NOTICE FROM WILMCOTE PARISH COUNCIL
RECOMMENDED RESPONSE TO THE SWLP REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION
I have prepared an objection document concerning the proposed removal of the washed-over Green Belt from the Built-up Area Boundary (BuAB) of Wilmcote. The land surrounding the BuAB would, however, remain designated as Green Belt.
Please read the document and use it to help formulate your own individual response. It is important that residents do not simply copy the objection word-for-word, but instead express their own views and concerns in their own words.
The Parish Council and the BWAG support the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP) as a whole. This is important to make clear in your response, as the SWLP provides significant protection for Wilmcote against the scale of development that was previously being proposed.
Why is it important to object?
We fought hard and successfully to have the proposed BW allocation for up to 10,000 homes removed from the SWLP. This was an exceptional achievement and one that demonstrates what can be achieved when the community makes its views heard.
However, within the SWLP’s 1,000+ pages are a number of proposed policies that could have significant implications for Wilmcote.
The two policies that are particularly important are DS.8 and DS.13.
Policy DS.8 – Wilmcote as a Local Service Centre
DS.8 proposes to re-designate Wilmcote as a Local Service Centre.
This could make the village more suitable for certain forms of small-scale development, including housing, employment buildings and potentially gypsy and traveller sites.
Policy DS.13 – Removal of Green Belt
DS.13 proposes the removal of the Green Belt designation from the relevant area of Wilmcote.
This is particularly concerning because it would mean losing the specific planning protections provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for Green Belt land.
The removal of this protection could make Wilmcote more vulnerable to:
- backland and infill development;
- increased housing density;
- pressure for development beyond the existing settlement pattern;
- reduced ability for the Parish Council and residents to rely on Green Belt policy when objecting to planning applications; and
- gradual boundary creep and the erosion of the village’s open character.
For these reasons, I strongly recommend that everyone reads Policies DS.8 and DS.13 before preparing their response.
How can you respond?
There are two ways to submit your representation. You can respond online through the consultation portal or by email – whichever is easiest for you.
Online response
Visit: South Warwickshire Local Plan Regulation 19
Once you are on the consultation site, select the link for the Representations Form. You will then need to locate the Policies section.
By email
You can submit your representation by email to:
Please make sure you clearly identify the policies you are commenting on – particularly DS.8 and DS.13 – and explain, in your own words, why you believe the proposed changes would be harmful to Wilmcote.
Every individual response matters. The strength of the community’s response to the previous proposals helped secure the removal of the 10,000-home BW allocation. We now need residents to make their views known on these proposed policy changes as well.
SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE LOCAL PLAN – REGULATION 19 REPRESENTATION
Wilmcote Parish Council – Objection to the Proposed Removal of Wilmcote from the West Midlands Green Belt and its Designation as a Local Service Centre
Policies: DS.8 – Other Growth Locations; DS.13 – Green Belt
Representation: Objection
1. Introduction
Wilmcote Parish Council (WPC) objects to the proposed exclusion of the built-up area of Wilmcote from the West Midlands Green Belt under Policy DS.13 and to the designation of Wilmcote as a Local Service Centre under Policy DS.8.
WPC recognises that the 2026 Arup Green Belt Review Stage 2 has now specifically considered Wilmcote as a washed-over village. However, WPC considers that the evidence and reasoning relied upon by the Stratford District Council (SDC) does not adequately demonstrate that the requirements of national policy for changing an established Green Belt boundary have been met.
In particular, WPC considers that:
1. The evidence does not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances specific to Wilmcote required by NPPF paragraph 145
2. SDC has not demonstrated why retaining Wilmcote within the Green Belt would undermine the Local Plan strategy
3. The conclusion that Wilmcote does not have an ‘open character’ is insufficiently explained and does not adequately address the spatial and visual dimensions of openness
4. SDC’s own methodology and earlier critique of Green Belt reviews indicates that a more detailed assessment of the physical and visual relationship between the village and the surrounding Green Belt is required
5. The designation of Wilmcote as a Local Service Centre is not adequately supported by evidence demonstrating that it performs the role attributed to that designation
6. There was inadequate opportunity for Parish Councils to consider and respond to the significant policy consequence of moving Wilmcote from a washed-over Green Belt settlement to an inset settlement before the Regulation 19 plan was approved by SDC.
WPC therefore considers the proposed changes to be not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.
PART A – POLICY DS.8
2. Wilmcote should not automatically be treated as a Local Service Centre
Policy DS.8 places Wilmcote within the category of Local Service Centres, where small-scale development proposals will be supported in principle within the Built-Up Area Boundary.
This is a significant change in policy treatment.
Under the proposed Plan, Wilmcote is not simply being given a revised settlement boundary. It is being placed in a settlement category which is intended to accommodate small-scale growth and, in conjunction with Policy DS.13, its built-up area is also being removed from the Green Belt.
The evidence supporting that combination therefore needs to be particularly robust.
WPC does not consider that the evidence demonstrates that Wilmcote performs the function of a Local Service Centre to the degree implied by the policy.
Wilmcote has:
- a small village shop;
- a mobile postal service;
- a railway station;
- a primary school;
- a public house;
- a social club;
- a church;
- a children’s play area; and
- bus stops.
These facilities are valuable to the local community, and WPC fully supports their retention.
However, the existence of a number of community facilities does not in itself establish that Wilmcote functions as a service centre for a wider rural hinterland.
Wilmcote does not contain:
- a GP surgery;
- a pharmacy;
- a supermarket;
- a permanent post office;
- a significant range of shops;
- a significant employment centre;
- a medical centre; or
- other higher-order services normally expected to attract residents from surrounding settlements.
Residents of surrounding villages have access to considerably greater concentrations of services at settlements such as Henley-in-Arden, Stratford-upon-Avon and Alcester.
The nearest surrounding villages also have their own community facilities. In particular, Aston Cantlow has a public house, social facilities, tennis facilities and postal provision.
WPC therefore questions whether the evidence demonstrates that Wilmcote performs a genuine service-centre function beyond its own immediate population.
3. Absence of Evidence of Wider Catchment Use
WPC has been unable to identify published evidence demonstrating that residents of surrounding settlements routinely use Wilmcote’s facilities to the extent necessary to justify its classification as a Local Service Centre.
If the Council considers that Wilmcote performs a wider service function, the evidence should identify:
- the catchment population;
- the settlements served;
- the facilities that attract residents from those settlements;
- the scale of usage;
- any survey evidence undertaken with surrounding communities; and
- how Wilmcote compares against other settlements designated as Local Service Centres.
The absence of such evidence is particularly important because the proposed Local Service Centre designation is being used alongside the Green Belt review to justify a materially different planning status for the village.
4. The Railway Station does not, in itself, establish a Service-Centre function
The existence of Wilmcote railway station should not be treated as sufficient evidence that Wilmcote functions as a wider service centre. The station has no dedicated car park, and therefore its accessibility to residents of surrounding villages is limited. rural villages.
The surrounding road network is rural and residents travelling from surrounding settlements to access rail services are likely to consider stations with dedicated parking provision such as Henley in Arden or Stratford Parkway stations. Many smaller rural villages also have their own stations.
SDC should therefore provide evidence demonstrating the actual role played by Wilmcote station in serving the wider rural population rather than assuming that the presence of a railway station automatically establishes a wider service-centre function. Again, WPC would request sound survey information to establish how many residents from rural villages use Wilmcote Station.
5. The Local Service Centre Designation and Green Belt Removal Should Be Considered Together
The Council should not treat the DS.8 and DS.13 decisions as unrelated.
The proposed policy framework would:
1. classify Wilmcote as a Local Service Centre;
2. establish a Built-Up Area Boundary; and
3. remove the built-up area from the Green Belt.
This materially changes the planning status of the village.
SDC must therefore demonstrate that the settlement hierarchy, settlement boundary and Green Belt boundary are collectively justified by the evidence.
WPC considers that this has not been adequately demonstrated.
PART B – POLICY DS.13
OBJECTION TO REMOVAL OF WILMCOTE FROM THE GREEN BELT
6. National Policy Requires Exceptional Circumstances
NPPF paragraph 145 states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified through the preparation or updating of plans.
Paragraph 146 identifies circumstances which may contribute to the case for Green Belt boundary changes, while paragraph 147 requires the strategic policy-making authority to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified development needs.
SDC’s July 2026 Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper recognises that exceptional circumstances are a matter of planning judgement.
However, the existence of plan-wide exceptional circumstances for some Green Belt release does not, by itself, establish that there are exceptional circumstances for every individual village proposed for exclusion.
The Council itself has adopted a two-part approach, comprising:
- plan-wide exceptional circumstances; and
- site-specific exceptional circumstances.
WPC therefore considers that the Council must demonstrate why Wilmcote specifically needs to be removed from the Green Belt.
A general need for growth across South Warwickshire cannot be treated as sufficient justification for every individual Green Belt boundary alteration.
7. The Arup Stage 2 Assessment Does Not Adequately Demonstrate the Case for Wilmcote
WPC acknowledges that the 2026 Arup Stage 2 Green Belt Review did consider washed-over villages.
SDC’s July 2026 Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper states:
‘Wilmcote is proposed for exclusion from the Green Belt. Wilmcote was not found to have an open character.’ This is the central justification relied upon for Wilmcote.
However, WPC considers that this conclusion requires substantially greater explanation before it can reasonably support the permanent alteration of an established Green Belt boundary that has been in place for over 60 years and furthermore was not altered in the Core Strategy.
The Council’s own published methodology explains that the assessment of washed-over villages should be based on:
1. whether the village has an open character; and
2. whether that open character makes an important contribution to Green Belt openness.
The issue is therefore not simply whether Wilmcote contains substantial built form.
The relevant question is whether the character and spatial and visual structure of Wilmcote contribute to the openness of the Green Belt to an extent which requires Green Belt policy to continue to apply.
WPC considers that the published evidence does not demonstrate this conclusively.
8. Openness Is Not Simply a Measure of Built Form
SDC’s approach needs to be considered in the context of the established legal position concerning Green Belt openness.
In Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and East Dorset Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466, the Court of Appeal confirmed that Green Belt openness has both spatial and visual dimensions and is an ‘open-textured’ concept.
Consequently, an assessment of openness cannot simply amount to a conclusion that a village appears substantially developed.
The assessment should consider the particular circumstances of the settlement, including its physical form, gaps, open spaces, views, relationship with surrounding countryside and the way in which built form relates to the wider Green Belt.
This is particularly important in Wilmcote.
Wilmcote is not an isolated compact urban settlement. Its historic development incorporates:
- substantial areas of open land;
- agricultural land extending directly into and around the settlement;
- open spaces and gaps between built development;
- mature vegetation and hedgerows;
- long and short-distance views across the surrounding countryside;
- a strong relationship between the village and the surrounding agricultural landscape; and
- a historic core whose character is closely associated with its rural setting.
These characteristics require a detailed assessment of both the spatial and visual relationship between Wilmcote and the surrounding Green Belt.
9. SDC’s Own Previous Methodological Critique Supports a More Detailed Assessment
There is a particularly important point concerning methodology.
The Councils’ own 2023 critique of the Coventry and Warwickshire Green Belt Review identified the inadequacy of failing to undertake a specific assessment of washed-over villages.
That critique referred to approaches used elsewhere which considered, amongst other matters:
Open character
- the general pattern of development;
- density;
- scale and form;
- dwelling types;
- building heights;
- the extent of gaps; and
- the extent of open spaces.
Contribution to Green Belt openness
- how clearly the village is defined;
- built form;
- topography;
- vegetation;
- views into and out of the village;
- whether open areas are visually or physically continuous with the surrounding Green Belt.
These are precisely the factors which are necessary to understand whether a village’s character contributes to the openness of the Green Belt.
WPC therefore considers that SDC should demonstrate clearly, in the evidence supporting the Regulation 19 Plan, how each of these considerations was applied to Wilmcote and what evidence led to the conclusion that Wilmcote does not have an open character.
Simply stating the conclusion is insufficient for a decision of this significance.
10. Wilmcote’s Relationship with the Surrounding Green Belt Has Not Been Adequately Addressed
The fact that Wilmcote contains a substantial amount of built development does not mean that the settlement has ceased to contribute to Green Belt openness.
The village contains a distinctive pattern of development interspersed with open land, gardens, vegetation and gaps.
In addition, the settlement has a particularly strong relationship with the surrounding countryside.
The open countryside around Wilmcote is not simply incidental landscape outside the village. It contributes to the physical and visual identity of the settlement itself.
This is especially evident around:
- Aston Cantlow Road;
- Station Road;
- Church Road;
- the eastern and southern edges of the settlement;
- the land surrounding Mary Arden’s Farm; and
- the agricultural landscape extending from the village towards the wider countryside.
The Green Belt therefore performs a role in maintaining the distinction between Wilmcote and the surrounding countryside, even if the built-up area itself contains a significant amount of development.
11. Heritage Protection Does Not Replace the Role of Green Belt
The Council’s Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper states that Wilmcote’s Conservation Area and normal development-management policies are sufficient to protect the character of the village.
WPC does not accept that this provides sufficient justification for removing Green Belt protection.
The Conservation Area and Green Belt perform different planning functions.
The Conservation Area is principally concerned with preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of an area of special architectural or historic interest.
Green Belt policy performs a different strategic function, including maintaining openness, preventing urban sprawl and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
The fact that another designation provides heritage protection therefore does not demonstrate that Green Belt protection is redundant.
This is particularly important in Wilmcote because the setting of its heritage asset is closely connected with the surrounding rural landscape.
12. Mary Arden’s Farm and the Historic Setting of Wilmcote
Wilmcote contains a particularly sensitive historic environment, including Mary Arden’s Farm, a Grade I listed building, within the historic core of the village.
SDC acknowledges in its Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper that land opposite Mary Arden’s Farm contributes to protecting its setting.
SDC proposes to include that land within the revised Built-Up Area Boundary on the basis that the Conservation Area and heritage policies will provide sufficient protection.
WPC considers this approach too narrow.
The issue is not simply whether a planning application on that parcel would be capable of being refused because of heritage harm.
The wider issue is the contribution made by Green Belt designation to the long-term spatial relationship between the historic village and its rural surroundings.
The loss of Green Belt designation could increase future pressure for development, redevelopment and intensification within and around the settlement.
Heritage policies should not therefore be treated as a substitute for Green Belt policy.
13. Removal of the Green Belt Is Not Necessary to Deliver the Local Plan
The Council’s principal strategic justification for Green Belt release is the delivery of sustainable growth across South Warwickshire.
However, there is no demonstrated requirement for Wilmcote itself to be removed from the Green Belt in order to deliver the Local Plan’s housing or employment requirements.
Wilmcote is not proposed as a strategic growth location under the Regulation 19 Plan.
The former Bearley/Wilmcote strategic allocation has been removed.
No evidence has been presented demonstrating that removal of Wilmcote’s built-up area from the Green Belt is necessary to deliver an identified allocation or infrastructure project.
This is a critical distinction.
The Council may have demonstrated a plan-wide case for some Green Belt release. That does not establish that Green Belt in-setting of Wilmcote is necessary.
The Council should therefore identify:
- the specific development need which requires Wilmcote to be inset;
- the quantum of development which depends upon in-setting;
- why that development cannot be accommodated within the existing policy framework;
- what Local Plan objective would fail if Wilmcote remained washed over; and
- what measurable planning benefit is obtained by removing the designation.
WPC considers that no convincing answer has been provided.
14. The Proposed Change Is Not Required Merely Because Wilmcote Has a Built-Up Area
The fact that a settlement contains a recognisable built-up area does not, in itself, establish exceptional circumstances for its removal from the Green Belt.
The NPPF expressly recognises the concept of washed-over villages.
The purpose of the washed-over designation is precisely to recognise that some villages contain built development but nevertheless have an open character which contributes to Green Belt openness.
The question is therefore not whether Wilmcote is built up.
The question is whether its open character makes an important contribution to Green Belt openness.
WPC considers that the evidence has not demonstrated that this contribution is insignificant.
15. Potential Consequences of Insetting Wilmcote
WPC recognises that removal of the Green Belt designation does not itself allocate land for housing.
However, it materially changes the planning policy framework.
Once the built-up area is removed from the Green Belt:
- Green Belt policy will no longer apply within the inset boundary;
- small-scale development will be supported in principle under DS.8;
- opportunities for infill and redevelopment will be considered under a substantially different policy framework; and
- future proposals will no longer have to overcome the fundamental Green Belt policy constraints which currently apply.
The proposed change is therefore not merely administrative.
It represents a significant relaxation of the strategic planning protection applying to Wilmcote.
This is particularly concerning because the Plan has a 25-year horizon to 2050.
Green Belt boundaries are intended to have long-term permanence. The Council should therefore demonstrate a compelling and enduring planning reason for making this change now.
16. Risk of Incremental Development Pressure
WPC is concerned that the combined effect of DS.8 and DS.13 could lead to incremental pressure for:
- infill development;
- redevelopment;
- increased density;
- development of large residential gardens;
- replacement dwellings;
- backland development; and
- gradual extension of development towards the rural edge.
Such individual proposals may appear modest when considered separately.
Over a 25-year plan period, however, their cumulative effect could materially alter the character and spatial form of Wilmcote.
The Council’s decision to remove Green Belt protection should therefore take account of the long-term cumulative consequences, not simply whether the immediate Built-Up Area Boundary appears defensible.
17. The Proposed Boundary Changes Reinforce the Need for Caution
The Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper proposes extending the Built-Up Area Boundary to include:
- residential gardens south of Aston Cantlow Road;
- land adjacent to Marsh Road;
- the cemetery east of Church Road;
- land to the rear of Wilmcote Primary School; and
- land on the south side of Station Road opposite Mary Arden’s Farm.
These are not simply corrections to a line on a map.
They affect land which contributes to the physical and visual relationship between the village and the countryside.
SDC’s decision to bring these areas within the inset boundary further increases the importance of demonstrating that the resulting boundary is justified, durable and consistent with the NPPF requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be clearly defined and intended to endure in the long term.
18. Exceptional Circumstances Must Be Specific to the Boundary Change
The Council’s July 2026 Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper states that exceptional circumstances exist for the exclusion of Wilmcote.
However, the evidence appears to rely principally upon the conclusion that Wilmcote does not have an open character and that other policies can protect its character.
That does not adequately demonstrate why Green Belt removal is necessary.
There is a fundamental distinction between:
‘The village could be protected by ordinary planning policies’
and
‘There are exceptional circumstances requiring the village to be removed from the Green Belt.’
The first proposition does not automatically establish the second.
The Council must demonstrate why the existing Green Belt designation is no longer justified and why its removal is necessary and appropriate having regard to the intended permanence of Green Belt boundaries.
WPC considers that this has not been demonstrated.
19. Sustainable Development Does Not Automatically Require Green Belt Removal
The Council has placed considerable emphasis upon directing development towards sustainable locations.
WPC accepts the importance of sustainable development.
However, sustainability does not provide an automatic justification for Green Belt release.
The Council must balance the sustainability of the location against:
- the purposes of Green Belt
- openness
- the permanence of the designation
- the availability of alternative locations
- the actual development need at Wilmcote and
- the long-term consequences of changing the settlement’s planning status.
In the case of Wilmcote, the Council has not demonstrated that the sustainability benefits of insetting the village outweigh the planning benefits of retaining its existing Green Belt status.
20. Lack of Meaningful Engagement on the Consequences of DS.8 and DS.13
WPC also has significant concerns regarding the process by which the proposed changes became apparent to Parish Councils.
Although DS.8 appears within the Local Plan documentation, Parish Councils were not adequately alerted to the significant consequence that classification of certain settlements as Local Service Centres would coincide with the removal of Green Belt protection from their built-up areas.
WPC was only made aware at an evening Teams presentation on Friday 10 July 2026 that the proposed settlement designation would also involve Green Belt removal.
This was less than three working days before the relevant SDC councillors had to vote on approving the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
This did not provide Parish Councils with a reasonable opportunity to:
- review the Arup Stage 2 assessment;
- consider the implications of the new settlement designation;
- examine the proposed Built-Up Area Boundary;
- consult Parish Councillors;
- consult residents;
- consider the relationship between DS.8 and DS.13 and
- formulate an informed response.
This is particularly concerning given that the Stage 2 Green Belt Review was only published in May 2026 and the revised Regulation 19 evidence was subsequently finalised for 15th July 2026.
WPC therefore considers that the process has not provided the level of meaningful engagement which should reasonably accompany a fundamental change to the planning status of a village.
21. Soundness
WPC considers that the proposed removal of Wilmcote from the Green Belt raises substantial concerns under the tests of soundness.
Not Justified
The Council has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances specific to Wilmcote which require the removal of the village from the Green Belt.
The plan-wide need for some Green Belt release does not establish the necessity for this particular boundary change.
The evidence supporting the conclusion that Wilmcote does not have an open character requires greater explanation and does not adequately demonstrate that the spatial and visual relationship between Wilmcote and the surrounding Green Belt has been properly considered.
Not Effective
The removal of Green Belt designation is not necessary to deliver an identified strategic allocation or infrastructure project at Wilmcote.
No clear delivery benefit has been identified which depends upon in-setting the village.
Instead, the change introduces the possibility of incremental development pressure over the 25-year plan period.
Not Consistent with National Policy
NPPF paragraphs 145–148 require Green Belt boundary changes to be fully evidenced and justified and require authorities to examine other reasonable options before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist.
NPPF paragraph 150 specifically addresses washed-over villages and recognises that villages whose open character makes an important contribution to Green Belt openness should remain within the Green Belt.
WPC considers that the evidence does not establish that Wilmcote falls clearly outside this category.
22. Requested Modification
Wilmcote Parish Council requests that:
Primary modification
Policy DS.13 and the Policies Map should be amended so that the built-up area of Wilmcote remains within the West Midlands Green Belt.
Wilmcote should therefore remain a washed-over village.
Consequential modification
Policy DS.8 should be amended so that Wilmcote is not classified as a Local Service Centre in a manner which depends upon its removal from the Green Belt.
If the Council considers that Wilmcote should retain a settlement hierarchy designation, that designation should be reconsidered independently of the Green Belt boundary question.
23. Alternative Modification
If SDC is unwilling to retain Wilmcote within the Green Belt, WPC requests that the Plan is not found sound unless the Council first publishes and properly consults upon a comprehensive Wilmcote-specific evidence paper which:
- sets out the full methodology used by Arup in assessing Wilmcote
- identifies the evidence relied upon to conclude that Wilmcote does not have an open character
- assesses the density, scale and form of development
- assesses the extent and significance of gaps and open spaces
- assesses views into and out of Wilmcote
- assesses the relationship between open land within the village and the surrounding Green Belt
- assesses topography and vegetation
- explains the spatial contribution made by the village to Green Belt openness
- identifies the specific exceptional circumstances requiring removal of Wilmcote from the Green Belt
- explains why retaining the Green Belt designation would prejudice the Local Plan
- identifies the specific development or infrastructure need which depends upon the change
- demonstrates that all reasonable alternatives have been considered
- assesses the cumulative consequences of future infill and redevelopment
- demonstrates that the proposed new Green Belt boundary is durable and capable of enduring for the long term
- explains why Conservation Area and heritage policies are considered sufficient to replace, rather than complement, Green Belt protection.
24. Conclusion
Wilmcote Parish Council supports the principle of evidence-led and sustainable planning.
However, the proposed removal of Wilmcote from the Green Belt is not supported by a sufficiently compelling Wilmcote-specific case.
The Council’s own evidence confirms that the decision to exclude washed-over villages should be based upon an assessment of openness rather than settlement hierarchy.
The Arup Stage 2 conclusion that Wilmcote “was not found to have an open character” is a significant conclusion, but WPC considers that the evidence supporting that conclusion is not sufficiently transparent or persuasive to justify the permanent removal of Green Belt protection.
The legal and policy position requires consideration of openness as an open-textured concept incorporating both spatial and visual dimensions. The assessment must therefore consider the particular physical and visual relationship between Wilmcote and the surrounding countryside rather than treating the presence of substantial built development as determinative.
Wilmcote’s historic form, open spaces, gardens, vegetation, agricultural surroundings, views and relationship with the wider countryside all contribute to its distinctive rural character and its relationship with the Green Belt.
There is also no demonstrated requirement for Wilmcote to be removed from the Green Belt in order to deliver an identified allocation or infrastructure project within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
The Council has therefore not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist specifically for Wilmcote, nor that retaining its Green Belt status would undermine the Local Plan.
For these reasons, WPC considers that the proposed removal of Wilmcote from the West Midlands Green Belt is:
- not justified;
- not effective; and
- not consistent with national planning policy.
Wilmcote Parish Council therefore respectfully requests that the proposed exclusion of Wilmcote from the Green Belt under Policy DS.13 is deleted and that Wilmcote remains a washed-over Green Belt village.
