Yes

Representation ID: 98347

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

Yes, as the approach is consistent with the NPPF and PPG on Flood Risk and the Sequential Test.

Yes

Representation ID: 98554

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Macvie

Where there is risk of flooding new developments should not be considered. Building on farmland and in the green belt only increases flood risk. This has already been witnessed in nearby new housing estates built off the Birmingham Road.

Other

Representation ID: 98601

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

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

No

Representation ID: 98656

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: X2 New Settlement Consortium

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.

No

Representation ID: 99315

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

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 which is likely to be updated during the course of the plan period.

No

Representation ID: 99554

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Howson

This increases energy use/carbon footprints. Damage to plants and habitat.
Older residents here can confirm this has worsened in line with building developments, both immediate and at Long Marston Airfield and Meon Vale.

The drainage systems cannot cope as it is with surface water nor waste.

Yes

Representation ID: 99647

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

agree

Yes

Representation ID: 99795

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Agreed

Yes

Representation ID: 99878

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

Please ensure this is applied rigorously.

Yes

Representation ID: 100126

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I agree in principle,

Yes

Representation ID: 100366

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

This is part of my reservations about the Lower Clopton field section of SG18, as I am concerned about the threat of flooding on the existing settlements nearer to the A3400.

No

Representation ID: 100899

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

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 which is likely to be updated during the course of the plan period.

Yes

Representation ID: 100987

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

Draft Policy J – Reducing Flood Risk aligns with the NPPF 2024, promoting a sequential approach to direct development away from high-risk flood zones. At site C1, development is largely located in Flood Zone 1 with some areas with a higher risk of surface water flooding, whereby higher-risk areas would likely be designated for open spaces and water management features, in line with the policy. The proposals would seek to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage surface water runoff, ensuring flood risk is mitigated and the development remains sustainable and resilient.

No

Representation ID: 101110

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

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.

No

Representation ID: 101178

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

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.

No

Representation ID: 101448

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

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.

No

Representation ID: 101487

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Alderley Holdings Trust

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.

No

Representation ID: 101684

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Yes

Representation ID: 101832

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isabel Collins

developments should be done in order of lowest flood risk.
turning greenfield into housing creates more flood risk therefore brownfield land should be prioritised

Yes

Representation ID: 101893

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Walkden

I agree that avoiding flood risk is important and so the protection of green belt and farmland is essential to support this. We already have significant issues caused by the loss of front gardens for off road parking and so building over the remaining green belt around Stratford will exacerbate this.

Yes

Representation ID: 101932

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Strongly agree

Yes

Representation ID: 102252

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: BDW Trading Limited

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

Draft Policy J – Reducing Flood Risk aligns with the NPPF 2024, promoting a sequential approach to direct development away from high-risk flood zones. At Cophams Hill, development is primarily located in Flood Zone 1, while higher-risk areas are designated for open spaces and water management features, in line with the policy. The proposals incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage surface water runoff, ensuring flood risk is mitigated and the development remains sustainable and resilient.

Other

Representation ID: 102339

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

Taylor Wimpey largely has no concerns with the policy. However, reference to new development being required to “seek opportunities for river restoration and enhancement, e.g. de-culverting, removing structures and reinstating a natural, sinuous river channel” should be clarified, particularly in respect of the detail required to demonstrate that this has been explored by a proposed development. In addition, given the potential cost associated with these activities, reference should be made in the policy that this will be subject to viability.

No

Representation ID: 102350

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough

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.

Other

Representation ID: 102387

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Bevan

In line with NPPF policies on flood risk management (Paragraphs 159-169), Bishop’s Tachbrook’s flood resilience must be strengthened by designating the green buffer along the Tach Brook’s south bank to the Croft Close housing line as part of the Tachbrook Country Park. This would provide natural flood mitigation, safeguarding homes and infrastructure. Oakley Meadow’s entrance road is poorly designed and frequently floods, making it inaccessible by car, highlighting the need for sustainable drainage solutions.

Similarly, Norton Lindsey’s recurrent flooding severely impacts accessibility and must be fully addressed in the SWLP to ensure climate resilience and safe access for residents.

Yes

Representation ID: 102438

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hill Residential

Agent: Turley

Hill Residential agree with this policy, subject to comments.

It is largely consistent with the NPPF.

The classification ‘future flood management’ should be defined by the policy. It is important early engagement with the LLFA and EA confirms if any land within a site has been identified as being required for future flood management, otherwise this could become a significant constraint later on in the process.

No

Representation ID: 102465

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

The policies set out for development in flood risk areas do not adequately address the issue of flood risk taking into account the increased frequency of 1:100 etc events. A more stringent measure should be adopted and finished floor levels should be at least 800mm above the annual probability and appropriate mitigation such as provision for flood barriers, permeable surfacing, back draft valves etc put in place.

I support the statement all new development should not detrimentally impact on existing and planned flood risk management schemes.

Other

Representation ID: 102875

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Turley

The University are supportive of the themes of this policy. However, would suggest that the wording of the policy is amended to reflect that fact that it will not be appropriate for all new development to seek opportunities for river restoration and enhancement. This part of the policy should only apply to those development in close proximity or having a direct impact on a river.

No

Representation ID: 102938

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Bailey

Building in areas of flood risk should be banned. There should be more Room For The River, to naturally absorb excessive rain and snow. Flood risk areas should be completely reserved for Wildlife Corridors.

No

Representation ID: 103055

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

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.