowed to commence once the necessary supporting infrastructure has been agreed, funded and planned for. Development should then take place at a parallel timescale to housing development and not kicked into the long grass.
There is a genuine risk that new development at the scale required will overload or overlook infrastructure requirements. This is therefore perhaps the most important policy of all and should therefore be clear and watertight.

Yes

Representation ID: 98933

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Group (Stratford District councillors)

I agree with the approach. It is vital that infrastructure is put in place alongside development and should not be held back until the end of projects.

No

Representation ID: 98966

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: (1) AG Family Trust 2024 & (2) N. Holdsworth

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

"Once finalised, the IDP will include an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule for each district that provides details of specific infrastructure requirements identified in the Local Plan. 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."

Important points 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

Representation ID: 98996

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

Whilst we support the objectives of Draft Policy Direction 5 in principle, it must be ensured that all contributions are CIL compliant.

Stoneleigh Park and the Kingswood Business Park are being promoted as large scale strategic employment sites through the plan making process. These sites will deliver significant new infrastructure that will not only facilitate the development of the proposed employment land, but also have wider benefits. The proposed link road through Stoneleigh Park and Kingswood Business Park would act as a bypass for Stoneleigh Village which would be of significant benefit of the proposed scheme.