Airfield Development : Summary (2019)

Wychavon’s proposals are currently undergoing public consultation and it has become clear that they include a wish for a very substantial new settlement ‘centred’ on the Throckmorton Airfield.  

I am a resident of Bishampton and have lived here for the past 36 years enjoying the quality of life that a relatively isolated Worcestershire village environment can bring. This quality of life has been enjoyed by Bishampton residents for 1000 years or more. It is worth noting that Bishampton sits in unspoilt, open farmland and is approximately 3 miles from the nearest main road.

I write to express my very strong opposition to the selection of Throckmorton Airfield (and environs) as a Strategic Allocation in the draft South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP).

The selection of the Throckmorton site is misguided, nonsensical and unsound.  

If implemented, it would run counter to Wychavon’s own policies and would have a catastrophic impact on the character, way of life and historic centre of our village. Once fully implemented, it would potentially provide for the urbanisation of land from Pershore to (and including) Bishampton. The village of Bishampton would effectively be destroyed.

I provide more detail of my objections below:

The rationale for the choice of Throckmorton as a strategic allocation is not clear and is not explained in the draft SWDP. However, one may presume that the key issues might be the wish to make use of the ‘brown field’ airfield site, and the perceived easy access to both the A44 and to Pershore Railway Station (to be upgraded).

Throckmorton Airfield and immediately neighbouring land has been subject to a variety of contentious and ongoing developments over the past thirty or more years.  

This has seen:

• A major HGV transport business established on site

• more than 160,000 diseased cattle buried on the site

• an industrial scale poultry farm constructed adjacent to the airfield

• an unlicensed waste facility on/near the site

• a major biogas facility adjacent to the site and

• the largest landfill facility in Worcestershire adjacent to the site

Each of these developments has brought with it a range of impacts on the immediate site and the local area.

These range from increased local HGV traffic through deteriorating air quality from emissions and significant odour considerations in the immediate vicinity of the airfield (landfill, biogass, poultry facility) as well as ongoing leachate issues arising from the landfill site, the unlicensed waste site and the decomposing corpses of the diseased cattle.

Consideration of these significant impacts along with the historic contamination of the airfield site from its originally intended use – potential for hydrocarbon, unexploded ordinance and radiation issues - as well as the severely contaminated unlicensed site and the still active burial site of diseased animal remains, make it highly unlikely that significant areas of the airfield itself would be viable as residential development land.  

Which developers are going to clean up these historic environmental issues and how will the existing industries (transport, poultry and biomass) be controlled to reduce impacts? How much would such a clean-up cost? and what effect would that have on the relative price of houses on the airfield?  

It is noteworthy that despite several previous applications – including possible selection as a demonstration eco-village – that no significant residential development has taken place on the airfield itself in the past thirty or forty years. Those significant applications were rejected for good reasons and the above considerations were undoubtedly a part of that outcome.

Consequently, it could be argued that the vast majority of any residential development (up to 6,000 residences) would be proposed to take place on, literally, green field land.

At the public exhibition held at Throckmorton, the display boards showed a map of the area local to the airfield and a star in the centre of the airfield itself. The map was annotated with a presumed walking and cycling catchment (interestingly neither catchment included Pershore Railway Station). This was in contrast to the map for the (apparently) most significant Strategic Allocation at Worcester Parkway. The Worcester Parkway map provided a ‘red line’ indication of where likely residential units might be built.  

On discussion with officers, a further map of the Airfield was made available which showed areas of land that had been ‘offered for development’ by their owners following the earlier ‘call for sites’ process. This effectively showed shaded areas covering current market garden land adjacent to the A44, the airfield site itself plus two small parcels of land adjacent to Rothwell Farm and the biomass facility and a very substantial area encompassing all of the land between Throckmorton and Bishampton as well as a considerable area to the south of Throckmorton.

If one includes the current landfill site as a ‘developed area’, the offered land effectively links Bishampton to Throckmorton and then through to Wyre Piddle which is itself already effectively connected to Pershore.  

This proposed development might be currently headlined as Throckmorton Airfield New Settlement but it would actually provide for the construction of Greater Pershore.  

The total proposed housing allocation for the ‘new settlement’ is 6,000 units. Using current habitation figures that would equate to about 14,000 new residents. The latest census (2011) for Pershore shows a population of around 7,000 residents. Consequently, this strategic allocation may be equated to an expansion of Pershore to an urban unit of around 3 times its current size.

In outlining their vision for the future development within Wychavon, at paragraph 3.6, the planners draft the SWDP to state:

 ‘………….historic cores of towns and villages. The need to protect these vital and sensitive landscapes as enshrined within the SWDP forms a cornerstone to S. Worcestershire’s continued success as a place to live, work and relax.’

The current strategic allocation would effectively destroy the character of Bishampton and a number of other surrounding villages between Bishampton and Pershore. The strategic allocation therefore runs counter to the stated vision of the Development Plan.

In paragraph 3.7, outlining the Objectives of the (to be) adopted SWDP, bullet point 4 states:

‘To prioritise the redevelopment, including mixed uses, of brownfield land within the urban areas to aid regeneration of city and town centres’

The current proposal is NOT considering land within a town or city centre and consequently should not be regarded as a priority objective of the SWDP.

Bullet point 6 of the same paragraph emphasises the need to sustain rural communities:

‘To provide a balanced mix of housing……….range of housing needs………to sustain rural communities.’

The current proposal does not sustain the relatively isolated rural community of Bishampton. Instead, it threatens to destroy the character, lifestyle and quality of life of current and future residents. From the perspective of Bishampton, the proposed strategic allocation of Throckmorton Airfield achieves the exact opposite of the stated Objective.

Bullet point 12 of the same paragraph comments on the need:

‘To maintain open landscape, including AONB, and prevent the merging of settlements in both Green Belt and Non-Green Belt locations.’

Again, the proposed strategic allocation of Throckmorton Airfield is diametrically opposed to the stated Objective.

All of the above serve to demonstrate that the thinking behind the selection of Throckmorton Airfield as a Strategic Allocation for a new settlement is muddled, misguided and flawed.  

It is understandable that Wychavon would wish to solve what has been an ongoing planning issue at the airfield but this is clearly not the way. The brown field element of the proposal is mostly unsuitable for residential housing and the vast majority of any proposed development would be on green field, predominantly arable land.  

The proposed Allocation runs counter to Wychavon’s stated vision and in clear contrast to many of its own stated Objectives.  

The proposed Strategic Allocation of Throckmorton Airfield is wholly unsound.

The development of the current proposed SWDP began in late 2017. It is therefore about two years in the making.  

In Nov/Dec of 2018, Wychavon undertook an Issues and Options Consultation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this did not result (as far as I am aware) in a significant response from the general public. Possibly this was because no specific proposals were being made at that time but rather, general views were being sought – perhaps also including seeking landowners who might consider putting forward tracts for future development should other criteria be met?  

In the following year, development planners took into consideration the findings from that consultation and combined those with the previous year’s work in order to draft the proposed SWDP.  

And, on 4th November 2019, public consultation commenced with a deadline for submissions of 16th December 2019.  

This seems a very compressed timescale for the general public to become aware of the consultation, obtain and review the several hundred pages of information, understand the possible implications for their area and provide an appropriate and considered response.

The above is particularly compounded by the choice of Wychavon to allow for the Public Exhibition of the Development Plan at Throckmorton (arguably one of the most contentious parts of the proposed plan) to be held as late as 26th November - thus leaving less than 3 weeks to enable concerned locals to absorb the various proposals, understand their implications and to formulate a considered response. One might consider this to be an extremely compressed and unreasonable timescale.

At the exhibition itself, the boards displaying information regarding the strategic Allocation of the Throckmorton Airfield site showed no red line area where residential development might be considered. Rather the map just showed a star at the supposed centre of the development and circle showing walking and cycling catchments. Upon questioning officers (and having shown them existing red line drawings already circulating), a further plan for the proposed Throckmorton site was made available on a table at the exhibition. This plan outlined areas of ‘offered land’.

Why was this drawing not displayed openly at the start of the Public Exhibition? Was there a wish to stifle negative comment? Did officers not wish to share their developing thoughts with the public?

The exhibition boards themselves only mentioned the initial phase of 2,000 dwellings rather than indicating the further proposed allocation of up to a total of 6,000 dwellings. Instead, the board referred to 2,000 up to 2041 with a nod towards the possibility of some future development. Was this some attempt to allow the public to underestimate the full extent of the development?

Overall, my own conclusion is that the public consultation exercise has been very poorly handled. Insufficient time has been allowed for adequate consideration of these very important proposals and the provision of appropriate information has been incomplete and misleading.

It would, perhaps, be appropriate for Council Members to investigate why and how such a state of affairs has arisen.

I believe that significant further consultation backed by all available information - specifically with regard to the inclusion of Throckmorton Airfield as a Strategic Allocation within the SWDP - is required and should be completed before the SWDP is finalised and put forward for examination.

The inclusion of the Throckmorton Airfield site as a strategic allocation within the proposed SWDP is misjudged, misguided, flawed and unsound. The proposed Allocation runs counter to numerous objectives of the SWDP and the vision that Wychavon has for South Worcestershire. The Allocation would inevitably lead to the creeping urbanisation of a number of villages and the creation of Greater Pershore.  

Bishampton, which has developed over the past 1000 years or more would completely lose its character, identity and quality of life. This Strategic Allocation should be rescinded and an alternative location(s) sought .

Access to road and rail transport appear to be key priorities – although one should really begin to question that when projecting beyond 2041. Surely, we should be seeking people working increasingly from home (substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased leisure time!).

The consultation exercise is flawed and further consultation backed up by the full and unedited information should be provided at a further Public Exhibition with particular reference to the proposed Strategic Allocation at Throckmorton Airfield. It would be helpful if this could be supplemented by a public question and answer session to be held at the Villages Hall in Bishampton. This might enable the full weight of public opposition to be understood.

To conclude, I am very strongly opposed to the proposed Strategic Allocation of Throckmorton Airfield as a part of the proposed SWDP.  

The choice of Throckmorton is flawed and runs counter to numerous policies. It would produce an extreme and unnecessary impact on Bishampton (and other nearby villages) and should not be included within the SWDP.  

There are other much more suitable options.

I hope that the above is clear and that my views, along with those of others, will be taken fully into consideration.  

Please feel free to contact me should you require any further clarification.

Yours faithfully

[Name and address removed for confidentiality]