B.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46410
Received: 06/07/2012
Respondent: mr william tansey
this is a step backwards and will redefine the shape and nature of warwickshire
this is a step backwards and will redefine the shape and nature of warwickshire
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46442
Received: 11/07/2012
Respondent: Hampton-on-the-Hill Residents Association
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the Green Belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the Green Belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings without a deterioration in the quality of life for existing residents.
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the Green Belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the Green Belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings without a deterioration in the quality of life for existing residents.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46464
Received: 13/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Clive Blockley
The Green Belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment and new housing on a proportionate scale. There is no need to change this situation. In fact the Green Belt was devised to prevent people like you with no knowledge of the countryside to ruin it.
The Green Belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment and new housing on a proportionate scale. There is no need to change this situation. In fact the Green Belt was devised to prevent people like you with no knowledge of the countryside to ruin it.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46476
Received: 15/07/2012
Respondent: Brian Cuttell
Could not possibly support a proposal where suggested "village envelopes" are not agreed in advance and included as part of proposal.
Note: I disagree in principle with the proposal - but to not document suggested envelopes is outrageous.
Could not possibly support a proposal where suggested "village envelopes" are not agreed in advance and included as part of proposal.
Note: I disagree in principle with the proposal - but to not document suggested envelopes is outrageous.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46485
Received: 15/07/2012
Respondent: Mr John Lock
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the Green Belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the Green Belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings, without deterioration inthe quality of life for existing residents.
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the Green Belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the Green Belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings, without deterioration inthe quality of life for existing residents.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46494
Received: 15/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Kay Lock
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the green belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the green belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings without a deterioration in the quality of life for existing residents.
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the green belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the green belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings without a deterioration in the quality of life for existing residents.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46574
Received: 18/07/2012
Respondent: Roger Mills
These villages must not be removed from the Green Belt. No "exceptional circumstances" have been demonstrated to justify removing them.
Hampton Magna already has an overloaded infrastructure, and cannot support any further development. It is surrounded by agricultural land which has never been developed, and which is very distinct from the ex-barracks site on which the village was built. The boundaries should stay where they are!
On no account must these villages be removed from the Green Belt. No "exceptional circumstances" have been demonstrated which would justify building on what is currently Green Belt. There 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 is the start of a slippery slope!
Hampton Magna already has an overloaded infrastructure, and cannot support any further development. It is surrounded by agricultural land which has never been developed, and which is very distinct from the ex-barracks site on which the village was built. The boundaries should stay where they are!
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46577
Received: 18/07/2012
Respondent: Mr & Mrs P Harris
The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) states at para 86 'If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the
important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the
openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt.'
This is without question the case with Norton Lindsey; it's open character would be completely destroyed by the implementation of the proposal in the local plan to allow the construction of 30-80 further dwellings in the Warwick DC part of the village alone by removing the village envelope from the Green Belt.
The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) states at para 86 'If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the
important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the
openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt.'
This is without question the case with Norton Lindsey; it's open character would be completely destroyed by the implementation of the proposal in the local plan to allow the construction of 30-80 further dwellings in the Warwick DC part of the village alone by removing the village envelope from the Green Belt.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46740
Received: 22/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Keith Knott
Moving green belt boundary whether for villages or any other part of the district is not acceptable, it is ther for a reason, respect it - there is no case to move it.
Moving green belt boundary whether for villages or any other part of the district is not acceptable, it is ther for a reason, respect it - there is no case to move it.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46777
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Rene Jorgensen
The Green Belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment/new housing on a proportionate scale. Accordingly there is no need to redraw the Green Belt boundary.
The Green Belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment/new housing on a proportionate scale. Accordingly there is no need to redraw the Green Belt boundary.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46796
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Simon Primrose
The existing green belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited re-development and new housing on a proportionate scale. Accordingly, there is no need to redraw the green belt boundary in the case of Norton Lindsey
The existing green belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited re-development and new housing on a proportionate scale. Accordingly, there is no need to redraw the green belt boundary in the case of Norton Lindsey
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46849
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Davis
The greenbelt was created for a reason and it should not be altered just to allow more houses to be built. The reason these villages are popular and why people spend a lot of money buying and maintaining houses in them is precisely because they are surrounded by greenbelt. This gives some of the character to the villages, which would be lost if large numbers of new houses were built and the boundaries changed.
The greenbelt was created for a reason and it should not be altered just to allow more houses to be built. The reason these villages are popular and why people spend a lot of money buying and maintaining houses in them is precisely because they are surrounded by greenbelt. This gives some of the character to the villages, which would be lost if large numbers of new houses were built and the boundaries changed.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46908
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Nick Jaffray
Para 16.7 starts by stating that Green Belt should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in the plan. Norton Lindsey owes its character in part to inclusion in the Green Belt, which was designed to protect it from just such unjustifiable threats.
Para 16.7 starts by stating that Green Belt should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in the plan. Norton Lindsey owes its character in part to inclusion in the Green Belt, which was designed to protect it from just such unjustifiable threats.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46920
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: landowner
Agent: Savills
The identification of Lapworth as a village to be removed from the Green Belt, with new Green Belt boundaries drawn up around the settlements to allow for development is supported.
Lapworth represents a sustainable location for new housing development to meet identified needs. Land to the east of Station Lane is suitably and sustainably located to meet identified local housing needs, as set out in the accompanying report.
As well as accomodating new development as proposed in the plan, the revised Green Belt boundaries should be drawn to allow for the longer-term development needs of Lapworth.
The identification of Lapworth as a village to be removed from the Green Belt, with new Green Belt boundaries drawn up around the settlements to allow for development is supported.
Lapworth represents a sustainable location for new housing development to meet identified needs. Land to the east of Station Lane is suitably and sustainably located to meet identified local housing needs, as set out in the accompanying report.
As well as accomodating new development as proposed in the plan, the revised Green Belt boundaries should be drawn to allow for the longer-term development needs of Lapworth.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46923
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Roland Crisp
I am totally against any development on Green Belt Land and re-alignment should not be considered.
I am totally against any development on Green Belt Land and re-alignment should not be considered.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46997
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Rowington Parish Council
Clarification is required on the proposals to re-draw the Green Belt boundaries for Rowington. "Rowington" as referred to, stretches from the edge of Lapworth to the edge of Shrewley and includes several hamlets e.g. Turners Green, Rowington Green and Mousley End. Further details required of proposed new boundaries prior to an informed response being made.
Clarification is required on the proposals to re-draw the Green Belt boundaries for Rowington. "Rowington" as referred to, stretches from the edge of Lapworth to the edge of Shrewley and includes several hamlets e.g. Turners Green, Rowington Green and Mousley End. Further details required of proposed new boundaries prior to an informed response being made.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47043
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: mrs jane hayward
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the Green Belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the Green Belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings without a deterioration in the quality of life for existing residents.
Hampton Magna should not be removed from the Green Belt. Current residents have been attracted to the village because it is in the Green Belt. The village amenities are at capacity now and could not take additional dwellings without a deterioration in the quality of life for existing residents.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47062
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Mr A Beswick
Controlled growth at the small scale possible in rural areas is entirely supportable if there is an economic reason for growth
Controlled growth at the small scale possible in rural areas is entirely supportable if there is an economic reason for growth
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47115
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Barry Dale
It is essential to preserve the Green Belt for the enjoyment of present and future populations.
Any re - drawing of the Green Belt around H/Magna could have the effect of merging the settlement with Hampton on the Hill, contrary to PO3 of the Local Plan.
H/Magna and Hampton on the Hill have significantly different rural characters and historical backgrounds which should be preserved.
It is essential to preserve the Green Belt for the enjoyment of present and future populations.
Any re - drawing of the Green Belt around H/Magna could have the effect of merging the settlement with Hampton on the Hill, contrary to PO3 of the Local Plan.
H/Magna and Hampton on the Hill have significantly different rural characters and historical backgrounds which should be preserved.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47127
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Louise Clarke
The Green Belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment/new housing on a proportionate scale.
The Green Belt was introduced for very good reasons of protecting our rural environment,
The Green Belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment/new housing on a proportionate scale.
The Green Belt was introduced for very good reasons of protecting our rural environment,
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47149
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Myles Wilcox-Smith
The Green Belt has siccessfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment/new housing on a proportionate scale. Accordingly there is no need to redraw the Green Belt boundary around Norton Lindsey.
The Green Belt has siccessfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited redevelopment/new housing on a proportionate scale. Accordingly there is no need to redraw the Green Belt boundary around Norton Lindsey.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47153
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Leek Wootton Parish Plan Working Group
In addition to the parishioners objection to development within the village envelope, they were strongly (83%) against any expansion of the village boundary and any erosion of green belt.
In addition to the parishioners objection to development within the village envelope, they were strongly (83%) against any expansion of the village boundary and any erosion of green belt.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47157
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Michelle and Beat Kumin
We highly support these proposals
We highly support these proposals
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47179
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Neil Brown
The green belt is a key planning policy that has successfully protected the character of Warwickshire and these villages in particular for over fifty years - it should not cast aside.
Appropriate development can be undertaken within the villages without redrawing boundaries - it simply relies on planning teams and developers working closely with local communities to ensure that development is appropriate in scale and character and meets a real local need.
The green belt is a key planning policy that has successfully protected the character of Warwickshire and these villages in particular for over fifty years - it should not cast aside.
Appropriate development can be undertaken within the villages without redrawing boundaries - it simply relies on planning teams and developers working closely with local communities to ensure that development is appropriate in scale and character and meets a real local need.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47196
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Chris Langton
This issue needs to be handled with the utmost care - consultation with the villages affected is essential for their input
This issue needs to be handled with the utmost care - consultation with the villages affected is essential for their input
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47207
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: The National Trust
The National Trust is concerned about the approach of removing villages from the Green Belt and then drawing entirely new Green Belt boundaries.
We wish to be involved in any discussion about the designation of new boundaries in the vicinity of our properties.
The approach taken by Warwick District Council towards the review of Green Belt boundaries to accommodate development within the plan period accords with the previous PPG2 'Green Belts' and the NPPF. The NPPF states that "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of a Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period."
The Plan acknowledges that the preferred option for housing (approximately 600 dwellings pa) will need to be met largely on strategic greenfield sites on the edge of the built-up areas (which will be predominantly existing Green Belt) and within/or on the edge of some villages to allow for a hierarchy of growth in the rural area.
The National Trust has some concern about removing villages from the Green Belt and then drawing entirely new Green Belt boundaries around the settlements to allow for development, rather than simply amending the existing boundary to accommodate urban/village extensions, which would be less disruptive. Redrawing boundaries may increase pressures from developers to also accommodate 'Safeguarded Land' in addition to extensions. There is also a danger that if villages are removed from the Green Belt, they may not be re-designated and would then need to be protected by other development management policies, as referenced in NPPF Para 86.
The Trust would wish to be involved in any discussions about the designation of new boundaries in the vicinity of its properties.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47400
Received: 03/08/2012
Respondent: Mr & Mrs P Harris
The principal reason Warwick district remains a largely unspoilt area is because the Green Belt has prevented inappropriate development, particularly in the villages located within it. Their removal from Green Belt protection would be a counter-productive strategy and allow previously inappropriate development to take place on a large scale.
The degree of allowable development proposed is disproportionate and out of character with both the villages and the Green Belt. It is inevitable that this amount of construction in rural locations would cause collateral damage to the very environment and ecology the Green Belt has so far successfully managed to protect.
The principal reason Warwick district remains a largely unspoilt area is because the Green Belt has prevented inappropriate development, particularly in the villages located within it. Their removal from Green Belt protection would be a counter-productive strategy and allow previously inappropriate development to take place on a large scale.
The degree of allowable development proposed is disproportionate and out of character with both the villages and the Green Belt. It is inevitable that this amount of construction in rural locations would cause collateral damage to the very environment and ecology the Green Belt has so far successfully managed to protect.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47410
Received: 02/08/2012
Respondent: Mrs Sally Cammidge
The Green Belt around Norton Lindsey protects the essential shape and views. It is a prominent hill top village that can be seen for a number of miles in many directions and it is important to retain the character of villages such as this. Redrawing of the Green Belt is entirely inappropriate. Use of readily available white land and brownfield sites should be utilised.
The Green Belt around Norton Lindsey protects the essential shape and views. It is a prominent hill top village that can be seen for a number of miles in many directions and it is important to retain the character of villages such as this. Redrawing of the Green Belt is entirely inappropriate. Use of readily available white land and brownfield sites should be utilised.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47418
Received: 02/08/2012
Respondent: Mr Robert Cammidge
The Green Belt boundary should only be redrawn when it is absolutely essential and importantly would not have an adverse effect on existing settlements. The linear nature of Norton Lindsey is an essential part of its character and the Green Belt protects the important form and shape of the village which would be destroyed by the proposed scale of development.
The Green Belt boundary should only be redrawn when it is absolutely essential and importantly would not have an adverse effect on existing settlements. The linear nature of Norton Lindsey is an essential part of its character and the Green Belt protects the important form and shape of the village which would be destroyed by the proposed scale of development.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47550
Received: 03/08/2012
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
Policy PO16: Green Belt complements P04: Distribution of Housing and allows for the review of Hampton Magna's Green Belt boundary. For the reasons set out in our response to PO4, King Henry VIII Endowed Trust supports PO16 and would be keen to work with the District Council and Budbrooke Parish Council as part of the Green Belt review process.
Policy PO16: Green Belt complements P04: Distribution of Housing and allows for the review of Hampton Magna's Green Belt boundary. For the reasons set out in our response to PO4, King Henry VIII Endowed Trust supports PO16 and would be keen to work with the District Council and Budbrooke Parish Council as part of the Green Belt review process.