The villagers have made it clear they do not support any more than 90 new homes.
The building of 150 is too much and against the overwhelming wishes of the people who actually live here.

This site is ideal for development. However, as a local housing needs survey only found a need for around 20 houses, I believe 150 houses are too many and the number should be reduced to less than 100.

The land South of the school seems not too bad an option as a site for development, but the number of dwellings proposed is far too large, about 10 times that identified in a survey conducted in the parish; such an influx of people will swamp the local amenities such as medical and education, and exacerbate traffic problems. Also, careful planning is essential to ensure that the new houses are properly integrated with the main village and don't become "Bishop's Tachbrook South".

150 houses is 10 times the amount residents suggested in consultation for the Bishops Tachbrook Neighbourhood plan. The site also ignores the gas pipeline problem. This number of houses radically alters the nature of the village.

The proposed site for further development will offer significant benefits to the whole community.

I very much doubt that anything I write in this e-mail in response to the new Local Plan will have any impact! The process has left me feeling dispirited and disenfranchised.


Let me put this in context:
1. I recognise the need for more housing nationally and locally

2. I live in Bishops Tachbrook which, as far as I can see, comes out of the plan with the most negative impact of any Parish within the district.

3. I have been part of the Neighbourhood Plan group in BT Parish and our consultation shows overwhelming rejection of your proposals and challenges the basic assumptions behind it. You know all this - the arguments have been put to you many times including by the local MP, you seem to have ignored them!

What irks me more than anything within the whole Local Plan document is in section DS13 'Allocation of land for a country park'. In point 2.59a. You state that, '
This may include minimising the visual impact of development and softening the edge of new housing schemes.
The whole country park idea isa sop to our objections to encroaching into BT by building beyond Harbury Lane and you're not even guaranteeing to minimise the visual impact!
I'm also part of the Community Speed Watch group, we know the levels of traffic that go through the village at peak times and the speeds they do. I'll be fascinated to see how you square your proposed with TR2 Traffic Generation, 'All large scale developments which result in the generation of significant traffic movements, should be supported by a Transport Assessment and where necessary a Travel Plan, to demonstrate practical and effective measures to be taken to avoid the adverse impacts of traffic.
Any development that results in significant negative impacts on health and wellbeing of people in the area as a result of pollution, noise or vibration caused by traffic generation will not be permitted unless effective mitigation can be achieved.
I'm looking forward to the effective mitigation!!

Detailed objections will be made by the Parish Council which I fully support, please listen to them.