Indicative Settlement Boundary

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60465

Received: 26/11/2013

Respondent: Emma Guest

Representation Summary:

We are opposed on the following grounds:

1. When we moved here, we were assured that the land in question would not be built on and this was reiterated at a Parish meeting in 2011;
2. Building here would spoil the countryside and particularly for those whose homes overlook the site;
3. Increase in traffic.

I trust you will give these comments full consideration when making your decision.

Full text:

We are opposed on the following grounds:

1. When we moved here, we were assured that the land in question would not be built on and this was reiterated at a Parish meeting in 2011;
2. Building here would spoil the countryside and particularly for those whose homes overlook the site;
3. Increase in traffic.

I trust you will give these comments full consideration when making your decision.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60686

Received: 07/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Chris Walkingshaw

Representation Summary:

We should not limit the village boundary to exclude sites along the canal as in the future these may prove prosperous for house builders and to meet housing targets.

Full text:

see attachement

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60825

Received: 14/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Michael Busby

Representation Summary:

The moving of the green belt around Hatton Park to accommodate the allocated homes has not been evidenced as generating the economic benefit to the community of Hatton Park. As such this contravenes the NPPF.

Full text:

The moving of the green belt around Hatton Park to accommodate the allocated homes has not been evidenced as generating the economic benefit to the community of Hatton Park. As such this contravenes the NPPF.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60899

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: DR Chris Doyle

Representation Summary:

The proposed gree belt/village boundary abuts the existing Ugly Bridge road cycle/footpath leading off the Birmingham Road, which consequently would fail to protect and allow for an appropriate buffer zone to complement the pototential Local Wildlife Site at Smith's Covert.

Full text:

The proposed gree belt/village boundary abuts the existing Ugly Bridge road cycle/footpath leading off the Birmingham Road, which consequently would fail to protect and allow for an appropriate buffer zone to complement the pototential Local Wildlife Site at Smith's Covert.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60929

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: NHS Property Services Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation Summary:

NHS Property Services support the inclusion of its land at the junction of Beausale Lane and Birmingham Road being within the proposed settlement boundary for Hatton Park. The land is bounded on three sides by development and falls between two existing properties fronting onto Beausale Lane. The site visually and physicially forms part of the built settlement and as such is relevant for inclusion.

Full text:

NHS Property Services support the inclusion of its land at the junction of Beausale Lane and Birmingham Road being within the proposed settlement boundary for Hatton Park. The land is bounded on three sides by development and falls between two existing properties fronting onto Beausale Lane. The site visually and physicially forms part of the built settlement and as such is relevant for inclusion.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60949

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Price

Representation Summary:

I am strongly apposed to building on green belt beyond the current boundary as this would set a precedent for further developments which could see Hatton Park connecting with other villages or Warwick itself. I have lived here for 14 years and selected it on many factors including the rural setting and being close to nearby towns and villages, but not joined. I really want it to stay that way and I know many others share this view.

Full text:

I am strongly apposed to building on green belt beyond the current boundary as this would set a precedent for further developments which could see Hatton Park connecting with other villages or Warwick itself. I have lived here for 14 years and selected it on many factors including the rural setting and being close to nearby towns and villages, but not joined. I really want it to stay that way and I know many others share this view.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60964

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: A.C. Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Representation Summary:

Support is given to the indicative settlement boundary for Hatton Park that proposes to inset the village within the Green Belt. Support is also given to the inclusion of Site 1 - Land north of Birmingham Road within the settlement boundary.

Full text:

Support is given to the indicative settlement boundary for Hatton Park that proposes to inset the village within the Green Belt. Support is also given to the inclusion of Site 1 - Land north of Birmingham Road within the settlement boundary.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61206

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Martin Teodorczyk

Representation Summary:

Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development, but if the Preferred Option occurs the Settlement Boundary must be drawn tightly to the existing development as shown (to be adjusted in the case of part-development of the Preferred Option site).

In any scenario the Settlement Boundary on the northern and western edges should be drawn as shown because of that land's high amenity value with views across the Green Belt to and from Hatton Park.

It is unsustainable to draw construction and scheme traffic through Hatton Park, so the Preferred Option must be accessed directly and primarily from the A4177.

Full text:

Please refer to my other detailed representations that Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development and that I do not support any development sites.

IF the Preferred Option is to be imposed, I agree that the Settlement Boundary must be drawn tightly to the existing development to protect the remainder of the Green Belt. In addition any part of the Preferred Option site that is not to be developed (e.g. the northern field nearest Smiths Covert) should also be drawn outside the Settlement Boundary and protected as Green Belt.

In any scenario the Settlement Boundary to the north and west of Hatton Park should be drawn as shown because of its high amenity value as Green Belt. The height rise from the canal and A4177 means that land to the north of Barcheston Drive is highly visible with views across the Green Belt to and from Hatton Park.

It is unsustainable to draw construction and scheme traffic through Hatton Park, so development of the Preferred Option must be accessed directly and primarily from the A4177, with improvements to the A4177 to match.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61252

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Laura Teodorczyk

Representation Summary:

Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development, but if the Preferred Option occurs the Settlement Boundary must be drawn tightly to the existing development as shown (to be adjusted in the case of part-development of the Preferred Option site).

In any scenario the Settlement Boundary on the northern and western edges should be drawn as shown because of that land's high amenity value with views across the Green Belt to and from Hatton Park.

Full text:

Please refer to my other detailed representations that Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development and that I do not support any development sites.

IF the Preferred Option is to be imposed, I agree that the Settlement Boundary must be drawn tightly to the existing development to protect the remainder of the undeveloped Greenfield land within the Green Belt.

In any scenario the Settlement Boundary to the north and west of Hatton Park should be drawn as shown because of its high amenity value as Green Belt. The height rise from the canal and A4177 means that land to the north of Barcheston Drive is highly visible with views across the Green Belt to and from Hatton Park.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61335

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Roy & Veronica Chapman

Representation Summary:

We object to the fact that the greenbelt boundary is being changed to accommodate this proposal.

Full text:

As residents of Hatton Park, we wish to object to the proposed 70 to 90 new homes planned for land adjacent to Hatton Park.

The Birmingham Road is already a nightmare in the I would like to say rush hour but hours is a more appropriate word. Traffic starts to build up from 7.30am and gets worse until 9.15am when providing there has been no accident on the M40 or A46 it eases. If an accident has occurred as quite frequently happens, then traffic can be queuing as far back as Five Ways Island. Queues starting at the Falcon pub in Hatton are quite common under normal circumstances. How are the roads supposed to cope with the extra cars that further housing in the area will bring? The proposal of an access to these new homes from the Birmingham Road opposite the Shell garage is quite frankly dangerous. When the queuing traffic has dispersed and is flowing normally the speed limit is often ignored. There have been fatalities on this stretch of road in the last four or five years, extra traffic will not help the situation.

The land proposed for the siting of these houses already has poor drainage which frequently causes flooding on the Birmingham Road. There is evidence, unconfirmed, admittedly of a disused sewage treatment area south of Smith's Covert, the cost of cleaning up this area would be incredibly costly to any developer. What guarantees are there that a clean up would be done properly? Developers can be notorious for going back on their word. You do not have to look any further than Hatton Park, where a village hall, shop, pub and doctor's surgery were promised at the planning stage. What materialised was a village hall and a very small shop. These are the sum total of the community facilities and not as written in the village overview of the local plan, "the village has a reasonable range of community facilities including a village shop and village hall".

The local schools are already full to capacity, no consideration seems to have been given as to where extra children from these homes are going to be schooled.

Smith's Covert is ancient woodland teeming with wildlife including bats, muntjac, badgers, foxes, woodpeckers and buzzards. The building of houses on this land will completely change their habitat . We also object to the fact that the greenbelt boundary is being changed to accommodate this proposal.

We hope our concerns and those of many other residents in the area will be given due consideration. The parish of Hatton does not need and cannot accommodate any further housing

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61613

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Spitfire Properties LLP

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Representation Summary:

-The boundaries of Hatton Park were defined by the extent of previous built form of the hospital and therefore an extension of its limits represents encroachment into the surrounding countryside.
-The existence and use of the track known as Ugly Bridge Road as a form of settlement limit to the expansion area is considered to be inappropriate, especially as other smaller expansion areas exist on the settlement limits
-The expansion proposed is significant when taking into account the area of the redeveloped Psychiatric Hospital, which was the justification for developing Hatton Park within the Green
Belt.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61911

Received: 06/12/2014

Respondent: Pauline Neale

Representation Summary:

-The new boundary extends current housing eastwards towards Warwick, substantially beyond the present Green Belt.
-If development takes place, there will be a future risk of coalescence with communities on the outskirts of Warwick. It would extend a ΒΌ of the way towards Stanks; it will be a first step towards infilling the rest of the land towards it with housing.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62247

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Cochrane

Representation Summary:

-A further 70 - 90 homes is unreasonable and no 'exceptional reasons' for altering the settlement boundaries/erosion of the Green Belt are evident.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62252

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Ms Myra Styles

Representation Summary:

-A further 70 - 90 homes is unreasonable and no 'exceptional reasons' for altering the settlement boundaries/erosion of the Green Belt are evident.

-Hatton Park estate was acknowledged as completely full and this is noted in a number of WDC Reports. No exceptional circumstances have been highlighted concerning this suggested expansion and such would only do irreversible harm to the landscape and unnecessarily carve into the Green Belt in order to meet the needs of developers.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 63183

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Hatton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The Council is opposed to the process by which Hatton Park has been identified as a Secondary Service Village.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments: