With respect to the proposed housing development on land adjacent to the railway in Shrewley Common, Site Refs R40 (Land at the Gatehouse) and R51 (Land SE of Shrewley Common) in Rural Area Site Assessment documents at WDC's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) website:

The points submitted by Mr. Edward Brown (Representation Id. 47129) in relation to the site near the Durham Ox apply equally to these two sites and I agree with every one of them. R40 and R51 are also very close to the Durham Ox, so Mr. Brown's objections based on proximity to that pub apply equally well to them, as do all of his comments about the suitability of Shrewley Common in general. I would like to add some further points in relation to Sites R40 and R51 in particular.

1. R40 is green belt land and so is the part of R51 that provides access to the field behind numbers 99-107. R51 has a house on it—number 107—occupied by tenants, a family of three who have been there since 1996. They have been very good custodians and I understand they have no desire to move. Their interests should be taken into account.

2. The possibility of development on the aforementioned green belt areas is a major concern. I fear greatly that it might open the door to further developments on the two fields in question, with obvious detrimental effects on local wildlife as well as on the existing properties bordering these fields.

3. Representation Id. 49750, supporting the proposal, is on behalf of the present owner of Sites R40 and R51 (and much of the surrounding area). It suggests building 8-10 "affordable" houses on these sites, a proposal I would strongly object to. Such a development would not be in keeping with the style and character of the immediate neighbourhood. As my property borders on R51, my comments might smack of "nimbyism" but the owner of these sites and their agent can hardly be thought impartial either, being clearly motivated by possible financial gain. The points in favour put forward in their Representation Id. 49750 are largely specious, as Mr. Brown has shown in Representation Id. 47129.

4. The SHLAA document entry for Site R51 shows it as including the entrance to the field behind numbers 99-107. Any development proposal should clarify how access is to be provided to this field for large agricultural vehicles.

5. Further to Point 4, there are four mature oak trees on these sites, two on R40 and two on R51. Like all oak trees, these provide haven for a large and diverse wildlife community. I would be extremely concerned at the loss of local biodiversity that would arise from the loss of these trees, on top of the loss that arose in the 1990s with the arrival of the M40. Oak trees are already threatened by the disturbing spread of the disease acute oak decline (AOD) in the Midlands and elsewhere. Matters should not be made worse by wanton destruction of healthy trees. In this connection, I am pleased to see that "Protecting biodiversity, high quality landscapes" is listed as a "specific principle" in the Local Plan Strategy.

6. When the houses at 101 and 103, Shrewley Common, were built in the 1970s, interesting archaeological remains of an ancient Roman settlement were discovered (artifacts from which are on view at the museum in Warwick). I understand that a building of major significance is thought to have existed on Site R51. Sites R40 and R51 should both be made available for possible archaeological research before any construction work is undertaken.

7. The existing noise from the M40 and the railway bring into question the desirability of new houses adjacent to them, as do Mr. Brown's points concerning traffic and proximity to the pub.

With respect to the proposed housing development on land adjacent to the railway in Shrewley Common, Site Refs R40 and R51:

There is at least one family of badgers living on R51. Adults and cubs have been observed regularly foraging and playing on both the drive and in the garden of the existing dwelling. Badgers are a protected species by law(Protection of Badgers Act, 1992). Any development must obtain a licence to build near a badger sett, and protect the sett. In order to do so, any development should allow a minimum of 20 metres (and preferably much more) between the sett entrances and any surrounding fence so that the protected area is not too small. Because of this the site would not yield the expected number of new dwellings.

There are four well established oak trees on both sites. Oak trees are already threatened with Acute Oak Decline in the Midlands. We should be doing all we can to preserve any healthy trees that exist, not destroying them to make way for
development. These also support diverse wildlife, including at least one breeding pair of tawny owls. The nesting sites of tawny owls are protected by law. (Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981)

Part of R51 is, at the moment, access to the arable land behind house numbers 99-107. I am concerned as to how any new development would maintain this access, whilst still yielding the expected number of properties.

If the development does not maintain this access, this land would possibly fall into disuse. A major concern would be future development expanding onto this land under these circumstances.

There are no employment opportunities in the area. Public transport is non existent, and the nearest schools are at Hatton or Claverdon. This will mean an increase in traffic onto the Shrewley Common road, and onto surrounding B and C roads, as new residents travel to work and/or take their children to school.

Also , people visiting the village store by car already cause congestion when they park, effectively reducing the road to one lane. Adding even more traffic will only worsen this situation.

The amount of traffic noise from the motorway(M40) and noise from the railway would create a barrier to potential buyers of any new houses on these two sites.

I comment on the proposed housing development on land adjacent to the railway in Shrewley Common, Site Refs R40 (Land at the Gatehouse) and R51 (Land SE of Shrewley Common) in Rural Area Site Assessment documents at WDC's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) website:
1. R40 is green belt land and so is the part of R51 that provides access to the field behind numbers 99-107. R51 has a house on it—number 107—occupied by tenants, a family of three who have been there since 1996. They have been very good custodians and I understand they have no desire to move. Their interests should be taken into account.
2. The possibility of development on the aforementioned green belt areas is a major concern. I fear greatly that it might open the door to further developments on the two fields in question, with obvious detrimental effects on local wildlife as well as on the existing properties bordering these fields.
3. The amount of traffic on Shrewley Common is already of major concern to its residents and makes access from houses to the road difficult and dangerous. Major housing developments anywhere on Shrewley Common will surely exacerbate this situation.
4. A representation supporting the proposal was submitted last year (see http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/viewreps.php?docelemid=1353&docid=23, Representation Id. 49750). This was made on behalf of the present owner of Sites R40 and R51 (and much of the surrounding area). It suggests building 8-10 "affordable" houses on these sites, a proposal I would strongly object to. Such a development would not be in keeping with its immediate neighbourhood. As my property borders on R51, my comments might smack of "nimbyism" but the owner of these sites and their agent can hardly be thought impartial either, being clearly motivated by possible financial gain. The points in favour put forward in that representation are highly questionable, especially the one referring to availability of public transport.
5. The SHLAA document entry for Site R51 shows it as including the entrance to the field behind numbers 99-107. Any development proposal should clarify how access is to be provided to this field for large agricultural vehicles.
6. Further to Point 4, there are four mature oak trees on these sites, two on R40 and two on R51. Like all oak trees, these provide haven for a large and diverse wildlife community. I would be extremely concerned at the loss of local biodiversity that would arise from the loss of these trees, on top of the loss that arose in the 1990s with the arrival of the M40. Oak trees are already threatened by the disturbing spread of the disease acute oak decline (AOD) in the Midlands and elsewhere. Matters should not be made worse by wanton destruction of healthy trees. In this connection, I am pleased to see that "Protecting biodiversity, high quality landscapes" is listed as a "specific principle" in the Local Plan Strategy.
7. When the houses at 101 and 103, Shrewley Common, were built in the 1970s, interesting archaeological remains of an ancient Roman settlement were discovered (artifacts from which are on view at the museum in Warwick). I understand that a building of major significance is thought to have existed on Site R51. Sites R40 and R51 should both be made available for possible archaeological research before any construction work is undertaken.
8. The existing noise from the M40 and the railway brings into question the desirability of new houses adjacent to them.

I am writing in response to WDC consultation on its Preferred Options for a new Local Plan.

Shrewley Parish Council has sought local residents views on the proposed development areas. Residents have severe concerns that any proposed development will have a great impact on the infrastructure. The main concerns were :-

a) roads, increase in traffic levels,
b) current lack of school places locally,
c) sewerage system and drainage (of particular concern to residents of Hatton Station)

Shrewley Parish Council would not object to local development if all the following section criteria were strictly adhered to as per the revised Development Strategy WDC June 2013:-

Section 4.4.6
Where it is practical and also avoids compromising the open character of the green belt new village envelopes will be established to accommodate infill or small groups of dwellings (including live-work units), subject to detailed form, scale and character considerations. The scale of development will need to be carefully managed and it is the Council's intention to introduce capped proportional growth rates for the smaller settlements detailed above, subject to further consultation with parish councils and in light of ongoing work on green belt, ecology and landscape considerations. Locally agreed growth rates will allow parish councils to support development which is of a proportional scale to their settlements and help places maintain their distinctiveness and character.

Section 4.4.7
Furthermore, in the villages and settlements detailed above, limited infill housing development of an appropriate proportional scale will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that:
* it is supported by the parish council and/or neighbourhood plan;
* a registered social landlord is supportive of the development;
* it is supported through an up-to-date housing needs survey
covering local affordable and market need;
* it is located within a defined village or settlement envelope;
* it would deliver clear improvements to local services and facilities.

Section 4.4.8
All other considerations relating to design, conservation and environmental concerns will also apply.