No

ID sylw: 90120

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sarah Harris

Impact on local infrastructure, roads, schools, public services. Inappropriate overdevelopment of a small rural community. Infringing green belt policy.

No

ID sylw: 90125

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Angela Brown

It would spoil the lovely villages of Bearley and Wilmcote. Leave Greenbelt land alone. Plus the unwanted increase in traffic.

No

ID sylw: 90136

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr anderson hirst

I believe the development represents a serious threat to "brand Stratford-upon- Avon". As a world famous site for Shakespeare history & culture (and economic benefit to the region) the town depends on being attractive and accessible to tourists. It's centre is actually very small, compared to the vastly expanding suburbs around it. Eventually, the historic buildings will be become a tiny dot in a sprawling, housing estate, which is both difficult and unpleasant to access (traffic, parking, facilities). It will also make the historic Mary Arden Inn a very much less attractive location, again, a historically important national asset.

No

ID sylw: 90175

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs helen wilcox

Gridlock A34 into stratford even more. need car for vets, B&Q etc, so park & ride not always option.
green belt - wildlife ,nature etc
infrastructure pressure.
800% increase is a ridiculous %. stratford already had numerous houses built
New town much better idea - proven success - Milton Keynes
stratford town centre was never meant to be a sprawling city, but a small, picturesque tourist town with a unique feel.
wilmcote a village NOT a large town.

No

ID sylw: 90194

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Fox

The proposed BW development, despite its promise, faces significant sustainability and safety issues. Existing diesel trains are inadequate, unsustainable, and electrification is unlikely. The area's geology demands additional concrete, increasing the carbon footprint making it less sustainable. High water tables and flood risks add to environmental concerns. The development would generate 10,000 additional car journeys daily, overwhelming local roads and endangering residents. It threatens local wildlife and green belt land, contributing to urban sprawl and potentially harming historical sites like Mary Arden's Farm. This proposal contradicts each of the core principles laid out in the documents, and is unsuitable.

No

ID sylw: 90205

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Eva Gromadzki

I strongly object because:
- Bearley railway and road systems can not cope, and safety risks will increase
- Vehicle emissions will be irrelevant before 2050 and do not justify Green Belt destruction
- No "exceptional circumstances" exist to build on Green Belt
- Land adjacent to Snitterfield and Bearley Bushes SSSI must be preserved as a buffer and corridor to other wildlife areas
- Flood risk will increase
- Growth is inappropriately disproportionate in scale
- Tourism will be destroyed
- It is unhealthy and exclusive because it destroys the main reason people chose to live in the area

No

ID sylw: 90213

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sheila Gill

We are strongly opposed to the plans for a new settlement on both sides of the A3400. This development would place enormous pressure on our local services - schools, GP surgeries and pharmacies, hospitals and retail facilities. It would also create even more congestion on the A3400 in both directions - travel time to our local facilities has increased dramatically in the last 5 years as more and more housing developments have been approved. The green belt land from the outskirts of
Stratford to Wootton Wawen should be preserved for future generations.

No

ID sylw: 90220

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Emma Leslie

Bearley is a small village which people have chosen to live in rather than suburbia. It is a conservation area and there are limits on trees etc. The idea of more housing will severely impact on the area due to noise, pollution and was not something current residents wanted when moving to the area.

No

ID sylw: 90303

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Greg Sherrington

The size of suggestion build is ridiculous in comparison to surrounding rural area. There is no infrastructure to cope with this. The argument that that would be built is also false. Why should an entire rural area be ruined.

No

ID sylw: 90319

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sharon Wyatt

Extremely concerned regarding local infrastructure and the increase in traffic and pollution.

We live here for a quiet, peaceful and clean lifestyle.
The sheer size of this proposed building plan is ridiculous and will completely destroy the village and surrounding area.

Whilst we understand the need for more housing but this is not the way to do it!!!

No

ID sylw: 90325

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Wendy Simmons

I object to the proposed new settlement at Bearley/Wilmcote.

Wilmcote’s roads are already unsafe due to rat-running traffic which is avoiding the congested A3400 and A46. They are dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed development would double traffic volumes. The Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) estimates upgrades to A46 alone at over £250m. This is likely to be unviable. The STA rating of amber/green for the rail network is a desktop exercise, services are infrequent with limited destinations and parking. Active travel (walking/cycling) to the stations is unrealistic due to dangerous roads and poor infrastructure. The STA acknowledges the north of the settlement would be at the extreme end of reasonable cycling distance to Stratford. The only route would be the narrow, multi-user canal towpath. National Cycle Network 5 runs north along winding country roads with no dedicated cycle lane and is unsuitable for many cyclists even before traffic increases are factored in. The proposals would therefore promote car usage.

There would be significant impacts on the Snitterfield and Bearley Bushes SSSI and irreplaceable ancient woodland. The Lepus assessment concludes this is the worst-performing site for Biodiversity. Development would also destroy habitat corridors which are crucial for biodiversity.

The Sustainability Appraisal shows housing need can be met without building on Green Belt. There are therefore no exceptional circumstances for release. Unmet needs from Coventry and Redditch would need to be met in adjoining areas. The area makes a strong contribution to safeguarding countryside from encroachment. Development would result in loss of openness and affect the character and appearance of the area. It would create a precedent for further encroachment and lead to unrestricted sprawl of built-up area into agricultural land. It is incorrect for Stratford-upon-Avon to be excluded from the definition of large built-up areas because it sits on the edge of Green Belt rather than within it. If land at the northern edge of Stratford was not intended to stop sprawl it would not have been included in Green Belt.

The scale and urbanising impact would cause significant harm to settlement character and the appearance of the landscape. Bearley and Wilmcote are distinct villages and a key aspect of their character and form is separation and areas of open, undeveloped areas at their edges. Wilmcote village is home to several listed buildings but of particular note is the Grade 1 listed Palmers Farmhouse, Mary Arden’s House and Dovecot. The conservation area encompasses most of the heritage assets and abuts rural landscape on most sides. This enhances the setting of the assets and contributes substantially to their significance. There would be impacts on the canal, a non-designated heritage asset, through loss of its historical rural setting. Development would impact the tranquillity of the area and result in noise and light pollution.

Selection of the most preferred new settlements appears primarily based on submission of land to the call for sites by landowners. In view of the recent consultation on compulsory purchase this criteria should be removed from the methodology.

No

ID sylw: 90331

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Foster

Stratford has already had to take a disproportionate amount of housing development for the size of town and infrastructure.
Wilmcote is a small satellite hamlet which has very little infrastructure for any largescale developments. The proposal is disgraceful and our council should push back on the central government targets. Any commercial gain or incentive should be carefully scrutinised.

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.

No

ID sylw: 90334

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Julia Gibson

Bearley is a country village that grew up around the wartime airfield and holiday camp and because there were jobs at the sorely missed Midland Shires Farmers/Countrywide Farmers mill and store that was closed down in 2017. It is a true village community in spirit and has a thriving village hall but lacks a community shop for essentials. It provides homes for private owners and also for housing scheme occupants. The oldest part of the village includes listed buildings. We are proud of our heritage and of our environment and properties are well maintained and do not change hands very often. Many people and families have lived here for generations and are connected in many diverse ways with agriculture and rural employment.

We have had several small new developments within the village recently, which despite initial concerns mostly fit well into the village. However, a serious negative impact has been the ongoing problems with the drains and sewage smell at Gwen’s Grove, which is the fault of the developers and has still not been satisfactorily dealt with by Severn Trent. Developers MUST be legally held to account if/when they fail to fulfil their commitments. These small new groups of dwellings are to be welcomed around any village in South Warwickshire so that other people can have the pleasure of living in this lovely part of the world. They usually do not have a negative impact on the villages. This is the way villages evolve, in an organic and ongoing sustainable manner. Surely, the way to provide new homes is by adding small developments to villages, so that incoming people become part of the community, not part of the destruction of the countryside? The SWLP recognises this fact in 4.3 Small Scale Development…

Country people are not NIMBY but we know what works in the countryside and what doesn’t, and what doesn’t work is to effectively destroy any village community by surrounding it with the huge development being suggested for Bearley. We do not need new towns in this area. We need manageable small developments that enhance the villages and include a manageable amount of houses ‘affordable’ to families starting out or on lower incomes. Towns can only prosper if they develop organically around existing infrastructure and employment, they do not spring up successfully by building approx. 6,800 new houses in an area that cannot handle such growth. Such a development would destroy the existing community and create an urban sprawl: any incoming people will not benefit by living in the countryside with all its advantages, so there would be little point in wiping out such countryside in order to house unhappy people. I believe that consideration is given to larger developments because the developers make less profit on small scale development as opposed to large scale development.

The reference in 4.2 Potential New Settlements is naive: ‘The aim of a new settlement in planning terms is to deliver a new community that can fulfil most of its day to day needs within the settlement itself, limiting the need to travel.’ This simply does not work, as spectacularly evidenced by the Long Marston development south of Stratford upon Avon, which has been halted specifically because of the traffic problems created by the residents NOT staying on site for employment, shops etc, but driving out of the development to their daily work and to the supermarkets around Stratford. The required infrastructure was not in place before the development was started and completed. This is not acceptable in either moral or planning terms.

Bearley in particular is totally unsuited to this suggested development for the following reasons:
• The Green Belt and Wildlife. 4.9 Green Belt quotes two of the purposes of green belt as follows:
o c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
o d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;

This proposed development would infringe both of those purposes and is a therefore a totally wrong development of the Green Belt, which is clearly in place to safeguard the nature of such communities, to provide food for the country’s population, agricultural jobs for existing people and a habitat for British wildlife. We have ancient woodland here, SSSI’s, red kites, buzzards, deer, as well as birds, foxes, badgers, hedges and useful plants. These currently co-exist happily with agriculture, farmers being the uncredited stewards of such wildlife. A huge number of species would be displaced by such a development – where are they to go? Developers may promise schemes to provide suitable adjacent habitat but this is impossible to enforce as it is costly to developers and experience shows that developers are seldom held to account for ignoring their commitments. Wildlife thrives in the places it chooses, which is why it is already here in this area in a field system that has been responsibly farmed for centuries. Ref Strategic Objective 12: Protecting and enhancing our environmental assets (related to overarching principle - A biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire) this cannot be met if you wipe out hectares of existing green belt and biodiversity. There cannot be any ‘exceptional circumstances’ that suggest that this land should be released from the Green Belt. Nor is there any justification for calling the area ‘Grey Belt’.

• Infrastructure. The area already lacks infrastructure in the form of accessible local shops, doctor’s surgeries and small local hospitals and crime prevention. We do not believe that sufficient new infrastructure will be provided for even existing residents, let alone to support such an influx of new people and their requirements.
o Shopping for food is already a problem as it is difficult to get into Stratford (even on public transport) because of the slow and traffic-clogged Birmingham Road, which has been badly designed and ineffectually tampered with over the years. Stratford town centre is dying because of the big stores on the Maybird estate and on the southern ring road. The only way to provide enough shopping, particularly for food, will be to build even more big stores outside Stratford, which will kill the town centre completely. Even tourism will struggle if people are unable, or more likely unwilling, to get into the town centre. And people will use online food delivery, bringing more delivery vehicles into a development and clogging up the streets.
o The Police presence is also seriously lacking in this area and attention by the Police to rural crime is mostly non-existent. The village police stations in places such as Henley in Arden have long been closed and local people have no immediate physical access to local law enforcement. It needs a massive increase in police officers for the existing population; adding 6,800 new homes will totally overwhelm any law enforcement measures currently available and unlikely to be provided. [redacted]
o Schools. We are told that this size development would require one new secondary school and three to four new primary schools, yet only one new
primary school is proposed and no new secondary school. This is unsustainable.

• Traffic. The A3400 currently just about copes with the volume of traffic at peak times between Stratford and Birmingham via Henley in Arden, although it is dangerous for pedestrians to try to cross at peak times and Henley is a bottleneck. The country lanes are used as rat runs and are becoming dangerous. A prime example is Pettiford Lane at Wootton Wawen, which now hosts large volumes of traffic at peak times and is indicative of what is already happening on Langley Road and Salters Lane in Bearley. This further erodes the rural nature of the area and impedes agricultural and pleasure driving by tourists. And it only takes a few downpours to flood underneath the railway bridges on both these lanes, making them impassable and forcing traffic back onto the A3400. The suggested new town will not stop people owning cars and there will be probably 10,000 new vehicles in the area, all trying to use a traffic system that is currently starting to show signs of being overwhelmed.

• Flooding. Draft Policy J - Reducing Flood Risk: ‘New development should be prioritised to areas of lowest flood risk, i.e. the areas that are least prone to flooding in event of a heavy rains or storms and must not increase flood risk elsewhere.’ Bearley has in the past been flooded in the village itself and regularly on the roads during winter, and increasingly in summer as a result of summer rains, it suffers from flooding in the surrounding fields and roads. The roads are particularly prone to flooding by the village hall, under the bridge by Bearley Railway Station, in several places on the Birmingham Road and also Langley Road and Salters Lane as mentioned above. The road to Snitterfield is similarly impassable at times. There has been no effort at solving these problems for existing settlements in the area. We do not believe that any developers will commit the sort of money required to (a) solve the existing problems, and (b) put in place sufficient systems to divert away from Bearley the floodwater arising from any new development away from Bearley village. The proposed development does not accord with Draft Policy J - Reducing Flood Risk: ‘New development should be prioritised to areas of lowest flood risk, i.e. the areas that are least prone to flooding in event of a heavy rains or storms and must not increase flood risk elsewhere.’

• Light pollution and quality of life. This area currently has the benefit of a dark enough sky to see the stars on a clear night. There will be a huge amount of light pollution from such a development, which is well-documented to adversely affect not only human health and wellbeing but also endangers wildlife. I do not believe that Strategic Objective 10: Improving the health, safety and quality of life of our communities (related to overarching principle- A healthy, safe and inclusive South Warwickshire) can be met by destroying an existing community.

• Railway Station. The presence of Bearley station is a wholly insufficient reason to choose the village for development. This is a very small platform and shelter and carries very few passengers. There is insufficient suitable parking and no room to provide more. To the south it is essentially a dead end as it only goes as far as Stratford town, the original Honeybourne/Evesham railway line having been dismantled many years ago. The other two lines are unsuitable for large numbers of passengers and most trains are only a few carriages long: To the north it goes through all the villages en route to Birmingham, a slow journey, stopping at each station. The north east/easterly line is not a direct route, having to change at Hatton to get to any major towns like Birmingham or London, or even just to Leamington and Warwick. The rolling stock is outdated and uncomfortable. Massive investment would be needed in the station itself and, indeed, the whole rail structure, which would be totally unjustified by the small amount of people who might use it for travel to work. The majority will use their cars and clog up the roads. I do not see how Strategic Objective 11: Connecting people to places (related to overarching principle: A well-connected South Warwickshire) can be met regarding connecting people to nature if you have already wiped out hectares of green belt, wildlife and beauty.

• Employment. There is already insufficient employment of a sustainable nature in this area. Stratford was once a flourishing market town with major employers – NC Joseph, Stratford Canners, Bird’s Foods, Flowers Brewery, IDC and HDC. This is no longer the case. Even the important cattle market has been closed without being relocated locally. Destruction of local agriculture would lead to further job losses and does not meet your claims in 6.7 Supporting Rural Employment and Diversification. Building large trading estates would not solve the problem. They provide very few jobs other than warehousing and some office work. People coming to live in a new town would still have to drive out daily to Birmingham, Warwick and Leamington, Coventry etc.

• Tourism. The importance of Stratford’s tourist industry to the prosperity of the area cannot be underestimated. The town has a unique tourist appeal, not just pulling in visitors for the Shakespeare aspect but also for the local rural charm enjoyed in the approaches to Stratford through villages and the green belt. Rural charm will cease to exist in a huge housing development on the northern approach and this will adversely impact on tourism and visitors from Birmingham. The proximity to the Cotswolds has also historically had huge appeal to visitors but the same overbuilding and population increase is taking place on the so-called ‘Gateway to the Cotswolds’ in the south of the town. And the problem already mentioned of the slow death of the town centre will only exacerbate the damage to the ‘Stratford upon Avon Experience’: visitors want to walk around a thriving town, to mingle with the locals and spend their money in enticing shops, not wander around a dying town that accommodates endless cafes, pasta restaurants and charity shops. The RST and Shakespeare’s Birthplace may not be sufficiently appealing on their own merits in the future. I do not believe that Strategic Objective 9: Enriching the tourism potential (related to overarching principle- A well-designed and beautiful Warwickshire) can be met if the countryside is built over.

No

ID sylw: 90340

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Maja Foster

The hamlet of Wilmcote can’t handle the proposed influx of new housing and residents. Even if services would be built and provided the character of this historic area will be irreversibly changed. I think local government should protect the unique character of Stratford and surroundings - this is what maintains the history, culture and brings tourism to the area.

No

ID sylw: 90353

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Philippa Templeton

This site is greenfield countryside, and far too far away from the motorway - there is not enough local jobs in stratford upon Avon for this many new homes, the 12k new cars will need to travel through our countryside to urban areas like Coventry or Birmingham to work - it will bring nothing but more chaos to our roads (more than it already is) - our dentists, doctors and schools are already bursting and not performing due to over-building and over-population. We have built so many new houses already in our local vicinity, and have more under planning permission.

No

ID sylw: 90357

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Huseyin Gurdag

Firstly, I fully understand there may be a need for additional housing and understand the government’s plans. However, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed new houses being built specifically in Wilmcote CV37. As a concerned member of the community, I feel it is my duty to highlight the numerous issues and negative impacts this development would have on our beloved village.

Firstly, the addition of new houses would undoubtedly exacerbate the already problematic traffic situation in the town. Wilmcote is a small village with limited road infrastructure, and increased traffic would lead to congestion, longer commute times, and heightened safety risks for both residents and visitors. This is not a sustainable solution for our community, and it is crucial that we address these concerns before proceeding with any development plans.

Furthermore, the proposed housing development would have a detrimental effect on the local wildlife. Wilmcote is home to a diverse range of flora and fauna, and disrupting their natural habitat would have far-reaching consequences for the environment. It is our responsibility to protect and preserve the wildlife that thrives in this area, and allowing new houses to be built would be a significant step in the wrong direction.

In addition to the traffic and environmental concerns, it is important to remember that Wilmcote is a historic village with a rich cultural heritage. Mary Arden's Farm, the childhood home of William Shakespeare's mother, is a significant landmark that attracts visitors from around the world. Allowing new housing developments in the area would compromise the village's historic charm and potentially deter tourists from visiting this important site.

In light of these concerns, I urge the local council to reconsider the proposed new housing development in Wilmcote CV37. It is essential that we prioritize the well-being of our community, the preservation of our environment, and the protection of our cultural heritage. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope you will take our concerns into serious consideration.

As I do understand the need for new housing to be built, having reviewed the Preferred Options Consultation Interactive Map, I personally believe due to the better road conditions, less flooding possibilities and proximity to industrial/employments hubs the following areas would be a better fit: F2 and F3.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.

No

ID sylw: 90364

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs sarah burman

NO TO BUILIDING IN WILMCOTE, PATHLOW AND BEARLEY
The infrastructure is not in place - Roads, Hospitals, Doctors, Rail Stations simply WILL NOT COPE.
The environmental devastation will be immense.
The people of Wilmcote, Pathlow and Bearley are already feeling incredible stress and upset at the thought of development.
Building will rip the heart out of the area.

No

ID sylw: 90369

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Sankey

Lovely area leave well alone for future generations please

No

ID sylw: 90374

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Michael Rhodes

Summary of objections:
1) The urban sprawl would link historic Stratford Upon Avon to south of Birmingham affecting many historic sites.
2) Road infrastructure is already inadequate to support local residents. These additional houses would push the area into further gridlock.
3) Likely negative impact on flooding as already in a water run off area.

No

ID sylw: 90408

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr R Morris

This should not be going ahead for the simple reason the village will not cope. One shop, a small infant\ junior school. It's utter madness. The B'ham Rd into Stratford TC already struggles to cope so this proposed development is absolutely ridiculous. My guess (maybe cynically) is that this decision is already made and this is just a paper pushing exercise.

No

ID sylw: 90410

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lucy King

I feel this lovely village is too small to accommodate such a large number of housing and would be ruined for it. Traffic would increase so more pollution in this area.

No

ID sylw: 90415

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Louise Stewart

Wilmcote, Bearley and Pathlow don’t have any infrastructure to support this development. Limited capacity to expand roads or public transport. Detrimental impact on a conservation zone already congested by people avoiding A3400 and A46. Significant investment in additional services (sewage, drainage, health, education, leisure, communications, high speed broadband) would all be required to support this and builders would do everything to avoid spending on this as evidence elsewhere. Significant adverse consequences for the countryside and environment. There are plenty of other areas more appropriate for additional development, this is not one of them.

No

ID sylw: 90433

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Stephen Hawkins

I strongly disagree with the proposed building of 6700 homes near Wilmcote. Wilmcote is a small, historic village, where Mary Arden’s House is situated. It has narrow roads with no pavements in places and no infrastructure to support such a large development. The increase in traffic would also cause long queues trying to joint the A46 Birmingham Road.

No

ID sylw: 90451

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Gail Hill

The area submitted is divided by the A34 which is already dangerous and also floods ,this development would make it a total nightmare.Traffic is also already high, let alone bringing in a massive development.
We have many new houses in the Stratford area m and our countryside is being totally ruined.
How the area will cope with such a swamping of a development of Green Belt land is impossible to consider.
Please don’t allow this to happen. .

No

ID sylw: 90465

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kirsty Wilcox

I cannot believe that the PC would entertain this when friends haven't been able to put a small extension on the back of their property because we are on greenbelt and it's not in keeping with the historic village. We are having to put things in place for 'nature' on a small extension, seems pointless when 6700 houses are being built up the road, one rule for one, a completely different rule for the money!

No

ID sylw: 90467

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Callum Pharo

Building 27,000 homes between Wilmcote and Bearley is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. This land, which currently offers a peaceful rural environment, would be destroyed by an unsustainable influx of people. Local roads would be choked with traffic, turning once quiet lanes into congested nightmares. Schools, healthcare, and public services would be overwhelmed, unable to cope with such a rapid and unnecessary expansion. Wildlife and natural habitats would be decimated, and the character of the area would be lost forever. Warwickshire’s charm and beauty are worth far more than a profit-driven, ill-conceived housing development—this must be stopped immediately.

No

ID sylw: 90519

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jane Patey

The local infrastructure could not withstand a development of this size as roads, particularly the A3400, are already congested.
Flooding of the land on both sides of Featherbed Lane is increasingly frequent.
In the current climate we are supposed to be increasing our carbon capture and so paving over a large area of farmland -and destroying the local trees and hedges cannot be a good idea. This loss of habitat would also be detrimental to local wildlife and surely green belt land should only be built on as a last resort

No

ID sylw: 90522

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Katie Powell

Loss of light and privacy due to overshadowing properties.
Congestion and higher road traffic accidents due to increase in vehicles from more properties.
Public transport is limited and overcrowding is possible with increase in population.
Public services e.g. schools and gp/health services will be negatively impacted.
Negative impact on community.
Impact on already congested parking and streets.
Sewage and water problems increased.
Flooding more problematic.
Increase in crime rates and antisocial behaviour.

No

ID sylw: 90535

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Matt Burdus-Cook

Settlement will create unacceptable traffic through surrounding villages as up to estimate of 10,000 vehicles use local lanes to reach A46 and M40. Resulting air pollution and road safety casualties and fatalities will be at unacceptable levels.