BASE HEADER

Other

ID sylw: 105845

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr John K Brocklehurst

REF ID 569: Weston Under Wetherley

I would like to take up the invitation to have my comments noted on the continued Consultation on the SWLP. I engaged on the first consultation and was pleased to see that the large scale proposed mixed development of Bridge Farm and Bridge Barn Farm is not in the strategic site options but not so pleased to see it remains in consideration for the local plan. I am not in agreement with that situation but can understand that being tenant farms owned by the Council, it makes it an easy option each time a new round of local planning comes up.
The point I would make is that if it was not considered suitable to take to the strategic site options now, why is it still under consideration.

The main thrust of my points against going forward are still the same.

Green Belt development should not be seen as an easy option to spread urban development. There are numerous options for development in the Green Belt as matters stand now. I strongly believe no new options for strategic growth should be added to this.
Weston Under Wetherley lies outside of the Leamington Spa/Lillington/Cubbington urban area. We have Green Belt countryside between us, and further, we now have the HS2 railway line passing through this narrow gap. The only good thing one can say about that for Warwickshire, is that it now forms in Planning terms a hard feature of the landscape between Weston and Leamington urban area. It is paramount in my view that green belt development should not be extended over that HS2 barrier, or a result would inevitably be the loss of Green Belt separation of Coventry and Leamington Spa.

On reading through the Housing and Economic Land Availability assessment for site 569 I have further comments to make:

1.The assessment does not reflect the actual suitability of the site…it seriously underestimates the sites flooding risk. As a resident of this area I have walked over the rural public rights of way for many years and can attest to the many times fields have been flooded. The fact that the river to the East has not been dredged for many years due, I expect to Environmental rules, further exacerbates annual flooding. This winter alone we had one safe route out of the village due flooding and HS2 restrictions. The access road to the two farms was under water..lucky farmers had tractors !!! local residents don’t normally drive round in tractors. This site is not suitable for development. It should be retained as agricultural land.

2. Site 569 could only fairly be included as a dispersed development model. As this model has been removed from the plan then it surely stands that site 569 should not still be considered in the SWLP.

3. You cannot reasonably build on any land without supplying infrastructure eg shops, schools, medical centres, roads etc. Site 569 has considerable limitations to this. Access would have to be from Hunningham road (flood risk), the so called access from Weston is only a footpath width and exits onto a tight dangerous bend…several years ago a car almost demolished The Old Forge when speeding round said bend. I would further point out that the Hunningham road has an ancient narrow bridge , unsuitable for heavy traffic. This bridge has been closed twice in past 6 years due to large vehicles knocking the parapet down. Direct access from the North is via Weston Lane, another narrow, in parts single lane road. The road to Princethorpe to the East is also susceptible to flooding.
This site would be reliant on vehicular transport only….we have no cycle paths and a very restricted bus timetable. This does not tick any of the sustainability boxes.

4.In conclusion the HELAA fails to appreciate how important this particular part of the Green Belt is in separating Leamington urban area from spreading into the villages of Weston Under Wetherley and Hunningham, as would be inevitable were it to be developed. I strongly feel that Site 569 should not remain in consideration of the SWLP.