Dear Sir or Madam

Revised Development Strategy - Public Consultation

We are writing in response to the consultation on the Revised Development Strategy for Warwick District. Specifically we wish to object to the proposal to build up to 150 new houses in Hampton Magna.

The proposed village developments in the green belt were claimed to be justified at the public consultation meeting which we attended on two basic grounds, namely that the development is based on the principle of sustainability, and secondly, that the villages concerned are well serviced. We consider that these arguments are flawed in relation to Hampton Magna, for the following reasons.

* Roads into and out of the village are not capable of sustaining a heavier load, and are not capable of being adapted within the level of s106 receipts which could be expected from a development of the scale proposed. There are two routes out of the village. One is via a single track road, controlled by traffic lights, under the railway bridge at Warwick Parkway station. The other is via Hampton on the Hill, which, again, is not wide enough for cars, vans and buses to pass at a pinch point as the road enters Hampton on the Hill. The road is already a rat run for Warwick Parkway customers, and cannot be readily adapted to address the single track problem.
* The local school is already oversubscribed, and would require significant expansion to take additional pupils. The current subscription levels are already leading to dangerous parking problems around the village shops near the school entrance, and these would undoubtedly be considerably worsened by the proposed development.
* Sustainable development implies housing and employment in close proximity. There are virtually no employment opportunities within the village, so any new inhabitants will undoubtedly work outside the area.
* The village has a small doctor's surgery, but there is very limited provision for women (one part-time doctor), so it can take several weeks already to get an appointment with a woman doctor. Again, additional development would exacerbate the problem.
* The development equates to the equivalent of 25% of the existing village. This would fundamentally change the nature of the village.

Government policy only supports development of the green belt where there are no alternative areas which can be developed. The public consultation documentation and meetings provided no explanation as to why non-green belt areas are unable to sustain the required development, particularly as, on a large scale development, there is a realistic opportunity to create a fit for purpose infrastructure from scratch. Moreover, the only green belt development which appears to have been considered is the expansion of existing villages. The creation of a wholly new village, as happened with Hampton Magna in the 1960s would probably be less contentious, could be developed fully serviced, and would not detrimentally affect the existing villages in the way that these proposals almost certainly would.