BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 105828

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Amelia Chubb

I am writing to put forward my objections to the proposed development site of B1 and surrounding areas C1, SG07 & SG08.

We have lived in Hatton for the last 3 years and have appreciated having a small community, green countryside and peace and quiet that living near Greenbelt brings with it. We fell pregnant with our daughter just before the works started at Union View (Hatton Park) in February 2023 and it didn't take long to realise the uptake in traffic and delays. My route to the hospital, along the Birmingham Road, had gone from being about 7 minutes to over 25+ minutes. From living close to the Union View development of 150 homes, we have already noticed the added pressure on the roads and local infrastructure and it was a nightmare to get around during those works, which lasted over a year. I understand that they have currently only sold 60% of the houses on Union View and are struggling to sell the remaining 40%. This leads me to question, why if they cannot sell houses that have just been built to support housing demands, should there even be consideration for more houses in this area.

Sites 159 and 160, including all of the sites located in site B1 would have a huge detrimental impact to the people living in this community and it would overwhelm the current infrastructure and ruin the natural environment. The road that sits in between sites 159 and 160 is The Green and is a small road that during school drop offs and pick ups it is complete chaos. Cars have to mount verges and lawns to even allow cars passing one another. This road would never cope with the amount of traffic the proposed development would bring. The safety of the children at the school would be at risk if this road was to become a busier thoroughfare and would require a lot of work to protect the families at busy times. If there were to be another estimated 10,000 cars on the road, then the whole community would be gridlocked.

The roads on either side of our community are busy fast roads that already build up with traffic quite frequently, especially if there are ever temporary traffic lights. All side roads coming off of these roads are all tiny country lanes (such as Dark Lane) that again, cannot currently sustain the overflow of cars that come through the area. Cars have to frequently pull to the side to allow another oncoming car through and people do drive incredibly fast along these narrow lanes. These lanes are also frequently flooded when we have experienced a heavy downpour, which is also a regular occurance. I understand that the developers would endeavour to create the required infrastructure to support the influx of cars and people, however, we all know this infrastructure would be the last thing to be put in place, if ever, and all that will end up happening is 18,000 more people on top of our community will not have the services they need or are able to get around.

I drive to Banbury for work and the hardest part of my journey is getting onto the M40 for the amount of traffic that I come across via the Birmingham Road, The Stanks Roundabout, the A46 and any roads in and around Warwick. I can often be stuck in traffic for 30 minutes to get onto the M40 which used to take around 6 minutes. The infrastructure that would be required to allow any further cars on the road would need to be significant and new bridges would need to be built over the canal to support this. This would mean many years of roadworks and people stuck in heavy traffic. Union View showed us how bad it was with one year of traffic works, this proposed development would likely be a minimum of 10 years of roadworks which will make anyone using the roads lives extremely hard.

The local railways are also inadequate to support a development of this nature. The services at Hatton are infrequent and there is extremely poor access to the station itself. The narrow road leading to Hatton Station is not suitable for cyclists, buses or pedestrians and cannot be widened, nor can the small car park be expanded. It does not run or cannot run the required services it would need to support this proposal. A huge amount of investment would be needed to improve the station's facilities to be able to cope with the proposed numbers. I drive this road every morning to drop my child at nursery and see how difficult it would be for this station to be any busier than it is.

Our area was surveyed three years ago to see if any more housing needed to be built to support the area. The outcome of this was that a provision of just 4 more houses were required. I find it extremely hard to fathom that you can go from completing a survey such as this to putting forward over 8,000 homes in the area. The public services that currently supply the area with drainage, water, electricity and gas are not adequate to sustain such an influx of people. I note there is no intention to provide a new hospital for the area and would mean people are relying on Warwick Hospital which just would not be able to support the numbers we are facing. This is extremely dangerous and a pressure on an already busy hospital. Overall, I do not trust the developers to put in the level of infrastructure required to sustain a 'new town'. The houses always go up first and then the residents, old and new are expected to put up with inadequate services because they are being put under unsustainable pressures due to the increase in numbers. This will happen with local doctors, schools, hospitals, roads, travel, shops and integrated services such as broadband, gas, water supply and electricity.

The fact that the Government is willing to wipe out Greenbelt is absolutely infuriating. Having seen the statistics from the Community Planning Alliance and the Homes For Everyone Campaign; we do not need to touch Greenbelt to solve the current housing crisis. It only takes wandering into local towns like Leamington, Stratford and Coventry to see empty shops and buildings that could be refurbished and made into safe housing for people. I would say this is the case for Birmingham City as well. This would also mean that the travel systems such as buses and trains are already in place and would not need to be built in areas such as Hatton that would not be able to currently support this influx of people.

We have over 1 million promised homes, already signed off by the Government that have not been built yet. Again, build these and use Brownfield sites to build on if we do need to build more. They have completely overlooked the obvious solutions and chosen to take the lazy option of obliterating our green space and putting money into developers pockets. These houses also never end up being affordable for the people who need them most and it solves nothing in the long term. I cannot believe that sites 159 and 160 have been put forward as preferred sites due to the nature of being in and around protected woods, Grade II listed houses, a small primary school and a historical church. These were not flagged on your rating system and we deem the rating as actually far less suitable than what it was rated as. This means we should not have ever been considered as a preferred site.

We are supposed to be known for our green land and areas of natural beauty. What the Government is proposing to do would destroy for good the sadly rare green spaces we now have as a country and any reason worth visiting Britain. Where will anyone take their children to see nature at its best? It will destroy the natural habitats of so many wildlife that we need to exist in our world. We are home to many bats, birds, otters, hedgehogs, deer and hundreds of other precious species. This would all be gone permanently. It would also affect not only the green fields, but the canal that we have locally. This is an already busy public area, where many animals and birds reside, and I know that the development would put all of this in jeopardy and overrun the canal with people.

We used to be a country that led the way against climate change. I felt proud of that; now it seems we are choosing to ignore this very present and dangerous situation in lieu of building more homes on our green spaces. Green spaces are vital to keeping climate change at bay. Having expansive green spaces reduces air pollution, reduces flooding, absorbs carbon dioxide (offsetting greenhouse gas emissions) and provides important habitats for a wide variety of insects, animals, birds, amphibians and microorganisms that work together in ecosystems to maintain balance and support life. By choosing to create more urban spaces this will lead to more carbon emissions and due to the nature of substances like tarmac and concrete, increase the risk of flooding. Not only that, but we would be losing a vast amount of farming land and in a time where we should be trying to be self-sufficient when it comes to providing food for our country, we would be going backwards.

I understand that we need to plan for development and can see very clearly that South Warwickshire will be taking a hit in one way or another. If I have to look at other potential sites to host a development of this scale then it would be X1 & X2 as these are areas that have already been heavily developed with new housing and have much better infrastructure in regard to the accessibility to motorways and bigger roads. They are also close to large retail areas and have better accessibility for anyone without a car. These sites are also not Greenbelt and would avoid the permanent loss of our green areas.

I hope you have seen clearly from the above explanation, that I am a resident who knows the roads, infrastructure and area very well and I know the impact this will have on the wellbeing and daily lives of thousands of people, not just the ones who already live in the area but any that would come to live here should the development go ahead. It would have such an adverse effect on the landscape, climate and a huge fallout for anyone trying to get around South Warwickshire. Sites, 136, 159, 160, 153, 168, 166 and 692 are all completely unsuitable for this mass development.

I ask that you put forward this objection and consider the very dangerous impact of this development on the local area, natural environment and its residents