Yes

Representation ID: 86008

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kate Harris

This is an area of policy that has to be strongly asserted and enforced; local flooding is becoming an unwelcome regular occurrence

Yes

Representation ID: 86100

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

The existing blue infrastructure in Henley-in-Arden, including waste and fluvial systems, is outdated, in poor condition, and at times of heavy rainfall is unable to cope with the demand.

Other

Representation ID: 86164

Received: 13/01/2025

Respondent: Susan Archer

It is not only flood risk on land which is to be developed but risk to villages surrounding any development. Those villages already having flood risk are suffering from development which results in water run off . Also sewers do not have capacity to cope with extra development.

Other

Representation ID: 86322

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Chandler

Again, the consideration of existing residents and the impacts of new developments needs to be at the heart of any planning decision. The area adjacent to Site C1 is already at increased risk of flooding and any new developments would continue to impact. Approving this site without significant additional assessment and significant levels of utilities investment would be tantamount to gross negligence.

Yes

Representation ID: 86338

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Noel Davis

It is becoming apparent that we can expect wetter periods in the future. Areas thta lie on clay soils are prone to surface water flooding. This needs to be carefully considered during planning assesments

Yes

Representation ID: 86473

Received: 26/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs vivien bryer

Good.

Yes

Representation ID: 86682

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Increased flood risk is now inevitable and historic flood levels are no long an adequate guide to future flood risks. All development must take this fully into account.

Yes

Representation ID: 86740

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr john cooknell

The level 1 SFRA should use the updated data from New National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) ‘Risk of flooding from rivers and sea’ and ‘Risk of flooding from surface water’ data..
There are significant changes to the areas at risk of flooding.

Yes

Representation ID: 86757

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Dane

There needs to be a policy for who owns and maintains buffer strips alongside water courses. We have seen too many drainage ditches disappear as people seek to extend their gardens or build sheds on buffer zones, often not understanding the need for ditches etc.. It needs to be in the deeds of the property and for the local authority to keep information on them.

Yes

Representation ID: 86791

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr john cooknell

The main data sources that the SFRA uses are being updated and revised during the consultation period. This revision by the EA is significant.
Changes to flood and coastal erosion risk information
The Environment Agency is publishing new national risk information for flooding and coastal erosion. This includes future scenarios accounting for climate change.

This guidance provides information on these important changes and our phased approach to publication.

We have published:

28 January 2025: New National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) ‘Risk of flooding from rivers and sea’ and ‘Risk of flooding from surface water’ data.

No

Representation ID: 86930

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Existing development is badly affected by flooding. The last thing we need is any more development

Yes

Representation ID: 87078

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

Makes sense

Yes

Representation ID: 87175

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Bryan Hay

I agree with the proposed approach and hope it will be rigorously applied.

Yes

Representation ID: 87242

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Howarth

Agree with policy to prioritise building on low risk areas as it is devastating when flooding occurs. However, I feel there should be investigations into developments where the potential could be to cause extra capacity issues further downstream or within urban areas where the capacity of existing draining is overrun

No

Representation ID: 87273

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Parry

Don't know where else to put it, but areas that regular flood in heavy rain need sorting and fixing eg Kings Coughton, Coughton, Studley, Sambourne. Climate change, and more housing developments, will only make existing problems worse.

Yes

Representation ID: 87375

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Bryony Dinnie

Action must be takken to reduce flood risk

Yes

Representation ID: 87410

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

Yes

Representation ID: 87590

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I agree

Yes

Representation ID: 87668

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Enness

The detail seems thorough

Yes

Representation ID: 88426

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Maurice Stokes

The Bearley/Wilmcote site floods regularly during heavy rain, the topographic of the land fall to the railway line on the western boundary. A series of modified ditches have been formed through agricultural use to make the field viable for farming. Covering this area with roofs, roads and driver ways will over load these ditches, cause local flooding and subsidence of the railway. SUDs are not a viable option as the ground is predominantly heavy clay overlying a layer of Wilmcote stone.

Yes

Representation ID: 88515

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Annette Pharo

Wilmcote has heavy clay soil and the areas proposed for development are flooded frequently as are the surrounding villages and roads including the A3400 during heavy rainfall. The intensive development proposed here will exacerbate and increase the area of land flooded as the fields are already struggling to hold the water. Flooding will become worse at Wilmcote railway station and neighbouring villages such as Aston Cantlow.

Yes

Representation ID: 88733

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Agree in principle but avoid developing on existing flood plains per se.

Other

Representation ID: 89069

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

No development should take place in flood zones. Properly designed arrangements must be installed to prevent surface water and flash flooding. Note must be taken of intensively arable fields where water runoff and washed soil are particular problems

Yes

Representation ID: 89205

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzanna Hughes

New development should be prioritised in areas of lowest flood risk. Turning green field into urbanareas increases flood risk, greybelt/brown field land should be prioritised over greenfield and farmland for development

Other

Representation ID: 89350

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Durk

This should be completely obvious, but still we see houses built in flood prone areas. In the SWLP a number of developments are proposed for flood zones 2 or 3. SG08 looks like it is about 50% in flood zone. SG18 encloses flood zone. A1 and A2 both have flood zone within them. SG23 appears to be bounded by flood zone. This list is not exhaustive.

Yes

Representation ID: 89480

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

No further comment

Yes

Representation ID: 89508

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Cara Vanessa Nuhn

I agree that new development should be prioritised to areas of lowest flood risk. As new developments on Green Belt land increase the flood risk, Brownfield land should be prioritised for new development.

Other

Representation ID: 89668

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Finham Brook Flood Action Group

This policy has much to recommend it. However it does rely on adequate training and resources for those who are monitoring its delivery.
In addition, it should be noted that any houses that are built in areas at risk of flooding, no matter how well designed to mitigate the risk, are very unlikely to be able to get affordable insurance, and therefore may not be mortagable.

Yes

Representation ID: 89836

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lina Rodriguez

Again brownfield should be prioritized as building on green fields increases flood risk

Yes

Representation ID: 89840

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Davis

New developments should be in areas with the lowest flood risk.