Preferred Options 2025

Yes

Representation ID: 96429

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Yes

Representation ID: 96431

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Yes

Representation ID: 96433

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Yes

Representation ID: 96434

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Yes

Representation ID: 96436

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Yes

Representation ID: 96437

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Yes

Representation ID: 96439

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

No

Representation ID: 96447

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

It’s wrong to proceed with the BW proposals. The site just isn’t suitable, it floods regularly and this will get worse. It’s split by the A3400 - which has a death every 4 plus years, and will only get more traffic. It has a precious SSSI with rare bats and butterflies. And it is green belt land - developing BW would like Bearley with Stratford. You should develop non green belt sites, not green belt sites! And there is no rail line to Earlswood! This is just bad thinking and should be stopped.