Housing development around Hampton Magna needs to be carefully considered due to the current infrastructure of the village.
If new development is necessary then it should be environmentally sustainable and not intrusive into the existing roads.
The entrance to Blandford Way already is problematic with inconsiderate parking and a difficult turning for traffic so to allow heavy construction vehicles and then extra cars due to 100 at least houses being constructed (which would lead to at least 200-300 extra cars) seems inappropriate.
It would make more sense to build next to the Warwick Parkway station so no extra traffic during construction and subsequent housing would affect the village.

Development of the King Henry VIII land will cause a blot on the landscape spoiling the views over open countryside for residents.
Any areas of development need to be environmentally friendly and also contain some common sense - not imposing on rural green belt in a village which only has one school which is full and one small shop. There must be better areas of land which could be used and surely the empty houses in Warwick should be used first before new building is considered. Let us have some standards and not keeping taking away the countryside.

We strongly object to the proposed development in Hampton Magna. It is completely unsuitable to build another 100 homes, amounting to roughly 200 extra cars belong driven through the village. There is already enough traffic through Blanford Avenue without the possibility of another 200 cars being driven (let alone the machinery that will be used in building the houses) along this and neighbouring roads. The school is also at capacity and extra homes would result in people like ourselves who already live in Hampton Magna not being able to secure a place at the school. The village would also become more unsafe for children and pedestrians due to the extra traffic coming through not to mention the increased noise levels from such a development. The crime levels would also no doubt go up. The medical centre would also be unable to cope with such a high increased volume of extra people. Also, no mention is given to the impact on wildlife.

We moved to Hampton Magna 7 years ago for its safe environment, it's countryside location and its community feel. We have experienced all of that and more. My children attend Budbrooke school, a lovely (if a little overcrowded school).

We (my husband and myself) are opposing the building of more houses in Hampton Magna. It would change the community feel of the village to have 25% more houses build on (green belt) land. Currently our children can play safely in the street, you are proposing to make that a thoroughfare for the new housing. The village has a lovely and active community. We felt welcomed when we moved here and have attended many activities in the area, such as the toddler group (a very large group). The community is small enough to feel a part of and many people have lived here all their lives. I know most of my neighbours and we rely on each other for help, cups of sugar etc. Adding another 150 families would change that dynamic completely.

The village services are already over stretched. The road infrastructure is inappropriate for more vehicles due to the single lane entry under the railway bridge and narrow country roads from the other direction.

The school is oversubscribed. My youngest son is already being forced into a class of mixed reception/year one children where he will be one of 6 yr1 children who are 'left-over' from the class and a half of yr1 children. This is due to the school being over-subscribed and taking more than the 45 a year they can cope with. Although ONE extra classroom is being built this is to cope with the 35+ children there are in each class in KS2. I spoke to a representative in Sainsbury's when this house building idea was first raised and was told that they have extended Newborough to cope with the overloading of Budbrooke, however I am told that they have people on their waiting list for next academic year.

I often walk in the fields with my children. It is a beautiful part of the country. I am upset that the local authority are suggesting that green belt land can be redefined at whim. Central government policy is that it should only be used in 'exceptional circumstances'. This does not appear to be the case given the continuing uncertainty over housing needs. Our green belt land has already been eroded several times in the building and continuous expansion of Warwick Parkway. Also the building of Chase Meadow, the long bridge island flyover (horrendous increase in traffic noise), Hatton Park etc.

In summary, I like where we live. It has a community, a good but over-stretched school, beautiful surroundings and is where we would like to stay. Unless it is spoilt by blending it into Chase Meadow, Warwick and who knows where else.

Hampton Magna
I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposal to build on the lands surrounding the village, this is totally unacceptable and unrequired the village services and roads are all ready stressed during peak hours, when there is a incident at longbridge island the traffic increase is really dangerous, added to the fire station at Warwick being closed and only single road access to the village its a disaster waiting to happen.

I am extremely concerned and object to the plans for the following reasons:

Sustainability - The school is over subscribed and already being expanded. The road network will not support the excess traffic. There is only one route into Hampton Magna and we already have congestion from the railway station. Also excess parking as passengers try avoid parking charges and at times there is dangerous parking which creates problems and restricts access to emergency services.

Environment - This is part of the green belt and the impact will be substantial to plant, animal and will change the character of the village as well impacting the local amenities.

Size - The increase in houses built is excessive as we only have 600 houses and a further increase 0f 100 -150 is a growth of between 18 - 25% increase which is substantial. The services will not support this. Why is Kenilworth not being considered for expansion or why this increase not be acceptable to Kenilworth - PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Hampton Magna will not support 100+ homes, it does not have the infrastructure and the school js at full capacity. It boasts some great scenery which will be lost if the development is allowed.

The proposal to build 150 new houses represents an approximate 25% increase in the size of the village taking the total to around 750 houses. In association with other developments such as Warwick Parkway and the proposal to build 29 traveller/gypsy pitches on four sites within a 3 miles radius of the village the fundamental nature of the village will be threatened.

Increasing the size of Hampton Magna as proposed will destroy the character of the village and overwhelm the existing services. As a former governor of Budbrooke Primary School I am aware of the current overcrowding due to existing pupil numbers. Adding 150 new houses will lead to the need to not only add even more classrooms to cope with the additional pupils but also require new halls, as the current cohorts only just manage to squeeze in for whole school assemblies. The current pupil numbers means Budbrooke is already a large school and an additional 150 houses will put undue pressure on the infrastructure both within the school and the roads leading to the school. Try driving past Styles Close when there is a Golden Assembly on and you will see cars parked all the way from Arras Boulevard right up to the pub.
The main access to the village means traffic has to pass under a railway bridge that has traffic lights that at peak times can be quite congested. 150 houses will mean at least 300 additional cars which will cause even more traffic jams forcing people to find rat runs around small country lanes.

Further erosion of Green Belt Land.
Further traffic problems at traffic light controlled railway bridge and Budbrooke Road.
Budbrooke School of insufficient size to accommodate further influx of children.
Hampton Magna Surgery of insufficient size for further influx of patients.
Lack of local Fire Service.
Lack of local Police Service.
Sewerage/Drainage problems with extra housing.
Insufficient parking at Warwick Parkway leading to commuters blocking Hampton Magna and parking outside Budbrooke School, already causing problems for residents.

First and foremost Hampton Magna is a village NOT a housing estate. The infrastructure of the village cannot support the impact of a potential 150 houses. The negative impacts are a potential 300 extra cars on our roads if not more, the extra pupils in our village school, the extra patients in our doctors surgery. The roads close to the school are almost impossible to use during school opening and closing times already, there is limited parking at the Dr's. surgery as it is.
Anger levels are running very high amongst residents as would be expected as we want to live in a village not an estate.

Although I appreciate that with the number of houses being proposed, Hampton Magna must accept some development, the number of households being suggested is simply too many and is liable to swamp the current village, its facilities and its infrastructure. I have particular concern on the impact of the extra housing on the road network in/out of the village, many of which are basic country roads (i.e. Ugly Bridge Road). Also, the combination of this development with those being proposed at Hatton will also increase traffic on the already busy (and accident prone) Solihull to Warwick road.

I strongly object to the development plans in Hampton Magna and the following outlines my reasons why:-
1. The residents of the village choose to live in just that, a small, community village and the greenbelt land surrounding is part of its charm and is a specific reason why some of us chose to make Hampton Magna our home. Too much greenbelt land is being destroyed and we will do everything we can to protect our area from being destroyed.
2. Our village in particular has already suffered the loss of greenbelt land by the development of warwick parkway railway station so this should be strongly considered when decisions are being made to destroy even more in our village.
3. Government policy is to only use Greenbelt land in exceptional circumstances - the plan in no way reflects this.
4. The plan suggests wanting to protect greenbelt land yet villages 'washed over' with greenbelt land may have envelopes withdrawn. This contradicts itself.
5. The scale of the development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.
6. Contrary to the plan, services in the village are fully utilised and do not need further sustaining through population growth. The school is expanding but this is needed to resolve current stretched classroom numbers and the railway station is more that utilised.
7. Traffic congestion is a big concern given the main Single file/traffic light controlled access road to the village. More residents will bring in increased and potentially dangerous volumes of traffic through the village - this is already concerning around peak school run times so should be carefully considered.
8. Houses will potentially be purchased by London commuters therefore creating even more pressure to expand the railway station. The loss of land already suffered with this is enough - please don't create more pressure/loss.
9. Land suggested for gypsy sites should not take precedence over house building on them. I'm against the purchase of private land to facilitate gypsy sites.
10. Warwick in general has already taken a big hit on greenbelt land with the housing developments in Chase Meadow, Hatton Park etc. please let's not lose anymore land in Warwick, I think it's already done its fair share.

I wish to stronghly object to any such propsal to additional housing within Hmapton Magna, we are a small village and have had to bear the brunt of extra traffic cutting through from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow to get to the A46.M40 We are not considered good enough to be gritted in bad weather. We regulaly get flooded and snowed in . The village has suffered enough with its share of green belt erosion and must not be eroded any further. We do not have the correct provision for a water supply or suitable drainage

a)The erosion of the Green Belt outside he original site of the former Budbroke Barracks is contrary to all previous guidelines for Hampton Magna.
b) The existing roads already create problems at the busiest times. Egress onto the A4177 from Budbroke Road is heavily conjested and can only be made worse by increased volume by adding in excess of 100 properties. Similarly an increase of traffic through the single file and low bridge traffic lights controlled section by the railway station will add to delays.
c) Living adjacent to the school I experience traffic problems twice daily, as does school and public service buses. The school does not have capacity to cope with an influx of pupils without further increase in the school size. An increase can only be done by taking away playing space. An increase in school size would necessitate an increase in teachers which would involve an increase in need for parking which in turn would reduce 'drop off' places for parents which would increase more danger on surrounding roads for pupils going to and from school.
d) an increase in dwellings would almost certainly increase the use of Warwick Parkway Station. The car park, already extended several times, is again at capacity causing dangerous 'fly parking' within the village, this would almost certainly increase.
e) The village envelope has clearly defined boundaries and the character change by increasing it by such a huge percentage in volume cannot be deemed an 'exceptional circumstance' to erode the Green Belt

Hampton Magna is in the middle of a green belt area which has already been encroached upon by Chiltern Railways bringing with it more traffic and problems with parking in the village. Hampton Magna is a quiet rural area populated by people who appreciate that way of life it doesn't suit everyone. There is a single road into the village which is very busy and used as a rat run, the school traffic is horrendous and in the winter the roads are extremely dangerous . I can't see how anyone can think this is a good idea.

Hampton Magna is not a suitable site for development. It is a small village with one school, one small shop with a post office and is surrounded by lovely countryside which would be spoilt. Building another 100 houses will create over 200 cars driving through an infrastructure which is already in need of repair. Green belt land should not be used as we need to save our countryside and wildlife habitants for the future generation to enjoy. Traffic and pollution during construction would be detrimental - there are plenty of other areas that could be skillfully used for development.

As mentioned under 4.3 RDS4 the Green Belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt land in "exceptional circumstances".

The plan does not reflect this last resort position given the continuing uncertainty over housing needs. The Green Belt open character of the village should not be compromised which a 25% expansion would do

The plan is contradictory. It portrays a want to consider Green Belt and protect the open spaces and countryside yet villages "washed over" by green belt may have their village envelopes re drawn. That contradiction cannot be allowed to happen otherwise what is the point in having such protected areas

Hampton Magna has suffered more than its share of green belt erosion and growth/development on all sides in recent years. Warwick Parkway Station (built on green belt land and subsequently expanded considerably) , Hatton Park Estate to the North , Chase Meadow to the South, IBM site development to the East. Further erosion of green belt and the village character must stop.

The scale of development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.

Contrary to the plan services in the village are fully utilised and do not need further "sustaining" through population growth. Budbrooke school is expanding but this is needed to resolve current stretched classroom numbers. The train station and its facilities are fully utilised. Therefore existing infrastructure capacity should not be stretched further.

Another large influx of families will create more traffic congestion particularly given the single file traffic light controlled road under the bridge being the main access to/from the village. There will be more dangers with traffic volumes through the village day to day and more rat running through country roads and other neighbouring villages. Houses will draw in more London commuters creating pressure to expand Warwick Parkway even further.

As a resident of Hampton Magna for 34 years I have observed the Green Belt surrounding the village diminish remarkably in that time with the construction of Parkway Station, Hatton Park Estate and Chase Meadow. I believe the Green Belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt in "exceptional circumstances".

I believe the scale of development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.

Contrary to the plan the services in the village are fully utilised. The train station and its facilities are fully utilised. The school is having to expand to meet current needs. Existing infrastructure capacity should not be stretched further.

An increase in residents within the village will create more traffic congestion. There will be more dangers with traffic volumes through the village day to day.

Hampton Magna

We have already suffered disruption on our local roads and some estate roads with the Warwick Parkway Station. The local lanes are already very busy and congested at peak travelling times and any further development will cause severe disruption. There is also the congestion that occurs at peak hours at the single lane road under the railway bridge by the station.
The area as a whole has also suffered with the development on green belt land with the contruction of large developments such as Hatton Park, Chase Meadow
Contrary to the plan local services in the village are fully suported and do not need additional houses to sustain them.
I am also against compulsory purchase of private land for gypsy sites.
The Green Belt around the village will be further eroded with this new influx of housing and the planners should adhere to central government policy of only using green belt in exceptional circumstances which this proposal contravenes.

I strongly object to the building of 150 houses on greenbelt land adjacent to the village of Hampton Magna between Gould Road and Daly Avenue because H M will no longrer be a village surrounded by geenbelt, it will have increased the village by 25% and become part of Warwick town. It also will have increased traffic which the exsisting roads won't be able to manage, the number of cars on the roadside already are a hazard for lorries ect. I can only imagine what it will be like with a large increase, how about the emergency services

4.4 Hampton Magna commentary
As mentioned under 4.3 RDS4 the Green Belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt land in "exceptional circumstances". The plan does not reflect this last resort position given the continuing uncertainty over housing needs. The Green Belt open character of the village should not be compromised which a 25% expansion would do

The plan is contradictory. It portrays a want to consider Green Belt and protect the open spaces and countryside yet villages "washed over" by green belt may have their village envelopes re drawn. That contradiction cannot be allowed to happen otherwise what is the point in having such protected areas

Hampton Magna has suffered more than its share of green belt erosion and growth/development on all sides in recent years. Warwick Parkway Station (built on green belt land and subsequently expanded considerably) , Hatton Park Estate to the North , Chase Meadow to the South, IBM site development to the East. Further erosion of green belt and the village character must stop.

The scale of development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.

Contrary to the plan services in the village are fully utilised and do not need further "sustaining" through population growth. Budbrooke school is expanding but this is needed to resolve current stretched classroom numbers. The train station and its facilities are fully utilised. Therefore existing infrastructure capacity should not be stretched further.

Another large influx of families will create more traffic congestion particularly given the single file traffic light controlled road under the bridge being the main access to/from the village. There will be more dangers with traffic volumes through the village day to day and more rat running through country roads and other neighbouring villages. Houses will draw in more London commuters creating pressure to expand Warwick Parkway even further.

Object to the proposed plans to build any housing on the Green belt land behind Curlieu Close/Arras Boulevard/Clinton ave/Daly ave.
All of the properties along side the development are bungalows, so any of the properties proposed are all going to be small/low level housing hence not providing much accommodation.
Planning building restrictions have been applied to alterations of adjoining properties, so expect the same restrictions to be applied or expect claims to be submitted against previous planning restrictions/decisions.
There is only two options for access to this development off Arras Boulevard and Daly avenue both roads are busy enough and this will only add traffic in a dangerous and concentrated manner.
Arras Boulevard has a narrow blind bend around the houses, which is already dangerous and then to add the road access to this new development is only increasing the risk of an accident!
Understanding the need for additional housing I believe there are more suitable positions around the outskirts of the village and easy access options.
I paid extra money to purchase the property many years ago based on the view and being Green belt - can I claim compensation if the development goes ahead?
If there is land selected for any traveller sites should be used for permanent housing as the priority at least the council would earn income to support local services in the county.
Considering there are only three roads into Hampton Magna two are through single file bridges and the last is through Hampton on the Hill, which has already installed traffic calming measures due to the 'rat run', so increasing the village population is not going to make the situation any easier. This is all compounded by the traffic going to Warwick parkway station.
Is the sewer system, water delivery and electric/gas supply have enough capacity to support the increase in properties proposed? This is a significant increase in housing stock within the village.
We purchased our house because it was situated in a village with the significant increase in housing stock does not add up to still be called a village.
Why is land not being slowly released to villages for self build projects to provide for our children?
The parish council indicated it was not in support with this proposal, so why is it still proceeding?

I object to the proposal to build houses as set out in the June 13 Revised Development Strategy document within Hampton Magna:
The green belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt land in "exceptional circumstances". The plan does not reflect this last resort position given the continuing uncertainty over housing needs. The green belt open character of the village should not be compromised.
The scale of development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.
The plan is contradictory. It portrays a want to consider Green Belt and protect the open spaces and countryside yet villages "washed over" by green belt may have their village envelopes redrawn. I do not agree with this policy.
The village has already suffered it share of green belt erosion and growth/development on all sides in recent years. Warwick Parkway Station (built on green belt land and subsequently expanded considerably), Hatton Park Estate to the North, Chase Meadow to the south, IBM side development to the East. Further erosion of green belt and the village character must stop. Once it goes it can never be regained.
Contrary to the plan, services in the village are fully utilised and do not need further "sustaining" through population growth. The school is expanding but this is needed to resovle current stretched classrom numbers. The train station and its facilities are fully utilised. Existing infrastructure capacity should not be stretched further.
Another large influx of families will create more traffic congestion particularly given the single file traffic light controlled road under the bridge being the main access to/from the village. There will be more dangers with traffic volumes through the village day to day and more rat running through country roads and other neighbouring villages. Houses will be purchased by London commuters creating more pressure to expand Warwick Parkway further.
Land suggested for Gypsy sites should not take precedence over house building on them and I am against the compulsory purchase of private land to facilitate Gypsy sites.

Object to the proposed plans to build any housing on the Green belt land behind Curlieu Close/Arras Boulevard/Clinton ave/Daly ave.
All of the properties along side the development are bungalows, so any of the properties proposed are all going to be small/low level housing hence not providing much accommodation.
Planning building restrictions have been applied to alterations of adjoining properties, so expect the same restrictions to be applied or expect claims to be submitted against previous planning restrictions/decisions.
There is only two options for access to this development off Arras Boulevard and Daly avenue both roads are busy enough and this will only add traffic in a dangerous and concentrated manner.
Arras Boulevard has a narrow blind bend around the houses, which is already dangerous and then to add the road access to this new development is only increasing the risk of an accident!
Understanding the need for additional housing I believe there are more suitable positions around the outskirts of the village and easy access options.
I paid extra money to purchase the property many years ago based on the view and being Green belt - can I claim compensation if the development goes ahead?
If there is land selected for any traveller sites should be used for permanent housing as the priority at least the council would earn income to support local services in the county.
Considering there are only three roads into Hampton Magna two are through single file bridges and the last is through Hampton on the Hill, which has already installed traffic calming measures due to the 'rat run', so increasing the village population is not going to make the situation any easier. This is all compounded by the traffic going to Warwick parkway station.
Is the sewer system, water delivery and electric/gas supply have enough capacity to support the increase in properties proposed? This is a significant increase in housing stock within the village.
We purchased our house because it was situated in a village with the significant increase in housing stock does not add up to still be called a village.
Why is land not being slowly released to villages for self build projects to provided for villagers children?
The parish council indicated it was not in support with this proposal, so why is it still proceeding?

The scale of development in Hampton magna is not appropriate for the village. The services in the village would not be able to meet another 150 houses. the school is already full and could not hold any more children, the roads out of hampton magna are not equiped to take on even more traffic- by warwick parkway it can already get very congested without having even more traffic. I am against the compulsory purchase of private land to facilitate Gypsy sites

Object to the proposed plans to build any housing on the Green belt land behind Curlieu Close/Arras Boulevard/Clinton ave/Daly ave.
All of the properties along side the development are bungalows, so any of the properties proposed are all going to be small/low level housing hence not providing much accommodation.
Planning building restrictions have been applied to alterations of adjoining properties, so expect the same restrictions to be applied or expect claims to be submitted against previous planning restrictions/decisions.
There is only two options for access to this development off Arras Boulevard and Daly avenue both roads are busy enough and this will only add traffic in a dangerous and concentrated manner.
Arras Boulevard has a narrow blind bend around the houses, which is already dangerous and then to add the road access to this new development is only increasing the risk of an accident!
Understanding the need for additional housing I believe there are more suitable positions around the outskirts of the village and easy access options.
I paid extra money to purchase the property many years ago based on the view and being Green belt - can I claim compensation if the development goes ahead?
If there is land selected for any traveller sites should be used for permanent housing as the priority at least the council would earn income to support local services in the county.
Considering there are only three roads into Hampton Magna two are through single file bridges and the last is through Hampton on the Hill, which has already installed traffic calming measures due to the 'rat run', so increasing the village population is not going to make the situation any easier. This is all compounded by the traffic going to Warwick parkway station.
Is the sewer system, water delivery and electric/gas supply have enough capacity to support the increase in properties proposed? This is a significant increase in housing stock within the village.
We purchased our house because it was situated in a village with the significant increase in housing stock does not add up to still be called a village.
Why is land not being slowly released to villages for self build projects to provide for our children?
The parish council indicated it was not in support with this proposal, so why is it still proceeding?

I strongly object to the development plans proposed for Hampton Magna based on the following: -

1. Greenbelt land has already been destroyed in Hampton Magna when Warwick Parkway station was built.
2. Too much greenbelt land in Warwick overall has been destroyed i.e. Chase Meadow.
3. I have concerns around increased volumes of traffic in around Hampton Magna should additional houses be built. Access routes into the village are very limited and additional housing will only add further stress to this.
4. Residents choose to live in rural village locations with greenbelt land surrounding. This should not be destroyed.

I strongly object to the development plans proposed for Hampton Magna based on the following: -

1. Greenbelt land has already been destroyed in Hampton Magna when Warwick Parkway station was built.
2. Too much greenbelt land in Warwick overall has been destroyed i.e. Chase Meadow.
3. I have concerns around increased volumes of traffic in around Hampton Magna should additional houses be built. Access routes into the village are very limited and additional housing will only add further stress to this.
4. Residents choose to live in rural village locations with greenbelt land surrounding. This should not be destroyed.