The current proposal appears to concentrate key new housing very close to the railway which poses questions re practicality for potential residents. In simple terms the two key sites are not particularly viable from a practical, safety nor desirability point of view other than very low cost housing. This does not therefore facilitate the likelihood of more desirable property.

WDC need to fully consider the actual needs of the parish rather than simply fulfilling numbers of new homes.

Meanwhile management and employees of high growth companies such as Jaguar Land Rover fail to find suitable homes in the very same area.

Shrewley parish, like Rowington parish is quite centrally located re the various sites of some of these companies including JLR and its suppliers (main sites at Gaydon, Solihull, Coventry and Birmingham). Key management drawn from all parts of Europe are not seeking starter homes.

In many instances such employees are forced to live at places such as Rugby, Northamptonshire, Oxforshire, Worcestershire and even Wiltshire.

The only key planned preferred sites within the current local plan are unlikely to meet the needs of many current residents or indeed provide housing opportunity for potential younger middle age / middle class families.
Without such stimulus communities such as Shrewley will continue to lack younger, vibrant participants in village activities who often come from management style roles.

The current proposal has failed to take heed of opportunities re sites which were suggested (at Pinley) which would modestly help this current imbalance. There is a need for greater distribution of housing to include smaller sites.
There are other and greater opportunities to create modest housing sites by very slight modification of parish boundaries or revised perimeters of the sites considered.

A proposal was made re a site at Pinley (Grid reference Easting 04208335 / Northing 02664706).

This site has to date been regarded as being within Shrewley and has to date been subsequently dismissed due to not being fully adjacent to current development within Shrewley and should perhaps be reconsidered for the following reasons.

With very minor boundary change this total rather than partial site could be fully accommodated within Shrewley rather than Rowington parish. A further option is to consider a revised perimeter of this site via inclusion of a sector of unused land to the rear of Coley Irons See attached with additional area closely cross hatched.

Apart from having potential good access onto the main B road the nominated site is on the edge of a development which is within realistic walking distance of the local school, a nursery, doctors surgery two churches and the shops, pubs and post offices of two villages (Shrewley and Claverdon) as well as the Ardencote manor leisure facilities.

Hatton and Claverdon railway stations are both accessible by foot.
The site additionally provides quick and easy access to the village halls of five local villages ie Claverdon, Shrewley, Hatton, Lowsonford and Rowington. A bus route passes the door and the local collection point for school buses re children is circa 100 yards away.

This site is discreet and virtually unseen from the roadway and surrounding area being shrouded by trees on all sides with a variety of further trees growing to the frontage to help provide additional screening. It is additionally not in a potential flood area unlike some of the proposals currently being focused upon by WDC which are drawing considerable public opposition.

The site in question has been used domestically for 15 years and is currently under appeal re Lawful Development Certificate.

We do not claim to represent anybody apart from ourselves, but we have discussed these issues with our immediate neighbours and we find that we are all thinking along similar lines.

Although any development at these two sites would be detrimental from our point of view, we do understand the circumstances in which the WDC Local Plan has been drawn up and we do realise the need for every community to chip in, so to speak. Thus, we agree with almost every point made in our Parish Council's final submission. The main exception is their agreement with the proposed village boundary. Hugh Darwen has already posted our reasons for disagreeing with the appropriation of what all of us regard as "genuine" green belt as opposed to "green belt wash"—the green belt area in question being parts of fields that include their present access points.

Regarding the other points raised by our Parish Council, with which we strongly agree, we would like to emphasise:

1. The need to reduce numbers of dwellings proposed for the two sites (12 and 20), to maintain the linear design of our village.

2. The exacerbation of existing traffic problems.

3. The need to preserve existing mature oak trees and protect the existing wildlife—we have strong evidence of badgers and tawny owls in the vicinity of these trees, for example, as well as plenty of other bird and insect life.

4. The possible archaeological interest arising from the evidence of an early Roman settlement that came to light when the houses at 103 and 101 were built in the 1970s.

Hugh and Lindsay Darwen
103, Shrewley Common

As long time residents of Shrewley, and with our home close to the South East proposed development, we have the aesthetic appearance of the village at heart and do not wish this to be spoilt by a development of so many houses as proposed.

It is a concern that such a number of houses, particularly if for young families, the village is without the essential facilities such as schools, surgery, playground and public transport. This end of the village already suffers from traffic congestion from through traffic and cars parked for the village shop and we have no wish for this to increase.

We feel that a smaller development could satisfy the need for additional houses within Shrewley. We do wonder if the triangular area of land between Hughes Hill and the Old Warwick Road could be available for alternative development.

Shrewley is an unspoiled rural village of natural wildlife and Roman architectural remains yet to be unearthed and we hope that due consideration will be given to these important assets to the village before embarking on further housing development.
John Gough. 101 Shrewley Common