No

Representation ID: 99111

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Keep Hatton Station Rural

B1/SG07 - limited infrastructure provision at present. Much data is missing to fully respond to this Draft Policy eg: Energy Demands and Capacity.
Consider: solar panels, ground source heat pumps, electricity as the only fuel?
No gas at Hatton Station and it was deemed far too expensive to have been put in when it was last reviewed.
Local present substations inadequate for electricity provision for homes let alone services eg; schools.
Sewerage management at Hatton Station is a considerable issue - often blockages!
Drainage - local lanes flood, Dark Lane L3 flood risk

Other

Representation ID: 99120

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevan Russell

It should be a prerequisite that any additional infrastructure required in relation to the development of any particular site is completed prior to the development being progressed. This would prevent developers reneging on their responsibilities and leaving infrastructure inadequate.

No

Representation ID: 99137

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Wyatt

I am particularly concerned that current development have a complete lack of infrastructure provision. The result being completely sterile developments. As examples Union View at Hatton Park. There is absolutely zero infrastructure provision along side the total lack of infrastructure in Hatton Park. Long Marston, 350 homes built out of 3500 planned, no infrastructure. This was planned over 20 years ago when I came to the area including a Tram into Stratford upon Avon. All talk of infrastructure is fake. You need to assure infrastructure before anything is built.

No

Representation ID: 99147

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas Warne

There are faults in the basic processes of planning in the SWLP. First, it is impossible for the DCs to deliver on ‘ensuring development is supported by infrastructure’ in strategic objective 3. DCs have no powers to obtain binding commitments from local infrastructure providers. Secondly, it is increasingly expensive for DCs to defend appeals on unwanted development; the value of a plan under these circumstances is questionable. Thirdly, HEVAA criteria seem to be failing in respect of difficulties of site access; site 712 demonstrates this clearly.

Yes

Representation ID: 99197

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Fernando Ortelli

Developers should fund the necessary infrastructure improvements, and this should be a pre-requisite for planning approval.

Other

Representation ID: 99262

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

As far as possible infrastructure should be planned in and built before the occupation of any new houses. In the Land East of Kenilworth hundreds of houses have been built before the completion of adequate foot and cycle paths and roadways causing significant stress for the new inhabitants.

No

Representation ID: 99280

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We are concerned that the first opportunity to comment on these policies will be the Pre-submission of the SWLP.

Other

Representation ID: 99297

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Our client considers there are some important points to make on this:
(1) this statement implies the critical technical work to justify the plan is not in place, and
(2) why should the IDP being 'live' only apply up to submission and not be continuous even post adoption?

No

Representation ID: 99303

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I do not agree with the upgrading of the A46. This will in affect make it into a motorway and will only induce more road traffic leading to more pollution and emissions and less sustainable travel.
There is no priority given to enhancing the rail network by reinstating rail links such as Stratford Honeybourne which would be the most important step towards the strategic objective of sustainable travel.

Other

Representation ID: 99356

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Fetherston-Dilke

The need to build is agreed but it is vital that drainage and provision of water is taken as NUMBER ONE infrastructure project. Pillerton Hersey has been badly flooded 4 times this winter and there is often a shortage of water in the summer. The antiquated sewage works at Butlers Marston was considered overburdened in 2019. Drains and flood water coming downhill from Priors to Hersey cause further flooding.
Also infrastructure eg Doctors surgeries and Schools MUST be built along with more houses.
Large number of houses in Shipston will certainly cause further flooding in wet winters.

No

Representation ID: 99447

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

Infrastructure is limited due to the nature of villages and small country roads. Damage has already taken place due to HS2, no further damage should be considered

No

Representation ID: 99448

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Haynes

Experience has shown that development in the Alcester/Bidford area has not resulted in any of the s106 monies being allocated to Alcester/Bidford. The local comprehensive school (Alcester Academy) is already unable to accommodate all the students wanting to attend and Warwickshire council's response has been to force them to a faith school regardless of the parent and child's belief. All students at St Benedicts are required to follow Catholic rules and opting out is not an option.

No

Representation ID: 99550

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jean Bull

All these options will only increase pollution for humans and animals alike.

Yes

Representation ID: 99574

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

I agree with a detailed infrastructure delivery plan but infrastructure must be secured via S106 and S278 and delivered prior to development starting. Developers need to provide the necessary infrastructure (medical and education facilities, public transport, community facilities and such like) prior to building out new estates/settlements.

No

Representation ID: 99610

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

The infrastructure is needed before the major housing schemes are approved.

No more 'you'll get it in time' because to date we haven't, so road, cycle ways, schooling, sewage, electricity needs to be in place before or at the same time as development not some time later.

One example: the Welford on Avon sewage system is completely inadequate - at time of heavy rain we've had RAW SEWAGE COMING FROM DRAINS IN 4 PLACES IN THE VILLAGE.

No

Representation ID: 99705

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Murray

SG20 - Ardens Grafton. Growth development is not suitable as it is not supported by necessary infrastructure. This is a non-serviced area. There is no connected gas, no supporting bus or local train networks. Traffic is over populated around the area especially when the A46 and B439 are being overused and where accidents or near accidents regularly occur. This is hazardous when people try to bypass black spots via Ardens Grafton which has narrow roads, no footpaths or street lighting and is frequently used by horse riders, walkers and farmers moving agricultural equipment around. Flooding in area is frequent.

Other

Representation ID: 99807

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Simpson

As sated in a previous response. Regarding the house building we have seen in Kenilworth in recent years infrastructure has been seriously lacking.
We have 3 or 4 big housing estates with no improved cycling or walking facilities.
We have been asking the council to create cycle ways to the new school which have not yet materialised.
The Kenilworth Gate development does not even have a crossing point so people can walk.
So In conclusion Infrastructure improvements must be a precursor to building, not an after thought.

No

Representation ID: 100005

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

Existing transport options are insufficient, as are the proposals to promote and encourage active travel. The existing and proposed policies for transport options do not and will not encourage and facilitate the uptake of more climate friendly methods of travel.

Other

Representation ID: 100122

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

For areas SG13, SG14, G1, F2,and F3 substantial investment is required to meet the targets set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

No

Representation ID: 100208

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Planners have been far too weak in the past when dealing with developers. The Draft Policy must include a requirement to demand local infrastructure is paid for by developers. This can be achieved by paying less for land which previously offered an easy windfall profit for owners. Local authorities should also play a bigger part in assisting small communities when dealing with developers who all too frequently make promises which they later seek to avoid. Solar Farm developers being among the worst offenders.

Yes

Representation ID: 100243

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Transport infrastructure is an essential consideration for the local plan , and all house building must be planned with the connections between settlements and the rail/road/public transport links that enable them.

No

Representation ID: 100368

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

With regard to the Bearley/Wilmcote area plan, there is absolutely no possibility that sufficient infrastructure could be provided to meet the needs of 10,000+ vehicle movements a day into and out of this settlement without utterly overloading the area's road, cycle path, foot path and rail network. There is no possibility that Stratford's infrastructure could be improved/expanded to support a settlement of this size.

No

Representation ID: 100474

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Burgess

The very idea that the changes necessary to the infrastructure will be funded or provided is almost laughable.

One only has to look at the barren and unsightly developments to the south of Leamington to see the reality of what will be done - absolutely nothing other than some tinkering with a few road junctions as a result of section 106 agreements which in turn increase the cost of the hosing being built.

No

Representation ID: 100543

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Chivers

There appears to be a lack of infrastructure planning and key stakeholders must be consulted: Severn Trent for water distribution and sewerage capacity as is it already inadequate; Highways and Road Safety as Barford's roads are frequently congested, especially during school runs, with the high street limited to one lane throughout 24 hours due to residential parked cars and the proposed quarry development was not factored into the settlement plans, with additional pressure on infrastructure. Without proper infrastructure, the development site/housing settlements in X1 risks overwhelming local utilities and amenities, causing long term issues for both new and existing residents.

No

Representation ID: 100646

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pam Byrne

Infrastructure needs to be improved before housing planning is in place. It cannot be left open to ‘as when needed’ Plans need to be in place for gp surgeries, pharmacies, schools, hospitals, transport systems, flood defence, conservation and community services before any of these plans can go ahead, not during development .

Yes

Representation ID: 100687

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Gladman have no objection to the inclusion of this draft policy as all development which would cause an impact on local infrastructure should be mitigated through the provision of financial contributions, subject to their compliance with the CIL tests.

Development is only required to mitigate its own impacts and cannot be required to address existing issues and shortfalls in provision. Any policy wording in the Plan for Section 106 agreements will need to ensure decision makers consider the need for infrastructure requirements at the time of making the decision. Planning obligations be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

No

Representation ID: 100711

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

I have absolutely ZERO belief that the council can deliver infrastructure in line with housing development. Traffic congestion is getting worse, traffic infrastructure has not kept up with the scale of development and it looks as if modelling where people live v where they work has not been carried out effectively. Schools, hospitals and parking never seem to catch up with the huge rises in population that have been and are being planned

Other

Representation ID: 100713

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Hogarth

In principle yes, but please ensure the infrastructure is the first thing to be built on / for new developments so it can’t be de scoped at a later date. This seems to happen a lot.

No

Representation ID: 100862

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

The Councils should actively engage with site promotors to understand potential infrastructure opportunities and constraints in order to assist in establishing the most appropriate development sites and their policy requirements ahead of the publication of the Pre-Submission SWLP.

Yes

Representation ID: 100864

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr guy evans

n/a