Yes

Representation ID: 95008

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment

Other

Representation ID: 95024

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Grimes

In the 18 months living in Stratford there have been multiple examples of the Birmingham Road flooding following heavy rain etc as the drainage is not sufficient. Allowing for all these extra houses with a suggested drainage plan doesn't fill me with any hope that it will elminate surface water.

No

Representation ID: 95744

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

Agent: Marrons

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

Yes

Representation ID: 95810

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

A good strategy.

Other

Representation ID: 95945

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

There are a number of recent SuDs installations which have been designed to be off-line and should only start to fill once a maximum flow in the site’s surface water network exceeds a specified threshold. Even in high rainfall periods these SuDs installations have not filled. Apart from the need to check that they have been built correctly consideration should be given to making all SuDs installations on-line.

Yes

Representation ID: 96340

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

Other

Representation ID: 96552

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

There are a number of recent SuDs installations which have been designed to be off-line and should only start to fill once a maximum flow in the site’s surface water network exceeds a threshold. Even in high rainfall periods these SuDs installations have not filled. Apart from the need to check that they have been built correctly consideration should be given to making all SuDs installations on-line.

Yes

Representation ID: 96906

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Surrounding areas should not be put at increased risk of flooding

Yes

Representation ID: 96993

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

SuDS Systems should be on line only. thus ensuring there is no flow above the maximum runoff permitted.

Yes

Representation ID: 96995

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

This is agreed by 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’). All SuDS, new and existing, should be owned and maintained by Severn Trent in perpetuity. In some developments local to Alcester, SuDS are maintained by residents which we consider to be inappropriate.

Yes

Representation ID: 97183

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

No

Representation ID: 97257

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Squab Hall Farm

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

Other

Representation ID: 97392

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments acknowledge that all development should include high quality sustainable drainage systems.

With regards to Land at Aylesbury Road, the Vison Document states that the site would benefit from a site specific surface water drainage strategy which follows the principles of sustainable drainage. This strategy will ensure that all the surface water falling onto the site is managed and controlled, including the use of an attenuation basin, before being discharged to the environment at a controlled rate. As noted previously Severn Trent Water have already confirmed that there is suitable connection point to serve this site.

Yes

Representation ID: 97788

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

" development should not be permitted where there is an increase in flood risk to the site or surrounding area. SDC Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment April 2021 map p. 47 shows the area surrounding proposed site BW as RED ie. HIGH. Therefore, proposed site BW should not be a preferred location for settlement.

No

Representation ID: 97981

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Fox

SUDs are often dangerous areas for small children and should be away from the development. What is not clear is how these work in area of high water table, and there should be clear indication of how the SUDs will then drain and where they will drain to, and how this then affects the flood risk further downstream. It is about protecting all properties in South Warwickshire, not just the houses on the new settlement area. It is clear this policy has not been considered in the site selection ratings.

No

Representation ID: 98108

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: William Davis Limited

Agent: Marrons

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

No

Representation ID: 98655

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: X2 New Settlement Consortium

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

No

Representation ID: 99566

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Howson

Draft K - Re: Long Marston:

The brook at the back of Long Marston (Nowell Brook), can barely cope, and with farms and fields sometimes not clearing ditches and the local authority seemingly never clearing culverts, any extra water caused by development will not be manageable.

Yes

Representation ID: 99649

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 100130

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Good policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 100370

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 100993

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The policy requires all developments incorporate SuDS to manage surface water runoff effectively, aligning with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024, which requires major developments to include sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate.

The site C1 would seek to integrate multifunctional SuDS to manage surface water runoff and utilise these areas to enhance biodiversity, improve water quality, and provide recreational spaces. This approach would ensure that the development contributes positively to the local environment and community, aligning with sustainable development principles.

No

Representation ID: 101116

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

No

Representation ID: 101181

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

No

Representation ID: 101431

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Alderley Holdings Trust

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

No

Representation ID: 101453

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: Marrons

Planning Practice Guidance quotes the NPPF as stating that SuDS should be used in development unless this would be inappropriate for the site. It is considered that this exception should be included in any policy requiring SuDS in the SWLP, as Draft Policy K does not currently allow for the exception, therefore meaning that the current policy is ‘unsound’.

Yes

Representation ID: 101562

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

Essential for net zero challenges to be met and to protect nature

No

Representation ID: 101686

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Other

Representation ID: 101931

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Agree with reservations

SuDS pools are obviously necessary but should be placed inside the boundary of new development, not outside, therefore using more land. Any new SuDS ponds close to Tachbrook Country Park should not be included in the Country Park land but in the development land.

SuDs pools should also be placed well away from children’s play areas, unlike the developments off Europa Way, including the Sandpit Boulevard development, where the play equipment is located next to the SuDS pools.

Yes

Representation ID: 102121

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joseph Dimambro-Denson

NGL I just wanna see more rain gardens, I think they're pretty.