BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 95344

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Hatton Parish Council

Connectivity: development of the local road network and connecting to the SRN render this site financially and environmentally non-sustainable. Hatton Station and the rail service available could not and would not significantly reduce private car usage.

Countryside and the Canal Conservation Area: provide an important and much used recreational resource for residents of nearby towns with associated health benefits. This land contributes valuable 'green belt' separating Warwick/Leamington from the West Midlands.
Warwick District has a similar population to the much larger Stratford District and is already relatively congested.
Development should be more evenly distributed.

Additional info summarised from emailed submission 03/03/2025:

We have had unprecedented attendance at meetings arranged to inform residents of the plan, and they are
overwhelmingly opposed to the selection of Site B1.

South Warwickshire does not have any development requirements. The population is stable and there is low
unemployment. This site is topographically varied, and while the overall flood risk may be low, significant flooding has been experienced to the north-east and north central areas of the site. The site is in the Green Belt, and is important in preventing the coalescence of Warwick/Leamington and the West Midland conurbations. This increase in the population of South Warwickshire will require a new District General Hospital, with A&E facilities. There will be a population – infrastructure lag placing an increased burden on the existing provision which is already at capacity. Road connectivity is poor. It is not possible to see how either road or rail connectivity could be augmented to serve a community of this size.

A Housing Needs Survey carried out in 2020 by the Warwickshire Rural Community Council showed a need for 3 dwellings, since when 150 have been/are being built in the Parish.

Any large scale commercial development would however increase the vehicle movements on and around the site as many, probably most employees would live elsewhere.

As 50,000 houses at, say, 50 tonnes per house = 2.5m tonnes Co2, plus that released in the construction of roads, schools and other infrastructure, this aspiration falls somewhere short of realistic, as noted in the Sustainability Assessment.

It is not conceivable that the beauty of South Warwickshire can be enhanced by this scale of development, however well designed.

The canal corridor, lanes and footpaths in and around Hatton are a valuable and much used resource providing the health benefit of exercise, recreation and access to nature and the countryside.

While this site may comply with the employment aims of ‘Option 4’ it does not comply with the transport requirements. Its proximity to Hatton Station is irrelevant. It is not ‘sustainable’ and we believe that this will be the conclusion of the Planning Inspectorate.