Car parking and sports pitch at Land To The West And East Wellesbourne Junior School Annexe

What was proposed

The application proposed a car park, a new access from Newbold Road and a sports pitch for school pupils and local residents.

“The application is fundamentally for a car park (76 spaces and 6 disabled spaces – Proposed Site Plan, Ref C), new access to the car park from Newbold Road and a sports pitch. As specified in the Planning Statement (Ref 19/086. August 2023), the car parking area is supposedly required to provide relief to the residents of Mountford Close and avoidance of hazards and delays with the traffic at the Mountford Close/Newbold Road junction. The Planning Statement further states:”

“The sports area/pitch is intended for use by the residents of Wellesbourne as well as pupils of the school (although it has not been detailed how this provision for both pupils and residents to use the pitch would be secured and managed to ensure that the proposed use is continuously available and used by all parties during the lifetime of the development.)”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was open pastureland beside the primary school, with the access inside the built-up boundary and the rest outside it.

“Description of Site Constraints: • Access within the BUAB (from Newbold Road), remainder of the application site outside the BUAB • Flood Zones 2 and 3 • Agricultural Land Grade 2 Summary of Recommendation:”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority objected, while environmental health, ecology and Sport England raised no objection or supported the pitch subject to conditions.

“Stratford District Council Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions (21.09.2023)”

“Lead Local Flood Authority Object (24.03.2025)”

Officer report

What people said

Fifty objections raised traffic, flooding, access, landscape, safety, noise, drainage and other concerns; four letters supported the proposal and one raised no objection.

“Increase in traffic congestion • Flood risk concerns • Loss of green/community/exercise space • Inadequate traffic assessment • No footpath, cycle path, pedestrian access or motorcycle parking proposed • No flood risk assessment provided • Impact on character and landscape • Impact on biodiversity • Increase in noise and pollution • Increase in anti-social behaviour • Parents would continue to park on the street to drop off children • Existing roads not wide enough to…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke against the proposal, while the agent and a councillor spoke for the parish council, followed by the ward member.

The committee vote

A motion to refuse in line with the officer recommendation was proposed and seconded, then agreed unanimously.

“Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting, a Motion of REFUSE, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the report, was proposed by Councillor Harvey and seconded by Councillor Edden.”

Minutes