Please see the four attached documents for my full representation, I support everything in these documents. I believe the plan is illegal and unsound in relation to site STR2 as; The regulation 18 process was not legal, the plan to build on meadow and woodland at Trinity way contravenes multiple policies, valuable grade 2 agricultural land will be built on, and the sustainability assessment is not legally compliant.

STR2 sees substantial reductions to the number of houses. The fields and woodland at Trinity way are completely untouched by new development. Grade 2 agricultural land in STR2 is not developed. The infrastructure solution proposed for STR2 is not viable nor deliverable as the legal failure on the sustainability assessment shows. A substantial reduction of houses planned in STR2 - somewhere greater than 75% would address these issues. The shortfall of housing numbers needed in the plan is transferred to more suitable locations to the north of Stratford that have mainline train stations and closer access to the A46 and M40.

Not legally compliant as residents were not consulted about the bypass prior to regulation 19, as it was not defined. Not sound as; LMA is not an attractive location for employment. LMA requires extensive and expensive infrastructure development, these requirements are far more complex and costly than alternative sites. LMA is a significant distance from A&E, outside of the sustainable distance in policy. South Warwickshire will have a significant increase in residents over the age of 75. With inadequate or undeliverable infrastructure in place or proposed LMA presents a significantly higher mortality risk due to A&E travel time.

Remove or reduce significantly house numbers allocated to site LMA. Numbers should be moved to sites north or the river, particularly those with access to mainline railway stations, and close to existing major trunk roads. This would also avoid the costs of a bypass and prevent unsustainable traffic issues with South Stratford and the Town Centre. Sites north of Stratford are also much closer to A&E services, local employment centres and access to major employment centres in the wider region.

Please see the three attached documents for my full representation, I support everything in these documents. I believe the plan is illegal and unsound in relation to policy ID4 as; the bypass is undeliverable and would be ineffective. The route impacts grade 2 agricultural land, dissects the village of Luddington and adversely impacts the river Avon. The route will not serve traffic demand from STR2 and LM1 heading into already overcrowded roads in South Stratford and Stratford Town. The potential costs are huge, the project is currently completely unfunded. Previous attempts at delivering a bypass South of Stratford have failed.

Remove bypass from SWLP. Remove or significantly reduce numbers at STR2 and LM1. Shift houses from STR2 and LM1 to developments in areas north of Stratford with existing train stations and near to major trunk roads. Use the money saved from not building a bypass to support infrastructure improvements to service new developments to the north, significantly less cost, in monetary and ecological terms. Enact junction improvements across Stratford Town. Fund a safe and effective strategic cycle network and include alternative sustainable transport methods such as trams or electric buses.

Policy ID.5 requires development to be located in areas with high levels of sustainable transport accessibility, including strong public transport connections, active travel networks, and reduced reliance on cars. STR2 performs extremely poorly against these criteria because it has; no rail station within walking distance, no safe connective active travel network currently or planned within the SWLP. The proposed bypass will not connect STR2 to rail. The 2026 NPPF strengthens requirements for; rail-oriented growth, reducing car dependency, prioritising locations with existing transport infrastructure. The Council hasn’t justified why a site with low transport accessibility was selected over rail-connected alternatives.

To ensure Policy ID.5 is sound, make the following changes; Redirect growth toward rail-served, high-accessibility locations that already meet policy criteria. Include in a revised SWLP, a planned and funded safe strategic cycle network, alternative sustainable transport methods such as trams or electric buses. Fully define and consult on the Bypass, including sustainable design, cumulative traffic modelling, and alternatives. Require realistic, funded transport interventions, not speculative schemes. Reassess STR2’s transport accessibility and viability, demonstrating whether the site can meet policy requirements better than other alternative sites.