No

Representation ID: 87865

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Beacham

Wilmcote and Bearley have a canal path. It is very narrow, very busy and partly paved. From the Wootton Wawen end this pathway is extremely muddy in the winter and not at all suitable as a cycle path. This whole pathway would need to be developed to make it anywhere near good enough for active travel.
The A3400 is already a death-trap from speeding, now set at 50 mph. Certainly not a suitable road for a cycle path.
The mornings, school pick up times and after work commute times are VERY congested, adding to emissions, journey times and frustration.

No

Representation ID: 87878

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: David Broadbent

The Consultation is mainly on Housing & Economic development, there is very little on Major Infrastructure required to accommodate this building work.
Developers cannot fund major Infrastructure.
Infrastructure is a Government / Highways responsibility and should be implemented PRIOR to any Building Work Applications being approved.
As an example:
Plans to build thousands of Homes around the M40 Junction 16 Corridor including Lapworth, Henley in Arden etc require a Southern access & Northern Exit from the M40 at Junction 16.
Without this traffic on the A3400 will become intolerable.
Infrastructure is essential prior to any building work being started.

Yes

Representation ID: 87955

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Salford Priors Parish Council

1. There must be stronger guarantees that these contributions will be sufficient, timely, and directly benefit the local area.
2. Too often, infrastructure delivery lags behind housing development, placing increased strain on local roads, healthcare, schools, and public services before mitigations are in place.
3. the A46 corridor must be carefully considered to ensure they provide genuine benefits to local communities, rather than simply facilitating through-traffic at the expense of local road networks and environmental quality.
4. Any transport upgrades serve local needs first, rather than prioritizing regional and national traffic movements.

Yes

Representation ID: 88039

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

Yes I agree with the strategy but for sites such as BW the infrastructure is currently wholly inadequate for any further development and given the cost and disruption could never be at a suitable level for development. Sites should only be considered that realistically will have the infrastructure to cope.

Yes

Representation ID: 88040

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

Yes I agree with the strategy but unfortunately the strategy has not been thoroughly evaluated as the road system, rail system and bus services are wholly inadequate in and around Stratford upon Avon. The roads are at capacity and the public transport system is severely lacking especially in the some of the villages you are proposing such as BW should have large scale development. The whole infrastructure would need replacing in many areas at a huge cost.

No

Representation ID: 88082

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Sarah Vaughan

Before any deciosns are made fir new sites the local infrastructure plan needs to be presented and rationalised. No judgements of any sites can be made before this has been done. The plan us currently just a 'plan' with no proof of delivery and instigation. Once proven and stess tested each location can be reviewed accordingly.

Yes

Representation ID: 88150

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

Greater emphasis needs to be put on the delivery of infrastructure which must be delivered in a timely manner and developed in line with new housing etc, particularly schools and medical centres.

Yes

Representation ID: 88353

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Jon Knight

I do note that as ever with infrastructure components of development plans there is a lot of "where viable" and "where appropriate" which often means "never" in practice. I think it should be a core requirement of planning that the infrastructure for large developments is built and signed off *before* the rest of the development is approved for construction. That way developers can't weedle out of providing the infrastructure the plans demand at the last minute, which has been seen in the past.

No

Representation ID: 88359

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Maurice Stokes

Unfortunately the current figures do not add up to cover the amount of investment needed to make the the Bearley/Wilmcote site viable. The A3400 Birmingham Road cannot be widened to cater for the additional traffic volume expected to travel into Stratford upon Avon and the expected commuter traffic heading into Birmingham via Wootton Wauwen/Henley in Arden (both bottlenecks).
Both Wilmcote and Bearley train stations are unsuitable for expansion to cater for the expected commute volumes from the site by both car and bicycle. The Infrastructure spend to make this site viable is not sustainable.

No

Representation ID: 88360

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Annette Pharo

The Birmingham A3400 Road is problematic now as it cannot cope with the current needs and there are long traffic queues into Stratford from the Wilmcote junction with the Birmingham road.
There are currently 14 roundabouts, traffic lights and pedestrian lights to travel the 3 miles from this junction to Stratford Leisure Centre, which cause huge back-ups especially at peak times. I personally use this route every day and it can take over 30mins . Adding further infrastructure (even if there were money/ space available to to this before housing development started), would only exacerbate the problem.

Other

Representation ID: 88380

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

Emphasis needs to be on determining highly accurate figures for other area housing needs before allocating space in South Warwickshire for them. Strong support should be shown too for existing residents' needs. Too much development has taken place already which has impacted negatively on many of them. Many road junctions have become dangerous due to the addition of heavy new traffic and residents' concerns for safety improvements ignored. Existing water supply/sewage pipes have proved to be inadequate to cope with new builds leading to frequent bursts and disruption badly affecting existing residents. Infrastructure is priority ahead of building.

Yes

Representation ID: 88441

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr A Patrick

Yes but. The history of transport provision has been all about the car. The edge of town sites will place an increased burden on the town's roads, at the same time as providing very limited opportunities for alternatives. Land use and transport provision need to be more closely aligned. I am not convinced this policy is sufficient.

Yes

Representation ID: 88552

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

It all sounds good but will it work through in practice - I hope so. Unitary authorities may help ensure it does.

Yes

Representation ID: 88635

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Yes agree. Would make no sense building housing, services and employment opportunities if one does not provide the necessary infrastructure improvements. My only concern is one views recent developments in regions around south Warwickshire that have seen large housing development and some enterprise development but the lack of improved infrastructure has not been tied into the developments approval. infrastructure improvements for medium - large scale developments must be sought, funded and legally tied into any site. Too often this is forgotten.

Other

Representation ID: 88694

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Middleton

Schools, shops, doctors surgeries, community centres etc need to be built at the same time as the housing, not as subsequent builds. Local communities need local facilities.

More outline details of these infrastructure needs to be shown in the same document as the proposed housing. The SWLP IDP Nov24 TCA tries to convey some of these considerations but it is not a public user friendly document. Leamington (plus Warwick and Stratford) are congested by the bridges and relative location of housing, shops & jobs. This needs to be clearer consideration in the documents.

Yes

Representation ID: 88728

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 88985

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Logan

Infrastructure and improved transport are relevant to several of the preferred sites but on the grounds of heritage, a "beautiful South Warwickshire", and topology of the area, these issues are not appropriate in G1.

No

Representation ID: 89002

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

All developments must meet the infrastructure requirements that they generate regardless of size

Yes

Representation ID: 89133

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Tanworth Residents Association

Thank goodness Rail gets a mention.

No

Representation ID: 89693

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Derek Bull

The new builds at Long Marston and Meon Vale have not been built with adequate infrastructure, therefore building more houses locally will make all roads grind to a halt!

Yes

Representation ID: 89743

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

Compton Verney would actively support increased bus provision, both timetabled and responsive and active travel options across the region.

Yes

Representation ID: 89777

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Dodd

Whilst I agree with the approach laid out, I have considerable concerns regarding whether this would be followed to prevent developers from not delivering the infrastructure required, which in some of the strategic growth areas, is sorely lacking. Therefore, there would need to be substantial improvements in infrastructure and this would make less people object to some of the housing development required if the necessary infrastructure is put into place.

No

Representation ID: 89832

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr SIMON BEACHAM

I agree with the approach and 'the words' but this isn't reality.
TRAINS: The line through Wilmcote is a branch line and ends in Stratford. Wilmcote station is a rural station with no disabled access to the southerly platform. Parking isn't available.
No toilets or waiting rooms, costly to upgrade. Leamington and Hatton are mainline stations.
ROAD UPGRADES NEEDED to A46 and A3400 but this will still have traffic at both Stratford and Henley, land acquisitions required.
CYCLING: The canal path is owned by Canal and River trust and doesn't lend itself to upgrading due to existing locks and cottages.

Yes

Representation ID: 90059

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

Infrastructure needs to be in place before development begins.

Yes

Representation ID: 90110

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Hewitt

Support

Yes

Representation ID: 90152

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maria Giblin

Should be encouraging the success of HS2.
Also should be noted just because there is a railway doesn't mean there is a reliable service e.g. Stratford-upon-Avon has no direct train to London and reliable trains to Birmingham another destinations.

Other

Representation ID: 90200

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Fox

infrastructure is needed - and any proposal needs to also fix the issues that have developed due to prior poor development ideas, and letting developers get away with making money while leaving new settlement areas stranded - these need to be fixed as part of the plan.
Infrastructure needs to be designed with a Net Zero future and link to high quality rail networks with a wide reach for a hybrid style work future, not a 9-5 commute every day approach

No

Representation ID: 90426

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Louise Stewart

BW site will require such a huge amount of infrastructure to be put in place that the builders wont see this as a financially attractive option. Consequently the housing stock is likely to be priced accordingly, which doesn’t support the local population housing needs as demonstrated in the Wilmcote and Pathlow Neighbourhood plan (2017).

No

Representation ID: 90472

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

The principles are entirely rationale. But this contradicts selection of SG17, as none of this is in place and won't be without signficant investment

No

Representation ID: 90516

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jason Lupton

This local plan needs to address the backlog of congestion as well as planning for the future.
All routes need to accomodate all modes of transport (move the priority away from vehicles) as well as providing suitable drainage and ecological features.
New residential areas should provide safe zones for play and navigation and respond to the updated highway code with priority towards pedestrians/cyclists at the forefront.