1) Land north of Rosewood Farm

Objection to housing development C20 North of Rosewood Farm

I object strongly to the area at C20 North of Rosewood Farm, Baginton, being developed for housing

We support the preferred option of land north of Rosswood Farm for the development of 35 dwellings. The consultation document refers to this parcel as "Land north of Rosewood Farm" however, this should actually be "Land north of Rosswood Farm", in accordance with the supporting evidence base and site plans.

Of all of the potential development sites in Baginton, this site has been identified to have the least negative impact with good connectivity with the settlement with suitable access and provides opportunities to enhance the visual appearance of this part of the village, clearly defining an entrance to the village from the south. The site would form a logical boundary to this end of the village with development extending no further south than the pub and fronting the highway.

Green Belt:

As set out in section 3.7 of this consultation document, in order to meet the full objectively assessed housing needs of the Districts growing population, development options in the District's more sustainable villages must be considered. Release of this small part of Green Belt land will not result in an unacceptable impact on the Green Belt.

The site was included as parcel BAG4 under the Green Belt and Green Field Review November 2013. Whilst the parcel received a high sensitivity rating this referred to the land parcel as a whole which stretched from the A46 and sewage works, across to Coventry Road and Stoneleigh Road, as far south as Stoneleigh and Gantry Heath Wood and includes the castle. The results are therefore broad brush and not indicative of the entire parcel which was then assessed separately as a sub-parcel.

The sub‐parcel was considered to be "one which could accommodate a village extension as part of a sustainable pattern of development within the proposed village inset, with a modest impact on the fundamental aim and purposes of the Green Belt."

Furthermore, all of the land parcels at Baginton were considered to have between medium and high landscape value, save for land parcel BAG6 which is the very small parcel adjacent to the A46.

Notwithstanding this, in order to better inform how this site can be sensitively masterplanned to accommodate the proposed level of development with least impact on the Green Belt, the site owners have sought specialist advice from landscape architects. The findings of this further detailed landscape work is anticipated to be submitted to the Council in support of this site in early 2014.

Access:

There is currently an existing access into the site on Church Road opposite the bus stop. The advice regarding highways and transportation is that the site has excellent access to public transport with a pavement which provides safe access for pedestrians into the village centre. There are likely to be major positive effects on access to public transport which will outweigh any negative effects of the increase in traffic through allocation of this site which are likely to be minor.

Flooding:

The effects on flooding are considered to be neutral for this site which lies outside of a flood risk zone and any development approved would be designed in accordance with SUDs and the NPPF requirement that development would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Environmental Health:

Whilst the site could be subject to noise, odour, light and air quality due to the proximity of the airport and sewage works, all the sites assessed in Baginton were within proximity of the sewage works so this constrain affects all sites equally. With regard to the airport, this can be mitigated by appropriate masterplanning and noise attenuation measures.

Connectivity/Sustainability:

Whilst the site lies on the southern tip of the village it would be well connected to the existing village services, meaning development would not be peripheral or detached. The village does not have a defined "centre" with the main services (village hall, post office and pub) being spread throughout the village. The post office and village hall are to the north of the preferred site option with the pub in very close proximity to the south.

With the bus stop opposite the site and a pavement to all of the services it has excellent walking and public transport links. The pub lies directly opposite the site with open space (Millenium Field) directly adjacent. The village shop and post office is less than 500 metres from the site, an acceptable walking distance with the village hall just in excess of 500 metres from the site. The Manual for Streets (Paragraph 4.4.1) states "walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes' (up to about 800 m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot".

Whilst there are no healthcare or education facilities in Baginton, proximity of the village to Coventry means that it is reliant upon Coventry for such services.

Landscape:

The Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study has identified the site as having a high-medium sensitivity to housing development. To put this in context, of the 13 sites assessed in Baginton, 9 have been assessed to have a high sensitivity to housing development. Three were considered medium-high (including the preferred development site) and one assessed to have medium sensitivity. The medium site lies within the airport area and disconnected from the village.

The Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study recommends that development should be restricted to roadside only, with a landscape buffer of native tree planting to the west with development not being extended further south than the pub. These visual impact mitigation measures are all entirely achievable on this site. It also identifies that the visual appearance of the area has already been slightly degraded due to the lack of hedgerows which have been replaced by post and wire / tape fences and that Coventry Airport is very visible beyond the zone to the east. It identifies the potential for landscape enhancement as a result of development through replacing native hedgerows and the planting of a landscape buffer of native woodland around the new development.

The preferred site option has been demonstrated by the Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study and the Green Belt Review to be the most appropriate site in Baginton for development in visual landscape terms.

Notwithstanding this, in order to better inform how this site can be sensitively masterplanned to accommodate the proposed level of development with least visual impact, the site owners have sought specialist advice from landscape architects. The findings of this further detailed landscape work is anticipated to be submitted to the Council in support of this site in early 2014.

Sustainability Appraisal:

The Warwick District Council Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal of Potential Village Site Allocations is critical of development of any of the Baginton sites, identifying negative effects including loss of Green Belt and effects of pollution. However, this is not unique to Baginton; the SA identifies significant constraints in all settlements and without considering development options in the District's more sustainable villages (which includes Baginton), the district will be unable to meet the full objectively assessed housing needs of the Districts growing population. The SA identifies that all potential allocations are likely to lead to major positive long-term effects on housing needs.

see attached

At the Ordinary meeting of Baginton Parish Council (BPC) on 2.1.14 we discussed the above consultation documents. We then attended the Public Consultation at Baginton Village Hall on 4.1.14, where we discussed the proposals with the planners and the public. We further discussed this matter at an Extra-ordinary Meeting of BPC on 9.1.14.

We have taken account of the following in our deliberations:-

1. WRCC/BPC Housing Needs survey of Feb 2008, which identified a need for social housing for 17 new properties
2. WRCC/BPC Affordable Housing for Local People Study of October 2009, which reviewed three sites.
3. Our Parish Plan of 2012, following extension public consultation and public questionnaire in 2011. Its conclusions are self explanatory. In summary, almost 9 out of 10 respondents are in favour of supporting new houses for local people and most people support modest growth.
4. Our letter L075A to you of 8.1.12. & L090 to you of 18.7.12.
5. Letter from MP J Wright to BPC 24.7.12.
6. Our letter L122 to you of 21.7.13.
7. Your consultation documents issued 26.11.13, including (but not limited to) Section 7 Baginton and Section 15 Oak Lea, Finham.
8. Views of the public made at previous Ordinary BPC meetings.
9. Views of the public made at the public consultation of 4.1.14 and made in formulation of our housing needs survey and Parish Plan.
10. Discussions at the Extra-ordinary Meeting of 9.1.14 where 8 out of 9 Cllrs were present.

We write following consideration of all the above and make the following points:-

1. The proposals include up to 35 houses in area 1 of Section 7 on page 35 and up to 20 houses in Section 15 on page 61 (assumed 10nr Baginton, 10 nr Stoneleigh), in a village of approximately 356 dwellings. Whilst more than the 20 number expressed in our previous letters we understand from discussions with your planners on 4.1.14 that such developments would need to be supported by a mix of housing including 40% social housing and a mix of other properties. Having considered all the issues this Parish Council is in favour of sustainable development to allow modest village growth, from a mix of social housing, market housing and sheltered accommodation, for up to ( no more than) 45 number new residences on both sites. This would provide for the young and old and free up existing housing stock for families, encouraging organic growth of the village whilst maintaining the village character.

2. The plan on page 35 of the document shows the "village boundary" in brown. This is unrepresentative as Baginton includes far more properties. We understand from your planners that the brown line is the proposed boundary of the green belt de-restriction, with land inside removed from Green Belt and all land outside remaining in the Green Belt. We also note on page 32 that you need to take careful account of how the Green Belt is defined to include property boundaries or outlines of dwellings. BPC gave this much discussion at the extra-ordinary meeting of 9.1.14, where it was resolved that none of the land should be removed from the Green Belt. We therefore OBJECT to the removal of any part of the village from the Green Belt. The reason is to protect the area against inappropriate development and infill development, both of which would not be welcomed.

3. The plan on page 61 does not show the proposed site with any Green Belt removal, but is proposed for development of up to 20 houses. We believe there may be very special circumstances for developing this small triangle of land within the Green Belt, so BPC endorses this proposal.

4. We understand that removal of the Green Belt from defined areas would allow for less restrictive development within the brown line whilst maintaining Green Belt restrictions elsewhere. BPC recognise the need for organic growth in the village to maintain its viability in the future. BPC does not want the village to wither and die. The longstanding recognised need for further housing to support sustainable organic growth is supported by the proposals, so BPC have no objection in principle and we believe there may be very special circumstances for developing the two proposed sites were they to remain within the Green Belt. Should WDC insist on removal of Green Belt, which we object to, then the following must be put in place before this happens: -
A. Individual consultation between WDC and all householders affected by the change in their land from Green Belt to Non Green Belt. Cllrs are aware of some individuals who do not want their own land declassifying and wish the village to remain wholly in the Green Belt. All previous consultations had retention of the Green Belt and BPC requests retention of the Green Belt.
B. Under no circumstances shall the definition of the line go beyond the boundaries of the individual properties defined in the document. We do not want there to be any ambiguity. We favour the line be drawn to the rear of the dwellings to ensure back gardens are not inappropriately developed, should WDC insist on removal of Green Belt, which we object to.
C. A professional consideration of whether the preferred land marked 1 on page 35 can be developed whilst remaining in the Green Belt, given that very special circumstances may exist, as per the land on page 61. Do very special circumstances exist? Please offer advice on this pivotal point, as Cllrs do not want the Green Belt removed from any area if the preferred option site number 1 on page 35 can proceed on the basis that it fulfils defined local need, hence has very special circumstances. If this was the case BPC would be minded to support such a development given defined needs, retaining the entire village in the Green Belt.
D. The village conservation area and other areas remain in the Green Belt, as shown.

5. BPC welcomes the statement on page 26 that the Green Belt and landscape assessment work has emphasised the need to protect the villages from coalescence with nearby large settlements. This is certainly important as it helps maintain the open setting, identity and character of Baginton and protects it from Urban Sprawl. There must be no removal of any Green Belt to ensure that this protection is maintained in full. BPC believes that this vital requirement will be watered down if there was any release of the Green Belt so OBJECTS to removal of any Green Belt.

6. In all cases any housing shall be in wholly in character with the village, be sympathetic to the amenity of existing properties/people and shall not interfere with the Green Belt, as previously requested on numerous occasions.


7. We note from page 27 that the proposals in area 1 of page 35 would require substantial environmental screening. We request more details of what this might entail?

8. There have been many requests for the junction between Stoneleigh Road and Bubbenhall Road to be improved to a standard 90 degree T junction, yet continually this has been quashed due to cost. Any proposal must be supported by changes to the road infrastructure in this area, including changes to the junction and chicane.

9. The existing schools serving the village, mainly Priorsfield in Kenilworth but including others, are oversubscribed. BPC are concerned that the provision of new housing in the village is not supported by adequate schooling facilities for the general public. It is essential that any growth in housing beyond the housing needs survey of 17 properties is supported by an adequate policy for provision of schooling. Please can WDC confirm that adequate state schooling will be provided for any new housing as part of their proposals?

10. BPC require WDC assurance that there will be adequate public facilities such as enhanced bus services to Coventry as well as WDC areas, and Doctor facilities, given that one of the current Doctors surgeries is in Coventry. Please confirm adequate facilities will be in place for new housing?

11. There is no mention of S106 agreements. BPC would expect a S106 agreement be drawn up whereby a significant sum be provided by any developer for the provision of enhanced amenities for the village, such as the provision of a multi surface play area, improved children's facilities and such like. Can this be written into any agreement?

12. BPC does not support development of areas 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the plan on page 35 for the reasons given by WDC.

In conclusion, BPC OBJECTS to the removal of any land from the Green Belt, but SUPPORTS the preferred development sites for housing within Baginton, provided they have very special circumstances for development of the Green Belt with sympathetic housing, developed to serve defined needs of the village.

We ask that you account for our requests above and take notice of what we say, ensuring your documents are amended accordingly when they are issued for further consultation in due course. We trust this is helpful to yourselves and please do contact us should you have any queries,

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached