Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 42

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 86113

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

Representation Summary:

N/A

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 86121

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

Representation Summary:

N/A

No

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 86942

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Representation Summary:

-

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 87425

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

Representation Summary:

None

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 87600

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

Representation Summary:

I agree

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 89087

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Representation Summary:

i generally agree. Weight limits and other traffic calming measures should be used to deter commercial vehicles from using rat runs or unsuitable roads

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 89275

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Jon Knight

Representation Summary:

It would seem sensible to maintain existing limitations until such time as neighbouring authorities wish to change it. I am left wondering why they are proposing that though: are they planning large employment development zones near the edge of SWLP area that would be likely to attract not only HGVs through our roads but also be a potential employment draw from places like Meon Vale and LMAGV? Would that affect the transport requirements towards Stratford/Warwick if there are lots of jobs to the west instead?

No

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 89782

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Susana Pais

Representation Summary:

Should be removed and roads developed for the designated purpose of hgv movement

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 90297

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Kim James

Representation Summary:

Retention of the Vale of Evesham Control Zone is essential:
a) The policy remains necessary to manage business-related HGV movements effectively and mitigate environmental and infrastructure-related concerns. Retaining the policy will ensure continued protection for the region’s residents and road networks.
b) The policy seeks to control the number of additional HGV movements within the area resulting from business developments.
c) The policy thereby seeks to reduce the impact of HGV vehicles on local communities.

Other

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 91334

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Transport for West Midlands

Representation Summary:

Freight and logistics are addressed by proposing more efficient movement of goods while mitigating local impacts. However, coordination with neighbouring authorities is crucial to ensure that HGV routing does not displace congestion onto unsuitable roads outside South Warwickshire. They will need to ensure conditions such as weight limits as well as enforcement measures are aligned across jurisdictions. Would be interesting to know whether freight consolidation centres are being considered to reduce last-mile HGV traffic as they have been in neighbouring authorities.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 91544

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

Representation Summary:

Speedy removal may have unintentended consequences. It was put there for a purpose in the first place.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 91704

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Representation Summary:

Sensible

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 92060

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Salford Priors Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Retention of the Vale of Evesham Control Zone is essential:
a) The policy remains necessary to manage business-related HGV movements effectively and mitigate environmental and infrastructure-related concerns. Retaining the policy will ensure continued protection for the region’s residents and road networks.
b) The policy seeks to control the number of additional HGV movements within the area resulting from business developments.
c) The policy thereby seeks to reduce the impact of HGV vehicles on local communities.

No

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 92495

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Representation Summary:

No i do not agree with such a restrictive policy. Harmful to UK PLC growth by controlling HGVs. Good planning and development can mitigate this with road and infrastructure. Get some better planners.

This policy should be removed / improved at this state not until you kick the can down the road as you have done. Do it now!

No

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 92646

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Representation Summary:

No comment don’t agree if it involves green belt

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 93030

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

Representation Summary:

Absolutely

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 93964

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

Representation Summary:

Pollution from HGVs is unbearable already for those living on the A435.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 95231

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

no further comment

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 95960

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Representation Summary:

Yes

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 96354

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

Representation Summary:

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

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 96545

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

Representation Summary:

yes

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 97062

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Representation Summary:

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) agree that this Control Zone should remain.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 97087

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Representation Summary:

There are other areas that could benefit from a similar approach.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 97202

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Yes

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 97838

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Representation Summary:

N/A

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 98708

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

Representation Summary:

Cotswold District Council is now also retaining this policy in its Local Plan until an alternative approach is agreed.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 100014

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The south warwickshire lorry routes plan is critical and should be maintained. There are a substantial number of roads that cannot take large lorries and have restrictions in place. In additon, many of the river avon bridge crossings, many of which are listed buildings, have vehicle weight limits on them. There is significant non compliance already regarding these weight limits and fewer controls will result in significant damage to theses heritage assets.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 100359

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Representation Summary:

I agree that there needs to be a control over HGV movements in the Vale of Evesham. This should also be considered in other areas of South Warwickshire.

Yes

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 100438

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Representation Summary:

NA

No

Preferred Options 2025

Representation ID: 101714

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

Representation Summary:

This development is not good for the area