No

Representation ID: 94495

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Wilkes

Shipston is a small, rural, historic town, which has already expanded beyond its infrastructure. It’s poorly located for:
existing / proposed employment opportunities;
other amenities including shopping and health;
local / regional road and public transport links.
Further development would therefore be contrary to the Strategic Objectives including the drive to reduce carbon emissions / pollution.
The proposed developments are partly within the Cotswolds buffer zone / National Character Area 96 / Area of Restraint and would increase flood / road safety risk in the town / nearby villages.
Massive infrastructure investment, including new roads / bridge(s), would be essential.

Other

Representation ID: 94507

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Skeath

Location is partly flood plane. the bridge is too narrow, it has heavy pedestrian giving access to the main local footpaths Shipston has poor Access to footpaths, -West, one bridleway waterlogged for five-seven months of the year. West paths via the bridge; North, no paths; South, one path.
The land isn't in Shipston Parish, the town would be affected by the increased use, but support funding would not go to the town council. The land immediately across the river would make valuable public amenity land, there might also be opportunity to increase the carparking available to the town.

No

Representation ID: 94531

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Iain Mortimer

I oppose the development of REF 148 Land at fell Mill Lane, REF 747 Land at Leasow Farm, and REFSG 17 Shipston.

Shipston town does not have the facilities for this development. The bridges are too small, the car parking is already overcrowded and the development is in a flood plain.

Yes

Representation ID: 94553

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Steen

Not Green Belt

No

Representation ID: 94603

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Thomas

At the 2021 census, Shipston on Stour had a population of 5849. This plan seems disproportionate and far too large in scale. The area by the bridge floods and blocks the road and the bridge works as a single track, so presumably traffic would be pushed out on to inadequate roads through small villages. I understand that the recycling centre is under threat, which is ridiculous. The infrastructure would be overloaded with massive development on the scale imagined. The historic market town would be under great strain. Caution is needed!

Other

Representation ID: 94605

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Judith Cheney

I believe that further development in Shipston should not happen before the present issues have been resolved, i.e. medical facilities, schools, improved roads and if development must take place then access across the river Stour should be improved.

No

Representation ID: 94609

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Rogers MBE

Shipston sits in a high risk flood area and some of the new devopments sit in flood zones 2&3.
Increase in development will increase this risk and cause wider flooding areas.
Sewerage system over capacity - there is no further capacity.
Shipston is built on clay - no evidence that this is taken into account.

No

Representation ID: 94635

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Wears

Both schools over subscribed and no sixth form
Negative impact on local health economy, GP surgery needs updating and not able to expand
Removing recycling centre negative impact as would have to travel further increasing congestion and possible fly tipping
Infrequent bus service and cannot get direct to Warwick and Leamington which reduces access to hospital services
This impacts choice for sixth form students
Single track bridges at Honnington and Barcheston already struggle with volume of traffic and can be unsafe for pedestrians as inadequate walkways
SG17 floods
Current problems with sewage in town
No where to expand town parking

No

Representation ID: 94641

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Jane Bridgman

Shipston is very susceptible to flooding, with a significant portion of the Fell Mill site (ref 148 and 727) located in flood zones 2 and 3, I have witnessed this area flood many many times in the past years, also this site part of the shakesphere way and is within 3km of the buffer of the Cotswolds Natural landscape and an area of national beauty and part of the Felton National character area

No

Representation ID: 94662

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Griffiths

Significant part of Fell Mill site routinely floods as intended (7 times 2024, twice Jan 2025). Important 'relief valve'. On these occasions roads at Honington and Shipston bridges flood - impassable by foot or vehicle. Flooding frequency increased in recent years. Development would reduce land absorption of water.

Travel from proposed Fell Mill site to all points north, south and west (inc Shipston, Moreton, Stratford) would use single lane bridges at Honington and Shipston. Barely suitable for existing traffic.

Limited buses to Stratford and Banbury from Shipston.

Recycling facility should be retained to avoid travel to distant sites - environment.

No

Representation ID: 94664

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Judy Young

I strongly oppose the above development for the following reasons:

There are not enough facilities in the area to support such a large development, including schools and shops.

Shipston is already congested and so many more hundreds of people would make it gridlocked.
This would also affect the tourists who come to this area.
Also this amount of traffic would severely impact local villages with single track roads and narrow bridgas. There is no local train station and minimal buses.

These proposed houses would be built on an area which is known for flooding and rainfall is increasing.

There are minimal job opportunities in this area.

All in all it would be a disaster to this beautiful and historic area.

Other

Representation ID: 94707

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

N/A

No

Representation ID: 94714

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gaynor Weaver

This proposed site sits within an area of restraint preventing development and is within the buffer zone of the Cotswolds AONB. The only access from Shipston town is via a single track bridge at Barcheston and Honington, the other side which are already inadequate for the volume of traffic. The local villages in the immediate vicinity are served by single track roads which would not cope with the inevitable increase in traffic. A large part of the Fell Mill site is on a flood plain. Shipston has had major issues with sewage issues from existing developments.

Other

Representation ID: 94732

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

We have insufficient knowledge of the location from which to make an informed comment

No

Representation ID: 94761

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bernard Weaver

The proposal is totally untenable, the area lacks the Road infrastructure, sewerage services, local services, schooling and medical support and employment opportunities. The development expenditure would far outweigh the benefits whilst removing existing vital facilities ie Recycling Centre whilst significantly increasing existing flood risks. Traffic volume essential for commuting would be unsustainable due to the lack of public transport and the nature of the road system throughout what has largely remained undeveloped countryside of outstanding natural beauty. The nearest Train Stations are over 30 minutes away and motorways 15 miles away.

No

Representation ID: 94810

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Redshaw

The Hanson Avenue / Shoulderway Lane site is not suitable due to access issues and increased traffic on estate roads.
The Fell Mill site regularly floods.
Shipston has been subject to development on 3 of its main entry roads. Where has 106 payment been spent as it hasn't been our town? No sports facilities, all Shipston teams have to travel out of town for winter training. My sons home pitch was at Long Compton for several years. A shambles. Where is the new medical centre that was promised? It is difficult to get a GP appointment and that will worsen.

No

Representation ID: 94828

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Darren Sutton

Absolutely not, Shipston is already struggling with what has been built lately. New houses built on flood plains and inadequate infrastructure already

Yes

Representation ID: 94829

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: mr william tansey

Reasonable expansion of a small settlement within the surrounding space

No

Representation ID: 94887

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kit Debretton Gordon

Too many houses not enough infrastructure

No

Representation ID: 94946

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Coe

Shipston is a town that has only houses being added to it, no spaces for sport and recreation to grow, the schools are full and the surgery and hospital is not adequate enough as is. No amenities no area for jobs and no real infrastructure. More people will only mean more cars on the road as everyone will need to commute to other towns for work (as job opportunities are getting lower and declining)get shopping or even use a bank as we are losing that also. Shipston is highly susceptible to increasing flood risk.

No

Representation ID: 94963

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Micheal Barry

Shipston on Stour is a currently at breaking point , schools are full , Doctors full , dentist full, Parking full , very poor transport, pump house stinks , sewerage struggling. Bridges not suitable . Beautiful countryside being destroyed also . Flooding huge problem no employment . How can a small market town take anymore house , 800 already built which has caused huge stress on amimities. I’ve a disabled child and Shipston can’t really sport him . sports club over subscribed. Currently traffic lights for six weeks causing major disruption. Beautiful town will be ruined, I’m 20yrs in Shipston

No

Representation ID: 94978

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Alexandra Adamson

There are limited green spaces in Shipston and the proposed development will encroach further on this land which is currently used for walking, including access to a national trail.
The road network in Shipston is already struggling with the volume of traffic, made worse by the development already undertaken. This would be worsened by the proposed development particularly the bridge access and single way system.
The development would increase the flood risk, a matter which has caused existing residents difficulty beforehand and would be increased through these plans.

No

Representation ID: 94990

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Robert Broglia

Part of the site for Fell Mill is inside an area of restraint for development. Additionally this area is prone to flooding - 42% of the site is in Zones 2 and 3 and it is split by a flood plain. Current infrastructure is limited with respect to public transport provision - limited business service and no train station. The highways are already struggling with the volume of traffic particularly at the bridge and one way system.

No

Representation ID: 95001

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Suzanne Barry

No infrastructure to support further housing. Doctors and dentists full, Leisure centre gym full. High school full, primary school full, poor bus services to other schools or colleges. Poor employment opportunities with locals regularly asking for lifts to jobs in SuA, Leam etc. Roads are constantly congested, particularly the square and car parks are full. East Shipston land floods badly with Brailes bridge impassable. Sewage works stink in summer. Entrance to “East of Springhill site” would be very dangerous with the bend in the road.

Yes

Representation ID: 95071

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Not be a suitable strategic growth location because:
It does not meet Strategic Objective 1 – “Providing sustainable levels of growth in the area”
It does not meet Strategic Objective 3 – “Providing infrastructure in the right place at the right time”
It does not meet Strategic Objective 6 “Reducing and managing risk of flooding from all sources”
Shipston does not meet Spatial Growth Strategy objectives...“Urban land available… rail stations and bus stops with good travel times to major towns… Enterprise hubs… places where people can earn and spend money, including town centres, employment sites, and neighbouring major settlements.”

No

Representation ID: 95156

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Elisabeth Blunt

Our experience of recent housing development in Shipston means the councils and developers have no credibility on improving key issues- flood management, spaces at schools, medical & denture & pharmacy provision, jobs & historical/cultural riches. The report identifies most of these at significant or substantial risk, yet say the result will be ‘minor negative effects’. It is major to us. More flood risk, more sewage overflow. No tip, no spaces in the schools, no local jobs all mean more traffic yet the local roads and bridges are overwhelmed now. My key concerns - flood, local facilities, roads

No

Representation ID: 95178

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Partridge

As far as I am able to determine this proposal is building on the flood plain of the Stour. This against general policy and sanity and will increase Surface Water Run Off further increasing flood risk.
The site is in open countryside remote from all services, retail facilities and employment which will increase traffic volumes contrary to Climate Change Nett Zero policy.
NO provision for facilities such as retail, healthcare and education (primary and secondary).
The impact on local wildlife and nature in the area will be detrimental never mind that building on agricultural land is not sound policy.

No

Representation ID: 95183

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Louise Stroud

I object to the proposed residential developments east of the river - 148, 747 and 303 on the grounds that they would be built on the existing flood plain. With climate climate change, we must "make space for water" when considering redevelopment proposals.
The town was badly flooded in 2007 and although ameliorations have been put in place, when it rains heavily the Stour still floods up Church Street threatening the existing properties, many of which are listed or are of heritage value. This will only worsen with CC.

Will Site 552 have a land contamination assessment, prior to development?

No

Representation ID: 95186

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Donaldson

I do not agree with SG17. No longer the attractive, small rural market town I moved to 8 years ago. Already a significant amount of new building with no corresponding increase in services. Takes longer to walk into the countryside with the loss of fields and the resulting impact on nature and biodiversity. Amount of traffic and noise level on the London Road has grown significantly and parking is often not available - people drive to other towns. Shipston feels quite urban already. How do ancient bridges and regular flooding serve this plan?

No

Representation ID: 95196

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Not a suitable strategic growth location because: It does not meet Strategic Objective 1 – “Providing sustainable levels of growth in the area” It does not meet Strategic Objective 3 – “Providing infrastructure in the right place at the right time” It does not meet Strategic Objective 6 “Reducing and managing risk of flooding from all sources” Shipston does not meet Spatial Growth Strategy objectives...“Urban land available… rail stations and bus stops with good travel times to major towns… Enterprise hubs… places where people can earn and spend money, including town centres, employment sites, and neighbouring major settlements.”