Sites Review

The site put forward is prone to flooding, the purposed homes will cut the protected wood off from wild life which live in it including bats.

The Birmingham road can not cope with traffic already between the rush hours adding up 200 cars coming from Hatton park is Dangerous and Irresponsible madness.

I understand that area 2 is a proposed alternative to area one on the local plan proposed by Bloor Homes.This area is far more suitable for development and would be more sensitive to the needs of the area.Traffic flow onto the roundabout on the Birmingham road although increasing capacity may have a traffic calming effect on speed reduction at the roundabout. if area 2 is planned in a sensitive way it can use the trees and be visually descreet to the approach to Warwick.As part of the development new access could be provided to Hatton Locks (including parking) and a pedestrian crossing over the Birmingham Road. (this would also slow speed of traffic on the approach to the roundabout). Taking into account that new housing has to go somewhere in the next 15 -20 years, this is a far more effective solution keeping the character of the existing developments and maintaining a greenbelt gap between Warwick and Hatton park.
Lets try and keep the greenbelt gap. Leamington Spa and Warwick are almost joined together on the other side of Warwick.Lets not have one continuous sprawl from Leamington through to Hatton .

I oppose any further housing development at Hatton Park.
However if development went ahead despite objections, which I hope it doesn't, I would prefer it to be not on the council's preferred site, but on option 2 which I understand Bloor Homes is interested in developing. As a Hatton Park resident I feel that would be less visually intrusive, and their idea to include some space for allotments would be welcomed.

The reasons given for discounting the 5 sites equally apply to the preferred site

Development along the canal corridor must be avoided at all costs. I am a regular user of the canal towpath and place great value on it as an amenity. The effect on Local Wildlife of any development there will be disastrous (loss of habitat / feeding ground; disruption during construction; new residents' cats killing the many ducks, moorhens, rodents and hedgehogs that live along the canal). The canal is an area of significant natural beauty and heritage, a welcome retreat from modern development and as such must be preserved.

It is unclear how the evidence base has been assessed to construct a preference in favour of the site abutting Smith's Covert in Hatton Park.

WDC appears to discount four other sites on the grounds that these either represent a threat to potential Local Wildlife Sites or constitute unwelcome ribbon development. I fail to understand why the same reasoning does not apply to Smith's Covert? This is a valuable tract of ancient woodland that harbours a variety of wildlife and fauna and is a potential Local Wildlife Site. In particular, it is an important roosting area for bats and many birds (including buzzards and owls). I should like to draw to the Council's attention the following recommendation in a study it commissioned and made public in 2008:-

(See page 67 of the Warwick District Habitat Assessment Habitat Biodiversity Audit Partnership for Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull c/o Warwickshire Museum Field Services The Butts, Warwick, CV34 4SS August - published October 2008):

"Bats can be found in many buildings and trees, even those that initially appear to be unsuitable. Bats and their roost sites are protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Habitat Regulations 1994, the latter of which deems them a European Protected Species. Therefore it is recommended that a pre-determinative bat survey of the buildings, woodland and mature trees is undertaken at an appropriate time of year by a qualified ecologist.

Recommendations The three pLWS/SINCs (Smiths Covert SP26N2, Budbrooke Farm Woodlands and Black Brake Plantation SP26T1 and Brownley Green Lane SP26N1) should be retained and a buffer zone implemented to prevent direct or indirect impact on the sites."

It appears that the Council has yet to act on this recommendation but is nevertheless recommending in the New Local Plan an environmentally detrimental housing development.

Further, I also note in Appendix 6 of the New Local Plan (page 280) it comments on preferred site 1: "Large open field site which has good connectivity to Hatton Park. Requires substantial
Environmental buffering to the north and east of the site and further work required on site access and localised surface water flooding." The matter of flooding should not be taken lightly and remedial works would be overly invasive and environmentally damaging. I note also that WDC indicates that Smith's Covert may be designated a Local Wildlife Site: "Smiths (sic) Covert potential Local Wildlife Site is to the north of the site." (also page 280).

On pages 233-36 in Appendix 7 of the New Local Plan (Warwick District Council Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study Produced jointly by WCC Ecological Services & Habitat Biodiversity Audit and WCC Landscape Architects November 2013), it appears that the Council's consultants believe that a small ribbon of trees extending only at least 10m would suffice to screen and protect the environment (p. 236): "It is also imperative that a landscape buffer of native trees, at least 10m in width, should be created to maintain a visual link and wildlife corridor between Smith's Covert and the wider countryside to the east." This would be a woefully inadequate remedial measure. Were any development within site 1 to take place, which in my view should not be allowed, a buffer extending at least 100m should be created using Ash and Oak saplings and native shrubbery.

Contrary to how the various assessments come across, the facilities on Hatton Park are very limited for the number of properties and residents - we have a village hall, a small playground, a tiny village shop and a limited bus service.
Any further development would require significant additional facilities; schools and doctors being high on the list.
The traffic congestion on the A4177 is a real concern - there are significant delays most mornings during rush hour and M40/A46 issues quickly bring gridlock.
Road safety is also a significant worry.
Additional residents, properties and vehicles will compound the issues.

I object to the development proposal for Hatton Park, marked a 1 in the local plan map. The infrastructure cannot cope with further development - for example the main road is already gridlocked at peak times, there is increased risk of traffic accidents, noise etc.. The current estate has a unique small countryside/community feel to it, hard to describe on paper but I feel that the addition of substantial amount of housing will erode away at this ambiance, leading eventually to it being just yet another sprawling town housing estate, with increased problems that come with large housing urbanisations such as antisocial behavior, noise, traffic pollution and crime. The current infrastructure services for the area such as schools, doctors etc. are already struggling to cope with current resident demands and this needs addressing as the first priority before further housing could be accommodated. Hatton Park has several areas of natural beauty/historic interest that need protecting such as Smith's Covert - which could potentially be impacted by the proposed development.
I am also concerned at the increased risk of flooding, such a large development of houses could contribute to. The type of soil on Hatton Park is hard clay - it does not drain well at all, and already gardens flood very easily and are sodden throughout the winter. As well as potential impact on existing supplies such as water pressure/utilities etc.
As a user of Warwick Parkway rail station I have seen a dramatic increase in utilisation over the past year, since the station has been redeveloped and better train services added. It is already at capacity around 9am of a morning and struggles to accommodate demand during the week. It would be a good idea to look at how commuters could be encouraged to utilise unused train stations such as Hatton park station - whose regeneration could potentially happen if housing were built nearer that existing train station.

I found this interesting:

"The site selection attempts to minimise landscape impact in an area constrained by landscape and environmental sensitivities around the canal network"

Therefore, if Hatton Park is an area with so many sensitive areas, why is it still been considered? This part of Warwick has some great countryside and the report recognises wildlife can be harmed through further development, so I don't understand why the proposed site is any different to those been dismissed.

I would like to object to all the proposed developments at Hatton Park.

The Birmingham Road (A4177) can not cope with the extra traffic in the morning and evening rush hours, this will only get worse as I believe that there are plans to install traffic lights at the roundabout junction of the A4177, A46 and A425 biased in favour of the A46. The A4177 Birmingham Road also can not cope with the extra traffic if there are problems with the M40 and A46.

Options 1, 2 & 3 all pose a significant threat to the local wildlife, which include badgers, rabbits, plants and trees.

Option 2 would be highly visible from the road and canal, spoiling one of the tourist attraction of Hatton Locks

I write to register my opposition to the proposed plan.

Site 1 would just increase the flow of water onto the Birmingham Road where the drains cannot cope at present during heavy rain and was flooded more than once last year.

Site2 is dangerously positioned and would benefit nobody but the landowner Mr Arkwright who would make a great deal of money from the sale.

Hatton Park has only one shop and is used regularly only by those living closeby. To suggest that Site 2 is centrally located to it is a nonsense as it would be on the other side of the very busy Birmingham Rd.

The local schools are full. The bus runs half-hourly but not in the evenings, on Sundays or Bank holidays.

Urban sprawl needs to be contained. People need green spaces and somewhere that they can get away from the hurly burly and recharge their batteries. Wildlife must be protected too or we will all live to regret it.

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.

This means that the new houses will be built at lower level, likely to suffer flooding. Increasing traffic flow where the village school children catch the school buses. This site will be clearly visible from Charingworth Drive, devaluing property and creating an 'eye sore' for residents over looking them. Your reason for discrediting option two was a highly visible site, this option is exactly that from the residents of Hatton Park. There will be disruption and threat to wildlife in Smiths Covert if this plan is carried through, as well as bats that are protected and inhabit this area.

1.1 These submissions relate to the proposals for meeting the housing provision for Hatton Park of 70 to 90 dwellings as set out within the Revised Development Strategy. These submissions need to be read in the context of Bloor Homes submissions in respect of paragraph 4.10.
1.2 Bloor Homes do not support the Council's Preferred Option for the village. The land north of Birmingham Road is not considered the most appropriate site for allocation when considered against the alternative discounted Option 2 (land between Hatton Park and Canal Road).
1.3 Having regard to the Council's evidence, the land north of Birmingham Road is considered to be of higher environmental and amenity value compared to Option 2. The land is acknowledged within the Council's evidence as being within a highly visible area, and that its development would negatively impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt. This is a prominent site when viewed from within and outside of the village, and would extend built development along Birmingham Road into open countryside in what might be described as a more sensitive gap locally between the settlement and the town of Warwick.
1.4 The land north of Birmingham Road is also of significant environmental value in the role it plays in contributing to the integrity of the Ancient Woodland and potential Local Wildlife Site (Smith's Covert) to the immediate north of the site. The land represents the only physical link between the Ancient Woodland and open countryside.
1.5 The eastern boundary of the land north of Birmingham Road is also formed by the original 'drive' to the former King Edward VII Memorial Sanatorium. The existing avenue of trees along this 'drive' is of historical significance to the area, and as such is a heritage asset.
1.6 The land to the north of Birmingham Road is therefore of significant visual, ecological and historic value. Moreover, its development is only assessed as potentially suitable by the Council with 'substantial buffering'. No information is provided as to how large the buffering would need to be to retain the integrity of these assets, however, they would clearly require a significant proportion of the land to be kept open.
1.7 Given the need also to provide adequate distance separation from the adjoining residential properties within Hatton Park and an appropriate environmental buffer from the Birmingham Road, a significant proportion of the land on all four sides is acknowledged as not suitable for development due to its environmental and amenity value.
1.8 In comparison, the value of Option 2 is not considered of such significance. Whilst the canal towpath to the south of the site has some ecological value as a corridor for wildlife (although it is not formally designated), a substantial tree belt already exists along this boundary which would be retained, enhanced and managed as part of any development.
1.9 The Council's evidence acknowledges that this tree belt provides 'good tree cover' and forms an 'important setting for the canal and its flight of locks', separating the locks physically and visually from the site. The extent to which Option 2 therefore contributes to the integrity of the ecological value of the canal towpath, or the amenity value of the locks themselves is considered very limited. Moreover, as a general principle, it is noted that the Council have identified preferred options on other greenfield sites alongside the canal at Lapworth and Radford Semele in similar circumstances.
1.10 Having regard to the Council's evidence of the wider landscape and ecological value of the site, particularly its role as a green link or buffer, an assessment has been undertaken of the extent of harm that might be caused by the development of the site on the character and value of the wider area. This concludes that the site is considered to be appropriate for development in landscape and visual terms due to its visual containment (particularly with the retention of the belt of vegetation alongside the canal), its ability to retain important green functions and key visual links as part of any development layout, and its opportunity to consolidate the surrounding built form.
1.11 Paragraphs 17 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework require plans to allocate land of the least environmental or amenity value. Having regard to the evidence, the land north of Birmingham Road is not considered to be of lesser environmental value when compared to Option 2.
1.12 Paragraphs 17 and 110 also require consideration to be given to whether the development of the site would be consistent with other policies of the Framework. In this context, particular regard must be given to the requirement of paragraph 28 of the Framework for plans to support a prosperous rural economy.
1.13 The development of Option 2 is considered more consistent with the policies of the Framework than the Preferred Option for the following reasons.
1.14 Option 2 is better located in terms of its proximity to village services and facilities, such as the village shop, village halls, pubs, church, Hatton Locks and visitor facilities, and primary school (as shown on the plan submitted separately of the facilities within the area). Furthermore, the ability of the development to provide a safe means of pedestrian access across the Birmingham Road will ensure that walking or cycling are attractive options for residents of the development to access the shop and village hall within Hatton Park.
1.15 Development of Option 2 is therefore more likely than the Preferred Option to enhance and maintain the vitality of village services as required by paragraph 28 of the Framework, and also noted as a key requirement for the Council in allocating development to the rural area. Moreover, its location will ensure the need to travel will be minimised and opportunities for sustainable transport modes maximised as required by paragraphs 34 and 55 of the Framework.
1.16 The development of Option 2 is also able to add to the built form of the village in a way that improves the way it functions, as required by paragraph 64 of the Framework. The development can deliver improved access for pedestrians and cyclists to the canal locks facilities from Hatton Park by providing a more direct and safer link across the Birmingham Road and through the new development (as shown on the layout plan submitted separately). In addition, the provision of a new junction for Brownley Green Lane with Birmingham Road will improve road safety and reduce speeds of vehicles travelling through the village.
1.17 These proposals will improve the safety and convenience for residents and visitors going between Hatton Park and the canal locks facilities and footpaths beyond which will improve the way the settlement functions. Furthermore, these proposals will successfully integrate the development with the village as required by paragraphs 61 and 70 of the Framework.
1.18 The development of Option 2 also has the potential to incorporate an area of car parking to serve visitors to the canal network as well as a an alternative vehicular access to the locks complex. This would provide additional parking and means of access to the canal which could reduce or even potentially remove all visitor traffic from using Canal Road and its existing junction with the Birmingham Road. The Council will be aware that it is recognised within the Parish Plan that this is a junction requiring improvements to address safety issues. Again, therefore, the development of Option 2 has the potential to make a significant contribution to safety within the village and the way in which it functions.
1.19 Furthermore, the above proposals for improved linkages and access that would form part of the development of Option 2 will have a significant positive impact on rural tourism and leisure facilities which will be of benefit to local businesses and communities. The allocation of this site would therefore be entirely in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Framework, in so far as supporting rural economic growth.
1.20 In comparison, there is little detail provided in the consultation report as to how the Preferred Option will improve the way Hatton Park functions or how it will be integrated with the settlement. The development of the Preferred Option with its primary access onto Birmingham Road to the south east of the village has the potential to 'turn its back' on the village and encourage its residents to travel to Warwick or Hampton Magna for their day-to-day needs. Moreover, the requirement for a 'substantial buffer' to the north of the site adjoining the Ancient Woodland will limit the extent to which the development can integrate with the existing village.
1.21 Its development is therefore unlikely to improve the way the village functions, and is less likely to enhance or maintain village services, or contribute towards economic growth in the area. The development of the Preferred Option would therefore result in adverse impacts when assessed against the policies of the Framework.
1.22 Bloor Homes do not therefore consider the Preferred Option represents the most appropriate when considered against the alternative, Option 2.
1.23 Furthermore, Bloor Homes do not consider that there are any adverse impacts of the development of Option 2 which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.
1.24 Option 2 is within the control of Bloor Homes and is deliverable as defined in the Framework (footnote 11 of page 12). The land is available for development now, technically developable (a site assessment report is submitted separately identifying the ability of the land to be developed), viable, and is in a suitable location for the reasons set out above. Initial master planning demonstrates that the quantum of development (70 to 90 dwellings) and associated land uses, including suitable open spaces, buffers, and a new access road and parking can be provided on the site. An illustrative masterplan is submitted with these representations to demonstrate how the site might be developed. Further details will be shared with the Council as the master planning work progresses and prior to the publication of the draft Plan.
1.25 Bloor Homes therefore respectfully request the Council identify Option 2 as an allocation within their Draft Local Plan recognising that the site is of lesser environmental value, and that its development would meet a number of objectives of the Framework.

see attached

I would like to register my objection to the proposed development at Hatton Park for the following reasons:

1. The Road Infrastructure limitations

- The A4177 from Hatton Park to Warwick is already extremely busy and gets regularly congested on week days during rush hours. On a standard day traffic is heavy and slow but it only have to take road works in Warwick or some form of accident, and the road is gridlocked. Building additional homes on the Hatton Park site would only add to this burden.
- The above point is exasparated if you consider the additional homes proposed for Budbrooke - the cars from these homes will all filter onto the A4177 by the A46 junction and cause even more chaos

2. Facilities

- We have young children and will soon be thinking about schools - the schools around the area are already full so bringing even more families into the area does not make sense.

3. The discounted options (site 2) is I understand, also being considered. This site should not be developed because

- it would be much visible and unsightly due to the fact is is on a hill side
- there would increased light pollution as a result
- the development would set a precedent building close to the canal and damaging all the eco system.
- it would encourage children to cross the buy A4177 road leading to inevitable accidents and potential death

I trust these objections will be considered and the proposal to develop at Hatton Park discounted

I have recently received a leaflet regarding the proposed development of land between Hatton Park and Canal Road, unfortunately this is the first information I appear to have received. The leaflet provides a clear illustration of a second plan (2) but not for plan 1 (7.7ha )

I would like to know if there are any consultation notes available from any previous meetings. Can you also advise if there are any meetings planned before 20th January which I understand is the end of the consultation period.

I believe I am not alone in my ignorance of what is being propose ( I have spoken to several neighbours who are also unaware) and I am disappointed that this is the case. The leaflet proposes an alternative site which appears to have less impact on the current housing population and pedestrian accesses. If this is the only alternative then I support this plan (2) on the leaflet and wish to register my objection to site 1(7.6 ha in area).

Can you also send me a full plan of what the proposal site 1 ( 7.6 ha) looks like for the councils preferred location, as from the leaflet it is a much larger site and if history is anything to go by, the development of 70 -90 homes will quickly expand to maximise the site and provide the council with more revenue.

Can you also send me the original notification that was sent to all home owners in the area regarding this proposed development and why and where the request for additional housing comes from, or in truth is it that the council simply looking to increase its revenue from new housing!

I apologise for my email requesting so much information, but I do feel, along with many others that we have been left in the dark regarding these plans.

If I was allowed a voice I would strongly object to any further development in the Hatton Park area

My address is
18 Barcheston Mews
Barcheston Drive
Hatton Park
Warwick
CV35 7SZ

Thank you for taking the time to read my email, and I look forward to an early response

see attached

see attached

see attached