Yes

Representation ID: 86493

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs C Dempster

Spread out the development

Yes

Representation ID: 87355

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

Sustainable development

Yes

Representation ID: 87508

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I agree this village needs more houses

Yes

Representation ID: 87687

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

Although access to A46 and stratford by road is reasonable there is no train. More houses in Bidford should include a high school.

Yes

Representation ID: 87690

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

ANY DEVELOPMENT SHOULD ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL AND THE TWO SHIRES GREEN WAY

No

Representation ID: 87902

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Leah Macdonald

Bidford-on-Avon has already experienced significant growth and is currently surrounded on two sides by new housing developments. The land indicated in location SG20 would represent around a 200% increase in the size of the village footprint. The village facilities and infrastructure are already failing to cope with the current number of homes, so adding this growth location to the village would be likely to exacerbate these issues which include: decentralisation of the village away from the high street, increased traffic congestion and potential damage to the single-lane listed bridge, lack of provision for primary and secondary school places.

Yes

Representation ID: 88008

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

Not greenbelt

Yes

Representation ID: 88009

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

Yes as not in greenbelt

No

Representation ID: 88180

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rozanne Harris

Similarly to the Shipston proposal this would effectively double the size of Bideford using primarily green belt land destroying one of the many joys of warwickshire.

Other

Representation ID: 88257

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

in part but not all.

Yes

Representation ID: 88641

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

No

Representation ID: 89195

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Preston Witts

Bidford-on-Avon has already been recklessly over-developed without the infrastructure to support it. Any further development will violate the rural nature of the locality and put an even greater strain on services. It is unthinkable that this area is yet again a target for more housing when it has been the victim of such unwanted and unwarranted development in the past.

No

Representation ID: 89212

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Bradley

1 Roads unsuitable for larger vehicles including buses .
2 Sewerage waste is unavailable : homes have on-site sewage plants.
3 Famington Old Farm and Surrounding land lies in area of significant archaeological potential
as stated by the council on planning letter 10/01787/FUL.4
4 Water drainage is an issue and would remain so for new house builds.
5 The area is considered by many locals as an area of natural beauty.
6 infrastructure: schools doctors shops already at capacity.

Yes

Representation ID: 89529

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

Non green belt so go ahead

Yes

Representation ID: 89735

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

n/a

No

Representation ID: 89744

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Szczygielski

Concerns on existing road and services infrastructure.
Is bidford already passed its maximum threshold to support the residents for essential services including schools and health availability.
It is understood that surrounding area is of historical interest and particular areas would require archaeological processes placed.
Around Famington farm and surrounding areas are considered a major part of the villages character and an area of natural interest. This includes the trees planted at the top of the hill for the recent queen Elizabeths silver jubilee.

No

Representation ID: 90091

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

River Avon LWS

Yes

Representation ID: 90394

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

Why is the proposed developemtn of Long Marston in a Garden Village town not progressed?
Plans to develop in bearley has already been agreed - why is this not being progressed?

No

Representation ID: 90730

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Joseph Mileto

The SG20 plan does not have a sustainable infrastructure
There are lack of schools
Lack of adequate roads.....lanes are already congested with number of accidents reported
The villages of Temple Grafton and Ardens Grafton have no mains sewage
Doctors practices in Bidford on Avon and Alcester already at capacity

Other

Representation ID: 91025

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Partial agreement for expansion but not all proposed land sites in the SG20 plan. I do not believe the infrastructure to be the most appropriate.

No

Representation ID: 91437

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Lucia Restall Orr

The proposal will affect the following Local Wildlife Sites: River Avon and tributaries LWS

No

Representation ID: 91565

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr adam Wakeley

There is no mains / sewage drainage (houses at Famington all on septic tanks).
The Small Brook will not cope with new houses, it already bursts its banks and floods the fields. Rain water will not be soaked up by the land if built on & it will be diverted there.
Grafton Lane is too narrow for public transport with a railway bridge creating a pinch point.
The hill is very steep @ 20% and has a blind corner & will cause accidents.
One of the fields is 'ridge & furrow' confirming the land has medieval interest & history

Other

Representation ID: 91571

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Smith

I challenge the extent of "the location" as including Council land near Exhall, Temple Grafton Wixford parishes also at rear of Main St Exhall, and land bounded by Grafton Lane , Wixford Rd and George Elms Lane. Reasons ; poor road access , much single track, no kerbs and risk of "falling off "edges and ripping tyres, schools at capacity, no railway station and Bidford and Welford Bridges often out of action . Conservation areas exist for good reason. The land is highly visible ; houses would have detrimental impact on amenities. Infill / small development opposed for same reasons.

No

Representation ID: 91887

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr adam Wakeley

The capacity of Small Brook to cope with more surface run off water from roofs, drives & roads is a major concern & will flood the area as there is no mains sewage or drainage to take this water (to date the rain has largely been absorbed by the farming land) & the brook already breaches its banks & floods some farm land (not the houses at Famington, but this would change if there was development on the surrounding land)

No

Representation ID: 91888

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Lola Wakeley

No main sewage / drainage in place .
Ridge and Furrow farm land.
Narrow main road so not suitable to public transport or construction vehicles .
Historical farm land .
Farm fields flood from the brook and surface water on the fields .

No

Representation ID: 92141

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: T Cullum

Bidford on Avon Parish has seen over 600 dwellings built in the last five years without infrastructure improvements or job opportunities, and we still face flooding issues. Public transport is inadequate for a Main Rural Centre, with limited bus services that hinder achieving Net Zero targets. Agricultural sites mentioned in SG20 should remain as such for biodiversity or sports facilities. I support developing the Land at Kings Meadow as an orchard. Additionally, large sites in Broom should remain countryside, with the only suitable potential development at the site near the Waterloo Industrial Estate.

Other

Representation ID: 92320

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Harbury Parish Council

the lack of Rail means this should not be a major development

Yes

Representation ID: 92375

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Edmunds

Bidford had no capacity for more development. The bridge is overused already and there is no plan to build a new bridge. The roads are not fit for increased traffic. Most of the sites outlined are floodplains which is so ridiculous. I wholeheartedly do NOT support this application.

No

Representation ID: 92379

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amy Krasnowski

There is not enough infrastructure in Bidford to cope with new houses. The 1 primary school is too small, with not enough spaces for the children of Bidford. My child did not get a space at the local primary
because of the new housing estate we now have to travel to Temple Grafton. There is no secondary school in Bidford either Yet Alcester being smaller by population has 3 secondary schools and 2 primary schools and leisure centre. With out adequate infrastructure the village will not cope.

No

Representation ID: 92393

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Haerle

Bidford does not have the facilities (schools, sports facilities, local shops) of neighbouring towns such as Alcester but a population that is bigger. Additional houses will put an even bigger strain on existing primary school and road infrastructure.