Yes

Representation ID: 101194

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

We support an approach that aligns with NPPF Paragraph 118, so that the likely impacts of developments on road travel can be adequately assessed. This will ensure significant development is focussed on the most sustainable locations, where the need to travel has been minimised, and a genuine choice of transport modes have been considered. Indeed, the accompanying Travel Plan and Transport Statement should effectively demonstrate this, to ensure development occurs in the most sustainable and accessible locations. This will support development that promotes active travel, adapts to climate change and addresses health inequalities.

Yes

Representation ID: 101213

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

We support an approach that aligns with NPPF Paragraph 118, so that the likely impacts of developments on road travel can be adequately assessed. This will ensure significant development is focussed on the most sustainable locations, where the need to travel has been minimised, and a genuine choice of transport modes have been considered. Indeed, the accompanying Travel Plan and Transport Statement should effectively demonstrate this, to ensure development occurs in the most sustainable and accessible locations. This will support development that promotes active travel, adapts to climate change and addresses health inequalities.

Yes

Representation ID: 101399

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land / Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

We support an approach that aligns with NPPF Paragraph 118, so that the likely impacts of developments on road travel can be adequately assessed. This will ensure significant development is focussed on the most sustainable locations, where the need to travel has been minimised, and a genuine choice of transport modes have been considered. Indeed, the accompanying Travel Plan and Transport Statement should effectively demonstrate this, to ensure development occurs in the most sustainable and accessible locations. This will support development that promotes active travel, adapts to climate change and addresses health inequalities.

Yes

Representation ID: 101496

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Alderley Holdings Trust

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

We support an approach that aligns with NPPF Paragraph 118, so that the likely impacts of developments on road travel can be adequately assessed. This will ensure significant development is focussed on the most sustainable locations, where the need to travel has been minimised, and a genuine choice of transport modes have been considered. Indeed, the accompanying Travel Plan and Transport Statement should effectively demonstrate this, to ensure development occurs in the most sustainable and accessible locations. This will support development that promotes active travel, adapts to climate change and addresses health inequalities.

Yes

Representation ID: 101515

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: Marrons

We support an approach that aligns with NPPF Paragraph 118, so that the likely impacts of developments on road travel can be adequately assessed. This will ensure significant development is focussed on the most sustainable locations, where the need to travel has been minimised, and a genuine choice of transport modes have been considered. Indeed, the accompanying Travel Plan and Transport Statement should effectively demonstrate this, to ensure development occurs in the most sustainable and accessible locations. This will support development that promotes active travel, adapts to climate change and addresses health inequalities.

No

Representation ID: 101710

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Yes

Representation ID: 101914

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Agree

No

Representation ID: 101956

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isabel Collins

not enough emphasis on new transport train links

Yes

Representation ID: 102160

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joseph Dimambro-Denson

I agree, but we should also consider micromobility last mile solutions like e-cargo bikes which are effective in many parts of the country

Yes

Representation ID: 102232

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

This policy direction recognises the reality that people will be reliant on motor vehicles for many of their journeys in the future. Whilst the gradual shift to electric vehicles may mitigate the resulting increased pollution to a certain extent, this will take many years to be fully effective and thus lead to negative environmental and health impacts in the meantime. Not only will pollution undermine the sustainability of Meon Vale and Long Marston Airfield, but the traffic congestion on the adjacent B4632 will also have major negative impacts affecting both residential amenity and the welfare of tourists.

Yes

Representation ID: 102375

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough

Agent: Marrons

We support an approach that aligns with NPPF Paragraph 118, so that the likely impacts of developments on road travel can be adequately assessed. This will ensure significant development is focussed on the most sustainable locations, where the need to travel has been minimised, and a genuine choice of transport modes have been considered. Indeed, the accompanying Travel Plan and Transport Statement should effectively demonstrate this, to ensure development occurs in the most sustainable and accessible locations. This will support development that promotes active travel, adapts to climate change and addresses health inequalities.

Yes

Representation ID: 102400

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: BDW Trading Limited

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The policy direction is generally welcomed. When wording the detailed related policies, a level of flexibility should be afforded with a positively worded approach to support active and low-carbon transport journeys.

For sites such as land at Cophams Hill, its proximity to existing transport infrastructure, including major road networks and potential freight corridors, offers a strategic advantage. Policies should be supportive of sites that can accommodate sustainable transport options. This approach not only adheres to the NPPF but also fosters a cohesive integration of transport and land use planning, promoting sustainable growth and community well-being.

Other

Representation ID: 102404

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

The Draft Policy direction is supported in principle. The associated Justification wording cross-references the NPPF that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas is supported. Specific reference to this should be included within the Policy wording.

Yes

Representation ID: 102866

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Turley

Further emphasis should be made within the policy to maximise the benefit of strategic infrastructure investment to help support any opportunities for ‘last mile’ freight journeys. The University recommends that greater emphasis be placed within the policy to encourage integration of new development with placemaking and delivery of new and improved local transport networks to prioritise sustainable modes of travel. Reference to 20-minute neighbourhood principles should also be considered here. All new developments should be required to produce a Delivery and Servicing Plan to support applications. The use of delivery and servicing consolidation hubs should form part of this policy

Yes

Representation ID: 103109

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Marrons

We support an approach that aligns with NPPF Paragraph 118, so that the likely impacts of developments on road travel can be adequately assessed. This will ensure significant development is focussed on the most sustainable locations, where the need to travel has been minimised, and a genuine choice of transport modes have been considered. Indeed, the accompanying Travel Plan and Transport Statement should effectively demonstrate this, to ensure development occurs in the most sustainable and accessible locations. This will support development that promotes active travel, adapts to climate change and addresses health inequalities.

No

Representation ID: 103351

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Stevens

Need more railway stations planned in

Other

Representation ID: 103621

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Salford Road, Bidford-on-Avon

Agent: Turley

Richborough agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33 and welcome that the policy direction aligns with the NPPF.

Other

Representation ID: 103623

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Gaydon Road, Bishop's Itchington

Agent: Turley

Richborough agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33 and welcome that the policy direction aligns with the NPPF.

Other

Representation ID: 103624

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Lighthorne Road, Kineton

Agent: Turley

Richborough agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33 and welcome that the policy direction aligns with the NPPF.

Other

Representation ID: 103626

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Sycamore Close, Stockton

Agent: Turley

Richborough agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33 and welcome that the policy direction aligns with the NPPF.

Other

Representation ID: 103627

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Kineton Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

Richborough agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33 and welcome that the policy direction aligns with the NPPF.

Other

Representation ID: 103631

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Wellesbourne Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

Richborough agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33 and welcome that the policy direction aligns with the NPPF.

Other

Representation ID: 103632

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Plough Lane, Bishop's Itchington

Agent: Turley

Richborough agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33 and welcome that the policy direction aligns with the NPPF.

Yes

Representation ID: 103769

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

Promote zero carbon methods of transport
Prioritise cycling and protect and invest in national cycle routs to connect communities.

No

Representation ID: 103941

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

We should build more rail stations to improve local links and to rely less on road

Yes

Representation ID: 104214

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

This policy, taken alone, seems reasonable, though as noted in my response to DPD31 above, it needs to be enframed and informed by a better understanding of sustainable transport principles, as does the whole chapter.

Yes

Representation ID: 104500

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 104819

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

'Last Mile' should be increased to 5miles to increase the coverage area.

Other

Representation ID: 105584

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sian Kellaway

current road networks between villagers like kineton, Wellesbourne and lighthorne are already poorly maintained and at capacity

Yes

Representation ID: 107083

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Overall, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board agrees with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 33. This approach aligns with the approach that is advocated in Policy CC1 (Climate Change - Mitigation) of the CNL Management Plan65 and in the Board’s Climate Change Strategy66.
However, we recommend that Draft Policy Direction 33 and / or the supporting text should also explicitly address the thresholds for increases in traffic movements that are considered to be significant. These thresholds are set out in the guidance on ‘Environmental Assessment of Traffic and Movement’, published by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).67
For most roads, the threshold is a 30% increase in traffic movements and for ‘sensitive areas’ it is 10%. The Board’s Tranquillity Position Statement refers to these thresholds and states that the 10% threshold should be applied in relation to increases in traffic movements on roads through - and along the boundary of - the CNL.68 As outlined in the Tranquillity Position Statement, the Board considers that increases above this 10% threshold are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the tranquillity of the CNL, which is one of the area’s ‘special qualities’.69
We recommend that Draft Policy Direction 33 should explicitly state that proposals that would increase traffic movements on roads through - and along the boundary of - the CNL by 10% or more will not be supported.