Yes

Representation ID: 85964

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rita Hartley

Both Bearley and Wilmcote have good access to main Stratford. They have road access, bus service, train station etc. Bearley had a school and a shop to service the village, but neither now. Older people are moving out of the village because of lack of facilities and minimal bus service. More housing is needed in the village so the elderly can move into smaller accommodation and new people can move into the village and make it a thriving location. It’s dated and stayed and has a philosophy of ‘not in my back garden’, they don’t like change.

No

Representation ID: 85968

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Graham Ball

With a sustainable land supply, continual new settlements are not sustainable, therefore it should not happen. If you do not accept this argument, the other point is that this land is in the greenbelt; there is plenty of land nearby outside the greenbelt on which a settlement could be built so there is no exceptional need for this settlement.

No

Representation ID: 86023

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Oliver Jacobs

The land proposed at Bearley farm is unsuitable. Is has very limited, single access via Church Lane and a connecting farm path.

The land extends into protected woodland and exits into an area of historic & protected buildings.

Adjacent to this site is further protected woodland planted by the Heart of England forest foundation. Significant housing development would have detrimental impact on the woodland and the objective of rebuilding the prior natural habitat.

Further more this land at this site suffers from poor drainage already, and dated water, electric & Internet facilities.

Alternate land surrounding Bearley is more suitable.

Yes

Representation ID: 86054

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

No

Representation ID: 86407

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Victoria Fell

6000 houses proposed by Bearley and Wilmcote is excessive. It’s 20 times the amount of current housing. There is no need for it. There is enough income for stratford U-A being a tourist town. It’s upsetting to see the only logical sense to the Council is to build thousands of houses covering green areas that make Stratford and surrounding area the idyllic place it is. No one moves or visits here for the grey scenery, that’s what the larger towns like Solihull are for. It will be a huge mistake. Thank you

No

Representation ID: 86580

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Development at Bearley will encourage the spread of Stratford into the Green Belt.

No

Representation ID: 86631

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Stefanie Tye-Smith

Loss of rural village surroundings/community. Loss of habitat for nature/wildlife, some being protected species eg trees/newts/bats. Green belt being lost to development. Loss of privacy as many residents would be overlooked. Loss of light for existing residents by new buildings obstructing. Roads being overwhelmed by excess users/traffic- negative impact on residents/wildlife. Noise/air pollution increasing would negatively impact residents/wildlife. There are no services or infrastructure to support a new settlement. We LOVE our rural village and it's community. Alot of us CHOSE to live here because of this, we didn't choose a town or city. Please protect our beautiful village.

No

Representation ID: 86633

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Davies

Congestion issues into Stratford, pressure on local services and damage to wildlife and peaceful environment.

No

Representation ID: 86648

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Paula Macleod

This is a rural area, we guard our flora and fauna,, essential to save for future generations, but also for the ecological balance of nature, we have a wide variety of insects and butterflies,(including the rarer blues), birds (including sparrow hawks, field fares, long tailed tits, woodpeckers wrens), ,and wildflowers, (including orchids some of which are very rare)hedgehogs, deer, fox, badger, adders and Grass snakes, bats. Many old oak trees and hedgerows would be destroyed, most of the fields and indeed the main roads are flooded on a regular basis and are insufficient to cope.

No

Representation ID: 86654

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Warren Girling

The proposed area is prime arable land and designated Green Belt. Without this break Stratford upon Avon will merge into Henley and Solihull creating a suburban Link from Birmingham to the County borders.

No

Representation ID: 86658

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Kirsten Hald

It is imperative to consider the long-term impacts on the environment, infrastructure, heritage, and community. Alternative sites that align better with the principles of sustainable development and community well-being should be explored.

No

Representation ID: 86713

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Daniel Kilby

- lack of infrastructure in Stratford-upon-Avon and the surrounding areas as it stands.
- Bearley currently has no amenities with only 300 houses.
- lack of housing not an issue, cost of living is the actual problem.
- Bearley is a protected green belt area and should not be changed to suit the greed and questionable morals of developers and the council.

No

Representation ID: 86717

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Henry Einsiedler

A housing settlement of this scale would not benefit the people of Bearley or Stratford. It is totally contrary to the Bearley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2031 which 89% of people voted for. The infrastructure in Stratford is already creaking because of overdevelopment and lack of investment. This new development will only make quality of life worse for all of us.

If the government orders this project to go ahead, we would at the very least need a bypass, another GP surgery, A&E dept etc, paid for by the government.

No

Representation ID: 86721

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Groom

We don’t have a station we have a platform.
There is lots of spare land in south Warwickshire without affecting so many people’s lives

No

Representation ID: 86731

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Tyrrell

This development would have a huge negative impacto on local biodiversity in this greenbelt area. The road network is unsuitable for the volume of traffic that would be generated and make communising to Gayon unviable for us.

No

Representation ID: 86733

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Ms Geraldine Leonard

How will gp, dentists, schools, roads, pollution, hospital cope with this huge influx of people. This is damaging to Stratford which is already bursting at the seems and Henley which is a tiny village already struggling with current traffic levels and all of the above infrastructure is already under immense pressure so bringing in thousands more homes will be detrimental.

No

Representation ID: 86734

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Brewer

The local area is already struggling from an infrastructure perspective. The increase in traffic on the A34 will be detrimental to existing villages and residents.

No

Representation ID: 86737

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Dickaty

Surrounding villages will not be able to cope with the extra vehicles going through. Schools, dentists and doctors will see an influx.

No

Representation ID: 86751

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tamsyn Baker

Very careful consideration needs to be given to developing in rural areas and adjacent to small villages. Whether intended or not, residents in these new areas will use the shortest routes possible to get to the M40 and A46 and this will impact on the small villages close to Bearley. So whilst the site in itself may be suitable for development, the surrounding area and infrastructure is not and will not benefit from any improvements to support the wider impacts of this level of development. Snitterfield already cannot cope with the volume of traffic at peak times.

No

Representation ID: 86764

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Kayla Woolley

Building so many houses in this location would be devastating to local people. The schools, doctors, and roads are already stretched to their limits, and it would completely swamp the local villages.

No

Representation ID: 86765

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Patrick Elliott

Many people currently drive through Bearley & Snitterfield to avoid the Bishopton roundabout to get to the M40, Warwick & Leamington. The numbers of people doing this will increase dramatically if these proposals go through. Driving through Snitterfield means driving past a school & nursery & a private nursery. There is limited parking & people working at the above/local residents park on Smiths Lane. These proposals & the likely huge increase in traffic will bring Snittetfield to a halt & make it very dangerous for our villager’s & especially our children & grandchildren.

No

Representation ID: 86766

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Oliver Strade

This site is completely unsuitable for this amount of housing. The local roads are already gridlocked with heavy traffic. It has been flagged numerous times about the issues on the Birmingham Road and this will simply add to a big problem. Local facilities also can not cope with this with schools full and other facilities often with no space. Also this area is beautiful countryside that all local residents want to keep. Build/add onto existing city’s and large towns not small beautiful villages.

No

Representation ID: 86768

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Jacob Murrock

The surrounding roads are already extremely busy, adding traffic along the A46 and the Birmingham road will have a detrimental effect on people commute. Also bearley train station in not suitable for that many people, you can barely get a train now so how it will serve 6500 people is questionable.

No

Representation ID: 86771

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr russell gillott

There are better options to not ruin the countryside!

No

Representation ID: 86778

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Dr Charlotte Heaps

I am concerned about the impact on the roads- esp through Snitterfield which is currently used as a cut through to the a46 and passes a primary school with the road to cross to parking. The current rail set up is much too small to account for development of this size.

Also a general plea to consider the impact on SWFT of all these developments which is already struggling to cope

No

Representation ID: 86781

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Upton

I do not agree with the inclusion of Bearley as it will turn our peaceful village into a large town, increase existing traffic issues, put extra strain on local services and already overladen GP surgeries. It will ruin our enjoyment of our homes and the whole reason we moved to the village.

No

Representation ID: 86789

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Jacques Ferreira

The area outlined is is unsuitable for new settlement allocation based on current lack of:
1. Sufficient services and schools
2. Road infrastructure is already overwhelmed.
3. Poor rail links to Birmingham.
4. The area is all green belt with. Heart of England Forest strutting Land abutting proposed development. This land should not be wasted on new developments eroding a precious resource.
5, Stratford upon Avon, the nearest big town is unable to cope with current resident and visitors traffic.
6. This access to A 46 requires driving through villagers and Lanes as A3400 link to A46 does not function.

No

Representation ID: 86792

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Dominic Elmer

- no to the building of such a huge volume of house
- local infrastructure will not be able to cope with added volume of people
- wildlife will be removed
- air pollution and quality of life will be affected
- added pressure on back roads where people will use villages as a cut through

No

Representation ID: 86805

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emma McConnell

The infrastructure is just not there for this amount of houses. There would be a need for more shops, schools, doctors etc. to take away from the already stretched amenities. Other local villages will be ruined as they will be used as a rat run to cut out traffic - these villages just aren't designed for this amount of extra traffic. I understand the need for more houses, but this many???

No

Representation ID: 86821

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Billie Mitchell

it is not economical and ruins the landscape