BARD campaign FAQs

Q. Is the BARD Campaign against the principle of Eco-towns?

Not if these new towns truly are ecologically sustainable. However, we believe that the building of new towns of around 6000 houses in rural areas utterly negates the proposed eco-friendliness of the scheme.

We believe the ‘eco’ tag is purely the Government's effort at rebranding in order to circumvent traditional planning laws and bulldoze their way over local town planning procedure to force the building of more and more new homes that they now claim the country urgently requires, irrespective of local need.

The truth about the proposed New Town housing is that Stratford District doesn't need them (already met its new build targets), Stratford's roads can't take them (already suffocating Stratford & would do likewise to surrounding villages), the site's land can't absorb the displaced water as a result of them (causing fast-water run-off ie major flooding), the area can't provide jobs for the new town residents needing them (Stratford District is an area of full employment), public transport is ill-equipped for them (no viable train link and not possible to build one that joins Stratford's existing track as the Greenway stops short of the station), and the local schools can't accept them (they're already at full capacity).

How then, on any measure, can Central Government consider Long Marston a site worth developing on this scale?

Q. Does Stratford District need more homes?

In the short-term no. The Stratford District’s Regional Spatial Strategy determined a requirement for just under 300 new houses per year across the whole district until 2026. However all the required homes due for building up to 2011 have already been built. There is therefore currently a moratorium on new builds, which has been recently upheld by the Council in respect of a recent planning appeal.

In the longer-term – the Stratford District does not need new homes on this scale, nor located all in one region. Furthermore, the Government has said ‘The eco-towns need to be additional to existing plans with a minimum of 5000-20,000 homes’ albeit that there is currently some confusion as to whether or not the Government will include the 6000 new town houses as part of an increased new build requirement when it forces the region to adopt a new Regional Spatial Strategy.

Q. Does the proposed Eco-town fulfil any Stratford district needs for new jobs and or regeneration?

No. The Stratford District is classed as an area of full employment. The Government has said: ‘identifying and considering potential eco-town schemes will require local authorities to look at the wide area of which they form part, the patter of clusters and networks of towns, the links between them and the best strategic options for growth for the larger area’.

However, the South Warwickshire/ West Gloucestershire / North Worcestershire areas adjoining the site have no need for regeneration.

Q. Are there better sites nearby for an eco-town of this size?

Yes, there is a requirement for regeneration in and around Stoke-on-Trent, which forms part of the West Midlands Region for planning purposes, only 80 miles from Stratford. Unlike Stratford, Stoke has existing viable transport links for a new town of 6000 houses and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, the local MP (Mark Fisher) is keen to attract developers of eco-towns to develop in that area.

Since the government is keen to site one new town development per region in England, it would seem appropriate for Stoke-on-Trent to be considered.

Q. Is there an increased chance of flooding as a result of this development?

Yes. In the past year the area was already cut off due to local road flooding and a 6000 housing development, and accompanying school, retail park and other required amenities will significantly impact the run-off capability of the surrounding fields, causing widespread flooding potential.

One of the The Environment Agency’s key warnings is the recognition that eco-town developments need to “minimise flood risks and account for water quality and existing water resources, including waste water planning”.

The Government says: Where practicable we want to encourage the development of eco-towns on surplus public sector land (12,700 acres of which 741 are in South East). Yet again that does not take into account local need.

Q. Are the existing transport links acceptable and sustainable for a development of this size?

No. This is probably the most critical issue in relation to the Long Marston proposal. Zero-carbon achievement in home development risks being undermined by miscalculations of public transport usage as well as, in reality, the level of reliance on private cars required if the new towns are not self-sufficient.

The Government has said a key criteria in choosing a site is that the eco-towns should have ‘good links’ to surrounding towns, ‘planned to support low carbon living, in particularly minimising carbon emissions from transport’. They should be ‘new settlements’, ‘separate and distinct from existing towns and well linked’

However, the proposed Long Marston site is situated on the B4632 between Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire and Evesham. Access to the M40 is achieved only through B roads passing over the Avon in Stratford or via an additional 15 mile south-westerly detour.

The Stratford route requires crossing the Avon over a 500 year old stone bridge Clopton Bridge (built 1490s) or over another heavily congested route passing to upriver.

There is no operational rail link contrary to the suggestion within the developers’ proposals. The existing track has been disused for many years and would require significant upgrade investment. The financing and on-going support for this upgrade is not affordable within the allocated eco-town budget. The developers have conceded this. The Government has not made it clear how and to what level it intends to financially assist the developers in their schemes.

Transport Detail:
The proposed site’s main access/egress onto a classified road is via the B4632 [Stratford-upon-Avon to Cheltenham road] other lesser accesses/egresses are onto mainly narrow country lanes. The B4632 joins the A3400 (Stratford-upon-Avon to Oxford road) just outside the town, from there to a traffic island at the junction with the A422 (Stratford-upon-Avon to Banbury road) Both these A class roads then feed into a small part-gyratory system carrying traffic from the B4086 (Stratford-upon-Avon to Wellesbourne road) from there via the ancient (c.1490), narrow, two carriageway Clopton Bridge into the town. Traffic has always been heavy on all these roads, particularly at peak times.

There is a further more recent bridge with two carriageways downstream of Clopton Bridge, below Stratford-upon-Avon’s Holy Trinity Church on Seven Meadow’s Road. This too can carry traffic from the A3400 and the A422 ( a new link road now joins the two on the town outskirts) to a different part of town via a traffic island on the B439 (Stratford-upon-Avon to Evesham road). However, again this is an extremely busy road especially at peak times.

Importantly this link road does not directly link to the town’s Northern Relief Road, the A 46, because it stops well short at the aforementioned traffic island. The A46 is the major highway linking Stratford-upon-Avon with Birmingham, Coventry and other major centres and the M40 Motorway.

Other proposed sites are already far better served for main road access making the Long Marston site impractical.

Q. Might this be the thin end of the wedge?

Yes, we are concerned that it might be. In the past week adjacent old airfield site next door has approached Stratford District Council to request consideration as a site for further development such that in reality it assists in creating a Stratford sprawl and putting an unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure.

Q. Can this be construed as a responsible development?

Not by any stretch of the imagination. If eco-towns do not satisfy the employment, educational, retail, health, social and leisure needs of their populous, individuals will be required to travel beyond the eco-town to fulfil these needs.

Q. What does the government want to include in the development?

The Government has said that eco-towns should provide ‘a good range of facilities within the town – a secondary school, a medium scale retail centre, good quality business space and leisure facilities.’ ‘Sites should be exemplars of at least one area of environmental sustainability’

However, the Developers currently propose to build the following, within merely a 600 acre site:

• Over 6000 low density, mixed sized housing
• A secondary school
• Medium sized retail park
• Health facilities
• Leisure facilities

Whilst incorporating:

• No building on the flood plain
• Reed bed sewerage system
• Green open space
• Power generation
• Recycling facilities
• Woodland / Lakes
• Railway station.

Furthermore, the Developers’ proposals claim to meet three exemplar areas of environmental sustainability: Water, Energy and Employment. The proposals say they provide for at least 14,000 residents.

Q. Where will the residents of Long Marston work?

This is another major drawback to the Long Marston site. Despite claiming employment exemplar status, the Developers seem to have overlooked the fact that he spatial constraints of a 600 acre site will directly impact the number of intra-new town job opportunities. Residents of employment age will therefore be required to travel to major cities to seek appropriate employment.

The Proposals base meeting the employment exemplar criteria through employers benefiting from ‘excellent rail links’ – that the developers have conceded will not exist in the foreseeable future.

There are currently some 500 people already employed on site – all of these jobs will have to be redeployed as part of the development, before the supposed creation of new on-site employment opportunities.

Q. What percentage of Affordable Housing will be included in the development?

So far, the developers have said 40%. This will mean that thousands of people will be relocated to a site outside Stratford-upon-Avon with no guarantee of employment and with very little public transport options for the foreseeable future.

Q. Will this development affect the local environment?

In our view, undoubtedly. The site is close to the Vale of Evesham, the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the historic town of Stratford-upon-Avon. The site itself is home to rare species of butterfly – the Dingy Skipper Butterfly, threatened by alteration to the landscape necessitated by the building of a new town of the proposed dimensions.

Q. Surely it is good news for Stratford if lots of new jobs will be created during the construction of the 6000 new houses?

In our opinion, because of the scale of the project, it will be disastrous for Stratford residents on 2 counts; firstly, there are no guarantees that the developers will turn to local tradesman (electricians, brick-layers, and carpenters) to complete the works. However if they do, they will all be in great demand so the likelihood is any current resident of Stratford and its surrounding villages wanting a local tradesman will not be able to get one for years, or they will be over-priced.

Secondly because (even if employed) the local tradesman will not be enough for the demand to build 6000 houses, workers will have to commute to the site, causing even more traffic chaos! Clearly the wealth generated will go back with the out-of-town workers, and therefore not benefitting Stratford’s economy.