South Warwickshire villagers unite against option for up to 6,800 homes

AROUND 160 anxious people crowded into the village hall at Bearley on Saturday morning to hear the facts of life about house building plans for their area.

These are not firm plans yet of course. But the very fact that Bearley and its surrounding countryside could be the target for the creation of up to 6,800 new homes was enough to prompt a quarter of the village’s population to turn up at the meeting to find out what was going on.

The idea of swamping that particular locality with such a huge increase in housing is contained in the South Warwickshire Local Plan, prepared jointly by the district councils of Stratford and Warwick to meet the needs of this particular part of England from 2027 to 2050.

It was made abundantly clear to the residents that south Warwickshire – like everywhere else in the country – is obliged by government mandate to provide a local plan to meet certain housing targets over the next 25-year period.

Currently the Stratford district as a whole is expecting to provide 27,000 new homes during the next quarter of a century and the Warwick district 27,000-plus, making a total of 54,450 in the southern part of the county.

The only question is where the houses are built. And in Bearley and elsewhere – as parish councillor Guy Esnouf pointed out – it is not yet a fait accompli. For that reason alone villagers were encouraged to make their views known, as fully and as strongly as they felt necessary, in the consultation process now taking place until 7th March.

The meeting began with a brief outline of the situation from Stratford district councillor Ian Shenton (Con, Wootton Wawen) who also represents the division of Arden on Warwickshire County Council.

“We have no choice,” he explained. “By government mandate we have to build more houses. Stratford is growing. The increase in numbers in Stratford is caused by an influx of people. The death rate in Stratford is exceeding the birth rate, so the increase is from people coming into the district.”

But inevitably the question came up about how swathes of land became available for housing. “It might be ‘difficult’ that we have people who are willing to sell a field for development,” said a woman from the middle of the hall.

Cllr Shenton said: “Generally it is the owners who put a site up for development. Landowners have to put these sites forward for consideration.” At which point Cllr Esnouf chipped in: “But it’s not a fait accompli!” And when a particular stretch of land was being discussed, another woman asked: “Who is the owner of the land?” To which Cllr Shenton responded: “At this stage I’m not sure I can divulge that myself.”

One woman explained why she lived in a particular part of Bearley. “We fell in love with the view,” she said. “It’s a small garden, but we overlook a gorgeous field. We may lose this view to housing.

“You say we’re desperate for affordable housing, but a lot of builders only have to build ten per cent [of affordable housing].” Cllr Shenton stressed that builders were required by Stratford District Council to provide 35 per cent of affordable housing in any new development.

Cllr Richard Le Page, the chairman of Bearley Parish Council, told residents that one of the reasons the Bearley area was chosen as a possible site for new housing was because it had a railway station.

“The trouble is it [the railway] doesn’t go where anyone wants to go,” a man piped up, to laughter.

A map from the local plan document shown on a big screen revealed that potential sites for development stretched from Bearley village, across the Birmingham Road towards Wilmcote and down to Pathlow.

And, as parish councillor Pete Delve explained: “Part of the Green Belt is potentially up for development.”

A woman declared that the Stratford district was “number three” in the country for new development. “So why have more here?” she asked. “Why are they smashing us again?”

(A study published last year revealed that the Stratford district had the highest number of homes built between 2020 and 2023 – a total of 3,860 – in relation to its population. The Campaign to Protect Rural England said the development in the area was “very sad and not necessary”.)

There’s little doubt that many of the people at Saturday’s meeting in Bearley felt that these “potential” plans for their area are also “very sad and not necessary”.

At the end of the meeting 130 of the 160 in attendance registered their opposition to the development. Three of them were in favour and the rest were undecided.

Interestingly – and unsurprisingly – at least one of those who voted in favour was recognised as one of the landowners who would profit rather handsomely from the sale of their land for building purposes…