Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 54618

Received: 24/07/2013

Respondent: Mrs Julie Warden

Representation Summary:

The infrastructure cannot possibly cope with these types of developments, already under strain from new development at Warwick Gates. Proposed houses will lead to: Joining up with Whitnash/Warwick Gates; adverse effect on the quality of life; extra traffic; extra demand for hospital services; growing waiting lists; rise in pollution. Is there really a need for so many houses, has seen and heard it disputed by many experts in the local area.

Full text:

I am writing to protest about the above proposed sites. The infrastructure around Bishops Tachbrook cannot possibly cope with these types of developments. We have already had our fair share of development with Warwick Gates and all the extra strain on local facilities that brings.

Bishops Tachbrook is a village, first and foremost. With the proposed new houses we will practically be joined up to Whitnash/Warwick Gates. I feel this will have an adverse effect on the quality of life in our village. The roads cannot cope with the extra traffic (nowadays most houses have a minimum of 2 cars each). Our hospital services will suffer with the extra demand, waiting lists will grow longer too. Pollution will rise and we have already seen a massive increase in this with the M40 development. Is there really a need for so many houses, I have seen and heard it disputed by many experts in the local area?

As for the gypsies. If they are travellers why do they want a permanent site, if their aim is to travel. It wouldn't be so bad if they left where they stayed tidy but it is plainly obvious to see when they stop (illegally) on Harbury Lane and on the site by the Hungry Horse pub at Warwick Gates that they leave mess, rubbish and general devastation behind them where they stay. The local school won't cope and even if it did having transient children joining the school will bring down standards in the classroom. There is a noticeable crime rate rise, especially in rural locations like Harbury when the gypsies are around. A permanent site or sites would mean our house insurance costs would rise too. And also I would feel less safe in my home, out walking my dog on my own and letting my children go down to the local park on their own.

The sites proposed for the gypsies are prime agricultural sites too, right next to main roads and in lovely big open fields. I do not think this is fair that people who do not pay taxes or for upkeep of any of their surroundings that they should be treated so royally. It would not be so easy for the hard working tax payer that I do know.

I would appreciate your comments on these points.