Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 52869
Received: 14/07/2013
Respondent: Sharon Bancroft
I object to the proposals because erosion of green belt land is contrary to government policy, the existing village infrastructure will not be able to cope with the extra demand on resources and once lost, the open spaces around the village which contribute to the health and wellbeing of all residents, can never be regained.
I object to the proposal to build houses as set out in the June 13 Revised Development Strategy document within Hampton Magna:
The green belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt land in "exceptional circumstances". The plan does not reflect this last resort position given the continuing uncertainty over housing needs. The green belt open character of the village should not be compromised.
The scale of development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.
The plan is contradictory. It portrays a want to consider Green Belt and protect the open spaces and countryside yet villages "washed over" by green belt may have their village envelopes redrawn. I do not agree with this policy.
The village has already suffered it share of green belt erosion and growth/development on all sides in recent years. Warwick Parkway Station (built on green belt land and subsequently expanded considerably), Hatton Park Estate to the North, Chase Meadow to the south, IBM side development to the East. Further erosion of green belt and the village character must stop. Once it goes it can never be regained.
Contrary to the plan, services in the village are fully utilised and do not need further "sustaining" through population growth. The school is expanding but this is needed to resovle current stretched classrom numbers. The train station and its facilities are fully utilised. Existing infrastructure capacity should not be stretched further.
Another large influx of families will create more traffic congestion particularly given the single file traffic light controlled road under the bridge being the main access to/from the village. There will be more dangers with traffic volumes through the village day to day and more rat running through country roads and other neighbouring villages. Houses will be purchased by London commuters creating more pressure to expand Warwick Parkway further.
Land suggested for Gypsy sites should not take precedence over house building on them and I am against the compulsory purchase of private land to facilitate Gypsy sites.