Testun llawn:
I have 2 main areas of objection to the recently announced preffered strategy
1) The presumption for the need for growth. Land is put aside for jobs, which need more housing for the workers, who need more jobs, so more industry is catered for, which means more housing for workers etc... the cycle goes on.
In my opinion there are areas in the UK where it would be better to encourage more industry and have a surplus of either housing stock or brownfield land. Some of these places are not too far away in the west midlands.
It is also a false perception that new industry creates jobs for local people. Often new people move into the area for the new jobs using up the new housing stock. For instance a large percentage of Warwick gates residents are not originally from the local area.
By increasing housing the council will increase migration to the area and increase the urbanisation pressure.
It is also true that a lot of this housing will be taken up by commuters to Birmingham, London and other locations.
So in summary the vast majority of this expansion is not needed
2) I have particular objection to the Whitnash East proposal. I presume local authorities are still being offerred a new secondary school as part of the scheme in order to gain access to the area. I particularly object to this development because; (some objections presume the same ouline as previous schemes)
a) General traffic
In my opinion this site will generate a lot of traffic with only one obvious access point
b) Traffic on Golf Lane
With a pedestrian access point to the secondary school being located at the end of Golf Lane, many pupils will be dropped off by car in the morning in Fieldgate Lane causing a large amount of peak traffic on Golf Lane. This will be dangerous for pupils of Briar Hill and St Margaret's Primary trying to cross a road with no crossing point to go to their school. This will be increased by the additional fielgate lane proposal
c) Parking around Fieldgate Lane
Cars dropping off/ picking up children in Fieldgate Lane will create a very significant hazard and loss of quality of life for those residents. Again this will be increased by the additional fielgate lane proposal
d) Loss of wildlife habitat
Otters in the brook and foxes, hares, buzzards and other wildlife that is often in the field will lose their habitat.
e) Flooding
Some of the fields in question are often subject to flooding. Any work to reduce their flooding risk could lead to increased risk elsewhere.
f) Primary Schools
The development of Warwick Gates has already led to issues surrounding the shortage of primary school places in the local area. These new houses will be even closer to Briar Hill and St Margaret's Primary so there will be even more parents chasing few places.
g) Loss of community facility for Sydenham
The moving of Campion school will cause increased travel and a loss of a community facility for the existing residents of Sydenham
h) Why does Whitnash always get the new developments
The character of the Whitnash area has already been greatly scarred with the development of Warwick Gates, Dobson Lane, recent Chesterton Heights/Sydenham encroachment on the countryside and extension of the South Farm development. It is time that other areas of district share in the development (if indeed it is truly necessary).
i) Is it needed at all (please see point 1
j) In terms of access to the road network development south of Warwick Gates would be better. I assume this was dropped as a response to the residents organised and vocal objections and political consequences.