I totally support the submission by Hampton Magna Action Group and have added my name to that submission.

I would though like to add some personal comments:

1. Hampton Magna was built in the 1960s on the footprint of the Budbrooke Barracks, home to The Royal Warwickshire Regiment, and has pretty much remained unchanged since then, with generations growing up and still living in the village. There is a strong sense of community and the environment of Green Belt surrounding the village plays an important part.

2. The addition of a further 30 houses at Site H27 and the addition of 115 houses at Site H51 will destroy the character of the village, bring dangerous amounts of traffic, increase noise pollution and annihilate forever the aspect and health benefits that the proximity of Green Belt affords to villagers and myriad others taking advantage of the public footpaths and country walks, and goes against the Council's stated objective to protect and enhance the natural environment.

3. The main reason for the revision at Site H27 and inclusion of the previously rejected Site H51appears to be to take up the shortfall of housing in Coventry. The City of Coventry is some 12 miles away from Hampton Magna and if it is the case that a high percentage of people employed in Coventry have to live elsewhere, then as the only viable way of travelling to Coventry from Hampton Magna is by car that is surely creating a need to travel rather than reduce it, and as such has to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated aim to reduce the need to travel.

4. A recent report by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England suggests major flaws in the assessment of housing need in Warwickshire, Coventry and Birmingham and the lack of adherence to government planning guidance policy. The Council has failed to prove exceptional circumstances to justify removing land from the Green Belt and more appropriate sites in closer proximity to Coventry have not been fully assessed.

5. Amendments to the Green Belt as now proposed at Sites H27 and H51 should only be made in exceptional circumstances for sustainable development. The infrastructure in Hampton Magna will struggle to cope with the already approved 100 houses at Site H27. The increased 30 houses at that site and the additional 115 houses at Site H51 will bring a huge increase in traffic (an increase in extra vehicles from 174 under the old proposal to 426 if the revisions are approved). This will not only affect the residential roads in the village, which already experience parking problems around junctions and at the school, but will have a major impact on the three country roads which are the only routes in to and out of Hampton Magna.

6. The three country roads mentioned above are accessed either
* from the A425 Birmingham Road by an ancient road bridge over the canal followed by a sharp blind bend into a road with a hill where vehicles even now experience difficulty in passing (Ugly Bridge Road)

* from the A425 Birmingham Road leading to Warwick Parkway, controlled by four-way traffic lights and leading into a single carriageway under the height restricted railway bridge

* from the A4189 Henley Road coming up through the adjoining village of Hampton-on-the-Hill with its mostly single carriageway main street with traffic calming measures, and leading to a rural road with passing place for buses or other large vehicles leading to a sharp blind bend up to Hampton Magna.

7. These totally unsuitable roads are already the route of choice to get to Warwickshire County Council or other places of employment in Warwick, Aylesford School & Sixth Form College, or to the Longbridge Island and the M40. The expanding development at Chase Meadow, also in south Warwick, means of course that these roads are extremely busy in the other direction as well, i.e. from Warwick, Stratford-upon-Avon, and the M40 cutting through Hampton-on-the-Hill and Hampton Magna to get to the A425 and on towards Birmingham and Solihull, or to get to Warwick Parkway station. Traffic on these roads will also increase when the 17,000+ houses are built in Warwick.

8. The revisions do not take account of already at capacity water, electricity, sewerage or drainage systems or the increasing flooding situations in and around the villages. The proposed development at Site H51 and the increase in development at Site H27 is therefore not sustainable, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant it.

I would submit, therefore, that new Warwick District Local Plan is unsound.