The Changing Nature of Rural Areas

See attached.

The whole of section 2 is well thought out and it is reassuring to see that the pressures on the villages are identified and analysed comprehensively. It is hard to know whether the trends can be turned back by new housing or are inevitable. What is clear is that the connectivity offered by the car makes village life desirable for affluent professionals. New houses may not offer housing for local people, but will be crucial to support local services, shops, schools etc.

Little evidence is shown for the changing demographic compositionof specific villages. Showing that Cubbington's composition has declined, for example, does not necessarily mean that is because young families have moved out of area. In fact, arguably Cubbington has a large proportion of housing suitable for smaller families, particularly in the Broadway/Stonehouse close areas. Cubbington school is consistently over-subscribed by local families. By not allowing adequate consulation time or indeed publishing the evidence of problems of specific demographic change within certain villages it is very difficult to agree with the conclusions made.

It would be an equitable and rational proposal to distribute the housing required to meet whatever target for the next 15 - 17 years is decided upon for the Warwick District, throughout the towns and villages. I therefore support planning for growth in our villages and support the proposal that the mix of houses should include sufficient affordable housing. This would enable the rebalancing and revitalising of village communities to avoid the progressive ageing of the population, withdrawal of services and all the other disadvantages this would bring.
Since there is such an issue over the provision of suitable sites in our main towns, there is a strong case for extending the policy beyond the ten Primary and Secondary Villages so that villages take a larger proportion of the whole. It is noted that many of the settlements are in the green belt and there is reluctance to breach the green belt policies. However, it should be recalled that forty years ago when it was created the intention was to avoid urban coalescence. It has been successful in doing that but at the same time it has also contributed to the arrested development of villages and other settlements to their detriment. The Minister has conceded that the greenbelt may be amended where there are exceptional reasons to allow development and it is clear that unless housing targets are reduced for the district or more development is allowed in villages there will be damaging pressures to develop in our towns with serious consequences to heritage and conservation not to mention the impacts caused by excessive traffic. Surely the exceptional reasons required for a change.
It is arguable therefore that the plan to deliver 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% of the total) through village development is under ambitious . Looking at table 2. Villages and Number of Dwellings - if we take the upper figure shown for the Primary and Secondary Villages we are looking at 1200 dwellings not 1000. If you looked for building opportunities in the next 10 villages surely a further 300 houses could be added to the total bringing it to 1500 dwellings raising the village contribution to 22.6% of the overall requirement. Housing in the smaller villages should help encourage and/or support the facilities and services these rural areas need.
Turning to the allocation of housing shown under 2.14 Under RDS4 of the revised Development Strategy, we see that:
Brownfield sites are to yield 380 dwellings ( 5.7% of overall requirement)
Sites on the edge of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash - 4550 dwellings( 68.6%)
Sites on the edge of Kenilworth - 700 dwellings ( 10.6% )
Village development - 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% )
At the latest count Warwick had a population of 30,114 and Kenilworth 22,413. It is inequitable that Kenilworth should get away with such a low figure in comparison. In our towns there are not the same criteria for expansion as in the villages. Different factors come to bear and the question is not about supporting services but more of finding areas suitable physically and environmentally suitable for development and an equitable plan would be for our towns to take new development in proportion to their size rather than overwhelming Warwick with the product of new developments whether it be traffic, school children or patients for our doctors' surgeries. The green belt is used as an expedient excuse for dumping of 4500 houses on the southern edges of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash. After 40 years the time is overdue for a review of the green belt. It has become anachronistic and it is clearer by the year that there is a need to re-balance our communities where the imposition of the green belt has inflicted an out of balance settlement pattern on us. Just look at Leamington, where successive developments forced to the south leave its southern suburbs artificially remote from the core services they need which are to be found in the town centre.
Sadly, the imposition of these out of date green belt policies is now seen by many of us living in Warwick and the south as being used as an excuse used by politicians from Kenilworth for pressing more development on areas far from their homes and wards in Warwick and other southern settlements.
All in it together? No way in this case.

I am responding to the above consultation by email as, despite the consultation period being extended to Friday 24 January, the website consultation process was shut down on 20 January and I am not, therefore able to use that mechanism which would have been my preferred mechanism. Also as a result I have no information on the questions that the council are seeking consultation on and I have therefore responded in a free form fashion.

1. the plans seem to place great emphasis on the fact that the demographics of the rural community are both different from the urban community and have changed over the period 2001-2011. I do not disagree with this but I note that this has been the case since the mid 18th century in England and can not, therefore, be a logical and rationale basis for basing housing proposals on.
2. the plans refer to concerns about the impact of developments on local infrastructure but, certainly for Burton Green, contain no practical proposals to resolve these issues; this increases the likeyhood of development such as that in Balsall Common a few years ago where local medical and dental facilities were overwhelmed and remain wholly inadequate.
3. the plans also refer to the impact on infrastructure, such as roads, drainage and sewage but, again, have no concrete proposals to deal with these issues. For example effectively covering the 2.51 hectare Burrows Nursery site will dramatically increase run off down Red Lane which, as you will be aware from work you had to carry out to alleviate flooding to my property, is already particularly vulnerable to this type of flooding. Additionally, as you will, also be aware from your own traffic statistics, Red Lane is already heavily trafficked (for what should be a rural lane) because of traffic heading for Warwick University and business park and suffers from a high accident rate for such a road. Development such as that proposed would require a complete rebuild and reconfiguration of Red Lane and very substantial related flood alleviation works but this does not seem to be addressed in the proposals.
4. the proposals do, quite correctly in my view, place a considerable value on landscape; unfortunately the proposed development would be on one of the highest points of Burton Green and, consistent with other comments in the overall proposals, this would have a very high landscape value which does not appear to have been factored into the decision to choose this particular site.
5. assuming that the development would be of typical modern build properties, they would be wholly out of character with the rest of the village and the development would be in danger of becoming a ghetto separate from the rest of the village. If there is to be development in Burton Green, which I am not opposed to as a matter of principle (subject to my other comments above), it should be small scale developments in a wide variety of locations in the village to enable new residents to integrate as quickly as possible into the existing community instead of looking at a single site to meet the requirements. This would have the added benefit that those sites currently discarded for access reasons, in particular, could again be suitable development sites.
6.the proposals do mention HS2 in passing but , assuming that this development goes ahead where it is currently planned, it will be very heavily affected during the construction phase and once complete; this alone would call into question, in my mind, its suitability for development.

You will, I am sure, gather from the foregoing that, while, as I say above, not opposed to development in Burton Green per se, the current proposal seems to me to be poorly thought through and wholly unsuitable

see attached

see attached

See attached

See attached

see attached