Issue and Options 2023

Appendix A. SA Framework. The SA objective is similar to the objectives set in our Wilmcote and Pathlow Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017-2031. This was developed after extensive consultation with residents in our Parish and supported by the majority at Referendum and also agreed at SDC Cabinet. Appendix C. Comments on this Appendix are as follows: • The Wilmcote and Pathlow Neighbourhood Plan (NDP) contains a number of objectives and Policies. This Appendix C is subject to meeting these Policies. • Wilmcote is embedded within the Green Belt and contains extensive Conservation areas. Wilmcote is considered as part of the Shakespeare heritage area. Any development will need to not only be sympathetic to this but also agreed by the Shakespeare Trust. • Assumption made that Wilmcote could deliver 500 dwellings, doesn’t say the date when the count starts, some have already got permission/built. Currently there are around six hundred dwellings in Wilmcote so adding a further five hundred would seriously change the nature of the area and extensive infrastructure would be needed prior to building commencing. • It states a twenty-minute neighbourhood located to local services. This would mean building in the Conservation Area which would mean extensive discussions with Conservation Officers, The Shakespeare Trust as well as residents. • Mentions the Grade I and II listed buildings and says the negative impact on these could be mitigated through layout and design. There would likely be fierce opposition from residents, some of whom have lived in the village all their lives, in and around these listed buildings. • Mentions the Conservation Area and that mitigation could be minimised through layout and design. • Mentions proximity to a main road, does not acknowledge that Wilmcote includes the settlement at Pathlow which is sited along the A3400. • Mentions the potential increase in household waste, and potential for 75 dwellings. Housing provision has been assumed could deliver maximum of 500 dwellings. Not sure how this is compatible with 75 dwellings as previously stated. This needs to be clearer. • Access to PROW/cycle path networks; this will have a major impact on health and wellbeing of existing residents and is covered in the NDP Policy WP13. • There is no mention of the problems of parking or speeding. Wilmcote is used as a ‘rat run’ from the A46 to cut through to the A3400. A further five hundred dwellings will exacerbate this further following on from the development also of five hundred dwellings currently under construction along The Ridgeway/Bishopton Lane. This is an opportunity through the SWLP to make provision for parking facilities and introducing a 20 mile per hour speed limit through Wilmcote. • There should be closer liaison with Parish Councils to get impact feedback from local people, i.e., the residents. • A desktop study is all well and good, but it does not reflect reality, it just gives a plan that is not necessarily achievable. • The addition of extra houses would not be matched by any available GP services as these are already fully subscribed with Closure of one of the Stratford practices adding to the capacity issues in healthcare. No reasonable expectation of any improvement over the next decade in these. • The timetable of the X20 bus service is not really compatible with employment especially in the hospitality sector which is a significant employer locally. • Houses in the village are desperately needed, but not on the scale of 500, we are already facing a rat run from Bishopton and Shottery on our door step, a larger school would be required, there is no parking for the train station. this kind of development in not accessible in the green belt or on green field sites. Houses are needed but any development should not be of a scale which overwhelms or substantially changes the character of the existing settlement. In this context, 500 is excessive and harmful. There is insufficient infrastructure to accommodate any substantial new development. The railway station has no parking; Featherbed Lane is not provided with a pavement; lighting on this area would increase light pollution ad be harmful on the Greenbelt. Public transport is virtually non-existent. Medical and educational facilities are inadequate to accommodate a large increase in numbers 1. Infrastructure: This happens to be a big bug bear of mine with any housing development. We've all seen the promises made by developers/councils to include facilities for doctors, dentists and schools but nothing seems to appear or is followed up. I don't think this can go on much longer and when referring to Section 10 of the SA Framework it states "improve access to local health....". Well it goes without saying that building more housing without the other infrastructure being in place is not going to work. The school is another example. Section 12 of the framework mentions "education provide and improve access...." I don’t know what the full capacity number is for our local infant/junior school but there cannot be much room left for any extra so parents will be using their cars to transport the children to other schools which again goes against the ethos of 'proximity access etc'. 2. Railway/train links: If the railway is to accommodate more passengers/travellers at Wilmcote then another big priority must be to sort out the issue of parking. We all know that the village as a whole has a big parking problem and it’s something that needs to be sorted. I know it’s not an easy issue and cannot all be solved at once but in this case the station is priority. We know from the SWLP they want to encourage residents (new or old) to use the rail links but as was highlighted at the meeting you will still get people living outside of Wilmcote who need to use the train from Wilmcote. I see on a daily basis the 'illegally' parked vehicles on the road/bridge by the station and suggest that this could be solved by a small car park sited as near to the station as possible. I appreciate that this would require British Rail to purchase a small piece of land. It amazes me that quite often you will actually have a rail network van parked on top of the bridge lights flashing for some time, and yes some would argue this might be another 'slowing down mechanism' for the speeders but that isn't the point. 3. Speeding: I agree that speeding is not mentioned in the SWLP along with parking but I personally think a 20mph throughout the whole village would enhance everyone’s wellbeing - how many times have we all witnessed excess speeds along Aston Cantlow Road. The cars parked outside the grey cottages do sometimes slow vehicles down but a) most of these cars are parking on the pavements and causing damage but there are also b) vehicles trying to pass (i.e wont give way) these parked vehicles and not being courteous to those coming in the opposite direction. 4. Housing: When referring to the "Appendix A of the SA Framework" I'm quite sure that there will be more answers available as time goes on but they have stipulated themselves in Section 9 that there will be an option/proposal of a suitable mix and tenure of housing including affordable homes and homes for first time buyers. Let’s hope they act on their own words. My answers to the other areas in Appendix A are no different than above and rather than repeat myself none of this is going to work until item 1 above is considered/acted upon before another brick is laid.