Yes

Representation ID: 95457

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Goodman

New developments should where possible be in areas of low flood risk with priority to Brownfield sites over Green Belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 95605

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Davis

New developments should be in areas with the lowest flood risk. Brownfield land should be used for development as opposed to green belt or farmland.

No

Representation ID: 95704

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

No. Draft Policy J largely reiterates the guidance contained in the NPPF and PPG on Flood Risk and the Sequential Test. It is unnecessary to repeat national policy in the SWLP. The SWLP should simply direct the reader to the NPPF and PPG.

No

Representation ID: 95742

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

Agent: Marrons

It is considered that the advice of Environment Agency should be applied in full to any policy relating to flood risk mitigation, rather than just partly applied as is the case with Draft Policy J.

Yes

Representation ID: 95756

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 95806

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

Agree with the proposal.

Yes

Representation ID: 95849

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr UDAYA EEDUPUGANTI

New development should be prioritised in areas of lower flood risk.
Turning green field or farmland into urban areas increases flood risk.

Other

Representation ID: 95944

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

A definition is required for what constitutes a ‘major’ development within the policy. There needs to be a minimum number of dwellings specified for a Flood Risk Assessment to be required – small developments can cause flood issues to their neighbours and downstream if poorly designed. All development needs to demonstrate that they will not impact on existing development between the development site and the main rivers regardless of whether the proposed and existing development is within a flood risk area.

Yes

Representation ID: 96005

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Marshall

I see this as essential.

No

Representation ID: 96247

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Trevor Handcock

I do not belive this policy takes into account the effects of climate change adequately as well as the effects of a reduction in the land surface area drainage when all the additional housing and road structure is taken into account. This is particularly relevant to the surface water drainage of the Welcombe Hills around the Clopton quarter

Yes

Representation ID: 96339

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

Southam Town, District and County elected representatives support this draft Policy.

Other

Representation ID: 96553

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

A definition is required for what constitutes a ‘major’ development within the policy. There needs to be a minimum number of dwellings specified for a Flood Risk Assessment to be required – small developments can cause flood issues to their neighbours and downstream if poorly designed. All development needs to demonstrate that they will not impact on existing development between them and the main rivers regardless of whether the proposed and existing development is within a flood risk area.

Yes

Representation ID: 96907

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

I fully agree that flood risk is avoided by selecting land at least of flooding and that development should not place others at increase risk of flooding. In this context site BW would be unsuitable for development compared with all other settlement sites being considered.

Yes

Representation ID: 96989

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 support the approach laid out in draft policy J. Flooding is of real concern to our communities and development should not be permitted in areas which are likely to flood. No development should increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in the watercourse catchment area.
When development is proposed in an area prone to flooding, and relies on public flood defences to avoid flooding, the developer must prove that such flood defences continue to provide sufficient protection.

Yes

Representation ID: 96991

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Any scale of development should reduce flood risk.
The downstream discharge rate from any surface water drainage or SUDS system must be limited to one third of the current green field runoff or one tenth of the current brownfield runoff.
There should be no development in any flood risk area.
There should be no housing development any closer to a flood risk area than the houses already built.

Yes

Representation ID: 97063

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emily Morris

New development should be prioritised in areas of least flood risk. Turning green field land into urban development increases flood risks.

Yes

Representation ID: 97181

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

No

Representation ID: 97256

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Squab Hall Farm

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

It is considered that the advice of Environment Agency should be applied in full to any policy relating to flood risk mitigation, rather than just partly applied as is the case with Draft Policy J.

Yes

Representation ID: 97359

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Guy Morris

Flooding is already an increasing problem in Stratford. new developments should be prioritised in greybelt and brownfield land, where it's far less likely to increase flooding risk, as it would with greenfield and farmland

Yes

Representation ID: 97376

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Peter Lewin

We must learn from past floods and seek to avoid the loss of homes and businesses that we have seen in recent years.

Yes

Representation ID: 97391

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments agree that new development should be prioritised to areas of lowest flood risk. As set out in the Vision Document accompanying these representations, it is noted that land at Aylesbury Road is located entirely in Flood Zone 1 and therefore considered to have low probability of flooding from fluvial sources. Furthermore, it is noted that the risk of surface water flooding is “very low”.

No

Representation ID: 97473

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

Draft Policy J largely reiterates the guidance contained in the NPPF and PPG on Flood Risk and the Sequential Test. It is unnecessary to repeat national policy in the SWLP. The SWLP should simply direct the reader to the NPPF and PPG.

Yes

Representation ID: 97617

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Winter

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 97789

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

"new developments should be prioritised in areas of lowest floor risk...." SDC Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report April 2021 shows the area surrounding proposed site BW as RED ie. HIGH. Therefore, site BW is not appropriate for development

Yes

Representation ID: 97839

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

no comment

Yes

Representation ID: 97861

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott

New development should be prioritised in areas of lowest flood risk. Using green field areas for urban developments increases flood risk and impacts the river water pollution due to runoff from highly fertilised land. Greg belt/brown field land should be prioritised over greenfield and farmland for development.

Yes

Representation ID: 97958

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Careless

It should be looked at to see where there is flood risk. By building on Clopton quarter it would mean green belt land would be built on, and affecting flooding on Birmingham, what has got worse.

Yes

Representation ID: 98007

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Bowater

new developments should be chosen over in areas where flood risk is at its lowest. With flood risks due to get worse in the future avoiding those areas at most risk is obvious.

No

Representation ID: 98040

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barnabas Harrison

This is not sufficiently stringent, as SG24 appears to propose to construct infrastructure over land which is essential for flood management. Specifically, the SG24 area between Stratford Road, Aylesbury Road, Box Trees Road, and Grange Road, where the proposed development site would be over streams and a surface water sump (large, natural, ponds) which service much of the northern and eastern parts of Hockley Heath. The village and the A34 already experiences surface water flooding in even moderate rainfall; interfering with the area's hydrology in the proposed way is highly likely to result in many more properties being flooded.

No

Representation ID: 98107

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: William Davis Limited

Agent: Marrons

It is considered that the advice of Environment Agency should be applied in full to any policy relating to flood risk mitigation, rather than just partly applied as is the case with Draft Policy J.