I comment on the proposed housing development on land adjacent to the railway in Shrewley Common, Site Refs R40 (Land at the Gatehouse) and R51 (Land SE of Shrewley Common) in Rural Area Site Assessment documents at WDC's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) website:
1. R40 is green belt land and so is the part of R51 that provides access to the field behind numbers 99-107. R51 has a house on it—number 107—occupied by tenants, a family of three who have been there since 1996. They have been very good custodians and I understand they have no desire to move. Their interests should be taken into account.
2. The possibility of development on the aforementioned green belt areas is a major concern. I fear greatly that it might open the door to further developments on the two fields in question, with obvious detrimental effects on local wildlife as well as on the existing properties bordering these fields.
3. The amount of traffic on Shrewley Common is already of major concern to its residents and makes access from houses to the road difficult and dangerous. Major housing developments anywhere on Shrewley Common will surely exacerbate this situation.
4. A representation supporting the proposal was submitted last year (see http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/viewreps.php?docelemid=1353&docid=23, Representation Id. 49750). This was made on behalf of the present owner of Sites R40 and R51 (and much of the surrounding area). It suggests building 8-10 "affordable" houses on these sites, a proposal I would strongly object to. Such a development would not be in keeping with its immediate neighbourhood. As my property borders on R51, my comments might smack of "nimbyism" but the owner of these sites and their agent can hardly be thought impartial either, being clearly motivated by possible financial gain. The points in favour put forward in that representation are highly questionable, especially the one referring to availability of public transport.
5. The SHLAA document entry for Site R51 shows it as including the entrance to the field behind numbers 99-107. Any development proposal should clarify how access is to be provided to this field for large agricultural vehicles.
6. Further to Point 4, there are four mature oak trees on these sites, two on R40 and two on R51. Like all oak trees, these provide haven for a large and diverse wildlife community. I would be extremely concerned at the loss of local biodiversity that would arise from the loss of these trees, on top of the loss that arose in the 1990s with the arrival of the M40. Oak trees are already threatened by the disturbing spread of the disease acute oak decline (AOD) in the Midlands and elsewhere. Matters should not be made worse by wanton destruction of healthy trees. In this connection, I am pleased to see that "Protecting biodiversity, high quality landscapes" is listed as a "specific principle" in the Local Plan Strategy.
7. When the houses at 101 and 103, Shrewley Common, were built in the 1970s, interesting archaeological remains of an ancient Roman settlement were discovered (artifacts from which are on view at the museum in Warwick). I understand that a building of major significance is thought to have existed on Site R51. Sites R40 and R51 should both be made available for possible archaeological research before any construction work is undertaken.
8. The existing noise from the M40 and the railway brings into question the desirability of new houses adjacent to them.