We do not claim to represent anybody apart from ourselves, but we have discussed these issues with our immediate neighbours and we find that we are all thinking along similar lines.

Although any development at these two sites would be detrimental from our point of view, we do understand the circumstances in which the WDC Local Plan has been drawn up and we do realise the need for every community to chip in, so to speak. Thus, we agree with almost every point made in our Parish Council's final submission. The main exception is their agreement with the proposed village boundary. Hugh Darwen has already posted our reasons for disagreeing with the appropriation of what all of us regard as "genuine" green belt as opposed to "green belt wash"—the green belt area in question being parts of fields that include their present access points.

Regarding the other points raised by our Parish Council, with which we strongly agree, we would like to emphasise:

1. The need to reduce numbers of dwellings proposed for the two sites (12 and 20), to maintain the linear design of our village.

2. The exacerbation of existing traffic problems.

3. The need to preserve existing mature oak trees and protect the existing wildlife—we have strong evidence of badgers and tawny owls in the vicinity of these trees, for example, as well as plenty of other bird and insect life.

4. The possible archaeological interest arising from the evidence of an early Roman settlement that came to light when the houses at 103 and 101 were built in the 1970s.

Hugh and Lindsay Darwen
103, Shrewley Common