BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 95332

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sue Pickard

I object to the B1 proposal, including site references ID 159 and 160.

The proposed new settlement is within Green Belt. I do not believe the NPPF requirements for 'exceptional circumstances' have been demonstrated. Brownfield sites should be considered first. Development would reduce availability of green space for walking, with impacts on quality of life and physical/mental health for residents and visitors.

Why does the SWLP not challenge the 40% housing increase set by central government. Across England the requirement is 6%. The birth/death rate in Warwickshire is currently even and existing housebuilding more than meets local needs. Why aren't unmet needs in Birmingham and Coventry being met through brownfield sites and unoccupied housing in those areas? The village build for the Commonwealth games is empty. Along with existing permissions these should be enough.

The area is primarily served by poorly-maintained rural roads. The road and transport infrastructure could not support development of this size. The A4177 and B4439 are already near capacity. There is regular congestion at the M40 Longbridge Junction, A46 Stanks Island and A46 corridor. I can see no provisions in the Plan for improved public transport or infrastructure upgrades. Hatton Station is a small unstaffed station with limited parking facilities. Major investment would be needed to create a viable transport hub, Warwick Parkway is struggling under existing demand. Improvements to all these deficits would be needed before housing development begins or there will be severe traffic congestion.

The local school in Hatton Green is close to capacity without space for expansion, located on a small rural road which creates major traffic congestion during term times. Children from housing on sites 159 and 160 would have to be bussed to other Warwickshire schools which would increase carbon emissions and fail government targets for children walking to school.