Yes

Representation ID: 86474

Received: 26/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs vivien bryer

Excellent.

Yes

Representation ID: 86683

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

SuDS should be an assumed prerequisite for all development.

Yes

Representation ID: 86758

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Dane

In particular all developers should be able to demonstrate that they have tapped into local knowledge.

No

Representation ID: 86931

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Maintain existing systems. No more development

Yes

Representation ID: 87079

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 87411

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

Yes

Representation ID: 87591

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I agree

No

Representation ID: 88428

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Maurice Stokes

SUDs are not a viable option for the Bearley/Wilmcote site. The ground is predominantly heavy clay soil overlying Wilmcote stone. Alternative sites would be more suitable for SUDs to beneficial.

Yes

Representation ID: 88735

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Agree

Other

Representation ID: 89070

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

No SUDS should be approved until future management and maintenance arrangements have been agreed and there is cvlear identification of liability in the event of their failure. Management companies are completely unacceptable

Yes

Representation ID: 89272

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Jon Knight

SuDS is a vital part of both climate resilience and reducing the effects on waste water handling and, by implication, pollution on our streams and rivers. Once again though I'd replace quite a few of the "should" with "must" in this draft policy to make it more enforceable, otherwise developers will ignore it.

Yes

Representation ID: 89481

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

None.

Yes

Representation ID: 89670

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Finham Brook Flood Action Group

none

No

Representation ID: 90501

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

I appreciate developers will suggest various measures to manage water e.g. drainage/balancing pools etc. However, this doesn't work, and it would appear it is a strategy by developers when seeking approval for plans.

Separate document attached to earlier item, refers to construction firm returning to site 3 years post construction to distribute sand bags, as the run-off did not direct to balancing pool.

Yes

Representation ID: 90627

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

The SWLP must ensure that new developments are located in areas with the lowest risk of flooding, reducing long-term vulnerability and costs. Encourage the use of multi-functional SuDS that provide biodiversity, water quality, and amenity benefits since it will prevent reliance on traditional underground drainage systems that can contribute to flooding.
Also like to see actions towards preventing flooding in existing developments.

Yes

Representation ID: 91185

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Radford Semele Parish Council supports the suggestions.

Yes

Representation ID: 91339

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Flood Risk Management Team]

Proposed redrafted wording for Explanation Paragraph 3 and moving parts of the SuDS policy to the Flood Risk policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 91683

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

Yes

Representation ID: 91687

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

Yes

Representation ID: 91778

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 92473

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree

No

Representation ID: 92603

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: The Planning Bureau Ltd

In order for the future plan to be found sound the following should be implemented:

• Any future policy should be stepped in line with emerging government targets and requirements and
• Ensure the policy is properly assessed within the forthcoming viability assessment

Yes

Representation ID: 93176

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gordon Sharp

Developing green field sites only increases flow risks with the risk of overburdening primary drainage systems

Yes

Representation ID: 93259

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

I agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy-H- Water Efficiency

Yes

Representation ID: 93697

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Cllr David Armstrong

Yes, I agree.

Yes

Representation ID: 93882

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

Suds must receive regular maintenance and be funded accordingly

No

Representation ID: 93904

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Patrick Embleton

In the new build area the SuDS has not been entirely successful so thinking it is the answer is foolhardy

Yes

Representation ID: 93912

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

Maintenance must be budgeted for

No

Representation ID: 93949

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

I don't think the plans for reducing flooding are robust enough, no houses should be built on flood land, the roads at the moment cannot cope with deluges of rain, these need addressing first.

Other

Representation ID: 94141

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

The provision of SuDS creates implicit future maintenance costs and responsibilities to ensure their ongoing reliability and function. Developments that incorporate such systems require careful planning and commitment over the long term. This includes regular testing of effectiveness, flushing and cleaning. Existing council services are already constrained and roads are not jetted regularly - the added pressure of SuDS would only place yet more pressure on local service provision.