Hatton Park

Hatton Park does not have the facilities or infrastructure to support 90 more dwellings. The main Birmingham Road into Warwick is already a traffic jam in the morning with traffic stretching back to well past Hatton village...it's gridlock when problems affect the M40 or A45 to add over 100 plus cars into the mix does not bear thinking about for anyone commuting in that direction. The facility of one small shop and no doctors surgery etc is also a major draw back. Surely there must be more appropriate alternatives?

Hatton Park has no local facilities to support the size of development proposed - no healthcare provision, no school and minimal shopping, public transport and recreation facilities. Available capacity in neighbouring facilities is also oversubscribed or minimal.

Hatton Hill and Hatton Park Proposed Developments. Attached is a document of observation and objection primarily focussed on a proposal by Bloor Homes/Hatton Estates/Marrons Planning to develop housing in the Green Belt on Hatton Hill. This site has previously been discounted in the WDC Local Plan. Many points in this representation would equally apply to a proposed development by Taylor Wimpey within the Green Belt south of Hatton Park.

I object to any further development on or near Hatton Park for the following reasons;

1. Environmental impact - on wildlife to the preferred site option
2. The Birmingham road is already very busy and queues form regularly with the volume of traffic going to Warwick and the A46 and returning. Further housing in this area would make the road even worse.
3. There are no facilities for schools nearby as the local schools are already full.
4. There is only one small shop which is inaccessible for any houses on site 2, and too far from the proposed site.
5. The Greenbelt should not be used until all brown field sites have been used up. What are the exceptional circumstances in this case that would validate the use of Green belt land and the changing of its boundary?
6. The overall strategy for the number of houses in the district is vastly over estimated as proved by various research submitted to the council.
7. The classification of Hatton Park as a secondary village is not correct and should be reassessed.

I object to the proposed Option for the following:
It is a breach into the green belt
An overdevelopment of the proposed Option site
Will cause widespread traffic congestion in the surrounding area.
Lacks the infrastucture to support such a development, schools, doctors, public transport.
Will increase the risk of flooding
Increases the risk of loss of amenity for residents
Will be an overdevelopment of the Hatton Park area
Lacks public transport infrastucture
Will upset the balance of nature for some protected species, flowers and woodland
Will have a detrimental effect upon tourism to the area

I would like to highlight issues brought out in the "Key Housing Issues" section. Hatton Park is a relatively large community prior to the proposed expansion. This document notes the lower level of facilties and services expected for a comunity of this size. If the expansion is to be approved this matter must be addressed or Hatton Park will slip further back in this respect.
Secondly the document notes good transportation. There is a good (but expensive) bus service but the local train station is a good 1.5 mile walk away if you can't link up wit the bus or a very expensive £5 taxi ride.
My issue concerns road transportation. Every morning the A4177 Birmingham Road is gridlocked all the way back to and beyond the Hatton Arms. I appreciate this bottle neck oisn't caused by Hatton Park (more likely Warwick town centre issues) but again further expansion of Hatton Park will worsen this issue.

Hatton Park has inadequate facilities for the current population. The shop is too small and cannot be described in any way as a "Supermarket". There is no school or GP surgery within walking distance which means any extra households would use additional cars. Although the document describes Hatton Park as having "good public transport connections" the existing 68 bus service takes half an hour to get to Warwick, stops at 7pm at night, and does not run on Sundays.

The existing road infrastructure is already clogged at Peak times.

Additional housing would damage the eco-system of Smith's Covert, one of the last local ancient woodlands with much wildlife.

Current local primary schools are already over-subscribed.

The land around the boundary of Hatton Park is Green Belt and I do not agree that the settlement boundary should be extended on to Green Belt land.

Putting to one side the unconvincing case for the need for any development in Warwick, Hatton Park has some fundamental failings as a potential site for further housing. Firstly the current amenities are insufficient; one poorly stocked shop, no doctor, dentist or pub. Secondly being a new development there is already a good mix of housing which includes social housing. Finally any additional housing that adds traffic to the Birmingham Road will cause a real impact to both residents and ultimately business as this key road becomes even more congested.

Support this proposal

WDC's own criteria for providing housing growth do not and should not apply to Hatton Park based on WDC's OWN EVIDENCE:

- 48% population growth 2001-2011 in locality;
- 67% growth in 0-15 year-olds 2001-2011 (with corresponding growth in parents of 30-44);
- "Diverse range of property styles";

The assessment to assess Hatton Park as a Growth Village is subjective and only just places it into this category. For example if the population was assessed as 1990 instead of "about 2020", it would not be a Growth Village.

It is washed over by Green Belt and not suitable for development.

WDC's own criteria for providing housing growth doesn't and shouldn't apply to Hatton Park based on WDC's OWN EVIDENCE:

-48% population growth 2001-2011 in locality;
-67% growth in 0-15 year-olds 2001-2011 (with corresponding growth in parents of 30-44);
-Diverse range of property sizes and styles.

The assessment of Hatton Park as a Growth Village is subjective and only JUST places it into this category.

It's surrounded by Green Belt and not suitable for development.

The existing local infrastructure is already struggling and any further development will result in additional stress.

Hatton Park amenities are insufficient and not in-line with a "secondary village."

Although I do not object to 80-90 houses, I do object to Taylor Wimpy buying a landbank for 175 new houses.

2 years ago, Daniel Robinson (Planner) stated...
"Hatton Park sites will not be identified in the Local Plan. While a developer could apply for planning permission to develop the sites, if they are not identified in the Local Plan then it is unlikely planning permission would be approved.

As far as I am aware, there has been no Housing Needs Assessment carried out in Hatton Parish. Other than rural exception housing, there would currently be no possibility of development on the 3 Hatton Park SHLAA sites and, the new Local Plan will not be identifying sites such as this. "

The reason for this was the road/water/sewage/power/schools could not cope with the extra load. Nothing has changed in this time, but now we are expected to support 170+ homes?!?!

At 8am the Birmingham road is currently gridlocked from Warwick to Hatton Village and beyond. Another 170 cars (another 1 kilometer of cars queuing, approx) will not help this situation.

The plan also does not state that if the area was to grow larger, we would need more amenities (better shop, doctors, etc), specifically a larger school. Ferncombe primary school is already over subscribed with combined classes & the road access is not suitable for another 100+? children. How will a developer, Taylor Wimpy, fix these issues? A new school building on a new site?

I strongly object to the proposed plan for new properties in Hatton Park, North of Birmingham road.
The level of amenities and the transport network in this area are barely sufficient for Hatton Park as it currently stands, therefore adding additional housing will only cause further problems. In addition the level of traffic currently using Birmingham Road leads to long delays, again a problem which will only be made worse with additional homes on the estate.

I am writing to represent my concerns about any expansion to the hatton park area. This is because there are a number of issues faced by existing residents which would be further exacerbated. These include:
1. The a4177 is already highly congested at peak times, making commuting and the school run awful already. Adding building traffic and then potentially another 180 cars (most are 2 car families if 90 homes are built) will make this commute impossible with considerable road problems and a potential increase in accidents on an already dangerous road. This is not taking into account even more additional traffic if areas such as hatton station are expanded.
2. All the schools in the area are over subscribed and are already at times taking beyond their allocated capacity. This is unsafe given no increase in funding for communal facilities/ space and staff. Adding a considerable number of children in catchment by increasing hatton park and hatton station is not possible unless additional places at quality schools are created. Furthermore, the ferncumbe bus drop off/pick up sites on hatton park are already dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike as there are so many cars parked along the roads. Adding to this will increase the likelihood of accidents considerably.
3. Hatton park is under resourced in terms of facilities for the existing number of homes. The play park is small and poorly equipped compared to other areas and the parking at the village hall already inadequate. There is nothing for teenagers to do. Getting to doctors and dentists already requires a commute and these services will be stretched further by additional residents, resulting in increasing waiting times and a poorer service.

Creating homes is important but making the hatton park area undesirable and unliveable is counterproductive.

NPPF Green Belt requirements
The NPPF have set 'Exceptional Circumstances' as an absolute requirement for altering Green Belt boundaries. So there have to be clear and certain exceptional circumstances for any alteration to the Green Belt boundary around Hatton Park. This is especially so for the proposed change to the Green Belt boundary that will remove Green Belt status from Smiths Covert which is ancient woodland of very high wildlife, habitat and landscape quality.
Thus without any exceptional circumstances no development can legally take place in Hatton Parish, in Hatton Park, or at either Site 1 or 2.
Section 3 of the Local Plan document is titled 'Green Belt and Exceptional Circumstances', but very clearly the reasons advanced by the WDC such as taking a 'more distributive approach to housing', or 'an emerging policy direction' clearly do not constitute 'Exceptional Circumstances' by any stretch of the imagination.
Therefore if a development is approved it will be contrary to the NPPF, and so the WDC will be responsible to the Government for an intended unwarranted infringement of the Green Belt, with the first step being to inform our MP.

The Designation of Hatton Park as Suitable for Development?
It is not at all clear why and how Hatton Park has been selected for development, as it does not appear to meet the criteria set. Also no case is made for a local need for such a lot of new housing. The other convincing reason why Hatton Park should not be developed is because it has already been recently developed to a vastly greater extent (2001-2011) so that even when balanced by much lower growth in Hampton Magna and Hatton Green that have grown relatively little over that period, its growth has still been 47.8% compared to the average for Warwick district of 8.5%; that 5.6 fold greater than the average for Warwick district. This very major scale of expansion has all been carried out without any significant improvement of the infrastructure, whether roads, schools, doctors surgeries and other such necessities, and now the intension is to repeat this with another expansion again coupled with again no provision of significant additional infrastructure.
To convince residents the scoring should be made public consistent with democracy and open government. Otherwise the conclusion will be that Hatton Park has been selected solely because it has been heavily developed in the recent past..

Lack of Consideration of Residents in the Planning Process
Nowhere in the Local Plan document or its appendices is there any consideration given to, or even any mention of, the effects of either development on the existing residents of Hatton Park and nearby areas, which in many cases involve serious losses in amenity and are contrary to assurances previously given by the Council or on behalf of the Council. This is a significant factor that needs to be taken into account, not least because residents pay for Council activities and so are being 'taxed without consideration.

Plan Quality
No details are provided for the proposed Sites, only a shaded area on a small scale map, so that no one knows properly in sufficient detail what is being proposed, and so what they may be seeing right next to their own properties soon!

Full and Proper Consultation has not taken place
It is now apparent that full and proper consultation has not taken place because residents have not been fully informed about the proposed development, with the only information provided being the Local Plan document and associated documentation, whereas it appears that a number of developers plans have been made that are contrary to the intent of the Local Plan (low density within a framework of small wooded copses), but have not been made available to residents by the WDC, or have only been made available at such a late stage that proper consultation cannot be deemed to have taken place. For instance the Taylor -Wimpey proposed development was made available only to the Parish Council at 5pm on the 13th January, and is completely inconsistent with the low density development of the whole of Site 1 that is described in the Appendix to the Local Plan. Subsequently it has been found that a second developers plan is for 130 houses on Site 1.
Thus for a proper Consultation to have been deemed to have taken place the Consultation should either be repeated or significantly extended to include a full disclosure to all residents of all plans that have been submitted or that are under consideration.

Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services
Strain on Local Services is a Key Consultation Theme and it is obvious that very considerable strain will be imposed. For instance:-
* The B1477 is jammed at rush hour, is prone to flooding which will be made more severe by any new development
* Any major building development along the B4177 will cause very significant disruptions to traffic flow and safety problems for an extended period while the proposed new houses are being built.
* The local school has been expanded, its catchment area reduced, but still it is full.
* No new community facilities are being offered such as Doctors Surgery, Schools, recreational facilities for young people etc

Planning Sprawl
By seeking to alter the Green Belt encouragement is given to ribbon development, especially towards the roundabout with the A46 and Warwick; especially since current planning extends over the next fifteen years, and considering how this type of development has already occurred in other parts of Warwick .

Landscape, Wildlife and Environmental Habitats including Ancient Woodland of very high wildlife, habitat and landscape quality will be significantly affected.

No Advantages of Scale Apply
No Advantages of Scale apply as mentioned in the early sections of the Local Plan. For instance Hatton Park does not contain a high proportion of elderly citizens who could benefit from a development that contains a predominance of housing specifically for their needs so as to enable them to continue to reside in the same area.
Completion of the Existing Infrastructure on Hatton Park
Before WDC begins any new development it should complete the previous development at Hatton Park by adopting and maintaining the continuation of Charingworth Drive and associated roads beyond the pinch-point opposite No 5 C.D. Given that this part of the infrastructure of Hatton Park remains un-adopted after ten years, despite residents paying full council tax, this is hardly an advertisement for the proposed new development.


Arguments in Favour of Site 2

Landscape Value
Site 2 is a partially industrial environment due to the water treatment plant with its three story high factory-like building complete with steel panels and pipes for all to see. This factor is not included in the assessment of Site 2. Thus this site actually has poor landscape quality.

Screening
Site 2 is currently very effectively screened both from the canal and tow path and from the B1477. So these screens only have to be maintained, and, from their plan that is the intention of the potential developers of Site 2, that is to retain the tree belts between the canal towpath and the site 2 on one side and between the B1477 and the Site 2 on the other. Furthermore Site 2 is at a significantly lower level than the level of the B1477 reducing any residual visual impact of the proposed development to passing traffic, which is in contrast to the proposed Site 1 which is somewhat higher than the level of the B1477. Thus the proposed development of Site 2 will have a lower landscape impact than will the proposed development on Site 1.

Effects on Traffic Flow
The proposed main road exit from Site 2 onto the B1477 is a considerable distance from the Shell Garage and Ugly Bridge Road, which together create a substantial bottleneck problem to the free flow of traffic on the BI477. Thus it will minimise adverse effects on traffic flow, and in particular will not further exacerbate this problem; which will be the case for the proposed access road onto the proposed Site 1 which will be in close proximity to the Shell Garage and Ugly Bridge Road. Furthermore the plan for the proposed development of Site to already includes provision for a new roundabout expressly so as to enhance safety by slowing traffic speed along the B1477 immediately before Hatton Park.
A point of detail. In Appendix 6 under Highways and Transport Issues the Ugly Bridge Road is mentioned in connection with Site 2. This is incorrect as this road is not adjacent to the proposed access onto Site 2, but very adjacent to the proposed access road onto Site 1 and to the Garage.

Access from Hatton Park to the Canal
The proposed pedestrian crossing of the B1477 incorporated in the proposed development of Site 2 will be an amenity to residents of Hatton Park, helping them to access the canal

Wildlife Value
Site 2 is a single field used just for grazing with only a single horse currently in residence. So it supports very little biodiversity and has only a low environmental value; whereas the proposed development includes a number of wildlife features, including a water feature, which will actually upgrade its wildlife and environmental values.

Proximity to the Canal
The proximity of Site 2 to the canal is cited as a very serious disadvantage to the proposed Site 2 development. However in both of the other proposed locations selected for development that include a canal, Hatton Station close by and at Radford Semele, proposed sites for development that are also immediately adjacent to the canal have actually been selected by the Council. This is illogical. Therefore the proximity of Site 2 to the canal cannot be used as an argument against the development of Site 2 .


Arguments Against the Development of Site 1

Plan Quality
No details are provided for the proposed Site 1, just a shaded area on a map, and so it is not possible to agree with it, as no one knows what they would be agreeing to! For instance there is no certainty at all that that the site will be developed as indicated. Thus the Taylor -Wimpey proposed Plan is completely inconsistent with the low density development of the whole of Site 1, that is 70-90 houses over the 7.78ha plot, as proposed by the WDC.

Flooding of the B1477
The B1477 already has a tendency to flood. This will be significantly increased to a high potential by the building of 90 houses on land above the level of the B1477 combined with the already limited local flood storage capacity.

Cost Effectiveness
Site 2 is a large area of land, far greater than required to build 70-90 houses at a comparable density to exists on Hatton Park (such as the Taylor Wimpy Plan), so that the cost of the land will be prohibitive to the Developer so that they will be unable to pay for community facilities as is normal in such developments: That is unless there is actually a covert understanding that a second phase of development far beyond the 70-90 house limit specified in the Local Plan exists. The same excessive land cost and consequent inability of the Developer to pay for community facilities also applies to the low density of housing described in the Appendix of the Local Plan

Loss of High Quality Agricultural Land
The development of Site 1 will cause the loss of prime arable agricultural land which is a Key Consultation Theme, and will further reduce our agricultural output as described in the introduction to the Local Plan document.

Smiths Copse
This is ancient woodland with a very high species diversity including many megafauna species including deer, badgers, bats, woodpeckers, owl and sparrowhawk that are very sensitive to disturbance, encroachment of human activities onto their habitat and reductions in access to their habitat. It is also the roost for flocks of crows and jackdaws, corvid species that have recently be proved to be more intelligent than many large mammals. Such ancient woodland is a far, far more scarce and valuable habitat than a simple field used for grazing and it and the access of animals to it should be preserved. Loss of habitat is a Key Consultation Theme and so nothing should be done to compromise such a high quality habitat let alone approving a building site and then 90 homes in its immediate vicinity. Otherwise representations against The development of Site 1 can be expected from local and national wildlife organisations and experts

Ribbon Development
The development of Site 1, which involves a revision of the Green Belt, will create a precedent for ribbon development and ultimately the coalescence of Hatton Park with the built-up outskirts of Warwick at the A46 roundabout which may sound unlikely, but if the growth rate for Hatton Park since 2001 is projected forwards in time then this will be the situation relatively soon; and also exactly this form of development has taken place recently in other areas of Warwick and surrounding districts.

Landscape Value
The proposed Site 1 is higher than the level of the B1477 and so will increase the visual impact of the proposed development to passing traffic; as compared with Site 2 which is significantly lower than the level of the B1477 which will reduce its visual impact.

Traffic Flow
The combination of Shell Garage and Ugly Bridge Road already create a substantial bottleneck problem to the free flow of traffic on the BI477 especially at rush hour. The creation of a main access to the proposed development of Site 1 and the rest of Hatton Park will greatly exacerbate this traffic problem and in an area where there have been recent multiple RTA fatalities. This reduction in traffic flow and safety risk will be yet further magnified if it is decided to site a new Gypsy-Traveller site in the immediate vicinity at Oakland Farm, also with access onto the B1477 very close to the other accesses above.

An Accident waiting to happen!
The very recently redeveloped Shell Garage now sells a greater range of consumer goods which will inevitably attract foot customers from the proposed new development, some of whom will be children. They will be tempted to cross a busy road complicated traffic turning in and out of the Ugly Bridge Road, the Shell Garage and the proposed access to Site 2. By contrast the development of Site 1 already includes provision for a new pedestrian crossing.

Warwick District's Rural Areas

Warwick District, while in population terms mainly urban, has attractive rural areas. The quality of the District's countryside, and the conservation value of many of its villages, are major assets. They play a major part in making the District attractive to live and work in.

The size of the District and the short distances between the villages and the main towns mean that the District does not have a 'rural economy'. Links between the villages and the towns are close and social distinctions are few. There is no justification for development in any of the District's villages for economic or social purposes, except for some limited social (rented) housing to meet local needs. And because of the short distances, that need may be met in a different village from where it arises without adverse effects.

It is important to stress that there has been tight control on development in Warwick District's villages for 40-50 years. The designation of Conservation Areas in a number of the District's villages took place in 1967-75, mostly prior to the creation of Warwick District Council (April 1974). From 1974 the policies of the District Council have successfully maintained a strict control on development in most villages, especially those within the Green Belt. Limited new housing has been permitted, with one major development on an old hospital complex - Hatton Park.

It would be damaging and regrettable if the New Local Plan were to undermine this success because of a controversial estimate of the requirement for new housing. The balance of urban and rural areas has been firmly established over the last 40 years and very strong justification would be needed to disturb it.




The Green Belt

Warwick District's rural areas are mostly designated Green Belt. This Green Belt status dates from the 1960s with the Green Belt being formally confirmed in 1975. It is thus 50 years old and has played a large role in conserving the character of the District.

The villages within the Green Belt have been 'washed over' and have not been inset (omitted from the Green Belt). It is important to stress this. Successive Structure and Local Plans have been adopted with the Green Belt being continuous. Gaps in the Green Belt, notably the 'white island' of 'white land' or non-Green Belt land at Lapworth (Kingswood), were replaced by as 'washed-over' status for the whole villages.

When Hampton Magna, and more recently Hatton Park, were developed, the Green Belt status was kept. They were not excluded and 'inset'. This enabled consistent planning policy to be applied over the whole area west of Warwick.

The effectiveness of the District's Green Belt is shown by the fact that the rural areas of Warwick District have remained unchanged, or little changed, in the last 40 years. The strict control of development that the Green Belt has provided has been on major benefit.

No harmful or adverse effects on the District's economic performance have been identified as resulting from the Green Belt. The attractive countryside and villages that it has facilitated are more likely to have assisted it by providing an attractive living environment.

The fundamental feature of the Green Belt is that it provides openness. The low density development of most villages, with areas of open land within them, is protected by Green Belt designation. New houses (infill) or house extensions can be strictly controlled and refused if they would harm openness of the Green Belt. This principle has been effective in application where large house extensions or rebuilds, or new buildings such as stables, would be harmful to the character of a village.


CPRE's view of the proposal to remove Green Belt status from several villages


In our view it is not necessary to remove Green Belt status from a village in order to permit some new development within existing villages or in some cases on their edge. Some development within the Green Belt is permitted, subject to all relevant factors including sustainability and the impact on the environment and openness of the area. Conditions can be imposed to avoid unnecessary impacts.

Removal of green belt status from the land within a village boundary will remove the Green Belt controls restrictions set out in the NPPF. This would make possible applications for development which would increase housing density, and the bulk and height of houses; which would be refused were Green Belt status to remain. Removal of Green Belt protection creates the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity, and openness will be lost.

CPRE would prefer to see some villages designated as suitable for "limited infill" without removing Green Belt status. As the title suggests this allows very limited infill with detailed limitations on such matters as the amount and type and design of any infilling. Blanket removal of green belt protection has the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity.

We are also concerned that a number of Neighbourhood Plans are under development and more are likely in the future. Decisions about green belt status should not be used to undermine the possible wishes of residents and other interested parties.

We urge that a more careful approach is taken to the development of each village with appropriate conditions on such matters as the amount, type, style and design of development in the village. Each village should receive individual consideration.

There should therefore be a strong presumption against changing the Green Belt in Warwick District. The Draft Local Plan proposals for removing several villages from the Green Belt and 'insetting' them would revive the 'white islands' that were eliminated in the 1970s. To create areas in the middle of the Green Belt which are not covered by Green Belt policy risks allowing overdevelopment and an undermining of the character of villages.

Affordable housing - generally rented Housing Association housing - can be permitted in villages while they remain 'washed over by the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at para 86 that

"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. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt."

In Warwick District the majority of villages contribute to the openness of the Green Belt and should therefore remain washed over by the Green Belt.

A particular type of settlement in the Green Belt in Warwick District where removal from that status would be harmful to openness is the elongated settlement, generally a single road, where housing was developed in the interwar era and in some cases up to the 1960s. CPRE considered that in these cases openness is retained by use of strict Green Belt controls; those would be lost if the Local Plan were to crease 'white islands', contrary to all past Council and Government practice.


CPRE's response on the proposals for individual villages

The following settlements (mostly villages) now 'washed over' by Green Belt are proposed for removal from it:
Baginton, Burton Green, Hampton Magna, Hatton Park, Kingswood (Lapworth), Leek Wootton, Hill Wootton, Hatton Station, and Shrewley.

Outside the Green Belt the following settlements are proposed to have significant new housing:

Barford, Bishop's Tachbrook, Radford Semele.


Baginton: Baginton is an elongated village close to Coventry. It makes a contribution to openness as it is. Its closeness to Coventry makes Baginton very sensitive to new development. It should be retained as it is now with washed-over status.

Barford: Not in the Green Belt. Any development on the land around Barford House is strongly opposed. This has been refused twice now on clear conservation grounds. Locations 1, 2 and 3 will probably be suitable over time, but have problems of access.

Bishops Tachbook: CPRE would wish to see the location for any new housing determined by local opinion and the Parish Council.

Burton Green: Burton Green is mainly a long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove Burton Green from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Burton Green should stay with 'washed-over; status.

Cubbington: The village is not in the Green Belt. The proposed site should be reduced in size to Location no 1 only, eliminating the projection northwards into countryside that site 2 would result in.

Hampton Magna: the historic village (Hampton-on-the-Hill) is within the Green Belt. The new (1960s/70s) settlement was tightly drawn to the area of the former barracks. The site is prominent on the hill west of the A46. Retaining Green Belt status is justified. If this were to be lost, there could be intensification of development at Hampton Magna resulting in more intrusion and a loss of openness.

Hatton Park (former Hatton Hospital site): This was retained in the Green Belt when the extensive new housing was permitted. It is accepted that this location could be taken out of the Green Belt without major harm.

Hatton Station: this is a set of houses built south of the station in around 1970 on former railway land. This is not a village as Hatton Village (church, school) is some way to the east. There is no justification for removing this loose grouping of houses from the Green Belt. The present level of development does retain openness, but intensification would harm openness.

Hill Wootton: This is an attractive small village, which helps create openness of the Green Belt. The proposal for up to 5 dwellings in the village (if achievable) does not justify the removal of the village from the Green Belt.

Kingswood (Lapworth): This is another long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove the Kingswood part of Lapworth from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Kingswood should retain 'washed-over; status. (It is this area which was 'white land' within the Green Belt until a Local Plan Inquiry in the late 1970s.)

Leek Wootton: This village is attractive and makes a contribution to the Green Belt by its openness. It should remain 'washed over'. We oppose the suggested new housing sites 1-3.. The conversion to residential units of Woodcote House (on departure of Warwickshire |Police) is reasonable. But this does not justify removing the whole of Leek Wootton from the Green Belt, and as a conversion can be undertaken while the site remains Green Belt.

Radford Semele: Not in the Green Belt. CPRE would support the option (if any) which is preferred by the local residents and Parish Council.

Shrewley: The two small housing sites at the south end of the village against the railway cutting are capable of being fitted in to the village with the right design. The scale of this development is small and does not justify taking the whole village out of the Green Belt. The village should stay 'washed-over'.

Aylesbury House Hotel near Hockley Heath: there is no justification for permitting new housing in the Green Belt around the existing building. Conversion to residential (flats) of the old building (the Hotel) can be undertaken without changing the Green Belt status.

Oak Lee, Finham: this is a location which could be developed - it is trapped land between Warwick Lane and the A46 Kenilworth Bypass.

see attached

see attached

see attached

Enclosed, please find a signed list of opposition to the proposed development on the green belt
adjacent to the existing Hatton Park vil lage development, as well as off the Birmingham Road at
Hatton Hill.
Concern and opposition is expressed as there has been no accurate, independently verifiable data
provided from any source to support development in the area. In the interests of democracy, and to
ensure that all relevant bodies involved within the decision making process are starting on a level
playing field, whether it be Warwick DC or Action Groups opposing the plans. Surely, all data both
supporting and opposing development should be made readily and easily available to all parties,
which is certainly not the case now.
There is absolutely no independent or verifiable data showing a need for housing for local residents
in dire need of housing. Therefore, the proposed schemes are likely to be speculative development
only for the market as a whole, open to all comers, not so lely local residents. As there has been no
positive statement or assurance given in either of the proposed developments to confirm that any
housing or property built is purely for loca l residents in need, and indeed, can and will only be sold
to them, it can only be concluded that any development is not in fact based on local market needs
and is in fact part of an expansion plan for the district, which is entirely different to purporting it is
for local need.
There have been no assurances provided by Warwick DC to state that they themselves are acquiring
the land by use of Compulsory Purchase Orders in order to ensure that local landowners cannot
enjoy windfall profits on green belt land that is otherwise excluded from the development process. If
Warwick DC were to buy these sites by way of CPO's, would they not be able to do so based on
agricultural values as per the decision in Myers V Milton Keynes, ie, valuing in the No Scheme world?
That way any development would ensure development could be targeted to housing need, not
developers profit.
With current Government austerity measures, which the Chancellor has confirmed will continue,
how will existing local services and infrastructure cope with an increased number of households and
residents. As it is understood that further cuts are to come in council services, how can there be any
justifiable case for expansion in economic terms. How many more cuts will be suffered under
austerity measures? No one can say or predict with accuracy. Therefore, to act with prudence and
look after the interests of current local residents, there can be no justification in supporting either
scheme, nor indeed for the wider proposals for Warwick district as a whole.
Local infrastructure as a whole is not coping with the existing residents and number of houses. Any
further intensive development will paralyse road networks, lengthen doctors, dentists and hospital
waiting lists, cause schools to close waiting lists and refuse admissions, and place intolerable
burdens on sewage and surface water networks. Then there are the ambulance, fire and police
service issues to be taken into account. Are they able to cope with all proposed development
contained in the local plan as well as the two local schemes we are opposing?
None of these comments begin to take account of the irrevocable damage that will be done to the
amenity of the area by encroaching upon the green belt, destroying wildlife habitats for ever and
helping to contribute to the extinction of various species, as well as the loss of arable farming land
forever, which surely should be used for producing crops or grazing livestock. When green belts
were first created, their very purpose was to prevent unchecked urban sprawl. By encroaching on
the green belt, the process of urban sprawl will have begun, and thereafter, will never be stopped.
Granting planning permission on the green belt will begin a never ending process of speculative
development proposals that will cite any agreed green belt planning consents as precedents. This
will ensure the diminution and eventual destruction of t he amenity of the area. As t he plan is meant
to be for the long term future, should it not be also to ensure the amenity of the area that future
generations can actually enjoy, rather than see photographs of what the green belt used to look like
before a housing estate was built on it.
It is well known that the granting of outline planning permission is just the beginning of the process,
and between this and Detailed Planning consent and Reserved Matters, developers fine tune their
schemes and seek to increase the number of dwellings, as was the case on Hatton Park for example.
Therefore, residents have not got the true facts as to the size and sca le of any development they are
expected to approve or reject. Certainly there have been no detailed site plans shown to local
residents showing site layouts, density per acre, elevation, materials and construction details" car
parking provision per dwelling for visitors and tradesmen, landscape planning for noise reduction
and reducing visual impact, and how surface and ground water are to be dealt with because of real
concerns about flooding.
We would like to know from WDC:
* What the exceptional circumstances are, that justify the new development that requires
changing the Green Belt.
* The details of the scoring that makes Hatton Park suitable for development.
* Get a proper wildlife habitat survey done for Smiths covert.

see attached

see attached

Enclosed, please find a signed list of opposition to the proposed development on the green belt
adjacent to the existing Hatton Park vil lage development, as well as off the Birmingham Road at
Hatton Hill.
Concern and opposition is expressed as there has been no accurate, independently verifiable data
provided from any source to support development in the area. In the interests of democracy, and to
ensure that all relevant bodies involved within the decision making process are starting on a level
playing field, whether it be Warwick DC or Action Groups opposing the plans. Surely, all data both
supporting and opposing development should be made readily and easily available to all parties,
which is certainly not the case now.
There is absolutely no independent or verifiable data showing a need for housing for local residents
in dire need of housing. Therefore, the proposed schemes are likely to be speculative development
only for the market as a whole, open to all comers, not so lely local residents. As there has been no
positive statement or assurance given in either of the proposed developments to confirm that any
housing or property built is purely for loca l residents in need, and indeed, can and will only be sold
to them, it can only be concluded that any development is not in fact based on local market needs
and is in fact part of an expansion plan for the district, which is entirely different to purporting it is
for local need.
There have been no assurances provided by Warwick DC to state that they themselves are acquiring
the land by use of Compulsory Purchase Orders in order to ensure that local landowners cannot
enjoy windfall profits on green belt land that is otherwise excluded from the development process. If
Warwick DC were to buy these sites by way of CPO's, would they not be able to do so based on
agricultural values as per the decision in Myers V Milton Keynes, ie, valuing in the No Scheme world?
That way any development would ensure development could be targeted to housing need, not
developers profit.
With current Government austerity measures, which the Chancellor has confirmed will continue,
how will existing local services and infrastructure cope with an increased number of households and
residents. As it is understood that further cuts are to come in council services, how can there be any
justifiable case for expansion in economic terms. How many more cuts will be suffered under
austerity measures? No one can say or predict with accuracy. Therefore, to act with prudence and
look after the interests of current local residents, there can be no justification in supporting either
scheme, nor indeed for the wider proposals for Warwick district as a whole.
Local infrastructure as a whole is not coping with the existing residents and number of houses. Any
further intensive development will paralyse road networks, lengthen doctors, dentists and hospital
waiting lists, cause schools to close waiting lists and refuse admissions, and place intolerable
burdens on sewage and surface water networks. Then there are the ambulance, fire and police
service issues to be taken into account. Are they able to cope with all proposed development
contained in the local plan as well as the two local schemes we are opposing?
None of these comments begin to take account of the irrevocable damage that will be done to the
amenity of the area by encroaching upon the green belt, destroying wildlife habitats for ever and
helping to contribute to the extinction of various species, as well as the loss of arable farming land
forever, which surely should be used for producing crops or grazing livestock. When green belts
were first created, their very purpose was to prevent unchecked urban sprawl. By encroaching on
the green belt, the process of urban sprawl will have begun, and thereafter, will never be stopped.
Granting planning permission on the green belt will begin a never ending process of speculative
development proposals that will cite any agreed green belt planning consents as precedents. This
will ensure the diminution and eventual destruction of t he amenity of the area. As t he plan is meant
to be for the long term future, should it not be also to ensure the amenity of the area that future
generations can actually enjoy, rather than see photographs of what the green belt used to look like
before a housing estate was built on it.
It is well known that the granting of outline planning permission is just the beginning of the process,
and between this and Detailed Planning consent and Reserved Matters, developers fine tune their
schemes and seek to increase the number of dwellings, as was the case on Hatton Park for example.
Therefore, residents have not got the true facts as to the size and sca le of any development they are
expected to approve or reject. Certainly there have been no detailed site plans shown to local
residents showing site layouts, density per acre, elevation, materials and construction details" car
parking provision per dwelling for visitors and tradesmen, landscape planning for noise reduction
and reducing visual impact, and how surface and ground water are to be dealt with because of real
concerns about flooding.
We would like to know from WDC:
* What the exceptional circumstances are, that justify the new development that requires
changing the Green Belt.
* The details of the scoring that makes Hatton Park suitable for development.
* Get a proper wildlife habitat survey done for Smiths covert.

Enclosed, please find a signed list of opposition to the proposed development on the green belt
adjacent to the existing Hatton Park vil lage development, as well as off the Birmingham Road at
Hatton Hill.
Concern and opposition is expressed as there has been no accurate, independently verifiable data
provided from any source to support development in the area. In the interests of democracy, and to
ensure that all relevant bodies involved within the decision making process are starting on a level
playing field, whether it be Warwick DC or Action Groups opposing the plans. Surely, all data both
supporting and opposing development should be made readily and easily available to all parties,
which is certainly not the case now.
There is absolutely no independent or verifiable data showing a need for housing for local residents
in dire need of housing. Therefore, the proposed schemes are likely to be speculative development
only for the market as a whole, open to all comers, not so lely local residents. As there has been no
positive statement or assurance given in either of the proposed developments to confirm that any
housing or property built is purely for loca l residents in need, and indeed, can and will only be sold
to them, it can only be concluded that any development is not in fact based on local market needs
and is in fact part of an expansion plan for the district, which is entirely different to purporting it is
for local need.
There have been no assurances provided by Warwick DC to state that they themselves are acquiring
the land by use of Compulsory Purchase Orders in order to ensure that local landowners cannot
enjoy windfall profits on green belt land that is otherwise excluded from the development process. If
Warwick DC were to buy these sites by way of CPO's, would they not be able to do so based on
agricultural values as per the decision in Myers V Milton Keynes, ie, valuing in the No Scheme world?
That way any development would ensure development could be targeted to housing need, not
developers profit.
With current Government austerity measures, which the Chancellor has confirmed will continue,
how will existing local services and infrastructure cope with an increased number of households and
residents. As it is understood that further cuts are to come in council services, how can there be any
justifiable case for expansion in economic terms. How many more cuts will be suffered under
austerity measures? No one can say or predict with accuracy. Therefore, to act with prudence and
look after the interests of current local residents, there can be no justification in supporting either
scheme, nor indeed for the wider proposals for Warwick district as a whole.
Local infrastructure as a whole is not coping with the existing residents and number of houses. Any
further intensive development will paralyse road networks, lengthen doctors, dentists and hospital
waiting lists, cause schools to close waiting lists and refuse admissions, and place intolerable
burdens on sewage and surface water networks. Then there are the ambulance, fire and police
service issues to be taken into account. Are they able to cope with all proposed development
contained in the local plan as well as the two local schemes we are opposing?
None of these comments begin to take account of the irrevocable damage that will be done to the
amenity of the area by encroaching upon the green belt, destroying wildlife habitats for ever and
helping to contribute to the extinction of various species, as well as the loss of arable farming land
forever, which surely should be used for producing crops or grazing livestock. When green belts
were first created, their very purpose was to prevent unchecked urban sprawl. By encroaching on
the green belt, the process of urban sprawl will have begun, and thereafter, will never be stopped.
Granting planning permission on the green belt will begin a never ending process of speculative
development proposals that will cite any agreed green belt planning consents as precedents. This
will ensure the diminution and eventual destruction of t he amenity of the area. As t he plan is meant
to be for the long term future, should it not be also to ensure the amenity of the area that future
generations can actually enjoy, rather than see photographs of what the green belt used to look like
before a housing estate was built on it.
It is well known that the granting of outline planning permission is just the beginning of the process,
and between this and Detailed Planning consent and Reserved Matters, developers fine tune their
schemes and seek to increase the number of dwellings, as was the case on Hatton Park for example.
Therefore, residents have not got the true facts as to the size and sca le of any development they are
expected to approve or reject. Certainly there have been no detailed site plans shown to local
residents showing site layouts, density per acre, elevation, materials and construction details" car
parking provision per dwelling for visitors and tradesmen, landscape planning for noise reduction
and reducing visual impact, and how surface and ground water are to be dealt with because of real
concerns about flooding.
We would like to know from WDC:
* What the exceptional circumstances are, that justify the new development that requires
changing the Green Belt.
* The details of the scoring that makes Hatton Park suitable for development.
* Get a proper wildlife habitat survey done for Smiths covert.

Enclosed, please find a signed list of opposition to the proposed development on the green belt
adjacent to the existing Hatton Park vil lage development, as well as off the Birmingham Road at
Hatton Hill.
Concern and opposition is expressed as there has been no accurate, independently verifiable data
provided from any source to support development in the area. In the interests of democracy, and to
ensure that all relevant bodies involved within the decision making process are starting on a level
playing field, whether it be Warwick DC or Action Groups opposing the plans. Surely, all data both
supporting and opposing development should be made readily and easily available to all parties,
which is certainly not the case now.
There is absolutely no independent or verifiable data showing a need for housing for local residents
in dire need of housing. Therefore, the proposed schemes are likely to be speculative development
only for the market as a whole, open to all comers, not so lely local residents. As there has been no
positive statement or assurance given in either of the proposed developments to confirm that any
housing or property built is purely for loca l residents in need, and indeed, can and will only be sold
to them, it can only be concluded that any development is not in fact based on local market needs
and is in fact part of an expansion plan for the district, which is entirely different to purporting it is
for local need.
There have been no assurances provided by Warwick DC to state that they themselves are acquiring
the land by use of Compulsory Purchase Orders in order to ensure that local landowners cannot
enjoy windfall profits on green belt land that is otherwise excluded from the development process. If
Warwick DC were to buy these sites by way of CPO's, would they not be able to do so based on
agricultural values as per the decision in Myers V Milton Keynes, ie, valuing in the No Scheme world?
That way any development would ensure development could be targeted to housing need, not
developers profit.
With current Government austerity measures, which the Chancellor has confirmed will continue,
how will existing local services and infrastructure cope with an increased number of households and
residents. As it is understood that further cuts are to come in council services, how can there be any
justifiable case for expansion in economic terms. How many more cuts will be suffered under
austerity measures? No one can say or predict with accuracy. Therefore, to act with prudence and
look after the interests of current local residents, there can be no justification in supporting either
scheme, nor indeed for the wider proposals for Warwick district as a whole.
Local infrastructure as a whole is not coping with the existing residents and number of houses. Any
further intensive development will paralyse road networks, lengthen doctors, dentists and hospital
waiting lists, cause schools to close waiting lists and refuse admissions, and place intolerable
burdens on sewage and surface water networks. Then there are the ambulance, fire and police
service issues to be taken into account. Are they able to cope with all proposed development
contained in the local plan as well as the two local schemes we are opposing?
None of these comments begin to take account of the irrevocable damage that will be done to the
amenity of the area by encroaching upon the green belt, destroying wildlife habitats for ever and
helping to contribute to the extinction of various species, as well as the loss of arable farming land
forever, which surely should be used for producing crops or grazing livestock. When green belts
were first created, their very purpose was to prevent unchecked urban sprawl. By encroaching on
the green belt, the process of urban sprawl will have begun, and thereafter, will never be stopped.
Granting planning permission on the green belt will begin a never ending process of speculative
development proposals that will cite any agreed green belt planning consents as precedents. This
will ensure the diminution and eventual destruction of t he amenity of the area. As t he plan is meant
to be for the long term future, should it not be also to ensure the amenity of the area that future
generations can actually enjoy, rather than see photographs of what the green belt used to look like
before a housing estate was built on it.
It is well known that the granting of outline planning permission is just the beginning of the process,
and between this and Detailed Planning consent and Reserved Matters, developers fine tune their
schemes and seek to increase the number of dwellings, as was the case on Hatton Park for example.
Therefore, residents have not got the true facts as to the size and sca le of any development they are
expected to approve or reject. Certainly there have been no detailed site plans shown to local
residents showing site layouts, density per acre, elevation, materials and construction details" car
parking provision per dwelling for visitors and tradesmen, landscape planning for noise reduction
and reducing visual impact, and how surface and ground water are to be dealt with because of real
concerns about flooding.
We would like to know from WDC:
* What the exceptional circumstances are, that justify the new development that requires
changing the Green Belt.
* The details of the scoring that makes Hatton Park suitable for development.
* Get a proper wildlife habitat survey done for Smiths covert.

see attached