I am writing to object to the suggested additional housing allocation at Hatton Park, known as H53. I request that the H53 site is removed from the draft Local Plan for the following reasons.
- - the site is in an unsustainable location for the proposed number of units
- - it contains highways access issues which would affect the operation and sustainability of the village hall and children's play area
- -it provides the potential that this change of use of green belt land will open potential for further infilling and expansion around the Hatton Park development
The land identified for H53 is inappropriate for housing development as there is insufficient infrastructure provided, and it would fail to comply with a number of stipulations in the National Planning Policy Framework which prevent the countryside from encroachment, specifically that it would permanently change the open character of Hatton Park.
It is likely that any future development proposal on this land would be considered unsound on the basis that it does not meet the test for 'exceptional circumstances' criteria to be applied when changing the status of green belt land.
I propose that H53 remain as agricultural land and the site should be substituted in preference for a similar number of properties to be located within the H28 site, which is contained in the previous draft of the Local Plan and is considered more appropriate as a development site.
The existing plan for the H28 site has arbitrary boundary which does not maximise the full capacity of the fields. It is my proposal that the line of the boundary defined by Warwick District Council is extended to abut the edge of the efields in order to accommodate an additional numbers of properties.
Furthermore, I understand the land at Oaklands Farm on the other side of the Birmingham Road is no longer viable for consideration as a gypsy and traveller site and may be put forward as a potential for development land for rural housing. I would support such a proposal, given the importance of meeting this particular need, and that this site could also provide a more sustainable alternative to the H53 proposal.
I therefore conclude that H53 must be removed from the draft Local Plan prior to full publication.