BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 90333

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Emma Gurdag

I would like to state my objection to the proposed new settlement at Wilmcote/Bearley. From the evidence put forward and my own personal knowledge from living in Wilmcote and being a Stratford resident who has lived and worked in the district for over 10 years, there are many reasons why I consider this development unsuitable, as detailed below:

- Resultant urban sprawl and damage of green belt
With the proximity of the land proposed to Stratford town centre and further proposed strategic growth plans in the area, this development would result in the town being merged with the current villages, which is something that is unfavourable to the government, as explained in the “National Planning Policy Framework 13-Protecting Green Belt Land Guidance”:
o Para 142 – The government attaches great importance to Breen Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
o Para 143 – Green Belt serves 5 purposes:
 A) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
 B) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
 C) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
 D) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
 E) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
The suggested development is in Green Belt land and so should be safeguarded from further development. This is the primary reason why this development should not go ahead.

- Damage to heritage and tourism
Stratford and its’ surrounding villages are a unique and attractive destination for tourists, both from abroad and within the UK. The legacy of Shakespeare and the ‘quaintness’ of Tudor towns and villages contribute £300 million to the economy every year (Stratford-upon-Avon Area Transport Strategy April 2018, Stratford District Council). Building such a development as is suggested, would damage the uniqueness and destroy the feel of the area, thus affecting visitor numbers and potentially reducing the tourist economy.
In Wilmcote, Mary Arden’s Farm (and other listed buildings) is something that should be protected in its’ current setting. The possible damage from extra traffic travelling through the village, not only if the development goes ahead with the increased number of residents, but also during building works with HGVs and diverted traffic, could be dangerous and costly for these buildings, resulting in major repairs or even destruction.
This is another key reason why this area should not be considered for a development of this size.

- Significant infrastructure issues
As with all developments, consideration needs to be given to the additional infrastructure needed to ensure viability. The proposed development sits on land along the Birmingham Road, one of the main thoroughfares into Stratford town and a connector to the A46. The road is already a congestion hotspot, particularly in weekday rush hours, weekends, bank holidays and on event days in the town. The increased traffic forced to use this road both to get into Stratford town and to join the A46 would make this unsuitable.
Significant investment would also be needed to improve the Birmingham Road and Pathlow junction nearer the suggested development, but this would still result in increased congestion into the town.
Reliance on the railway for commuters or visitors to Stratford/other local towns, would also be unsuitable. Wilmcote train station is currently a small station with some listed features. In order to suitably use this station as required, serious investment would be needed to not only to improve car parking at the station and bus services from the new development, but also to totally redevelop the station itself to be accessible for disabled users and families with pushchairs, and to increase the number and regularity of services available to make this means of transport viable and attractive to residents.

- Lack of employment opportunities and reduced access to services
Although there is some suggestion for employment in the new development (schools, GPs, industry and retail), this would not be enough to enable all residents to work in the development. The proximity of the site to Gaydon, Coventry, Birmingham and Redditch, would be attractive to people working in these areas, therefore resulting in a high number of commuters needing to travel out regularly throughout the week. As stated above, without considerable investment in infrastructure, this would be unsustainable. It would also require a reliance on residents to use their cars, which would result in not only the increased traffic as mentioned above, but also increased pollution as detailed below.
An increased population in the area will also result in the reduced capacity at local hospitals which are already struggling to keep up with demand. New facilities would be needed closer to the development to meet the needs of new residents.

- Destruction of the local environment and increased pollution
As mentioned, the land proposed is in the Green Belt. It is a green area providing farming land and valuable green spaces for not only local wildlife (mammals, amphibians, insects and birds) but also for the people who live and visit the area. It provides space for walking boosting physical and mental health, plants and trees creating oxygen and removing carbon dioxide, and land for farming livestock and produce. Developing on the land will remove the green elements in the area, destroying natural habitats and killing many animals all needed for the food chain. The increased pollution from increased car fumes, lights and noise will also have a detrimental impact on the wildlife that is left on these areas, and also have a negative effect on the residents that live there and in the current villages.
The land also experiences regular flooding due to poor drainage which would only be exacerbated by development. There is potential for flooding on site, but more likely, flood water being diverted into other local areas, causing devastation to buildings, infrastructure, homes, wildlife and land, and unnecessary financial and emotional stress to the individuals and businesses effected.

After reviewing the arguments above, I hope you would agree that this development would not be the most suitable to consider.

Alternatives
After looking at the other sites suggested, the following would seem to be the most suitable as alternatives:
X1 – not in Green Belt, proximity to existing new developments and industrial/employment centres, better existing infrastructure.
F2 – not in Green Belt, proximity to industrial/employment centres.
G1 – not in Green Belt, proximity to existing new developments and industrial/employment centres, better existing infrastructure and new infrastructure already planned.
F3 – not in Green Belt, proximity to industrial/employment centres.

I would also like to point you to a good example of development in Wilmcote on Glebe Estate. Three houses have been built on land that was previously a number of garages. This has enhanced the land value and provided housing in an area that has the infrastructure and services already in place and suitable to sustain it. More should be done to find areas of land such as this, that enable housing to be built with existing infrastructure to support it.
This type of development is something that is recommended in the Homes for Everyone Briefing (www.homesforeveryone.org) which outlines many alternatives to new build developments, which could be explored in this area, especially considering Stratford District has far exceed house building targets thus far and there being a number of empty buildings and pockets of land in the District with the potential to meet need without having to develop brand new settlements.