Indicative Settlement Boundary

Showing comments and forms 1 to 18 of 18

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60471

Received: 28/11/2013

Respondent: Eric Williams

Representation Summary:

The green belt should begin at the building edge. I.e. the long gardens should be identified as "greenbelt". This will maintain the current look and feel of the village and prevent ugly "garden grabbing development"

Full text:

The green belt should begin at the building edge. I.e. the long gardens should be identified as "greenbelt". This will maintain the current look and feel of the village and prevent ugly "garden grabbing development"

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60748

Received: 13/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Simon Ward

Representation Summary:

The village boundary should be kept as tight as possible to the maximum concentration of houses, discouraging ribbon developments to minimise impact on natural habitats and landscapes and allow villagers to walk to the edge of the village.

Full text:

The village boundary should be kept as tight as possible to the maximum concentration of houses, discouraging ribbon developments to minimise impact on natural habitats and landscapes and allow villagers to walk to the edge of the village.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60984

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr John & Diana Levett

Representation Summary:

In my view the "New Settlement Boundary" should include all existing properties and their gardens in Burton Green.

Full text:

In my view the "New Settlement Boundary" should include all existing properties and their gardens in Burton Green.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61081

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Adrian Stokes

Representation Summary:

I think the inset boundary should be tight -- set just beyond the building edge rather than to the end of very long gardens.

It's not clear why the rest of the properties on Red Lane (within the village) haven't been included.

Full text:

I think the inset boundary should be tight -- set just beyond the building edge rather than to the end of very long gardens.

It's not clear why the rest of the properties on Red Lane (within the village) haven't been included.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61138

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Angus Brewer

Representation Summary:

Ensure that no further housing and developments are allowed outside of the preferred option, to ensure village boundaries are kept intact and distinct, and separate from surrounding villages/settlements, such as Kenilworth, Balsall Common, Coventry etc.

Green belt boundaries should not necessarily come further than the edge of gardens etc.

Full text:

Ensure that no further housing and developments are allowed outside of the preferred option, to ensure village boundaries are kept intact and distinct, and separate from surrounding villages/settlements, such as Kenilworth, Balsall Common, Coventry etc.

Green belt boundaries should not necessarily come further than the edge of gardens etc.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61212

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Luisa Protheroe

Agent: Viner & Company

Representation Summary:

Support the proposed village boundary for Burton Green, where 168 Cromwell Lane is inset outside the Green Belt and is surrounded by other dwellings

Full text:

We support the proposed village boundary for Burton Green, Lane is
inset outside the greenbelt and is surrounded by other dwellings.

Through the Local Plan the site could be developed to produce extra dwellings to add to the dwelling mix of
Burton Green.

There is good access to the site from both the frontage and the lane at the side of the property.
Services are available in Cromwell Lane.

I attach a copy of the proposed Village Plan with our Client's site marked in red.

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61311

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: CALA Homes (Midlands) Ltd & Mr & mrs Watkinson

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

-The proposed Settlement Boundary on the Burton Green Village Plan is considered to be positively prepared with the incorporation of the most appropriate development site (Site 1) incorporated within land to be inset from the Green Belt such that it will enable to delivery of sustainable development.
-The nature of the built-up area of Burton Green creates no opportunities for housing allocation or windfall development within the urban area.
-Building on greenfield sites on the edge of the settlement will create a tight Settlement Boundary inclusive of both the existing built form and land delivering the required increased housing numbers.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61430

Received: 22/01/2014

Respondent: Erwin & Claire Verwichte & Foullon

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

-In agreement that the boundary should not extend into Hob or Red Lane as to preserve the area as green belt and avoid ribbon development.
-In being against development at Site 1, it should not be included in the village boundary.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61438

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael and Deirdre Vernon

Representation Summary:

Would like to change the boundary.

Full text:

We must firstly declare an interest in that we are part owners of Plot 7 on the Burton Green section of the Village Housing Options published document. Together with the other owners of Plot 7, all of whom are local residents, we have submitted a joint response in which we have expressed our arguments in favour of our site as well as our views on Indicative Settlement Boundaries. This brief response is intended to represent our personal views on the overall impact upon the village, and does not attempt to represent the views of any other members of the group.



Village Housing Options. Pages 40, 41. Burton Green

Nature of Representation Objection

We have lived in the village for 26 years and consider ourselves as active members of an enjoyable community. Our children attended Burton Green School and we regularly participate in a wide variety of local activities and events as well as helping with their organisation.

Our aim is to preserve the community spirit within the village, particularly in the face of possible major disruption resulting from the building of HS2. We welcome new entrants to the village, and particularly so if they are able to participate in and enhance village life. Our main concern is that a relatively large single development on the edge of the village would be isolated from the rest of the village and would bring very little benefit to the existing community. The Preferred Option (Plot 1) would fall into this category, and we feel that there is a danger that new residents on such an estate would be less likely to integrate with the existing community. For this reason, a series of smaller developments spread among the village would be preferable. Smaller developments would also help to preserve and enhance the visual appearance of the village. It may be tempting for Warwick D.C. to solve the problem of providing the housing requirement for Burton Green at a stroke by allowing a single large development, but a quick and simple solution must not be allowed to become the overriding concern.

We agree that a mixture of housing types is desirable, and that Burton Green would benefit from the influx of a wider cross section of society than at present. Such diversity can be catered for equally well by two or three smaller developments as by a single large development.

The issue of the relocation of the Village Hall should not be allowed to influence the housing decision. If the proposed HS2 construction goes ahead, then HS2 are obliged to provide the relocation site as well as the actual building. We feel that the ideal location for the Village Hall is at or near the present site, simply because it is at the geographical centre of the village. The land above and around the proposed HS2 tunnel could provide an ideal eventual location, particularly in view of the need for additional car parking.


Comment on Indicative Settlement Boundary. Page 41. Burton Green

Nature of Representation Objection

In order to satisfy the stated objectives of preventing future coalescence of Burton Green with the neighbouring areas of Coventry, Crackley or Kenilworth, the logical place to relax the Green Belt limit would seem to be in a North Westerly direction to coincide with the Warwickshire / Solihull boundary. This small relaxation would enable sufficient new development over the 15 year period to satisfy the new housing requirements within the area, but without encouraging further ribbon development.

Further comment
We find it highly regrettable that the Local Plan for Village Housing Options was published in a form which appears to prejudice the outcome of the consultation process. In particular, the use of the terminology "Preferred Option" and "Discounted Option" introduces a considerable element of bias which is very likely to affect the perceptions of those who read the report or respond to the consultation. Many people are likely to interpret "Preferred Option" as meaning "Chosen Option" and therefore take the view that the report represents a fait accompli, in which case they will be discouraged from taking part in the consultation.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61469

Received: 24/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Rosalie Vine

Representation Summary:

-As the Burton Green boundary has been extended down Red Lane almost to Clinton Lane, I fail to understand why this area has not been taken into consideration for housing. It is far enough away from the proposed HS2 railway line and has extensive open countryside.
-Should the green belt be amended it will cause a great deal of anguish, intrusion and the devaluation of property.

Full text:

Having carefully studied the proposals for Burton Green Village, I agree that the preferred option No. 1 Burrow Hill Nursery is by far the best option as it will be built on open land having a ready made entrance and will not encroach upon any other properties in the area.
An alternative is to continue with ribbon development as in sites 3 and 4, which is the way the village, has evolved over the years it has been in existence. As there are existing houses opposite these sites, it would be appropriate for this type of development.

I am very much against 'back garden development' as stated in sites 2,5,6 and 7. As it stands at present it is within the green belt and has been appreciated and enjoyed by residents in Burton Green for over fifty years. Should the green belt order be amended it will cause a great deal of anguish, intrusion and most importantly a devaluation of property.

Part C - Commenting on the Indicative Settlement Boundaries.

Burton Green Settlement.

As the Burton Green boundary has been extended down Red Lane almost to Clinton Lane, I fail to understand why this area has not been taken into consideration for housing. It is far enough away from the proposed HS2 railway line and has extensive open countryside.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61519

Received: 22/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Allen Kingham

Representation Summary:

-I agree with the village boundary.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61681

Received: 23/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Peter Stanworth

Representation Summary:

-The settlement boundary on the plan does not include the whole of the village in Red Lane.

Full text:

I have tried unsuccessfully to respond using the electronic consultation system. It said it recognises my email address - reason unknown - but I have no password. Hence a response by email.

VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS

I am responding to the whole of the document but particularly that part of the Local Plan referring to Burton Green, especially pages 40 and 41.
Page 41 shows a plan of Burton Green with a hatched area across the page. I am told that this corresponds to the proposed track of the HS2 railway. It is not defined in the index. It does not show the portals of the tunnel and the land generated over it.
The following are my opinions:
General
The village at present is in turmoil with the prospect of the construction of the HS2 railway. During the construction phase life is likely to become very unpleasant with disruption in all aspects. It is very unlikely that future residents will wish to move to Burton Green with this in mind. This has not been discussed in the Local Plan.
I suggest that no decision about future housing in Burton Green is taken until the decision has been made to start work on the HS2 project.
Concentration of housing (75 dwellings) in one plot as the preferred option at plot 1 is not acceptable.
* It is inappropriate and out of character with the ribbon development of the village
* It is the highest part of Burton Green and therefore has the most visual impact
* It is not central to the village with only a few houses down one side of the plot
* It will cause major traffic congestion in the Red Lane area (an additional 100+ cars)
* Such a concentration of new residents in one isolated area will result in lack of integration into the village and loss of cohesion as a whole.
* The proposed site will receive the blast of passing trains emerging and entering the south portal of the tunnel should HS2 go ahead.
I do not understood why an expansion of ribbon development is detrimental. The position of the houses in the village is the reason for many people coming to live in Burton Green.

Number of extra houses required.
WDC has proposed an increase of 75 houses. This is an increase of 28% of the housing stock in the village, the largest in Warwickshire. Burton Green has few amenities. It thus seems out of proportion. It seems unreasonable that Ashow for example is not expected to accept more houses.
The number of proposed houses should be much reduced. I would suggest that 60 houses could be readily absorbed throughout the whole village with little disturbance of character (see below).

Suggestions
In my opinion 60 new houses should be spread fairly and equally throughout the village by using plots 1 to 7. Land generated by the HS2 tunnel could well be used to provide a central area for some housing (The HS2 photomontage shows a new house built on the tunnel).
This would:
* Be in keeping with the character of the village
* Produce least visual impact
* Produce least traffic congestion
* Allow integration of new residents more readily into the village
* Would be easily deliverable using a variety of developers
Access has been stated as a problem to some plots. Access is readily obtained by purchasing the necessary property as is already taking place on one plot.
I know the Council is concerned about spread between Coventry and Kenilworth but development on plots 5 and 6 is limited by Lodge Farm and surrounding buildings.
A Village Hall (funding agreed by HS2) and playing fields can be incorporated into any of the plots.
If 5 houses were built on Plot1 along Hob Lane this would provide the connectivity that is mentioned with the remainder of the Lane.
INDICATIVE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
I do not understood why the area shown on the plan does not include the whole of the village in Red Lane. The whole of Red Lane within the village should be included.
The line should be drawn just beyond the building edge to prevent garden development in the gardens.
GENERAL
No plan will satisfy all residents within the village but the above appears a reasonable compromise without a major alteration in the character of the village.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61814

Received: 24/01/2014

Respondent: Burton Green Parish Council

Representation Summary:

-The green belt should extend to cover gardens associated with dwelling houses to deter a development of those gardens on a piecemeal basis

Full text:

Burton Green Parish Council (BGPC) notes the timing of the Local Plan and response date is running out of synch with the work being undertaken by BGPC in developing a Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood plan will include a full consultation with the community on the potential housing options and the 'planning environment' within Burton Green. As the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan process will not be delivered until after this Local Plan consultation closes, this response is an interim response based on evidence collected via the Parish Plan and housing Needs Survey's collected in 2013. BGPC will continue to engage with WDC over the Local Plan through the Neighbourhood Plan process and present further evidence following the Neighbourhood plan event in February.

Key themes that arose from the Parish Plan questionnaire were that residents valued the rural location, open views and pleasant location. Residents are also concerned by the impact of HS2 on the sustainability of the village and in particular are concerned that it could drive families away leading to the closure of the school. Most people did not want development at all in the village and those that did preferred schemes which did not intrude on the principles set out below. See extracts from Parish Plan appendix 1 attached.


Taking the above points into account, criteria that the BGPC believe is important to Burton Green:

* The existing nature of the village is maintained i.e. open aspect, rural views, low density housing.
* Burton Green remains a village/independent identity and that Coventry developments do not spread. i.e the 'Crackley Gap' is maintained.
* That the village is enhanced by any future development and that it adds to the long term sustainability of the community; such as a new improved village hall, improving parking at the school and creating recreational and open space.
* That the impact of the Local Plan, HS2 developments and local needs are considered holistically.


To this end we have the following comments:

Theme: Scale of development

Burton Green is a ribbon development consisting of 387 properties. When first presented the WDC Local Plan proposed 50-80 houses in the village, which at the time we considered a significant increase. With the latest version the number of proposed properties has grown to 70- 90 properties, which has an even more significant impact on the village targeting nearly 25% growth, and BGPC has a concern that development of that scale would alter the linear nature of the village as it is unlikely that those properties could be accommodated within the current ribbon development as evidenced by the sites highlighted in the Local Plan document. Also the proposed numbers were to take into account properties destroyed by HS2, current HS2 proposals have a much smaller number of properties impacted than previously thought. Therefore any new developments should be below or at the lower end of the scale proposed.

Theme: Environmental and Character impact

The existing rural and open character of the village needs to be maintained as this is highly prized by current residents. Therefore, maintaining as much as the current greenbelt is paramount, which the Local Plan appears to do.

Within the original Local Plan draft a peri-urban park was proposed, which would have ensured an important green space between Burton Green and Coventry and enhanced the local environment and habitats. We are therefore disappointed that the wildlife corridor plans appear to have been shelved, as we believe it is imperative to retain a green corridor to prevent the urbanisation and the coalescence of settlements and in some way redress the damage of HS2.

As noted above residents favour developments which would help to maintain the character of the village. None of the 7 options considered totally achieve this objective.

However, having heard from representatives in relation to sites numbered 1, 2 and 7 as set out in the Council's Consultative document we can see advantages in site number 1
It could create a new heart for the village by bringing the school, village hall and a village green together whilst avoiding urbanisation with Coventry. It would also alleviate to some degree parking problems associated with the school and the greenway. However we would argue for a smaller development, than the 75 properties proposed. This would ensure low density housing to maintain the rural village nature and minimise the impact on the local views and amenities. Within such a development there is a need for low cost housing to encourage young families to support the school, bungalows to allow elder residents to downsize, and there is an opportunity to provide housing to replace the existing almshouses that are likely to be demolished by HS2. Our main concerns about the preferred site other than the number of properties are the interaction with HS2 construction which will require careful planning and coordination, safe access off Red Lane and sufficient screening off the site and throughout it to maintain the rural feel.

By restricting the number of houses on the preferred site further smaller developments could also be progressed over time if the right land is put forward. Sites 2 and 7 though smaller than any proposed on development site 1 cannot in our view create a village centre, that is a hall, playing field/village green and parking, and provide housing at the same time. We expect to have more information on this following the Neighbourhood Plan consultation.

At present there is no real consideration for HS2, any development that is needed to address the housing need arising from HS2 demolitions, including the Village Hall, needs to be completed before HS2 work starts. Also as this plan is for the long term it needs to address land released by HS2 post construction. For example, there should be consideration given to using the land above the tunnel to provide green space, such as community orchards, allotments, skate parks or nature reserves which are some of the suggestions from the Parish Plan.

In summary, we broadly support the Local Plan but are concerned about:
* The number of properties proposed for the village.
* Getting the development right on the preferred site.
* Interaction and coordination with HS2.
* Capturing Neighbourhood plan input into the process


It is also the view of the Council that within Burton Green the green belt should extend to cover gardens associated with dwellinghouses to deter a development of those gardens on a piecemeal basis.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62017

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Ann Corbett

Representation Summary:

-Housing development should be diffused throughout the village and not concentrated in one small area.
-The bat survey should determine if any development is possible at Site 1 and therefore whether it can be included within the settlement boundary.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62177

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Norman Yearsley

Representation Summary:

The boundary should include the gardens of properties but a minimum incursion into the Green Belt is required otherwise many applications for development of other sites will follow and will be difficult to refuse.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62226

Received: 24/02/2014

Respondent: Mrs B.M. Woodward

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62255

Received: 24/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Dominic & Rachel Rudge

Representation Summary:

We object to the removal of the village from Green Belt, Burton Green is accessed by a through road Cromwell Lane which is far too busy and too fast, any increased development would dog the village further.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 63567

Received: 17/02/2014

Respondent: Dr Paul Thornton

Representation Summary:

I suggest that consideration be given to lifting the Green Belt restriction at the Burton Green Option 7 location. This should be considered even if the consultation concludes that the primary development site for Burton Green might be elsewhere. This would improve further the sustainability of the village and provide some capacity to balance non-development in other areas of green belt requiring higher priority protection. For administrative convenience and to make use of an established cartographic line, it might be appropriate to move the green belt boundary and village boundary even further on the north-west side of Cromwell Lane - as far as the line of the Warwickshire/Solihull Boundary. This might extend from Hodgetts Lane to the boundary's three way junction with the Coventry City Council boundary near the junction between Cromwell Lane and Westward Heath Road. The irregularity of this line, used in this manner, would generate small parcels of discrete useful development land without setting a substantially detrimental precedent.
If this extended strategy was applied, it could also include the Burton Green Housing Site 2.

Full text:

see attached and disc

Attachments: