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 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.
4. The proposed site is too near to the motorway and is very noisy, indeed we suffer through noise pollution from the motorway as is.

Properties built at his option would suffer badly from the Motorway noise. Mention is made of alleviating motorway noise but if that is possible why hasn't it already been done to benefit the existing households ?

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.

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