Preferred Options 2025
Search representations
Results for Stratford upon Avon District Council search
New searchYes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 - Potential New Settlements?
Representation ID: 95887
Received: 04/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
On balance, the approach set out in the draft plan seems reasonable, noting it is to respond to the required numbers dictated to the Councils by the standard method imposed by central government. It should be ensured that growth happens in a sustainable and sensible way, with any new housing and commercial development accompanied by necessary infrastructure.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Strategic Growth Location SG17 Question
Representation ID: 96212
Received: 04/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
The sites around Shipston (SG17) are not suitable for development for the following reasons:
Strategic Objective 3 – Providing infrastructure in the right place at the right time
Shipston is not on a sustainable transport corridor and is lacking; in School 6th Form, community Hospital with beds, sewerage network capacity and Fire Station.
Strategic Objective 6 - Reducing and managing risk of flooding from all sources” Draft Policy J - New development should be prioritised to areas of lowest flood risk
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the How to Have Your Say chapter? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
Representation ID: 98621
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
This chapter could have benefited from some better infographics, that contain a useful summary of what is being consulted, working with a plain text is not the most impactful way to engage with the user.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Vision and Strategic Objectives: South Warwickshire 2050 chapter? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
Representation ID: 99104
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
The strategic objectives are all very fine but my comment the is the plan does not always apply them. For instance:
1. Shipston is not an a sustainable transport corridor and is severely lacking in other infrastructure but the plan still puts forward land enough around the town to double its size.
2. Long Marston is put forward as a new settlement of up to 10000 houses but there is no plan to reinstate the most sustainable form of transport, the rail line from Stratford to Honeybourne.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 1 - Meeting South Warwickshire's Sustainable Development Requirements?
Representation ID: 99226
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
I agree with the strategy of building new settlements with all the infrastructure needed for a sustainable "20 minute community". These settlements are best near sustainable transport corridors with train stations and good bus services. They could be in the "Green Belt" if necessary. Long Marston does not fit this approach at the moment because it does not have a functioning rail link.
I do not agree with bolting "Strategic Growth Areas" on to towns like Shipston and Bidford that are a long way from employment centres and are lacking good travel connections and infrastructure.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Potential Settlement Question E1
Representation ID: 99232
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
I do not agree with Long Marston becoming a new settlement because it has no functioning rail link and it is a long way from employment centres.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 3- Small Scale Development, Settlement Boundaries and Infill Development?
Representation ID: 99258
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
Small scale developments in towns and villages should only be allowed for local housing need.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire?
Representation ID: 99283
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
I agree that SWLP should accommodate shortfall from Coventry and Birmingham but only if it is proved that all available sites have been used in these places. The current plan has reduced the housing allocation for Coventry by approx. one third and loaded the hosing onto South Warwickshire. This implies there are still brownfield sites in Coventry that will be unused.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 5- Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery?
Representation ID: 99303
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
I do not agree with the upgrading of the A46. This will in affect make it into a motorway and will only induce more road traffic leading to more pollution and emissions and less sustainable travel.
There is no priority given to enhancing the rail network by reinstating rail links such as Stratford Honeybourne which would be the most important step towards the strategic objective of sustainable travel.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 6- Safeguarding land for transport proposals?
Representation ID: 99330
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council
I do not agree with safeguarding land for road enhancements other than limited areas for safety improvements and small feeder roads. Upgrading trunk roads would be counter to the sustainable strategic objectives of the SWLP.
Safeguarding land for improving rail and construction of cycle routes would better support the sustainable strategic objectives of the SWLP.
