As an exisiting member of the community, I strongly object to this option as I consider the road network and local ammenities unable to support an additional housing development here. This development will change forever the demographics and peaceful nature of the area and will ruin close and peaceful community - this is greenbelt land - leave it for visitors and locl to walkthrough.

Proposal to reclassify existing greenbelt regarding land that does not meet sustainability criteria for development:

- in a community where infrastructure including utilities, - and public roads capacity are insufficient
containing protected species

Although technically a brownfields site, this field has been for at least 20 years a natural area of wonderful biodiversity with extensive wild plant growth, an orchard, footpath & brook with bridge, play area for children, social area for local residents, home to chickens, foxes, badgers, bats
and smaller wildlife - clearly marking the end of 'development' and the start of 'countryside'. To allow development on this site would be a travesty of planning and add nothing to the sustainability of the local community or environment.

The site is clearly not suitable for development for the following reasons.
1. Access - the proposed access route is already congested, narrow and unsuited to the additional burden this proposed development will have on it.
2. The brook at the rear of the site is already prone to flooding.
3. The local school is already under considerable pressure to accommodate the current prospective students, this development will add to this pressure and will increase school runs at peak times on already congested roads.

Access to the Antrobus land is unsuitable
(a) for 20 houses
(b) ecological reasons
(c) road safety

1. Although technically a brownfield site, this meadow is an exceptionally important wildlife habitat having lain largely undisturbed for many decades. It is home to bats, slow worms, grass snakes and a wide variety of bird and butterfly species. Some of these creatures have already been displaced from a neighbouring orchard which was built on approximately five years ago, also contrary to residents' wishes.
2. Highway issues - Station Road is unlit, ungritted in the winter, extremely narrow in places and, due to its steeply banked sides, completely unsuitable for pedestrians. Visibility is poor on the approach to the station and also at the junction with the B4439. Any increase in traffic would undoubtedly lead to a greater number of accidents.
3. Serious issues with the sewers - we have lived here for sixteen years. During that time, residents have been seriously affected by sewage blockages. Residents pointed out these difficulties when objecting to the earlier development of social housing in Oakdene Crescent. Our concerns were completely ignored.
4. Loss of privacy - we came to live here precisely to enjoy an uninterrupted rural outlook. Any development would mean our properties were overlooked and we would be subjected to increased noise.
5. We have seen no evidence of housing need.
6. The meadow is currently within the Green Belt.

Although the preferred option site is separated by the railway it is in close proximity to the Grand Union Canal. Canal & River Trust would require any development at Hatton Station to; not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment; detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways; prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. The waterways can be used as tools in place making and place shaping, and contribute to the creation of sustainable communities. Canal & River Trust would seek for any development to relate appropriately to the waterway and optimise the benefits such a location can generate for all parts of the community.

I am very concerned about the following issues:
1) The land was originally an ammunitions dump so is the land now contaminated ?
2) Drainage and sewerage for any new dwellings
3) Desolation of common land and likely endangered species of newt and slow worms, bats will again lose their habitat.
4) Increased traffic down Oakdene Crescent with consequential additional air & noise pollution.

We object to the proposed Antrobus Close site. The access to the new site would be through an already established estate of house that is already overburdened with traffic and parking. The parking in Oakdene Crescent causes congestion making it unsafe for children to play. The social houses in Oakdene Crescent have a cesspit that requires emptying at regular intervals. The tanker has to block the road for up to 20 minuets preventing any vehicle to enter or exit the estate this would be a problem if emergency vehicles had to attend any property on the estate. Also the exit from Oakdene Crescent into Station Road is a blind corner accidents have occurred and any increase in traffic volume would increase the risk of accident.

The proposed Dell site would be better suited to development as this would not extend the building line beyond the natural building line. The reason of poor access is not relevant for not selecting this site as access can be made via the old Station Road. This sit would make vehicle access much safer reduce parking and traffic congestion and add a much needed village green for the children to play.

Of the identified areas this would be the most suitable. However, I do have concerns about the existing drainage system which has given problems on several occasions and the loss of ground which I have always understood as being part of the Hatton Country World walks.

It has come to our attention that a parcel of land at the rear of Oakdean, Hatton Station (believed to be owned by Courts Development) has been proposed for a housing development. WART strongly object to this proposal because this area of unmanaged semi-improved grassland was a receptor site for over 90 slow-worms, translocated by WDC as a result of a housing development on Oakdene Crescent in 2009. Great Crested Newts are also present in the vicinity and there is a high probability that this species is also using this area for foraging and overwintering.

Under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) both species are protected from intentional killing/injury and there is also habitat protection for the crested newt under the Conservation of Species and Habitat Regulations 2010. Current reptile guidance advises against impacts to receptor sites and implies that receptor sites should be chosen to safeguard the species translocated. Our main concern however is that the slow worms may have to be 'double handled' if planning permission is granted, particularly as current evidence suggests slow-worms do not respond well to translocation efforts and can lead to poor body condition (as researched by Richard Griffiths et al).

If the development is to go ahead, surveys following standard guidance should be undertaken, with appropriate mitigation provided to maintain the local conservation status of the slow-worms and great crested newts present. WART would also expect appropriate ecological supervision both during any further translocation procedure and during the works where necessary; and with at least 3 years post-works monitoring agreed as a Section 106 agreement for the receptor site

To summarise: WART do not support the proposed development of this site and if it were to go ahead we would expect a rigorous reptile & amphibian survey to be carried out to ascertain species presence, population size and status; with the provision of a reptile reserve to serve their needs in the local vicinity.

see attached

I object to the proposed development on the land to the rear of Oakdene crescent for the following reasons.
1 The proposed development of 20 houses constitutes far too great an increase for the current hamlet size. It would represent an increase of between 20-25%.
2 The proposed development area is currently a haven for wildlife including some protected species. The development of the area would result in destruction of habitat. All appropriate ecological surveys should be carried out before any proposed development is allowed to progress. However a significantly smaller development could be permitted as long as it allowed for the site to incorporate measures to preserve the flora and fauna.
3 The drainage and sewerage situation is already a cause for concern in the hamlet with its incapacity to deal with the number of houses at present. Further development would exacerbate these problems unless significant measures are taken to improve the existing system.
4 The development would constitute a significant increase in households with children, the local schools are already struggling to find places for people moving into the area. This is also true of health services.

SHREWLEY COMMON SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY
There has been little comment about the settlement boundary, probably because it follows the backs of residents' gardens closely and the PC accepts the proposal.
SHREWLEY COMMON - SITES 1 AND 2
The Parish Council (PC) has concerns about the number of dwellings proposed for each site which would make it difficult to maintain the linear development character of Shrewley Common. Cramming so many homes on to these small sites is not at all in keeping and could mean that two cul-de-sacs are proposed, which could create an inappropriate dumbbell effect at the end of the village.
The average age of the population of the village is currently high, with a large proportion of retired couples and elderly single people. The PC feels it would be an advantage if some of the new dwellings were priced in a bracket accessible by first time buyers, together with some retirement bungalows. The Village Stores, the Village Hall, and the Durham Ox public house would be pleased to see new people coming into the village to increase footfall.
During the past 20 years the volume of traffic through the village has increased significantly. Many of the residents complain about the traffic volume and speed, and that driving in and out of their entrances to the road is becoming increasingly hazardous. Residents near the Village Stores are particularly concerned as vehicles often either restrict their view of the road dangerously, or even block their drives completely. Public transport is virtually non-existent and access to private transport is vital. More homes in the village will of course increase the traffic and parking problems and the design of the developments will need to ensure that the on-street parking is not further aggravated.
There are several mature trees and evidence of badgers on the sites, both of which will need to be protected. Evidence of a Roman settlement on one of the sites will need an archaeological survey report before any development is commenced. Development plans will also need to ensure that access is maintained to the fields behind both sites.
HATTON STATION SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY
The PC proposes that the settlement boundary should NOT include the dwellings to the North of the canal, ie maintaining the status quo, with the whole area to the North being washed over by the Green Belt as there are no suitable sites for development.
To the south of the canal, the boundary should be drawn at the bottom of existing gardens, as indicated on the map. If any of the sites 1, 2 and 3 are not chosen for development, then the boundary for Site 1 should be at the bottom of existing gardens, and for Sites 2 and 3 at the curtilage boundary of 106 Station Road. If any of sites 1, 2 and 3 are developed, then it is expected that the boundary will be drawn at the bottom of the gardens of the new dwellings.
HATTON STATION SITE 1 - Land to the rear of Antrobus Close
The PC disagrees with WDCs recommendation that this is a preferred site, unless an up to date housing needs survey clearly shows there is a need for new housing in Shrewley Parish, (in contradiction to the recent Parish Plan survey) which cannot be satisfied by developing the two preferred sites in Shrewley Common.
Also the proposed number of new dwellings on this site is disproportionate to the overall size of the adjoining estate. 20 houses added to the existing 35 represents a 57% increase. The impact of such an increase on existing housing is NOT acceptable. However, we propose that IF new housing is required on this site, there should be an upper limit of 10 dwellings, which would represent an increase of up to 28%. The impact on existing dwellings would therefore be significantly reduced. We also strongly support the principle of protecting and enhancing the environmental diversity and civic amenity of this site. By reducing the number of dwellings to a maximum of 10, it would create an opportunity to enhance the natural environment and meet residents' concerns. We would expect that IF any development took place on this site, WDC would insist that there was adequate on-site parking, so that there would be no impact on existing dwellings.
We also acknowledge WDCs statement that "the sewerage and drainage systems of Hatton Station are at capacity and that any new scheme will have to manage its impact and avoid adding to local problems."
HATTON STATION SITE 2 - Land to the west of old Station Road
The PC disagrees with WDCs recommendation and proposes that the site loses its preferred status because the close proximity to the M40 means that "A comprehensive approach to alleviating motorway traffic noise" is not feasible and this is also a GREENFIELD site.
HATTON STATION SITE 3 - The Dell
The PC agrees with WDCs recommendation that this site should not be considered for development for both reasons given in WDCs site appraisal, on access and the impact on existing housing amenity. This is also a GREENFIELD site.
FINAL COMMENTS
The proposal for about 45 dwellings in Shrewley Parish on four preferred sites represents a 20-25% increase in dwellings in both settlements. A recent survey conducted for the Shrewley Parish Plan, which had a response rate of over 60%, showed that the majority of residents (55%) felt that no new housing could be accommodated within the Parish in the future. However, the Parish Council (PC) does not object to some development but believes that the proposed increase in the number of dwellings is unsustainable. The Shrewley Parish settlement scoring (Hatton Station 18 and Shrewley Common 33) indicates that both settlements have few local services for residents. The PC also considers that development on this scale would be detrimental to the character of both settlements and that the narrow lanes in the Parish, particularly Station Road in Hatton Station, will have difficulty coping with the increased traffic.
The PC is also concerned over the phasing of any new developments. The Local Plan needs to provide capacity to increase housing supply incrementally over the next 15 years. However, developers are likely to want to build much more quickly. The PC strongly opposes any plan which would mean mass building of new homes in the early years, leaving no capacity to increase in the future. The PC proposes that the Shrewley Common sites are developed first to satisfy any local housing needs which are supported through an up-to-date housing needs survey. WDC must ensure that the requirements of Section 4.4.6 of the Revised Development Strategy June 2013 as restated below are met in full and require developers to agree to phased development to cover the whole period through to 2029:
"... 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, 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."
The PC re-emphasises the importance of WDC ensuring that the requirements of Section 4.4.7 below are met before any detailed planning proposals are determined.
"... 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."
Finally, following agreement on the new settlement boundaries, there must be assurances that there can be no further boundary changes for the duration of the Local Plan, so preventing creeping expansion and further development in the Green Belt between now and 2029.

see attached

I write to you concerning the proposed Local Plan for Warwick District. Having read the letter to you from Chris White MP, I can only say how much I am in agreement. As well as being concerned for developments proposed for Hatton Station where I live, I am also very concerned that once 'leafy Warwickshire' seems to being built on at a rate out of all proportion to local need. I grew up adjacent to this area and spent much of my childhood roaming it. When I returned 26 years ago, I was struck by how little it had essentially changed and how little had been destroyed by unnecessary development. What has happened since reminds me of what happened between the wars when acres of countryside were destroyed by soulless housing development in which people were marooned. Whichever route I take, I can not now drive into Warwick without driving past a large development - Warwick Gates or Hatton Park. You can so easily destroy what people move out of towns to have. As a friend living on Hatton Park said to me recently, 'if the planned development goes ahead, I may as well be living on a suburban estate anywhere, since I will no longer be reminded of this estate's rural location by the views everywhere I look, or be in a community where its possible to feel you know most people.'

And why build mini bits of estate in 'villages' where there is no identified need. Hatton Station does not need 25 extra houses. Access to the village is by a narrow country lane with some difficult bends - according to one of your own planning officers on 21st May 2003. It is not only narrow but has no pavement or grass verge to give a bit of extra space when needed. Access to the largest site (20 houses) is poor, and there are well known problems with the infrastructure in terms of mains drainage. The larger proposed site is a wildlife habitat to which slow-worms were moved a few years ago when another parcel of land was built on. The nearest primary school is not far by car but too far to walk with small children and certainly not along the narrow Station Road with no pavement or grass verge and cars edging by all the time - cars you can't see coming round the bends.

I have mentioned infrastructure but how about primary schools? The one nearest to Hatton Station at Hatton Green also serves Hatton Park and is oversubscribed already. If Hatton Park also has extra housing, and other places in the area too, where are all these children to go? It is not so long ago that village schools were being amalgamated or closed as locally Wroxall was.

We are regularly being asked to use public transport more for the sake of the environment and consequent risk of global warming. Such developments as the Warwick Local Plan proposes, cannot help but have the opposite effect.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Of the identified areas this would be the most suitable. However, I do have concerns about the existing drainage system which has given problems on several occasions and the loss of ground which I have always understood as being part of the Hatton Country World walks.

1. Highway & Transport Issues
Visibility at proposed site entrance on Oakdene.
- The exit is very narrow and does not meet visibility splay criteria to the right, given the potential
vehicle flows per day .
- There is a small residential access road on the left of the proposed site entrance that has not been
accounted for
Impact on road junction of Oakdene and Station Road
Given the potential increase in vehicles there is insufficient visibility splay to the right
2. Environmental Health issues
Previous use of site: The site was previously a railway yard and an ammunition dump and munitions
have been found on this site
3. Draining / Sewerage
Drainage in Hatton Station is already at capacity and adjoining properties have to have their sewage
pumped out every 6 weeks (approx) by Orbit Housing Association
4. Planning Application History
This site has previously been refused planning permission
5. Green Belt protection
The site is Green Belt and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have confirmed
their objection to potential reclassification which will substantially compromise the future of
surrounding local Green Belt too
6. Protected Habitat
- The whole site is an important reptile habitat containing protected species
- Newts and slow worms have already been moved onto this site from a previously developed
location and should not be handled/moved twice (as stated by the The British Herpetological Society
and ACRT)
- Bats are protected under Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 and Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are a common sight every summer
on the site and are believed to roost in the trees at the eastern end.

Dear Simon and Kate

Thanks for you mail and apologies for the delay in responding.

You describe a familiar and depressing case of habitat loss. It is often the case that even where conditions are attached to planning approvals in an attempt to safeguard biodiversity, they are normally ignored by developers and not enforced by local authorities.

It is beyond the remit of the Trust itself to comment in detail on such matters, but I would very much like to add my personal objection and be identified as a 'Trustee of the ACRT' to help add weight. Once these sites are lost there is of course no getting them back, not to mention the need to have a network/patchwork of such sites (even if seemingly very small) to link areas together at the landscape level.

We've met several of your colleagues at drop-ins who have been really helpful, and would also like to thank you for taking the time to respond to me personally throughout this consultation process. I've included below a summary of the most significant issues with the site at the rear of Oakdene, together with letters of objections from several prominent institutions. I'd be really grateful if you could ensure these are lodged formally into the process, and also if you could include this note in your considerations?

Local Plan Responses

We have coordinated collection of the 'Local Plan Village Housing Options' form which have been completed by many of the locally affected households, with results as follows:

* Response rate was 66% (40 completed out of 60), and of those
* 100% stated they oppose inclusion of this land in the village boundary to facilitate local housing plans

These are of course in addition to the online submissions you hopefully have already received. My wife will drop these in to you personally tomorrow (Monday).

Drainage & Sewerage & Environmental Health Issues

The local infrastructure was at capacity before the construction of the additional houses in Oakdene by Orbit some 5 years ago. Nearby residents now live with the consequences as Orbit pump out the sewers every 6 weeks or so to remove blockages, and residents get odours and dirty water in their washing machines and dish washers. Hatton Station infrastructure cannot support additional houses that would be facilitated by redefining the village boundary.

Stephen, I recognise this is fairly anecdotal but we've had 2 residents mention to us during the consultation process that live ammunition has been found on the site several times in the past - once a hand grenade, and other time an artillery shell. Sounds hazardous!

Protected Habitat

* Part of the site is classified by WDC as "The River Alne Local Wildlife Site" (LWS)
* We have had the land inspected by the British Herpetological Society, and a local Environmental Planning Consultant,
* The Bat Conservation trust and ACRT are also objecting, given these facts.

See attached objections from these institutions.

Greenbelt protection

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have confirmed their objection to potential reclassification which will substantially compromise the future of surrounding local greenbelt too.

Letter to you from CPRE attached.

We await responses from Chris White MP and Jeremy Wright MP.

In summary, your SHLAA report highlights many issues with the site which we fully agree with. Other proposed locations in the new local plan appear much better suited.

What are the next steps and timetable, do let us know!

Best wishes,

Simon & Kate Stenner

Some points on the website Appendix 6 that need amending......

P323 "there are two bus stops within 250 yrds of site." There is one pick up point by the phone box at Oakdene Crescent. It is a TWO buses a week service! That may be where the TWO comes from.

P327 "adjoins Hatton Park Station" delete Park

P328 Under the Heading Landscape Characteristic Assessment last para. There is reference to development of the zone and the three small fields to the south of the zone. No one understands this! Is there a mix up with another site? Also reference to the River Alne Local Wildlife Site. Is there such a thing? The stream eventually goes into the Alne to the west of Henley in Arden!

Page 49 in the booklet and on the website. The blue arrow for primary access to site 1 goes through the Station Car Park!

1. Highway & Transport Issues
Visibility at proposed site entrance on Oakdene.
- The exit is very narrow and does not meet visibility splay criteria to the right, given the potential
vehicle flows per day .
- There is a small residential access road on the left of the proposed site entrance that has not been
accounted for
Impact on road junction of Oakdene and Station Road
Given the potential increase in vehicles there is insufficient visibility splay to the right
2. Environmental Health issues
Previous use of site: The site was previously a railway yard and an ammunition dump and munitions
have been found on this site
3. Draining / Sewerage
Drainage in Hatton Station is already at capacity and adjoining properties have to have their sewage
pumped out every 6 weeks (approx) by Orbit Housing Association
4. Planning Application History
This site has previously been refused planning permission
5. Green Belt protection
The site is Green Belt and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have confirmed
their objection to potential reclassification which will substantially compromise the future of
surrounding local Green Belt too
6. Protected Habitat
- The whole site is an important reptile habitat containing protected species
- Newts and slow worms have already been moved onto this site from a previously developed
location and should not be handled/moved twice (as stated by the The British Herpetological Society
and ACRT)
- Bats are protected under Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 and Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are a common sight every summer
on the site and are believed to roost in the trees at the eastern end.

1. Highway & Transport Issues
Visibility at proposed site entrance on Oakdene.
- The exit is very narrow and does not meet visibility splay criteria to the right, given the potential
vehicle flows per day .
- There is a small residential access road on the left of the proposed site entrance that has not been
accounted for
Impact on road junction of Oakdene and Station Road
Given the potential increase in vehicles there is insufficient visibility splay to the right
2. Environmental Health issues
Previous use of site: The site was previously a railway yard and an ammunition dump and munitions
have been found on this site
3. Draining / Sewerage
Drainage in Hatton Station is already at capacity and adjoining properties have to have their sewage
pumped out every 6 weeks (approx) by Orbit Housing Association
4. Planning Application History
This site has previously been refused planning permission
5. Green Belt protection
The site is Green Belt and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have confirmed
their objection to potential reclassification which will substantially compromise the future of
surrounding local Green Belt too
6. Protected Habitat
- The whole site is an important reptile habitat containing protected species
- Newts and slow worms have already been moved onto this site from a previously developed
location and should not be handled/moved twice (as stated by the The British Herpetological Society
and ACRT)
- Bats are protected under Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 and Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are a common sight every summer
on the site and are believed to roost in the trees at the eastern end.

1. Highway & Transport Issues
Visibility at proposed site entrance on Oakdene.
- The exit is very narrow and does not meet visibility splay criteria to the right, given the potential
vehicle flows per day .
- There is a small residential access road on the left of the proposed site entrance that has not been
accounted for
Impact on road junction of Oakdene and Station Road
Given the potential increase in vehicles there is insufficient visibility splay to the right
2. Environmental Health issues
Previous use of site: The site was previously a railway yard and an ammunition dump and munitions
have been found on this site
3. Draining / Sewerage
Drainage in Hatton Station is already at capacity and adjoining properties have to have their sewage
pumped out every 6 weeks (approx) by Orbit Housing Association
4. Planning Application History
This site has previously been refused planning permission
5. Green Belt protection
The site is Green Belt and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have confirmed
their objection to potential reclassification which will substantially compromise the future of
surrounding local Green Belt too
6. Protected Habitat
- The whole site is an important reptile habitat containing protected species
- Newts and slow worms have already been moved onto this site from a previously developed
location and should not be handled/moved twice (as stated by the The British Herpetological Society
and ACRT)
- Bats are protected under Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 and Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are a common sight every summer
on the site and are believed to roost in the trees at the eastern end.