Yes

Representation ID: 94080

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Holly Whittaker

Yes, however provision of new public transport links such as new railway stations should be prioritised. This is to relieve pressure on existing travel routes and provide opportunities for new settlement areas that will be more suitable, rather than putting extra pressure on existing infrastructure in Stratford.

Yes

Representation ID: 94110

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Stafford Scott

Yes, although really the priority should only be about improving public transport and developing it to allow for sustainable new settlements which would alleviate existing pressures on Stratford.

Yes

Representation ID: 94120

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Kelly

However provision of new public transport links such as new railway stations
should be prioritised to relieve pressure on existing travel routes and provide opportunities for new settlement areas that will be more suitable than putting extra pressure on existing infrastructure in Stratford.

Other

Representation ID: 94250

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Tim Sawdon

Direction 31 is wishful thinking. There is simply not the infrastructure and none is planned for the Kings Hill, Stoneleigh Park and Airport developments. Stoneleigh, Finham and the University will become more gridlocked than at present as car usage (however well intentioned car reduction measures are) will vastly increase particularly as the southern relief road appears to be a non starter.

Yes

Representation ID: 94383

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Blandamer

The provision of new public transport links such as new railway stations in new settlements would be more suitable than putting extra pressure on existing options in Stratford.

No

Representation ID: 94620

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Rogers MBE

Shipston has no rail link and a very poor supporting bus service which makes commuting very difficult for people travelling to work or for appointments in nearby towns. I calculated that it takes in the region of 35 mins by bus (if running) to get the 12 miles from Shipston to Stratford, which is unacceptable this day and age. Carbon emissions will increase with more cars being required.

No

Representation ID: 94628

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Renny Wodynska

Totally disagree with more and more roads. This equates to more cars.
I would encourage pedestrianisation where possible, traffic calming measures, road-narrowing, and more integrated cycle networks to make cycling much safe again.

Other

Representation ID: 94636

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Liz Fawcett

The principle of 20-minute neighbourhoods should be a guiding principle for future development and an integral part of the South Warwickshire Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 94884

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 94938

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Ainsworth

New rail stations and buses should come alongside new settlments outisde of main centres and help ease traffic and air pollution concerns.

Other

Representation ID: 94982

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

The definition of connectivity requires further development. A 1x daily train or bus service gives connectivity, but not convenience. If rural developments are to become essentially urban areas, then residents will expect an urban level of service for public transport to employment, education, leisure etc. An integrated and long-term approach to public transport is required, in particular as commercial operators of bus and train services control timetables and routes. This is of particular relevance for planning applications that are supported by there being "bus / rail services" in the countryside but those run only once per day at inconvenient times.

No

Representation ID: 95010

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Darren Downes

It's well known most people will move into the area from the south. These people will keep their existing jobs and will commute by car. 6,500 houses = 10,000 cars and Bearly and Wilmcote Stations are not fast routes to stations south. It will create thousands of additional car journeys every day. Do not kid yourselves that there will be a huge increase in the number of people using these stations.

Yes

Representation ID: 95032

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Grimes

There isnt an option for an extra station in the area of the development, there isn't even a direct link to London as it stands. Alternative areas closer to Warwick Parway or Coventry would be more appropriate

No

Representation ID: 95077

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr T Finerty

It has been incorrectly applied to site B1.
Road network will not support a settlement of that size.
Train track and Hatton station will need to be upgraded, but this is next to impossible in an engineering sense.
A new hospital owuld be required.
Schools and other facilities may be built, but they would lag behind the houses being built, causoing over-subscription

Yes

Representation ID: 95106

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Alex Soans

.

No

Representation ID: 95126

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Finerty

no it has not been applied correctly and is not sustainable transport

Yes

Representation ID: 95227

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

It is unclear how "Developments should aim to minimise car dependency by ensuring that parking provision is balanced" can work in practice.
Without strong controls and enforcement a “balanced parking provision” will result in users parking cars on pavements and roadways, and the good intensions of a Design Guide will evaporate

No

Representation ID: 95275

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Edgeworth

Bishops itchington has poor public transport provision, coupled with limited destination options. Cars are the only viable option to travel when and where required.
The current situation would need to be hugely rethought to make public transport a viable option.

Yes

Representation ID: 95314

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Tallen

Yes but it feels like there is no scope to further burden existing transport links. New settlements would create new links that would relieve pressure on existing links

Yes

Representation ID: 95478

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Goodman

Improving public transport should be a priority be that trains or buses. Better public transport will reduce the amount of cars on the road and improve air quality.

Yes

Representation ID: 95622

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Davis

New settlements would be more suitable and should be prioritised with regard to new public transport links such as new railway stations, rather than putting extra pressure on Stratford’s existing infrastructure.

Other

Representation ID: 95626

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

The draft policy includes all the right soundbites but the residential site proposals for G1, F2 & F3 couldn't be further from the aspirations of the DP - these would be rural isolated communities with little or poor public transport and totally reliant on private transport, along with little or no local services or amenities.
Other than being planted in the countryside, it is difficult to imagine that these would be attractive places to live.

Yes

Representation ID: 95765

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

Agent: Marrons

The Council’s approach to sustainable transport and accessibility is supported. The requirement that development proposals must prioritise access to public transport, walking and cycling routes is critical to ensuring that the spatial pattern of development is sustainable. South Warwickshire remains a relatively rural district with a dispersed pattern of development, the aim of reducing car dependency may negatively affect those with reduced mobility and lower incomes within less well-connected areas. An option that encourages growth in locations that have greater access to more sustainable forms of transport would be supported.

Yes

Representation ID: 95858

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr UDAYA EEDUPUGANTI

I agree with the approach

Yes

Representation ID: 95879

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Carter

‘In order to meet the aims for sustainable transport there must be a much greater investment in public transport for new and existing developments.’

Other

Representation ID: 95956

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes, however the policy needs to address the shortfall in public transport to Local Centres where bus services are very sparse/infrequent and where there are services they are short lived as they are reliant on developer contributions which only last 5 years. Thereafter the service is withdrawn due to lack of funds thus forcing would be passengers into cars.

Yes

Representation ID: 96078

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr nigel Freeth

All sounds good but will not happen. If we are going to become a greener society then homes need to be built next to the employment opportunities

Yes

Representation ID: 96169

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Wilkinson

Fully support active travel proposals, but they must be carried out with the consultation of local interest groups like Cycleways.

Yes

Representation ID: 96351

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

No

Representation ID: 96409

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Penny Gray

This needs a lot more work. In particular, in order to meet its climate/net zero strategy, the council should avoid building roads, as more roads equates to more cars. There is next to nothing on support for alternatives, such as pedestrianisation, 20 mph speed limits or other traffic calming measures, or how cycle networks and multi-modal mobility hubs will be supported.