This land should not even be considered for development by Warwick or Coventry Councils until such time as their brownfield sites are at full capacity - as determined by objective, verifiable appraisal - then the Baginton site offers an excellent eventual opportunity for housing or possibly mixed-use development.

The real viability and attractiveness of this site will be determined by the future operations of Coventry Airport. Few will wish to live near a site that is a working cargo airport, particularly if this airport manages to renegotiate a licence for unrestricted night-flying operations.

I hope WDC will monitor the financial fortunes of Coventry Airport and will apply pressure if it becomes apparent that Coventry Airport has no financially viable future. Coventry Airport remaining in operation would effectively deny Baginton becoming a good site for WDC's future housing provision and would make WDC's drive towards high quality farmland and extremely attractive and much-cherished sites like King's Hill more likely. I'd like to remind you that -among other objections - 3700+ people signed a petition against development of King's Hill.

A failure to fully seize the far-less damaging option of development of Baginton because of airport noise from Coventry Airport, possibly through the night, would be a tragedy.

Much of the site is brownfield, of poor agricultural quality, little-visited by walkers and cyclists, and has excellent road links to the A45, and the A46. Development of the King's Hill (south Coventry) site would cause immense problems to an already overburdened road network and to local, barely-existent amenities.


A great deal has been made of the sub- Baginton Airport sand and gravel reserves and the possible restriction or even prohibition this offers on construction. The relatively shallow quarrying necessary should offer no such serious restriction, and would also generate large amounts of money for Coventry / Warwick Councils, and substantial employment in their removal. The developers proposing building on the site say that a rolling programme of house and other construction on the site would be possible, even with large gravel extraction.

Some Coventry local councillors have suggested that the site would become the 'biggest landfill site in Europe' if quarrying went ahead. Unless there were plans to raise an artificial hill for enclosing the landfill at this site, then gravel and sand extraction would create holes far too shallow to be seriously considered for landfill.

Much or all of the gravel extraction and construction traffic for the site could be routed along Rowley Road and straight on to the A45 / A46 and away from Baginton village.


There is no ancient woodland and few other areas of great ecological or archaelogical sensitivity that would be damaged by development of the site. There are wetland areas which should be avoided for ecological protection and flooding avoidance and here are the Lunt Fort and Baginton Castle, but these are a relatively minor part of the whole site, and their avoidance would still leave a considerable area.

5


6
The RSS has enjoined Coventry and Warwick Councils to work together in cross-border communication to return sites such as King's Hill for housing. Could I ask that the same spirit of cross-border co-operation is applied to monitoring the viability of Coventry Airport, and in deciding whether keeping it open is providing the best deal for the people of south and east Coventry, many of whom are threatened with vast WDC or other housing developments that the Baginton site could accommodate, but which would not be so attractive to would-be homeowners with the presence of the airport and its night-flying operation.

7
Insufficient consideration and and no satisfactory explanation has been provided by WDC as to why sites such as Warwick Parkway have been considered for WDC 2010 - 2026 housing provision. One possible reason I have heard advanced is that this site has considerable numbers of great crested newts whose translocation would incur considerable expense for developers and possibly for the council. The same situation obtains in King's Hill, where there are many ponds with very great numbers of great crested newts, among much other wildlife.

8
There are few, if any, ponds, and far fewer ancient hedgerows in the areas of the Baginton site where development would be most sensible i.e. away from the marshy areas on the river floodplain. Less money required in filling them in than in the King's Hill site, and less money required for wildlife harm mitigation.

9
Overall, developmment of the Baginton site - even with gravel and sand extraction - could be done with far less in-your-face intrusion for the people of Baginton than for those affected by the King's Hill site. The noise, disturbance and building-time and subsequent traffic levels for the people of Finham would be pretty-well nightmarish. Come and have a look at what we have to deal with already, most especially at rush hours - you're welcome.