Other

Representation ID: 102163

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: LRM Planning

The Draft Policy Direction requires that development proposals should be consistent with and contribute to the implementation of various transport strategies including the Local Transport Plan, the Rail Strategy and the Local Walking and Cycling Plan. We agree that it is important that the land-use and transport matters are properly integrated. That said, it is the Local Plan that should determine the long-term spatial strategy and those infrastructure plans should equally reflect land use policies and proposals, especially when the duration of those other strategies are shorter term than the Local Plan.

Other

Representation ID: 102224

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

Requesting additional information on the IDP

Yes

Representation ID: 102316

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough

Agent: Marrons

Development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, but the SWC’s must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy. Regarding infrastructure requirements for strategic allocations, the SWCs should collaborate with those bringing the site’s forward to understand site-specific requirements. Allocations with overly onerous infrastructure requirements may delay the delivery of sites due to viability or feasibility concerns. Requirements for infrastructure should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

No

Representation ID: 102324

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Bevan

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is inadequate, failing to address essential infrastructure needs for X1, SG09, SG10 and SG11. It omits J13 and J14 and ignores critical roads around Bishop’s Tachbrook and Hatton, which require major investment before accommodating growth.

The 2017 Local Plan already strained south Leamington’s infrastructure, with motorway junctions and roads at capacity. No further development in Bishop’s Tachbrook should proceed until key junctions are upgraded.

Hatton’s A4177 roadworks lasted a year for just 150 houses—how could 6,000+ homes be built without causing severe disruption to thousands of residents?

No

Representation ID: 102414

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Val Sassall

The current infrastructure is inadequate before building anything in the area of Warwick, Leamington and close by villages. Warwick Hospital I struggling to cope with demand without completion of the Asps or Beauchamp estates already being built. No NHS dentist slots available locally. Roads totally rammed especially if just one of them has roadworks. No regard on several sites re flood plains eg Westham Lane BARFORD. Severn Trent not coping in and around the area already.
How will the area cope if M40 J13/14 works happen for example ?

Other

Representation ID: 102427

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hill Residential

Agent: Turley

Hill supports the policy, subject to infrastructure requirements being balanced with viability, including the Green Belt 'Golden Rules'.

No

Representation ID: 102524

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Debra Turner

Alcester has seen no alteration in it's infrastructure. The schools have not increased in size. There is not a dentist practise in the town that takes NHS patients

No

Representation ID: 102529

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Carl Barthorpe

No I dont, the council have shown no care in delivering infrastructure 1st. Examples of after-thought.

Unsuitable junction at Kenilworth Pavilions. Road measures were needed a year after the junction was finished, extra costs to the local councils to move sign-posts, speed humps etc (this should have been done first)

No evidence that Drs and Warwick hospital can cope with extra residents.

Yes

Representation ID: 102545

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Penelope Beswick

Enhancements to the rail network and improvement in interconnectivity between bus and rail would be very beneficial to the whole area.

Yes

Representation ID: 102608

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

The policy needs to be clearer, clarifying the standards of "appropriateness" to be applied, with guidelines/examples for what is required. There should be specific commitment to sustainable transport infrastructure.

Other

Representation ID: 102618

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: IM Land 1 Limited

Agent: Turley

As noted in our response to the introduction, an IDP should be developed further to establish a comprehensive itemised list of infrastructure needs across both districts to meet the total housing need. Suggested amendments will ensure that policy wording is in accordance with PPG.

Other

Representation ID: 102659

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Newson

I support the intent of Draft Policy Direction 5 but urge stricter requirements to ensure infrastructure keeps pace with development. Developers must be held accountable for delivering essential upgrades, such as transport, utilities, and community facilities, to meet the council’s strategic goals. The policy should mandate clear timelines, funding mechanisms, and enforceable agreements (e.g., Section 106) to prevent delays or under-delivery. Infrastructure must be prioritised ahead of or alongside development to avoid overburdening existing systems. Without robust measures, growth risks exacerbating current deficiencies, undermining sustainability, and failing to deliver the high-quality, well-connected communities envisioned in the Local Plan.

Other

Representation ID: 102670

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

Draft Policy Direction 5 assumes that infrastructure will be provided but does not set out clear guarantees on when or how this will happen. The plan also relies heavily on existing transport strategies, but public transport in South Warwickshire is already poor, and there is no evidence that significant improvements will be in place before large-scale developments are built. Flood management is also critical, but without clear commitments, I am concerned that existing systems will be overwhelmed

Other

Representation ID: 102795

Received: 07/03/2025

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?

Other

Representation ID: 102848

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Currie

The policy must be stronger in defining the developer requirements to provide new developments that include schools, shops, public transport, doctors surgeries, pharmacists and general infrastructure. The developers must include green spaces for recreation and relaxation and green corridors and habitat to replace the loss of local nature habitat.

No

Representation ID: 102881

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Williams

The current infrastructure in the Shipston area is not fit for purpose. The primary and secondary schools are full, the doctor's surgery is at breaking point, we've lost our community hospital thanks to some blatant deception, no full time police station, no petrol station, no train station, no dual carriageways, no supermarket (Sainsbury's plan was rejected).

Yes

Representation ID: 102891

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Louisa Smith

Infrastructure must be in place first! Reinstate rail/tram link to Honeybourne, increasing access to sustainable transport. Areas for business are also essential otherwise where are all the new residents going to work. creating 'dormitory' towns should be avoided!

No

Representation ID: 102921

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Scott

While in principle I can see that there is a need for additional housing within Warwickshire I have serious concerns as to how the proposed plans will be workable. Existing infrastructure is severely lacking with the only viable transport routes being possible were there to be widespread destruction of the environment. Schools; Sport and recreational facilities; Health care facilities, digital infrastructure; energy, water and waste management) would also be a concern. The proposed developments will lead to merging parishes which is at odds with protecting and enhancing our environmental assets a key objective 12 in SWLP assets.

Yes

Representation ID: 102965

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Marrons

Development proposals should endeavour to deliver the infrastructure set out in the transport strategies outlined, but the SWC’s must acknowledge the ability and need for strategic scale sites to deliver infrastructure that is considered important to a local community but not formally identified within an IDP or other transport strategy. Regarding infrastructure requirements for strategic allocations, the SWCs should collaborate with those bringing the site’s forward to understand site-specific requirements. Allocations with overly onerous infrastructure requirements may delay the delivery of sites due to viability or feasibility concerns. Requirements for infrastructure should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.

Other

Representation ID: 103162

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

The land grab of HS2 through the area with environmental damage and landcsape shows how damaging virgin infrastucture can be. Any development on M40 junctions should not be planned.

Other

Representation ID: 103186

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Salford Road, Bidford-on-Avon

Agent: Turley

Request for additional information

Other

Representation ID: 103190

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Gaydon Road, Bishop's Itchington

Agent: Turley

Richborough generally support development being consistent with and contributing to the transport strategies referred to within Draft Policy Direction 5. However at this stage the IDP has not been progressed to a point to be able to fully understand the details of the specific transport strategies. In addition to the implementation of the transport strategies, any site specific infrastructure and other requirements in any forthcoming allocation policies will need to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed, based on up-to-date evidence of need and subject to viability (which should be explicitly referenced in the policy wording). These requirements will also need to be justified through the evolving IDP.

Other

Representation ID: 103198

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Lighthorne Road, Kineton

Agent: Turley

Richborough generally support development being consistent with and contributing to the transport strategies referred to within Draft Policy Direction 5. However at this stage the IDP has not been progressed to a point to be able to fully understand the details of the specific transport strategies. In addition to the implementation of the transport strategies, any site specific infrastructure and other requirements in any forthcoming allocation policies will need to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed, based on up-to-date evidence of need and subject to viability (which should be explicitly referenced in the policy wording). These requirements will also need to be justified through the evolving IDP.

Other

Representation ID: 103201

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Sycamore Close, Stockton

Agent: Turley

Richborough generally support development being consistent with and contributing to the transport strategies referred to within Draft Policy Direction 5. However at this stage the IDP has not been progressed to a point to be able to fully understand the details of the specific transport strategies. In addition to the implementation of the transport strategies, any site specific infrastructure and other requirements in any forthcoming allocation policies will need to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed, based on up-to-date evidence of need and subject to viability (which should be explicitly referenced in the policy wording). These requirements will also need to be justified through the evolving IDP.

Other

Representation ID: 103204

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Kineton Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

Richborough generally support development being consistent with and contributing to the transport strategies referred to within Draft Policy Direction 5. However at this stage the IDP has not been progressed to a point to be able to fully understand the details of the specific transport strategies. In addition to the implementation of the transport strategies, any site specific infrastructure and other requirements in any forthcoming allocation policies will need to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed, based on up-to-date evidence of need and subject to viability (which should be explicitly referenced in the policy wording). These requirements will also need to be justified through the evolving IDP.

Other

Representation ID: 103207

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Wellesbourne Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

Request for additional information

Other

Representation ID: 103209

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Plough Lane, Bishop's Itchington

Agent: Turley

Richborough generally support development being consistent with and contributing to the transport strategies referred to within Draft Policy Direction 5. However at this stage the IDP has not been progressed to a point to be able to fully understand the details of the specific transport strategies. In addition to the implementation of the transport strategies, any site specific infrastructure and other requirements in any forthcoming allocation policies will need to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed, based on up-to-date evidence of need and subject to viability (which should be explicitly referenced in the policy wording). These requirements will also need to be justified through the evolving IDP.

Other

Representation ID: 103265

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Family

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: 103295

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Easton

Your prime example here again is HS2. All the promises, budgets plans etc. All rubbish. Still ongoing after years of disruption. Plan changes and delays in putting infrastructure in. It all sounds very good on paper but what happens when the projects slips. Will there be appropriate service level agreements in place for example. Our local train service seems to be a bit of a hit and miss at times too.

Yes

Representation ID: 103407

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst I agree with the plan, as delivery of infrastructure is generally a county or 3rd-party deliverable, fulfilling the plan will be difficult to achieve.