Sites Review

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61045

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Jean Drew

Representation Summary:

I agree sites 2) and 3) are not suitable for development. Access to these sites would increase traffic on Mallory Road, where there is concern over speeding traffic, and cause further congestion at the dangerous junction of Mallory Road and the busy A452. They are remote from the village centre and local services. The sewage system would not cope with these development sites. Since houses upstream and to the west were added to the system, our garden in Mallory Road is often flooded with sewage in periods of heavy rain. Development would also exacerbate the flooding of Holt Avenue properties.

Full text:

I agree sites 2) and 3) are not suitable for development. Access to these sites would increase traffic on Mallory Road, where there is concern over speeding traffic, and cause further congestion at the dangerous junction of Mallory Road and the busy A452. They are remote from the village centre and local services. The sewage system would not cope with these development sites. Since houses upstream and to the west were added to the system, our garden in Mallory Road is often flooded with sewage in periods of heavy rain. Development would also exacerbate the flooding of Holt Avenue properties.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61067

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mr. Roy Drew

Representation Summary:

Support preferred site. Development on the 2 discounted sites would be remote from the village amenities and would put more pressure on the already-overburdenned sewer that runs under Mallory Road and leaks raw sewage into my garden several times a year after heavy rain. Presumably, sewage from the preferred site would go by a different route.
Also, traffic would have to access the discounted sites via Mallory Road, increasing traffic flow, and hence risk of accident, at the already hazardous junction of Mallory Road and the A452.

Full text:

Support preferred site. Development on the 2 discounted sites would be remote from the village amenities and would put more pressure on the already-overburdenned sewer that runs under Mallory Road and leaks raw sewage into my garden several times a year after heavy rain. Presumably, sewage from the preferred site would go by a different route.
Also, traffic would have to access the discounted sites via Mallory Road, increasing traffic flow, and hence risk of accident, at the already hazardous junction of Mallory Road and the A452.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61346

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Representation Summary:

-The detailed evidence base supporting planning application (W/13/1688) for development of Site 3 by Barwood Development Securities Ltd demonstrates that the site is deliverable and represents an excellent opportunity for a high quality and sustainable housing scheme which would make a positive contribution towards Warwick District Council's housing supply and will deliver a number of benefits for the village.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61678

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

Representation Summary:

Support the discounting of Site 2 and 3 for development as:
-They are the most elevated and open space area.
-The village's visual appearance and gateway would be impacted on the western side.
-Many properties in Holt Avenue and Kingsley Road suffer flooding. An increase in surface run off would impact existing properties.
-Homes within the village found that taps, showers and cisterns ran dry during the construction of Warwick Gates. Further pressure loss would be caused.
-Mallory Road/A452 junction is already congested and dangerous.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61861

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Representation Summary:

-Other small sites around the parish could accommodate small numbers of housing and these are being considered in our Neighbourhood Plan.
-The Tollgate House site has been granted to have 6 houses constructed. This number could be increased.
-150 houses represent 18%+ increase in the village housing stock and a 20% increase in our population. This is higher than any other rural community in the District. The community needs 15 new homes (10 'market' and 5 'affordable').
-The scale of development is not required when 4500 new houses are being proposed on sites within 2 miles of the village.

Full text:

VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS (VHO)

Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council (BTPC) wishes to make the following comments: -

1 General Observations

1.1 BTPC accepts that rural settlements should be expanded by accommodating new housing that will help the District fulfil its overall housing numbers.

1.2 We do not agree with the contrived village hierarchy - it's full of inconsistencies. Each rural community should be assessed on an individual basis.

1.3 We recognise that due to demographic and societal changes it is probable that all rural settlements, not just those selected in this consultation, might be capable of and benefit from some new housing.

1.4. Sites for such housing must be selected with care and in conjunction with each rural community, as they prepare their Neighbourhood Plans. Top down imposition is not acceptable, but help from officers to identify and evaluate possible sites for development is very welcome.

1.5 Communities in villages would find growth more acceptable if they were encouraged to identify possible sites and to select small local builders rather than the process being lead by large speculative developers.

1.6 Sites should be small in scale to assist with integration of newcomers into the existing community. This will also smooth entrant numbers into the local primary schools and minimise population stratification, so phasing of the development over the planned period is very important.

1.7 With a consistent approach we think that the number of new houses in rural settlements could be greater than the 937 proposed. But this will require the exercise to be extended to include ALL rural settlements, so increasing from 13 to 22/24 the number of settlements to be included.

2 BT Specifics

2.1 We agree with the Overview of Findings relating to Bishop's Tachbrook on Table 3 on page 27 of the village housing options paper.
2.2 Because of the way the village has evolved, especially the new housing built in the 70's and 80's, the village envelope is very strongly defined. Previous site reviews show that there are hardly any spaces for in-fill development - with perhaps sites for just 6-10 houses. This is not surprising because this was the District's intention when the original village was extended in the 60's and 70's and all the land included in the envelope was planned for.

2.3 As part of its Neighbourhood Plan process the Working Group has commissioned a study from Urban Vision to assess all sites in and around the village. Their draft report is just in and has considered the 3 sites referred to in the VHO as well as 10 other possible sites. There is potential for some of the local plan requirement to be met on some of these sites reducing the numbers required on Site 1.

2.4 Also as part of its Neighbourhood Plan process a community consultation took place on Saturday the 18th January. The unanimous opinion of residents was that if additional housing is required in the village then Site 1 is the best location and it should be phased and limited in total to 70 homes or thereabouts. There was absolutely no support for sites 2 or 3.

2.5 In addition the PC now has the results of a Housing Need Survey conducted by WRHA in December 2013. The 250 completed questionnaires represent a high response rate. Its findings are that our community needs 15 new homes, of which 10 should be "market" and 5 "affordable. This is consistent with the Housing Need Survey carried out in 2009.

2.6 We have participated with Stephen Hay in his review of sites immediately adjacent to the village envelope; and agree in principle with the Preferred Option set out on pp38/39 of the report.

2.7 However we are not able to agree the number of new houses suggested for Site 1. The feedback summarised in paras 2.4 and 2.5 above underpin the reasons for this objection.

2.8 BTPC has major concerns on the number indicated of 150 houses. This would represent more than an 18 % increase in the village housing stock and a 20% increase in our population. We note that this is higher than any other rural community in the District; and we have to ask why this scale of development is being considered when 4500 new houses are being proposed on sites within 2 miles of Bishop's Tachbrook. This is an overwhelming number and would damage community life and the rural setting of the village. We would like the number being required from Bishop's Tachbrook reduced and made up from settlements not yet included in the Primary and Secondary villages mentioned in para 5.9 of the VHO

2.9 Traffic on Oakley Wood Road is already a concern with morning peak volume @1910 and evening @ 1809 according to the Transport Assessment (Phase 3) With the developments set out in the Local Plan per para 2.7 these figures are predicted to rise by 45% and 46% respectively.

2.10 A similar study should be carried out for Mallory Road which is already heavily used by commuters to reach the M40 from Leamington, passing through the centre of the village. The junction of Mallory Road and Banbury Road (B4100) has a bad accident record.

2.11 The Tollgate House site has been granted to have 6 houses built on it. This number could be increased. There are other small sites around the parish - see para 2.3 above - that might be brought forward for small numbers of housing and these are being taken into consideration in our Neighbourhood Plan.

SUMMARY

3.1 A second phase VHO should be set in train immediately to address the opportunities for new housing across all rural settlements in the District, through phased development over the planned period. By spreading the housing requirement more realistically the pressure on infrastructure will be reduced.

3.2 The maximum number of new houses on Site 1 in BT should be set at 70. Part of the site should be reserved for future expansion of the school facilities and the majority of the new housing should be on the lower slopes of the site avoiding the higher part towards the crest of the hill. The southern arc of the site within the gas no development zone to form a green boundary deep enough to have amenity value and mask as much as possible the noise from the M40. This could be designated as either Green Belt by the Local Plan or Local Green Space and include Site 3 that was considered in the VHO.

3.3 WDC Planning should reject all other housing developments in the parish above 5 units.

Settlement Boundaries

4 The VHO should specify the rural area policies that will apply to any land outside the agreed village boundaries, in particular non-green belt villages per para 6.9 on page 32. This could allow "exception sites" for small, appropriate developments to be brought forward as is the case in the current Local Plan.




BTPC 20 Jan 14

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62107

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Hayles

Representation Summary:

Support the discounting of Site 2 and 3 for development as:
-They are the most elevated and open space area.
-The village's visual appearance and gateway would be impacted on the western side.
-Many properties in Holt Avenue and Kingsley Road suffer flooding. An increase in surface run off would impact existing properties.
-Homes within the village found that taps, showers and cisterns ran dry during the construction of Warwick Gates. Further pressure loss would be caused.
-Mallory Road/A452 junction is already congested and dangerous.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 63360

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Representation Summary:

-According to the VHO, the preferred option has been selected due to the 'potential regenerative impact on the village and potential improvements for accessing the primary school' and discounts the land south of Mallory Road (Site 3) on the basis that it is a 'larger scale site with lower regenerative benefits than the preferred option'. The report does not identify the specific regenerative benefits that Site 1 can provide over Site 3 and unless the Council's decisions are based on a proportionate evidence base, the Local Plan will not be justified or consistent with national policy and is likely to be found unsound.

-It seems possible that the regenerative benefit is the potential for Site 1 to deliver a new access for the school. There is no technical evidence to demonstrate there is an issue which needs to be mitigated or that new access needed to be provided.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 63361

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Representation Summary:

-Both Sites 1 and 3 are sustainably located within convenient walking distance of the village centre and it seems that both will offer equal regenerative benefits. Site 3 is only 300m from an existing bus stop. Discounting Site 3 on the lesser potential regenerative benefits it will bring is therefore not justified and the site should be reconsidered.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 63363

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Representation Summary:

Site 3 (SHLAA Reference R31), controlled by Barwood is suitable for development as:
-Barwood are currently entering an agreement with the landowner.
-Subject to planning permission the site can be delivered within five years.
-Sustainable location for development and any impacts can be mitigated effectively.
-The current planning application has not raised any objection from the statutory stakeholders subject to standard planning conditions being attached.
-Provide a mix and range of housing types to meet the needs of the village's existing population and encourage wider demographic mix.
-Potential for landscape enhancement.
-The localised ridgeline provides a good opportunity to provide a sizeable area of open space.
-Public Right of Way will be retained and enhanced.
-There are no 'A' Grade Trees of high quality and value.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments: