Yes

Representation ID: 102471

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Clive Upton

I do not agree that SG19 might be included in the Plan. There has already been considerable new housing at Wellesbourne, and in the Loxley Road road area of Tiddington, with increasing strain on existing services and growing traffic flow on the B4086 and at the river crossing A422. Concentration should be on developing new self-sustaining settlements, which will not impact overmuch on the area south of the Avon which, unlike the area immediately to the north of Stratford centre, is currently of manageable proportions.

Yes

Representation ID: 102557

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

SG19 is a more suitable site for development because it is outside the Green Belt, meaning its inclusion will not contribute to the loss of protected countryside.

No

Representation ID: 102564

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs KARIN STANLEY

Recent additional housing in this area, in particular, Tiddington, lacks the necessary infrastructure. Tiddington is a village, with a village community, a village hall, a village Neighbourhood Plan, a village Residents Association and therefore subsuming it into Stratford town would be completely against the village community. There is significant additional traffic (including that from expansion of Wellesbourne), use of the ancient sewage system which all affects Tiddington residents.
The Tiddington Neighbourhood Plan identifies the 'strategic gap' between Tiddington and Stratford which should be maintained. Attempts to build there previously were refused following appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Yes

Representation ID: 102589

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Andrews

Development on non-green belt land should be prioritised over development on green belt. Total housing needs can be met without developing on green belt so morally not right to remove green belt without exceptional cause.
These areas are better supported with existing infrastructure and transport network without requiring major investment on more remote, less connected areas.
The opportunity in terms of yield is higher in these areas so there is a duty to fulfil the housing needs in the most responsible way considering this and the green belt obligations.

Yes

Representation ID: 102739

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Liz Churchill

As a general rule, I would prefer to see non Green-belt sites being used.

Other

Representation ID: 102796

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Louisa Smith

I do NOT believe that Tiddington requires any additional housing having had 450 houses built in the area in the last few years. New housing has been created but lacks community. The area on Knights Lane has already been refused on appeal by a Planning Inspector to maintain a strategic gap between Stratford town and Tiddington village, this judgement MUST stand. The area North of Banbury Road is too large and would remove too much green belt which is unacceptable. I would support some building around Waitrose, though a Western relief road requires consideration. INFRASTUCTURE IS VITAL!

Yes

Representation ID: 102831

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Stratford - Milcote (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has low capacity constraints and low environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a lower risk location.

Other

Representation ID: 103150

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure. Transport links around Stratford are at capacity. The A46 needs upgrade before it can be considered for further substantial development.

No

Representation ID: 103151

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Green

Too much traffic. Not a big enough school. Road congestion.

No

Representation ID: 103216

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Thorpe

The historic tourist destination of Stratford is popular with all age groups because it is contained within a small geographical area that enables visitors to understand its history. Swallowing surrounding villages into an urban sprawl spoils the town and villages and creates congestion, parking difficulties and infrastructure difficulties. Making better use of disused buildings close to public transport links would be by far the better option and in line with council planning policy to date.

No

Representation ID: 103250

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tomlinson

Tiddington & Stratford have always been separated by a gap and we fought for this on a previous occasion with the planning inspector agreeing the separation to avoid coalesence. We object to any proposal which would reverse this separation.
The suggestion of a road between Tiddington & Alveston passing through a developed area and crossing a critical floodplain where the Stratford District Council has already passed a motion to protect the area from development is unacceptable.

Yes

Representation ID: 103329

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

If the construction of new houses is to proceed, it is more appropriate to construct on non-Green Belt land.

Other

Representation ID: 103442

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

SG19 east of Stratford-upon-Avon: The larger part of SG19 would extend the town to the south, beyond the eastern extension of the Southern Relief Road, which should stay its boundary. That would result in housing in the Orchard Hill Farm area, too far from the town centre to be walk- or cycle-able. Some limited development north of the A422 Banbury Road may be possible without harming the character and setting of Stratford, though not on the scale shown for SG19.

Yes

Representation ID: 103491

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carol Jones

Support strategic growth locations on non-greenbelt land.

No

Representation ID: 103550

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

Stratford-upon-Avon is constrained by the historic layout of the town and the River Avon, and it suffers from major traffic congestion. In particular the medieval Clopton Bridge, still the only river crossing in the town centre, is overloaded and carries an excessive number of HGVs. SG19 lies south of the river and new houses in the area would add greatly to the pressure on the Clopton Bridge causing intolerable delays.

No

Representation ID: 103611

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Craig Joyce

I firmly oppose any housing developments proposed for Tiddington, especially on the critical strategic gap identified between Tiddington and Stratford in the Neighbourhood Development Plan. Allowing construction on this land blatantly disregards established planning policies specifically designed to protect and preserve distinct community boundaries. Moreover, building additional housing near the River Avon would undoubtedly intensify local flooding risks, endangering existing properties and infrastructure by significantly increasing surface water runoff. Therefore, it is imperative that site SG19 be completely removed from further consideration to decisively safeguard our community's identity and proactively prevent unnecessary environmental damage and flooding hazards.

No

Representation ID: 103649

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: John Elliott

- the strategic growth plan for SG19 does not protect the strategic gap (as per current local planning policy) between Tiddington and Stratford town, threatening the separate identity of the villages.
- The proposal would significantly reduce existing green space within the Tiddington area, which has already been reduced due to new housing development in the last decade.
- the required road infrastructure to support the proposed developments and increase in population appears unsatisfactory / not fully considered. Any new developments should have the required infrastructure in place PRIOR to new housing being established.

No

Representation ID: 103744

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Kocan-Payne

As a local resident who uses the land between Trinity Mead and Waitrose for very regular Dog and wellbeing walks, this decision will have a major impact on my mental health. I've recently been diagnosed with combined-type ADHD and some Autism, and being out in the countryside within a few minutes of leaving our house gives me the environment I need to keep me going.

Without this I will be completely lost, and additionally, we'd have to make a car journey to access something similar if this plan goes ahead.

This is in direct conflict with reducing emissions in town.

Yes

Representation ID: 103797

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Churchill

I believe that all new development should be made only on Non Green Belt or Brown Field sites.

No

Representation ID: 103835

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Mary Manandhar

This will encircle and change the nature of small neighbourhoods, it's not a new settlement. It will increase traffic to the A439, and through Tiddington (already congested with cars parking on pavements on a regular basis) and Cherry Orchard areas, increasing noise, air and light pollution to the detriment of public health/safety. It will reduce wildlife corridors and disturb wildlife. The Tiddington allotments and other vital community spaces and assets for local food production and biodiversity will be negatively impacted. It will make access to green spaces even harder. Emphasis on active travel and energy efficient public transport is lacking.

No

Representation ID: 103877

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Michelle Blackburn

destroying the land, nature, added pollution an increasing the flood risks.

No

Representation ID: 103942

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Creighton Thomas

This area is far too close to the Stratford-on-Avon town and already gets jammed with traffic on most days due to too much traffic. Traffic needs to be diverted away from this area and this would be possible with new out of area housing with appropriate infrastructure

Yes

Representation ID: 104000

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

non green belt within the the A46/M40 belt

No

Representation ID: 104130

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Aaron Smith

This countryside provides so much for those that live here. The town does not need anymore congestion on this side of the bridge either.

No

Representation ID: 104180

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

The lack of transport links from this area without further burden on the Clopton Bridge, when taken together with the lack of facilities (employment, secondary school, shops etc) this side of the river, would not make this a sensible location for further development.

Yes

Representation ID: 104317

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Carl Bergstrom

Stratford can do with more development

Yes

Representation ID: 104318

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Newington

Appropriate site. Not in green belt area

No

Representation ID: 104337

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: N Donaldson

To summarise, including this area as part of a development location would be a significant loss and disadvantage to the residents living on this side of stratford. I believe it will be detrimental to the wellbeing of many people to not have a green space within walking distance, as this part of stratford is already largely isolated from many things our beautiful town has to offer (without a vehicle). Developing on this land will also create further problems for traffic for residents and tourists visiting our town as it would make the main road into town from the south-east impassable.

No

Representation ID: 104487

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: N Donaldson

To summarise, including this area as part of a development location would be a significant loss and disadvantage to the residents living on this side of stratford. I believe it will be detrimental to the wellbeing of many people to not have a green space within walking distance, as this part of stratford is already largely isolated from many things our beautiful town has to offer (without a vehicle). Developing on this land will also create further problems for traffic for residents and tourists visiting our town as it would make the main road into town from the south-east impassable.

No

Representation ID: 104495

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gracie Gibbons

Adding more houses between the new development on Loxley Road/Knights Lane and the football club/Townsend Road will put enormous pressure on Loxley road and Clopton bridge, not to mention how the town centre would cope.
Alveston primary school is already oversubscribed and increased traffic along knights lane would make it even more dangerous outside school.

This area also creates the necessary gap between Stratford and Tiddington and is vital in maintaining the village and rural setting.