Hampton Magna

I moved to the village of Hampton Magna 17 years ago. The location was chosen due to it's rural nature. Although the local plan only mentions 100 houses in the village, is this the thin end of the wedge? Where in the village will these new houses be? As I live on the edge of the village, there will be a significant affect on the value of my property and quality of life if other housing was to be built on the adjoining greenbelt areas.

1 The number 100 is purely arbitrary and not based on any evidence whatsoever. This is supposed to be an evidence based plan.

2 It takes no account of the fact that this is a Parish which is already under great pressure from traffic which use it as a commuter 'rat run' from eg Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and elsewhere to Warwick Parkway Station / M40 / A4177 / A4189 via Old Budbrooke Road and Woodway, which is a narrow country lane. We are in the middle of all this and do not need it made any worse than it already is.

3 The school is already full including children from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow - see above. More children = bigger classes = poorer results. Build a school on Chase Meadow.

4 The existing amenities, such as they are, and current infrastructure could not absorb another 100 properties = 200 - 300 additional adults & children + 100 -200 additional cars. This is unacceptable.

5 There is very little brown belt land, so it would mean building mainly on green belt land, which is the main attraction of the Parish. This is not acceptable.

6 The Plan could be carried out without adding 500 houses to 5 Category 1 villages, by simply adding these houses to the areas designated 2,3,4, 5, 6, 11, 12 on the map of development sites, or onto Chase Meadow, where there is plenty of unused land. There is no justification or rationale to swamp Budbrooke with what is effectively another Hampton-on-the-Hill (approx 90 dwellings).

7 The Plan does not propose much development on the east side of Warwick / Leamington, compared to west and south. Why not?

8 A Parish Survey was carried out in 2010 by the Budbrooke Parish Council. 69% of respondents did not want any further housing development in the Parish. The views of residents should be respected. Adopting this proposal would merely serve to worsen the quality of life for the current residents.

Development of another 100 houses adjacent to Hampton Magna would be totally inappropriate for numerous reasons:
1/Green Belt development and should only be considered in truly exceptional cases, which this is clearly not. 2/the local school is full. 3/the road infrastructure cannot support more vehicle movements, particularly at peak times. The Old Budbrooke road is already a busy "rat run" and the junctions by Warwick Parkway and the A46 Bypass both clog up mornings and evenings.4/ Such a development would blur the small existing green space between Warwick Town, Hampton Magna, Hampton on the Hill and create an urban sprawl.5/The generate infrastructure between Warwick Leamington and to a lesser extent Kenilworth makes commuting mornings and evenings a nightmare and this Hampton Magna proposal coupled with other development proposals will result in gridlock and more people will revert to "rat runs"

The school at Hatton Green has own land and infrastructure for expansion. A school at Hatton Park will have access problems from main road and will require extra bus service through the site. It will also encroach onto the design and existing green space designed specifically for its modern day development. \
Fercumbe School has a regular bus service, churches (ancient and more modern) for historical and religious education. Also at wealth of history, natural and countryside educational opportunities. Man - history going back to William The Conqueror. Hatton Park village does not have this. wealth of immediately accessible footpaths, etc linking directly to the school registered ancient woodlands etc.

There is a major flaw in the process in that Hampton Magna has been designated as a Category 1 Village although no sites appear to have been identified for housing purposes. This means that we are unable to comment on specific sites during the consultation process. By the time the preferred options are known we will be at the draft stage. Although comments can be made at this stage we are sure that it will be more difficult to argue successfully for changes at that time. We will try to mitigate the effects of this flaw by commenting now on the possible sites in the village, although the comments could be made more effectively if they related to identified sites.
Another flaw is that all the sites other than Category 1 and 2 Villages have been identified after careful research and proposals are made for infrastructure improvements to help mitigate their effect. However, the designation of category 1 and 2 villages appear to be arbitrary decisions based on the need to identify sites for a further 850 houses.
These two flaws mean that the Council will be under pressure to identify sites in Hampton Magna to accommodate 100 houses even if the sites would not otherwise be acceptable.
The Old Budbrooke Road, which in reality is just a country lane, is already over used. Not only would additional traffic add to road safety issues but would also make getting out of the village at peak times even more difficult. The amount of traffic exiting the village at the Birmingham Road junction will already be increased by the additional parking at the station. Traffic on the Birmingham Road will be increased if the proposed development at Hatton, Shrewley, Rowington and Lapworth is approved which will further impact on the roundabout over the bypass. Delays on this roundabout are a major cause of tailbacks on the Old Bubrooke Road.
Any suggestion that CIL money could be used to improve the infrastructure would only be acceptable if possible improvements were identified and assessed before the Category 1 definition for the village is confirmed. In our view, because of the particular circumstances of the problems, no amount of road improvements would solve them.
Any increase in the size of the local school to accommodate additional pupils would exacerbate the existing problems caused by parents parking near the school when dropping off and picking up their children. Because of the lack of suitable parking some parents are forced to park in dangerous positions.

All the land to the south of the village should be discounted as any development there would conflict with three separate considerations identified by the Council ie:
1. The document Helping Shape the District under ' providing well designed new developments that are in the right location' provides that the Council will make sure new developments are designed and located to maintain and improve the quality of built and natural environments particularly historic areas and buildings, sensitive wildlife habitats and areas of high landscape value. This is repeated in the Guide to Assessment Tables under potential impact.

The views over this land are incredible and include views of the historic town of Warwick and stretch as far as Brailes Hill at Shipston on Stour. There is no doubt that they come under the definition of 'high landscape value.'

2. Also included in the Guide to Assessment Tables under physical constraints is reference to 'physical aspects directly affecting the site such as flood risk, protected
trees and woodland, public footpaths, ground contamination, access difficulties,
overhead power lines'.

There is a public footpath running from east to west across this land and another one running from Hampton on the Hill to the Hampton Road. In addition to the designated public footpaths local residents have been walking around the fields for at least 30 years and would be able to claim public rights of way over the land.

3. The Guide to Assessment Tables under Environmental conditions also includes reference to aspects of the site's location which may impact on the living conditions of
future residents such as proximity to areas which are the source of noise or atmospheric
pollution or which are of poor environmental quality as well as, for example, the
remoteness of the site in terms of access to public transport, jobs and services

The residents of properties adjoining these fields, in fact residents of most of the village suffer from noise pollution from the bypass and motorway. This is well documented with regular complaints to the Parish Council and the County Council

It is worth mentioning here that, although the public meeting were informed that no sites had been identified in the village, one site to the south of Arras Boulevard is mentioned in the Site Assessment Section. We understand that this site is not the Council's preferred option although it has not been discounted. It would be perverse of the Council to identify this site, or any other site to the south of the village, as a preferred option when they clearly conflict with a number of considerations identified by the Council.
There are other sites adjoining the Old Budbrooke Road/Woodway junction which also has high landscape value.
Discounting all the land to the south of the village and other land with high landscape value considerably reduces the number of possible sites

Conclusion
The process is flawed in that Hampton Magna has been designated as a Category 1 village deemed to be capable of providing sites for 100 houses without any sites being identified. This has the effect of making it difficult to comment at the consultation stage and could also put pressure on the Council to disregard its own criteria and identify inappropriate sites.
The roads in the village are already unable to deal with the current level of traffic. Any additional houses would exacerbate the problem.
Any decision to identify land to the south of the village would be perverse as it would be in direct contravention of criteria set by the Council.

In Hampton Magna the existing amenities and infrastructure could not absorb another 100 + properties, which would add an additional 250 adults and children, or so. Budbrooke School which is already at capacity, and taking in more children than it has classroom space for in the future. Furthermore, Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill is an area of outstanding character, situated within the Green Belt

Existing amenities and infrastructure in Hampton Magna and Hampton-on-the-Hill could not absorb another 100 plus dwellings. Budbrooke school is already at capacity. Given there is 'flexibility' (paragraph 7.22) in the Plan to remove some dwellings, we propose that you remove the 100 plus dwellings from the Plan.
There is also excessive commuter traffic currently using the only road though the villages as a 'rat run' and action nees to be taken now to deal with what has become a dangerous situation.

Existing amenities and infrastructure in Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill could not absorb another 100 dwellings. Budbrooke school is already at capacity. Given there is flexibility (para. 7.22) in the Plan to remove some dwellings, we propose that you remove the 100 plus dwellings from the Plan. There is also excessive commuter traffic currently using the only road through the villages as a "rat run" and action needs to be taken now to deal with what has become a dangerous situation.

Existing amenities and infrastructure in Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill could not absorb another 100 dwellings. Budbrooke School is already at capacity. Given there is flexibility (Para 7.22) in the plan to remove some dwellings, I propose that you remove the 100+ dwellings from the plan. There is also excessive commuter traffic using the only road through the villages as a 'rat run' and action needs to be taken now to deal with what has become a dangerous situation.

The Preferred Options document appears to take no account of local needs, as expressed by surveys already carried out by parish councils. In the case of Hampton Magna, a recent survey by Budbrooke Parish Council identified a need for no more more than a handful of new homes, rather then the 100 being proposed here. There is very little scope for increasing employment opportunities within Hampton Magna itself, so that the vast majority of new residents would need to travel to Warwick or Leamington or beyond to find work, thus increasing the current peak time traffic congestion still further.

Hampton Magna is surrounded by Green Belt land, and any further development would inevitably encroach on the Green Belt, and have a significant impact on areas of great landscape value. It must be remembered that, when Hampton Magna was built in the 1960's and early 1970's, it was built entirely within the boundaries of the derelict Budbrooke Barracks site rather than on agricultural land, and almost certainly would not otherwise have been permitted by the Planners of that period. People living on the edge of the current development have had a reasonable expectation for the past 30+ years that they would not be surrounded by new housing. The proposals in the Preferred Options document shatter any such illusions, and will result in "planning blight" until resolved, making houses difficult to sell. I believe that the current boundaries should be maintained, with any development being restricted to infill and windfall sites.

It is by no means clear just where, in the vicinity of Hampton Magna, 100 new houses could be built. The only possible site identified in the 2012 SHLAA document is Site R74 (6.45 Hectares) to the south of Arras Boulevard. The text says that Overall Suitability is "in small part only" and that Achievability is "subject to evidence of local housing need and sensitive design to mitigate impact on the landscape". As stated above,there is very little evidence of local housing need. If this site were to be developed, there is no way in which a significant impact on the landscape could be avoided since the "site is relatively prominent in the landscape with intervisibility with historic core of Warwick".[Your words, not mine!]

If the size of Hampton Magna is to be expanded by anything approaching 100 houses, the following infrastructure improvements will be required:
* A new sewer will need to be built, or the capacity of the existing one will need to be increased significantly
* A new connection will be required to the A46 in order to carry the additional traffic and relieve the current conjestion - requiring a new junction in the vicinity of the service area
* New school(s) will be needed in Hatton Park and/or Chase Meadow in order to free up space in Hampton Magna School for children from the new development
As previously stated, is is inconceiveable that all of this could be adequately funded from levies on 100 new houses.

On a more general note, there now seems to be a presumption that if a Green Belt designation inconveniently gets in the way of development, all that is needed is to move the boundary so as to re-designate a parcel of land for development. This flies in the face of the Green Belt concept, and must be vigorously resisted.

I believe that Hampton Magna has been arbitrarily categorised as a category 1 village as it has a station, shop, school, health centre, public transport links and post office. I do not believe that the two large developments, (Hatton Park and Chase Meadow), which have been built within the parish in recent years, have been taken into account. Much of the infrastructure in Hampton Magna is already supporting residents from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow and the levels of traffic through the village are further exacerbated by the presence of the main line station Warwick Parkway, which serves the whole district. Therefore, while the infrastructure in Hampton Magna may appear on paper to be sufficient to accommodate up to 100 new houses, in reality it is already stretched to breaking point in having to accommodate the station and residents from nearby developments which were built without sufficient infrastructure. It is hard to fathom how Cubbington, which clearly has a much stronger infrastructure than Hampton Magna, could be categorised as being able to support a smaller number of new homes.
Further to the above I believe that expanding Hampton Magna by the proposed 100 homes, (approx 17% of the existing 600 homes), is disproportionate in terms of both the number of new homes proposed for elsewhere in the district and against the Office of National Statistics prediction for population growth between 2010 and 2020, (7.8%).
Looking further afield, the proposed developments in Lapwoth, Rowington, Shrewley, Hatton, Hampton Magna and Norton Lindsay would all depend upon the same B road transport links, which would clearly be insufficient to cope with the increase in traffic.

Hampton Magna is a self-contained village, surrounded by greenbelt. We do not need or want more homes in this village. I attended the consultation meeting in the village and all residents who attended objected to new houses being built here (a poll was taken in the hall). The changing of greenbelt boundaries was a specific concern, as was the number of school places, traffic in and around the village, congestion on the A4177 outside the village, parking problems, limited amenities within the village which could not support a large influx of additional residents. It is supposed to be council policy that villages/towns do not merge together and remain distinct. If a large development (which 100 houses would be) was added to Hampton Magna then we would be in danger of merging eventually with Warwick or other villages or becoming just a suburb of Warwick.

The proposed addition of 100 new dwellings in Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill would detrimentally inpack on the infrastucture and historical character of the villages. It would add about 250 adults and children. The school, Budbrook Primary is already at capacity.

Existing amenities and infrastructure in Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill could not absorb an additional 100 dwellings. The infrastructure is already supporting a main line station and 2 large new developments which have impacted hugely on residents. Budbrooke school is at full capacity. 100 new homes would be an increase of about 17% which is disproportionate with other proposed developments. Given there is 'flexibility' (para 7.22) in the Plan to remove some dwellings, I propose that you remove the 100 dwellings from the plan. There is also excessive commuter traffic currently using the only road through the villages as a 'rat run' and action needs to be taken now to deal with what has become a dangerous situation.

Proposal to develop 100 new homes in H/Magna w/be equivalent to size of Hampton on the Hill and might result in effective merger of these two settlements, contrary to PO3.
The history & character of these 2 settlements is very different and s/be preserved.
The proposal to build 100 new homes is contrary to a recent local survey, which showed little need for additional housing in the area. The proposal is an arbitrary allocation without any proper assessment of need in this specific area.
The proposed expansion would impact on the Green Belt and exacerbate the road problems, already unsuitable to cope with the volume of traffic using Warwick Parkway station. Any changes would detract significantly from the invaluable rural aspects of the area.
The school and other local facilities w/be inadequate to cope with the influx of some 200-300 new residents - greater than the size of the Hampton on the Hill population.
For these reasons the proposal s/be excluded from the local plan. Any shortfall in required new builds c/be dealt with by relatively minor additions to the larger sites identified for development in the Local Plan.

The existing amenities and infrastructure could not cope with another 100 houses. It would mean another 200+ adults and children. Budbrooke school is already over subscribed and class sizes are too large! Traffic around school is really heavy Also because of Warwick parkway roads around village are far too busy and the bus service is inadequate. Given flexibility above I suggest you remove Hampton Magna from the plan

King Henry VIII Endowed Trust supports the identification of Hampton Magna as a Category 1 Village, including the proposed development of 100 dwellings at the settlement over the period 2011-2029 within Policy PO4. This level of growth is considered appropriate, having regard to the spatial strategy, the village's existing range of service provision and supporting infrastructure, as well as its sustainability as a location for new development (e.g. proximity to Warwick Parkway and strong public transport links). In addition, it is our considered view that suitably scaled development at this location can help sustain and enhance local services, community facilities, businesses (e.g. Budbrooke Primary School, Post Office, local shop and café) and public transport.

We note that under Policy PO4, the District Council intends to work with Budbrooke Parish Council to redefine the village boundary and remove land from the Green Belt. The Trust would be keen to work with the respective Councils as part of this Green Belt review process given that its 6 hectare landholding south of Arras Boulevard is considered a suitable site for development in the District Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA, May 2012 - site ref. R74).

The site is deliverable, being within the single ownership of the Trust, and available for development now. As a responsible local landowner the Trust is committed to working with key stakeholders including the local community, Budbrooke Parish Council and Warwick District Council to help realise the opportunities presented by this important site at Hampton Magna

I am writing to express my concern over the proposal for an additional 100 houses located in Hampton Maga. I have lived in the village for the last 9 years, having also lived here for 5 years as a child. My major concern regarding an additional 100 houses is the strain on the current infrastructure, especially the roads and the school. My daughter attended Budbrooke School and it is an excellent school however it will not maintain this if it gets too big. 100 new houses could potentially bring the same number of children and the school is just not big enough to cater for this. They struggle to fit in the full school in the main hall for an assembly as it is. It will spoil the charater and reputation of a school that I also attended and have very fond memories of.

The other issue, which is my main concern, are the roads. There are three roads out of this village:

1. The main route through the traffic lights, which gets extremely snarled up at busy times. More houses will mean more cars and make this junction even more of a nightmare. The location of the new houses may result in more traffic from Warwick parkway using the village for parking, making the village itself even busier and the safety issues more traffic causes.
2. The route through Hampton-on-the hill. This can be a nightmare as it is due to the parking on the road and the traffic calming. Encouraging more traffic to use this puts at risk those children who cycle to Aylesford School from the village. Full cycle lanes would have to be considered if these houses were built.
3. The land exiting over Ugly Bridge. This is certainly not a feasible option to take more traffic however an additional 100 houses will certainly mean more people using this lane. This will result is accidents. I use this lane on a daily basis as I travel to work near Birmingham Airport. How there has not already been a serious accident I struggle to understand however this will certainly change if more traffic is to use this lane.

Hampton Magna is a quiet and safe village for our children. I believe the infrasture will have to completely change in order to cater for more houses in order to maintain the safety of the poeple who live here. The best location, if there is such a thing, would be the fields directly next to the school, at the back of Curleiu Close and Daly Avenue or the field on Old Budbrooke Road by Warwick Parkway station, which would just be extending the village towards the station.

1. Level of Development required.

The assumptions for the overall growth of the housing market in WDC was taken prior to the recent publication of the 2011 census results which showed a smaller than expected population for the area, This means the the growth for the period 2001 t0 2011 was less than expected. If this lower than expected growth continues then the demand for extra development in the area should be less than that in the Plan. To add weight to this the figure of 550 new homes per year has never been achieved in a single year let alone for 15 consecutive years. This whole section should be reviewed in the light of the new figures.

2. Sources of Development Land

The level of brownfield site allocation seems to be low. These sites have appeared more frequently in the past and the migration of industrial sites from town centres is by no means complete. We hope that this area could be reviewed.

3. Allocation of new Greenfield Development Land

The allocation of 10% of the development land to the rural areas seems suspiciously arbitrary and appears to be a political decision to "share the pain". Similarly the selection of 5 "larger" villages to absorb 100 new homes is decidedly arbitrary. Firstly, the 5 selected villages do not have any special characteristics over a number of other villages or rural conurbations. The exclusion of Cubbington, Leek Wootton, Bubbenhall and the Hatton Park/King Edwards conurbation seems perverse. Secondly, the choice of villages which are deemed to have the infrastructure to take the extra development puts extra strain on the existing overburdened infrastructure, especially traffic in these areas. An alternative route, to expand the areas with poorer infrastructure so as to improve the quality of life in these areas does nopt seem to have been considered. In the case of Hampton Magna and Hatton Park/Kings Meadow and the West Warwick (Chase Meadow) developments, Hampton Magna's facilities are used in great measure by the other two conurbations. An improvement in their local facilities would improve the quality of life in their communities and relieve the strain on the facilities in Hampton Magna, We use this example as we are well aware of our local situation and feel that there may be other areas that also have other communities that are acting as cuckoos in their nest. This strain on the infrastructure of existing communities could be lessened by improving the infrastructure in the satellite communities by the application of CIL money generated from a modest expansion there.

The New Local Plan has to be evidence-based. The arbitrary choice of the five villages, the arbitrary allocation of the same numbers in each of them and the the policy of adding to the already straining infrastructure of these villages rather than improving the infrastructure of those suffering from lack of amenities all show a lack of being based on any evidence at all . We hope that this whole section could be reviewed

4. The situation of Hampton Magna

Hampton Magna was built on a 1960s brownfield site to wit the Royal Warwickshire Barracks at Budbrooke. It was built in the late 60s/ ealrly 70s and so is in its fifth decade. As such it has well defined historical boundaries, ie the Barracks perimeter. There has been a little infill over the years and the Parish Council invited Warwickshire Rural Community Council to carry out a Housing Needs Survey which identified a need for 5 houses in the Parish. The need for further development is not locally required nor, according to the Parish Plan is it supported by the local residents who gave their views in a long questionnaire that formed the basis for the Plan.

The basic built infrastructure of Hampton Magna has changed very little from the the early 1970s when the building of the houses was completed. The village is served by C class roads that link us to the Warwick/Birmingham road and Warwick/Henley Road. The electricity supply is very similar to that supplying the barracks and the sewerage system was put in by builders during the period of "the lump". The school has bee extended, but is, in essence, still the standard 1960s/70s building that is seen all around the county.

The roads leading to and inside the village become very busy at the peak time, in the morning and evening. The locally generated traffic is increased by the use of the C roads as short cuts from the Birmingham Road to the Henley Road and the A46 and the M40 at junction 15, and by traffic going to and from Warwick Parkway Station. The A 4177 at Stanks roundabout which is the main exit/entry to the village is severely congested every morning and afternoon.

The electricity supply is frequently interrupted for a shorter or longer periods, showing the fragility of the current arrangements

The sewerage system was not adopted by Severn Trent Water Authority until privatisation, when the Authority agreed to adopt the system prior to flotation. The system has not been improved and one of the areas where the system was extended to accommodate a few new house frequently suffers from problems.

The school is very popular and has recently had its standard number increased. Whilst this has improved the viability of the school, it has also lead to a great deal of school time traffic congestion at the beginning and end of school.

The infrastructure of Hampton Magna in these areas is at the limit of its usefulness. There is little that can easily be done to improve the local traffic situation, because of the need to cross canal and railway lines. We are not aware of any plans to improve the electricity or sewerage system locally. The introduction of such a large number of house into this village would lead to a complete overload of these services. We hope that you will look again at the need to use this village as one of the villages for expansion and will take a more pragmatic approach, allowing infill in non village areas and improve the infrastructure in other areas.

5. Overall

The residents of Hampton Magna have long been strong supporters of the green belt, not just around Hampton Magna, but throughout the District. There is a deep suspicion of moving green belt boundaries and if any such changes do prove necessary anywhere in the District it should be done with clarity, leaving no area for doubt or future challenge.

I wish to make the following comments regarding the preferred option to build 100 houses in and around Hampton Magna. The development would seriously damage the residents quality of life as the village is grid locked in the mornings attracting traffic to the school, doctors, shops and Warwick Parkway. The roads are country roads and are becoming dangerous. The school is oversubscribed and by taking yet more children standards are certainly in danger of dropping. The sewers are also not able to take more housing as they constantly block. The whole scheme looks like it has been put together in a hurried slip shod way to make numbers add up to the prescribed number of houses instructed to be built by government. Why is Cubbington classed as a type 2 village? Is this another mistake? I do hope the members who are trying to get this through planning look at the history of the terrible planning mistake made to the beautiful Warwick town centre in the 60's killing off the town centre. This is all apart from the word 'Greenbelt' and the historical landscape. Build a new village on more appropriate land along with proper infrastructure.

See attachment

Document scanned

Document Scanned

Document scanned.

Response to WDC Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation

Parish Councillors have encouraged residents to make their own feelings known through the Preferred Option Response Form and directly in writing or via the internet. It has been very clear from the start that they cannot easily understand the process or the consultation because no real sites in rural areas have been identified and therefore it is our view that this will mean a relatively low response. However, this should not be taken as a lack of interest or a green light for the District Council to continue with the proposed plans, because there are flaws that need to be rectified in the concepts in the plan.
General statement
The identification of rural locations being allocated for development, the calculated determination by WDC that 850 need to be spread around the district, is an arbitrary determination. Similarly the reasoning that Category 1 villages should have 100 houses is equally inappropriate and untenable as an argument as all the villages have their unique set of circumstances, so would not logically be suitable for exactly the same development.
There is no more reasoning that the excess housing needs should be placed in Category 1 villages, than the alternative that Category 3 or 2 villages with additional infrastructure would become less isolated and more socially cohesive.
The rationale that 550 houses will be needed every year also substantially exceeds the annual number of properties developed during the boom years.
The NPPF and the 2011 census data are now available these figures should used to re-calculate projected development downwards.
Local Needs and Agreed Plans
Recent Surveys of the Parish's wishes for future show no support for further development (reference BPC Parish Plan 2011 [reviewed in December 2011]) confirming the results of any earlier survey by the Parish Council. A Housing Needs Survey carried out independently by Warwickshire Rural Community Council and presented to Budbrooke PC in early 2012 showed a local need for 5 extra houses, 4 of which met the WRCC criteria. The Parish Council doesn't have a mandate to change the Parish Plan to exceed this number of properties.
There seems to be an assumption that all development needs should be identified at the outset and not in the 5 year phases in the plan. This is irrational and the same logic should be applied to all developments.
Preferred Options Rationale
The Council agrees with the overall strategy to put most of the new developments on sites adjacent to the three local towns. However the split of the rest of the housing, if necessary following the ONS census data for 2011 etc [see below], to five Category 1 villages and six smaller Category 2 villages despite the rationale of "Category 1 means villages with infrastructure" is arbitrary and is not consistent.

The use of the term village rather than parish is a concern, by using parish this would allow parishes to use their local knowledge to suggest areas outside villages which would have other advantages.
The absence of Cubbington from the major Category 1 villages seems inconsistent. This argument also applies to Bubbenhall and Baginton.
For example, Cubbington has a Cost-cutter, a post office and a hardware shop in the village centre. The boundary of Cubbington civil parish includes a large residential area along Kenilworth Road. These are supported by a row of shops along the Cubbington road, far closer than any available in Budbrooke. There is a school and a village hall. There are also substantial employment opportunities and several large businesses located within the parish and on the boundary of the village. On this basis alone, Cubbington is evidently a category 1 village.
The Hatton Park/King Edwards conurbation contains more properties than some of the Category 1 villages. Improving the infrastructure (e.g. building a school) would open up the area to more properties while reducing some of the strain on the roads.
Quality of Infrastructure
The rationale presupposes that the infrastructure existing in the Category villages is capable of supporting the proposed extra housing. In the case of Hampton Magna this is far from the truth:
The Roads:
*Budbrooke Parish Plan highlighted road traffic and safety alongside speeding, poor driver behaviour and parking as key issues for the parish.
*Hampton Magna is served by a single C grade road and internal estate roads. The roads leading to Hampton Magna from the major routes are also C roads and are used as feeder routes to Warwick Parkway station
*With the building of an additional 222 car parking spaces at Warwick Parkway Station, there is the prospect of even more traffic using the road.
*This is a Parish which is already under great pressure from traffic which use it as a commuter 'rat run' from eg Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and elsewhere to Warwick Parkway Station / M40 / A4177 / A4189 via Old Budbrooke Road, Woodway and Ugly Bridge Road which is a narrow country lane route between the Birmingham/Warwick Road and the Henley Warwick Road and Junction 15 of the M40 with the A46.
*Traffic on the Birmingham Road will also be increased if the proposed development at Hatton, Shrewley, Rowington and Lapworth is approved which will further impact on the Stanks Island roundabout over the bypass which already has severe congestion at the peak periods.
*These delays on the A46/A4177 roundabout are already a major cause of tailbacks on the Old Bubrooke Road.
*Hampton Magna is in the middle of all this and the addition of any more housing will only make the situation worse.
*We understand that thesuggestion that CIL money could be used to improve the infrastructure. This would only be acceptable if possible improvements were identified and assessed before the Category 1 definition for the village was confirmed. In our view, because of the particular circumstances of the problems, no amount of road improvements would solve them. The tunnels under the railway and the bridge over the Grand Union Canal will need substantial engineering or management.

Budbrooke School:
*The school has increased its standard number and remains oversubscribed
*The amount of school related traffic at start and end of the school day leads to gridlock and parked cars filling the centre of HM.
*The proportion of pupils from Hampton Magna attending the school is reducing. The school already takes children from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow. More children from additional housing will impact on quality of educational standards.
*Any increase in the size of the local school to accommodate additional pupils will generate extra traffic and exacerbate the existing problems caused by parents parking near the school when dropping off and picking up their children. Because of the lack of suitable parking some parents are forced to park in dangerous positions. This is a hazard that the Police are unable to address satisfactorily

The Sewage arrangements:
*When Hampton Magna was built Seven Trent Water Authority refused to accept the road sewage system built by the developers, because they were below their acceptable standard. Despite many appeals to the Authority, they stuck by this view, until privatisation, when there appeared to be an "amnesty" to get such difficulties out of the launch prospectus.
*The quality of the sewage system has not had any improvement since then.
*The sewerage system remains 'below acceptable standard'. Even the smallest increase in housing has had a significant detrimental effect on this key infrastructure. By way of example, 6 additional properties built earlier in South view, off Curlieu Close have given rise to problems which regularly need to be dealt with.
*It is imperative that planners proposing sites researches the sewerage requirement and identifies before all else the cost of upgrading the road and household sewerage system.

Electricity Supply:
*The main local electricity supply arrangements area the same as those for the barracks which left nearly 50 years ago. Supplies into the village are subject to frequent fluctuations and outages.

Alternative view:
If other Category 1 villages have similar infrastructure quality to Hampton Magna, would it not be a better idea to put some more development into the Category 2 villages and bring their infrastructure up to a better standard. One can think of areas such as Hatton Park, which is Category 2 because it has no school despite having more houses than Hampton Magna. Why not build a school on Chase Meadow or at Hatton Park.
Other points
Increasing the concentration of the housing on Hampton Magna depends on the very shaky belief that current infrastructure can cope with the extra build. It means that other good brown field or infill sites outside the village envelopes could be missed.
All developments proposed will be outside the village envelope, so why restrict the location to Hampton Magna rather than within the Parish?
All developments proposed will be on currently designated green belt land, and large parts of the local green belt are designated as special landscape sites. Development should occur in the brown field sites and windfall sites first. There is published evidence that there is far more available land within the towns than has been highlighted by Officers. Development needs to be phased with Brownfield sites within the towns having the first hit.
How does the local plan take account take of the District Council's Environmental Policies and the reduction of carbon emissions; the proposal appears to be contrary to this.
How will the changes to green belt around villages be implemented? It seems inappropriate to either designate areas outside the village envelope as non green belt and similarly it seems in appropriate to yoyo the village envelopes over time. With 80% of Warwick District being Green Belt then the Inspector should accept a lower figure as that appropriate to this district.
The Parish Council believes that because any expansion of Hampton Magna would lead to severe problems with the traffic, sewerage and electricity infrastructure, it should not be considered as a Category 1 village. The Parish Council would welcome a discussion with the District Council to explain in more detail why this is the case.

Scanned form

Scanned form

As scanned.

As scanned.

As scanned.