In response I object to the allocation of houses to Hatton Park as a consequence of its classification as a secondary service village. I would like to make four points.
1. More new housing development in Hatton Park would be contrary to the principles of Sustainable Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages. Growth in more sustainable villages. The availability of services and facilities within settlements should be a key consideration in the distribution of housing because it reduces the need to travel significant distances. Hatton Park has a high population but has few services and facilities which would be exacerbated by the addition of new housing. Hatton Park has to be the most unsustainable settlement within Warwick District Council. Rural residents travel furthest for work, shopping and leisure hence to allocate housing to the villages is simply to increase the pressure on the road network and damaging the environment.
2. The model of hierarchy of settlement gives Hatton Park 37 points but whilst the model is supposed to provide the evidence of sustainability (since it was based on Blaby's model) but it deals badly with extreme cases such as Hatton Park. The key ought to be to balance the facilities and the population but by adding these two together the model fails when a large population has few facilities. Whilst leek Wootten has 38 points of which 33 were for facilities and 5 for population and Norton Lindsey has 32 points of which 29 were for facilities and 3 for population Hatton Park has 37 points of which 25 were for facilities and 12 for population. Hatton park has fewer facilities that Norton Lindsey and therefore should not qualify as a secondary service village..
3. Moreover, the Points system for Hatton Park seems exaggerated. Your model has no points for the mix of housing types. The housing has a good mix and therefore no arguments surrounding development to maintain the villages services apply. The village gets two points for having a school within walking distance, but the students have to be bussed up the hill because with the level of traffic makes it far too dangerous to walk to school. This would reduce the points by 2. Bus service is two an hour not every 15 minutes as stated, reducing points from 3 to 2. All told this means there should be 34 points rather than 37.
4. Also village housing requires infrastructure 'improvements' that are prohibitive. Hatton Park has already a traffic problem and concentration of housing in villages is to make it all join up contrary to your policy to 'avoid coalescence'
W