BASE HEADER

Hatton Park should not have a specific requirement (currently proposed for 70-90 dwellings in the plan period) for the following reasons:

* The Revised Strategy makes little or no distinction between the villages' status in the Green Belt - the principle of building in the Green Belt should not be conceded like this. There must be sequential testing of all brownfield and non- Green Belt areas first. The current proposals are one-dimensional and unsatisfactory.

* Protection of the Green Belt is strongly retained in the NPPF compared to non Green Belt development.

* The Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report (which I don't believe we have been consulted on) concedes in Paragraph 4.14 that the designation of settlements into categories is arbitrary. It is unfair therefore that Hatton Park, being the lowest-ranked Secondary Service Village, should have this significant target, while there are such dramatic disparities with the Small and Feeder Villages (that lie just the other side of the cut-off) with no target.

* The A4177 (Birmingham Road) already shows excessive congestion at peak times. Further expansion of Hatton Park will add to an already existing problem and diminish the rural characteristics of Hatton Park.

* There are no suitable development sites around Hatton Park - it is unallocated, undeveloped greenfield land in the Green Belt, at times heavily sloped with a protected oak tree off Barcheston Drive.

* During an Inquiry in 2006 concerning the potential to expand Hatton Park, the Inspector concluded that the settlement had already reached its natural boundary and further development would not be appropriate.