BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 92564

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Phillip Johnson

As a local resident I object to the B1 Hatton proposal.

8,000 - 10,000 new homes in this location is unjustifiable given low local housing need, age demographics, and a lack of local jobs. The active travel and homeworking assumptions are flawed. The expectations for rail usage are unrealistic and would require major investment. Other existing infrastructure is also insufficient to support current needs.

The Site Selection Methodology is unsound as any classification between certain and impossible is categorised as amber.

The SWLP Strategic Transport document acknowledges extensive investment in road infrastructure would be required. This would also entail compulsory purchase of many large and small areas of land. The costs would be well in excess of £500m and would require direct government funding which would be poor value.

The Green Belt is important to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and retain the character of rural communities. It is important for health and wellbeing of residents, as well as the UK's food security. Many animals and birds rely on it. In particular, building on site B1 would be a death sentence for wildlife. Green Belt contributes significantly towards reducing and mitigating climate change. NPPF Paragraph 147 confirms Green Belt should not be developed if other options exist. The classification of Green Belt Land in the Plan and the technical evidence appears dubious, inconsistent and confusing. I suspect consultants have been commissioned to give a non-balanced view. NPPF Paragraph 157 sets out increased affordable housing requirements of up to 50% where Green Belt is released. This and likely requirements for new Highways Infrastructure will make building on Green Belt unattractive and unviable for developers. Where they do decide to build they will pressure the Local Authority to relax the rules and build more profitable executive homes.

Employment provision is unrealistic as large companies would not want to move to an area with weak transport and utilities infrastructure. There are no existing large employers nearby so large-scale development would likely generate up to 20,000 additional road trips daily.

The proposals acknowledge infrastructure needs but then offload provision to other organisations without any information about discussions with providers and whether they could deliver the infrastructure within the required timescales. A key issue is whether providers could cope better with demands from a single large development or a number of smaller developments dispersed around South Warwickshire. No infrastructure has been provided at Hatton Park. The Plan must clearly state that roads, schools, medical, police, social services, transport and active travel infrastructure is completed before any housing development. X1 and X2 are more attractive options due to access to a main line rail station, hospital, existing skills and jobs, retail outlets, and the M40 motorway.

If the Council continues with the plan for B1 Hatton it should formally be classified as a New Town. This would allow a Development Corporation to be established to mitigate land availability and timescale restrictions. It would ensure road, public transport, housing, employment, healthcare, schools, shops, leisure etc are part of an overall plan. The housing mix and industrial/commercial mix can be centrally-controlled and the delivery of infrastructure can be centrally-coordinated to deliver a cohesive settlement and a highly attractive and desirable place to live and work. This would minimise disruption to existing and new residents alike, and enable existing Council staff to continue to focus on delivering current services.