BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 97550

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Don Preston

I applaud the idea that planning is being done on a longer-term basis, but this brings with it difficulties in determining the future requirements with any certainty or clarity. The proposals must be seen in this light.
The local plan is in response to the housing crisis across the country. This arises from the fact that many low-income households struggle to find affordable housing in either the rental or buyers’ markets. This points to a need for social and low-cost housing. The building of entirely new settlements with no more than 10% housing provision in this regard will do little to address this problem and at a significant cost. Resources are scarce and should be targeted at the problem.
Any strategic growth within the area requires both appropriate housing and the associated infrastructure. There has been a substantial number of housing developments in recent times in South Warwickshire and these have not seen infrastructure delivered as part of the development and often not at all.
I therefore have grave concerns that pressure will be put on the existing services relating to schools, transport, roads, and health.
I have specific issues with the proposal for Land at Hatton (B1). Firstly, this uses the existing Arkwright land development which was already the subject of much local opposition. It has been expanded to include the further development of the Hatton estate and almost doubled the size of the new settlement. The addition of eight thousand households on one side of Warwick will render access to Warwick almost impossible. Warwick as a town has little scope to cater for this additional population.
Furthermore, the Hatton area was originally incorporated in the proposal by the existing Landowner based on its transport links. This misrepresents the position in that whilst the M40 runs effectively through the area, there is no access to it. The main railways station is Warwick Parkway which is some distance from the main part Hatton planned settlement. Hatton station would be difficult to expand given that the site sits amongst existing houses, has a small car park and limited service.
There are already issues with traffic flow along the Birmingham A4177 and this will only increase once the current expansion of the Hatton estate is fully occupied.
The main part of the settlement will run alongside the B4439 which currently feeds onto the A1477. How is this going to be managed as queues already run up to this junction all the way from Stanks roundabout at busy times?
The only two roads which runs north to south are Dark Lane and Station Road. These are both country lanes with passing spaces and will, therefore, both need to be widened to include bridges over the canal, the motorway and the railway.
With an additional 18,000 people and estimated extra 10,000 cars improvements will surely be need to Longbridge Island and Stanks roundabout as these are already at capacity.
The proposal is mostly on green belt land. Whilst I appreciate that central government has changed the parameters in this regard, the fact remains the development will result in the loss of 884 football pitches worth of green belt most of which is currently farmed.
The proposal will also have a direct effect on my own house and environment as the new settlement will come up to the other side of Station Road. This will significantly increase the flow of traffic.
We currently have a range of wildlife in the surrounding area and the development will lead to the loss of habitat. We regularly see numerous species of birds including birds of prey together with rabbits badgers moles foxes muntjac & roe deer, hedgehogs & squirrels.
We will also loose the current view across the field to the canal.
In conclusion, I do appreciate the need for additional housing in South Warwickshire, but I do not think that proper consideration has been given to associated costs of such a significant development. There are more economic options in my view and more emphasis should given to directly addressing the housing problems.
I strongly object to inclusion of option B1 in the SWLP