No

Representation ID: 90469

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr DJ Renney

Shipston offers little employment, and there is no reason to expect more. It has no railway station. So any new houses will create more road traffic in the heart of the town and around it. But the capacity and quality of the roads are inadequate for such growth. So there will be loss of pedestrians from the town centre, more carbon emissions, and more particulate air pollution.

Shipston already floods, and covering more of the local area with houses and roads will make this worse.

The quality of life in Shipston will deteriorate.

No

Representation ID: 90503

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

I agree with principles, but not the lack of considerdation in selection of SG17.
Doubling the size of small rural town, as proposed would suggest that the following have not been considered:
Attractiveness.(unique character will be swallowed by doubling of size and increased traffic etc)
Sensitive to context. (no consideration given to context)
Distinctiveness. (as above, character of town will be lost)
Connectedness (20 mins walk to town)
Environmental sustainability.(high risk of flooding should not permit planning permission, so why included?)
Adapting to climate change. (as above, plus significant challenges of infrastructure)

No

Representation ID: 90506

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Checkley

Reasons for SG17 Strategic Growth Location not to be included in the plan
The development of the areas identified as part of SG17 would have a detrimental impact on the area for the following reasons:
1. Detrimental impact upon residential amenity – there is already poor access to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, retail provision, schools, and employment opportunities. Additional housing in SG17 would place an unacceptable burden on Shipston on Stour.
2. Impact on traffic and highways – the road network surrounding the potential SG17 growth location is insufficient. Specifically Shoulderway Lane and Fell Mill Lane are small rural roads with poor access to the regional road network. The existing rural roads bordering the SG17 locations are well used leisure routes for pedestrians and cyclists.
3. Drainage and flooding – many of the areas within SG17 are prone to drainage and flooding problems, especially the area to the west of Fell Mill Lane which regularly floods. To consider building homes on this area would be very ill advised. Additionally, the extra development to the area of SG17 off Shoulderway Lane would risk causing surface water drainage impacts to existing housing on London Road due to the increased amount of impermeable surface area in place of previously permeable green field land.
4. Electrical capacity in Shipston is unlikely to be sufficient for such an influx of new homes which would likely require EV charging and capacity to support air source heat pumps as low carbon heating.
5. Carbon emissions – development on the scale implied by SG17 will result in a significant rise in carbon emissions both from the use of homes and from the transport requirements of residents. There is no rail connection and public transport is scant suggesting road traffic emissions would soar.
6. Impact on the environment – development within SG17 would lead to the loss of valuable and well sued green space and amenity areas such as the recently established River Stour walk.
7. Employment opportunities – there are very few employment opportunities in Shipston which suggests additional residential development within the town would mean Shipston increasingly would become a dormitory town which would only benefit in a minor way from such an influx of new residents.

No

Representation ID: 90530

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Venetia Adamson

As a life long resident I am certain this proposition will put unmanageable stress on shipstons infrastructure and its residents. This would be a disastrous for a historic town

No

Representation ID: 90539

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Hannah Bakewell

I am concerned that the number of proposed houses would strain local resources such as schools and medical services, 3000 homes would require approximately 3 or 4 more GPs assuming 2 people per household. There is limited NHS funding available for recruitment of new GPs at present.

A large proportion of proposed houses are in or next to the flood plain, far from local amenities, driving to town would be necessary adding to traffic and pollution.

The plans include the recycling centre which is an essential local amenity, the loss of this would have a negative impact on the environment.

No

Representation ID: 90544

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Jennifer Davis

You will be taking another nature walk. Children need to learn about nature in every aspect. It’s too close to the river Avon which will cause More problems in the future. It needs to stay as a historic town. Let’s save what we have .
There are already two estate built within this area.

No

Representation ID: 90568

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Mary Taylor

The current infrastructure cannot support this proposal.
The single track bridges at Barcheston and Honington and one way system already struggle with traffic volumes.
Shipston is already highly suspectible to flooding with 42% of the Fell Mill site ( ref 148, 147 ) in flood zones 3&2 , which will increase surface water run off leading to greater risk of flooding.
The current sewage systems already over capacity.
The local school is over subscribed with no sixth form with the nearest schools in Chipping Campden or Stratford leading to more car journeys as the public transport system is inadequate

No

Representation ID: 90582

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alyson Brenchley

In relation to area SG17. We currently have no capacity in relation to dentists, GP services, hospitals, supermarkets, petrol stations. Our sewer system is under pressure and the area floods regularly. Public transport is very poor and the 50 bus was recently reduced. These issues appear to have been ignored.

No

Representation ID: 90589

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alyson Brenchley

Area SG17. This will completely alter the town of Shipston on Stour, which has already had a huge amount of development. It ignores the infrastructure issues and the flood plain. Most houses that have been built are not accessible to people on low wages.

No

Representation ID: 90591

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alyson Brenchley

Area SG17 is mainly built on a flood plain that other areas rely on to prevent worse flooding happening in Shipston.

No

Representation ID: 90595

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs sheelagh Saunders

The High School (with no sixth form) and Primary school will not be able to accommodate the increased number of children. The Medical centre, already dealing with huge numbers, has no room to expand. Brailes bridge is effectively single file. The one-way system in Mill street is already overburdened. Shipston has no fuel station and only small supermarkets. There are already severe problems with sewage overflowing into gardens and the increase of hard surfacing will only exacerbate the flood risk. There is little employment so new residents will be forced to commute. Fell Mill is an "Area of Restraint".

No

Representation ID: 90596

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Shona MacAskill

Shipston has the nature of a village, and the infrastructure is not present to support this. Insufficient jobs in the local area would mean more commuting, and the roads and public transport are not set up to accommodate this. There are not enough GPs and Dentists, and so an expansion to the extent proposed would preset issues that have not been addressed through the proposal, and would absolutely not be worth the negative impact on the near by Cotswolds National Landscape.

No

Representation ID: 90597

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr John Saunders

I believe that Shipston is already overdeveloped and all the services are at breaking point. No more buildings should be erected. The schools and medical facilities are under enormous pressure from the increase of people coming into the area. I suggest that any construction should be well above the flood plane and doesn't career down into the town, lifting manholes and causing most unpleasant flooding. Shipston has much diminished green space . We cannot afford to lose any more. We do need our farmland and we do need the tip!

No

Representation ID: 90617

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Faithfull

Shipston is a small town with limited amenities and services, public transport, medical centre provision and schools for the existing population. Many of the proposed sites are on land that is in areas of AONB, Areas of restraint, part of Feldon National Character area.
Flooding is an increasing problem & the prospect of more homes covering green sites with tarmac and hard standings is worrying. Shipston sits in a dip with single track bridges, one way systems and many existing dwellings that already flood regularly.
The current sewerage system is also already over-capacity.

No

Representation ID: 90645

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Startin

We strongly disagree with the plans to signoficantly increase the numbers of homes in Shipston. There is not the infrastructure, facilities, nor capacity within local services to support this proposal. Piecemeal expansion of the town is a foolish and harmful appraoch. If you want to transform Shipston into a significantly larger conurbation do it as an integrated plan, providing the infrastructure as well as the new homes.

No

Representation ID: 90647

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Scaysbrook-Lloyd

Infrastructure is not in Shipston to accommodate more houses/residents. For example the historical bridge on the B4035 cannot function as two way traffic system if two vehicles are mini SUV size or larger, or if pedestrians are on the bridge. Increase in traffic will weaken the bridge, and it’s impassable when river bursts which is often.
Bus services have diminished significantly in the last 15 years and the train station was removed years ago, how will people commute? Local employment opportunities are poor here, I know first hand.
The developments are in flood zones, 42% of the Fell Mill site!

No

Representation ID: 90717

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Joel Young

As a resident of Upper Brailes, I strongly object to these proposals.
Shipston has already expanded enormously in the past few years and proposed plans will completely overwhelm the small towns limited services and infrastructure.
There are not enough school places
There is no supermarket
There is limited parking in square
There is only an infrequent bus service and no train station
There are limited employment opportunities, people will have to travel to other towns to work causing pollution.
Part of Fell Mill Site Ref: 148&747 is within an area of restraint.
etc etc etc

No

Representation ID: 90794

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tina Hale

We object to this plan for Clopton Quarter SG18 it’s unacceptable because the land is 100%perfect for food production and pleasure activity. The loss of is would completely destroy the welcombe Hills nature reserve and the surrounding hills. The ongoing situation on theBirmingham Road is already clogged with traffic . The area is also prone of flooding . the infrastructure cannot cope with this situation .
700 houses will bring in over 1000 cars to the area which will create more road noise pollution . This town is a tourist attraction which attracts more than the average town traffic holdups.

No

Representation ID: 90835

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Troy de Jong

Shipston lacks enough green spaces for the number of residents
Shipston village centre is already completely maxed out on space, insufficient parking, infrastructure etc
Shipston has infrequent bus services, which are inreliable and no train station
Shipston area near the bridge is extremely prone to flooding already, any development would exacerbate this
Schools and medical facilities already at capacity
Long distances to major employment hubs and to large towns

No

Representation ID: 90840

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Emma Hillman

Local health services are already inadequate for the population size, with homes on SG17 being more than 20 minutes walk from essential services which means more cars on the road for people to get to them. Shipston has no train station and irregular buses to larger towns in the area, this will cause huge traffic issues with thousands more people commuting every day. It also has a small town centre with already limited parking. Much of the proposed area is within flood zones which is just asking for disaster. Not to mention the impact on desperately needed green spaces!

No

Representation ID: 90856

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Woolf

Additional land take will increase surface water run off into the Stour with the conservation area and potentially the shops in Shipton will flood
Where do you expect new residents will work/travel to/from?
You will significantly increase road traffic into an area with a highway infrastructure not design to take this additional volume
Under the freedom of information act please release engineers reports relating to the current condition of both bridges mentioned and what capacity there is for increased traffic and loading.
The increase in road traffic goes against your 'green' credentials

No

Representation ID: 90937

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Hall

There is a lack infrastructure, public transport, and local employment opportunities, making Sg17 unsuitable for sustainable development. The Fell Mill site, in particular, is at risk of flooding, which could endanger residents and contradict sustainability principles. You also highlight the potential negative impact on the 3km buffer zone of CNL (AONB) and the increased reliance on private vehicles due to the lack of public transport

No

Representation ID: 90964

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr sam steele

- Part of Fell Mill site (Ref: 148 & 747) sits within an “Area of
Restraint” preventing development.
-Fell Mill and Anglea’s Meadow sites (Ref: 148, 747, 552 & 062)
are within 3km buffer zone of CNL (AONB) and are also part of the Feldon National Character area.
- Shipston has no train station, and infrequent bus services with a infrustructure already at breaking point.
- M40 is 15 miles away and M5 is 16 miles away with single track bridges at Barcheston and Honington and one-way
system in Shipston are already struggling with the volume of traffic and pollution.

No

Representation ID: 90972

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Badham

The proposals are completely unacceptable. The tip and recycling centre in Shipston is vital & very well used in Shipston, protecting our countryside & green spaces from fly tipping. Most of the proposed building sites around Shipston are on areas that regularly flood! Because of the river Stour!

No

Representation ID: 90973

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Badham

Shipston simply can not support these proposals proposals because it doesn’t have the available infrastructure or suitable land available without it affecting green belt land, plus local schools are already full, as is the doctors surgery & health centre. There is no fuel station in Shipston or EV charging network!

No

Representation ID: 90995

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: GP Evans

Shipton is a small market town serving a wider rural area. The proposal would likely almost double the population and stretch to breaking point existing services such as medical services, educational facilities employment opportunities and shopping provision. It would also increase the number of cars and other vehicles in an already heavily crammed centre. Further the proposed development is within a existing AONB and and Area of Restraint; to agree the proposals would damage the environment, increase issues of flooding and sewage provision. Any housebuilding would need to ensure proper infrastructure with regard to services, transport and flood defences.

Yes

Representation ID: 91020

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree

Other

Representation ID: 91021

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree but concern regarding infrastructure and what type of employment.

No

Representation ID: 91035

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Withers

I don’t agree as at no point in your plan is there reference to infrastructure improvements I.e. dr, schools, shops, roads, sewerage and reservoir capacity.

Yes

Representation ID: 91044

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Taylor

I strongly support SG 17 but would point out that large areas are included in the Stour flood plain - these areas should be excluded and housing numbers adjusted accordingly.