Object

Representation ID: 66719

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Baginton Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

2. Housing and Policy DS11 allocated housing sites..
Please refer to our letter L130 of 15th January 2014, much of which has been ignored by the proposals in the Local Plan, which is therefore unsound.
We note Green Belt and landscape assessment work has emphasised the need to protect the villages from coalescence with nearby large settlements. This is certainly important as it helps maintain the open setting,
identity and character of Baginton and protects it from Urban Sprawl. There must be no removal of any
Green Belt to ensure that this protection is maintained in full. BPC believes that this vital requirement will be
watered down if there was any release of the Green Belt so objects to removal of any Green Belt.
This will protect the area against inappropriate development and infill development, both of which would not
be welcomed.
We understand that removal of the Green Belt from defined areas would allow for less restrictive development whilst maintaining Green Belt restrictions elsewhere. BPC recognise the need for organic growth in the village to maintain its viability in the future. BPC does not want the village to wither and die.
The longstanding recognised need for further housing to support sustainable organic growth is supported by
the proposals, so BPC have no objection in principle and we believe there may be very special circumstances for developing the two proposed sites were they to remain within the Green Belt.
There is therefore no need for removal of the Green Belt
In January 2014 we stated that should WDC insist on removal of Green Belt, which we object to, then the
following must be put in place before this happens: -
A. Individual consultation between WDC and all householders affected by the change in their land from Green Belt to Non Green Belt. Cllrs are aware of some individuals who do not want their own land declassifying and wish the village to remain wholly in the Green Belt. All previous consultations
had retention of the Green Belt and BPC requests retention B. Under no circumstances shall the definition of the line go beyond the boundaries of the individual properties defined in the document. We do not want there to be any ambiguity. We favour the line be drawn to the rear of the dwellings to ensure back gardens are not inappropriately developed,should WDC insist on removal of Green Belt, which we object to.
C. A professional consideration of whether the preferred land marked 1 on page 35 can be developed whilst remaining in the Green Belt, given that very special circumstances may exist, as per the land on page 61. Do very special circumstances exist? Please offer advice on this pivotal
point, as Cllrs do not want the Green Belt removed from any area if the preferred option site number 1 on page 35 can proceed on the basis that it fulfils defined local need, hence has very special circumstances. If this was the case BPC would be minded to support such a development given
defined needs, retaining the entire village in the Green Belt.
D. The village conservation area and other areas remain in the Green Belt, as shown.
None of the above recommendations have been undertaken. You have not consulted with either ourselves or the property owners and you have ignored our requests. Warwick District Council has purposefully ignored the wishes of its constituents and ignored the objections from the three Parishes most adversely affected by the proposals.
BPC believes that exceptional reasons do not exist for proposing that the land shown on the policy Map 8 is
removed from the Green Belt.
For all the above reasons the proposals in policy DS11 are therefore unsound, there has been inadequate cooperation and procedures have not been properly followed.