Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 54994

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Mr D Black

Representation Summary:

Objects to the proposals to allocate 70-90 additional houses on Hatton Park:

* Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village which are defined as "offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities.."(Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013)

* Does not consider that Hatton Park is sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the RDS nor the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report.

* Does not consider, therefore, that this is a fair, transparent and accessible consultation.


Infrastructure:

* Concerned over the safe access to the road network particularly given the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed houses

* Considers that the proposed 70-90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools (for which demand already exceeds places).

* Options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013) will also add to pressure on local infrastructure, services and roads.

Full text:

1. I object to the proposals to allocate 70-90 additional houses on Hatton Park set out in the Revised Development Strategy June 2013.

2. In the document, Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village. Para 4.3.13 states that information on the approach to demonstrating a robust and justifiable approach to the establishment of a settlement hierarchy is contained in the technical paper Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013.

3. Secondary Services Villages are defined in that Report as ..."offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities.."

4. I do not consider that Hatton Park is sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Revised Development Strategy nor the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report and Appendix 5 of that Report. I do not consider, therefore, that this is a fair, transparent and accessible consultation. I also have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly given the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses.

5. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

6. I consider that the proposed 70-90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network and particularly when there are options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).