BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 98095

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Wilmcote Action Group

This plan is a ‘desktop exercise’ which improperly accounts for impacts Proposal BW will have on Wilmcote and the wider area.

Infrastructure

The overall rating for Transport infrastructure should be Red.
The SWLP Strategic Transport and Education Assessment (STA) indicates the cost of upgrading the A46 and associated roundabouts would be uneconomic and impractical. There would be additional costs for upgrading the A4300. The STA admits increased congestion will result in further use of village roads as ‘rat-runs’. It will cause problems at the Henley junction and from Bishopton roundabout to the Maybird shopping centre and into the centre of Stratford-upon-Avon, causing roads to be gridlocked. Increased traffic volumes will make roads unsafe for vulnerable road users, especially children travelling to school at peak times, as the BW settlement is split by the A3400. The Highway (local) rating should be red.
The Rail rating should be Red/Amber. Group D stations would be unable to accommodate an influx of new passengers without substantial investment in services and facilities. Upgrading Wilmcote Station would be costly and take many years. This would fail the objectives of sustainable growth and timely infrastructure development. The map wrongly shows a rail line from Bearley to Earlswood. Bearley Station is a Rural Halt, a request stop with no facilities.
The Cycle Way rating should be Red. Resurfacing, widening, hedgerow-removal, ditch diversion and lighting would be required to the canal towpath. Lighting the path would disrupt nocturnal wildlife. Cyclists, runners and dog walkers co-using the canal path would raise safety risks. The towpath is owned by a third party. It isn’t guaranteed they would agree to the upgrade. National Cycle Route 5 southward is along the towpath and northward is on roads with no cycle ways. The rating for active travel should be Red as there is no active travel route. The STA suggests developer funding could “kickstart” improved bus services. If they do not become profitable (likely), the required bus service will cease. The car will be the main mode of transport. None of this complies with Net Zero policies.

Flood Risk

The rating for Flood risk should be Red/Amber.
The development poses significant risks due to increased surface water runoff, inadequate natural water absorption due to the geological setting, and an overburdened drainage system.
The development faces significant risks of type 2 and 3 flooding. Current managed farmland mitigates minor flooding but transformation into tarmacked surfaces will increase run-off. This will worsen regular type 3 flooding along the A3400 adjacent to Edstone Brook as it makes its way toward the river Alne. Flooding on Salters Lane beneath the railway bridge will intensify, disrupting commuter routes between Aston Cantlow, the A3400, and further afield to Birmingham, Coventry, Leamington, and Warwick. The increased water flow could also isolate Aston Cantlow at Alne Bridge near Little Alne and on the village's southern side, as overflowing ditches cut off access, with floodwaters continuing downstream toward Alcester.
Development may trigger similar flooding issues at Bishopton. As surface water flows down the steeper incline of Bishopton Hill, it will overwhelm Bishopton Top. Manor Drive, Wilmcote has experienced Class 4 flooding on two occasions in 25 years. This would worsen under the new development. Comprehensive mitigation measures, such as widening and excavation would be required prior to development.

Green Belt

The site is Green Belt. Seven proposed new settlement sites are outside of Green Belt, six of which have better transport infrastructure. The identified need can be met without using Green Belt. There are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying release as per the NPPF. Commercial/industrial needs can be met on land already granted close to Wildmoor roundabout.
The proposed development would create ‘ribbon’ development encompassing Wilmcote, Bearley, and Pathlow, sandwiched between Henley-in-Arden to the north and Stratford-upon-Avon to the south. The essence of rural settlements lies in separation. Open, undeveloped land at peripheries forms an integral part of their character. The development would merge two villages, transforming their character and destroying their heritage.

Heritage

We agree with the Lepus report that Heritage should be rated Red.
Mary Arden’s House is Grade 1 Listed. Its historical setting would be damaged by a new settlement approximately 500m from its curtilage. Additional traffic will cause vibration and air pollution which will destroy the building’s fabric. The building and its setting are part of the wider ‘Shakespeare story’, crucial to tourism revenue and the economic health of the Stratford-upon-Avon area. The house is planned to reopen in summer 2025. In 2014, tourism revenue from the house was estimated at 80k.

Habitat and Biodiversity

The rating for habitat and biodiversity should be Amber/Red.
The HELAA rates BW as green for SSSIs and local wildlife sites. However, the Lepus sustainability report rates this as the worst new settlement for biodiversity protection, as it would increase recreational and traffic disturbances and have other impacts such as air and water pollution. There would be harm to the Snitterfield and Bearley Bushes SSSI adjacent to the proposed development, which hosts horseshoe bat roosts. Wilmcote hosts protected species as listed in Stratford upon Avon District Council's own Ecological and Geological Study of Local Services Villages. There are otters in the Wilmcote canal, as well as red kites and lap wings on the margins of fields earmarked for commercial/industrial development. Encroachment would damage the habitat. SDC’s study also indicates Wilmcote is a site of geological importance.

Unreliable housing figures

We believe the estimated requirements are unreliable. The CPRE argue that Birmingham’s housing requirement is three times the city’s demographic need. The Plan should be to 2040 rather than 2050 as it is impossible to understand needs and land availability to 2050.