1) Land south of the school

previously identified sites in Tachbrook discounted more preferred site being highlighted.

Concerns about the infrastructure, amenities, facilities within village to accommodate this believing people who received the Council's letter 20th December application number W/13/1688 think this refers to land identified previously.

Written feedback was given to Barwood as part of consultation oportunity, do these comments not get passed as part of the process when considering options?

land identified is waterlogged and I have concerns about access into site and effects additional noise and disturbance would have.

1) as a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, I totally support retaining the distinct boundaries between the village and nearby, Warwick Gates and Whitnash. The farmland between these residential areas and the Motorway/Banbury road should be retained along with the natural ecology around the Tach brook.

2) The WDC preferred site for more housing in Bishops Tachbrook provokes questions regarding access and increased traffic flow on the Oakley Wood and Mallory Road. Both are supposed to be 30mph speed limits but recent parish council checks established that many cars/buses/trucks already exceed that on Oakley Wood road and with more traffic this will cause more accidents and difficulties in entering/leaving Oakley Wood and noise pollution for adjacent house residents. This should be reviewed closely and solutions posed BEFORE any planning is granted. Certainly having only one additional entrance from any new development seems flawed as local roads will be more congested especially by the school and the main road will be more dangerous.

3) While some housing maybe required, there is a big difference between the parish council projected needs and those deemed required by WDC, circa 85% more. It is not clear from the plan what phasing is proposed and when, more information is needed. I question the volume of housing needed.

4) local amenities are insufficient

We look forward to improved positions on the above, in order to maintain a distinct and discrete village identity, along with a natural habitat for wildlife and safe roadways.

I would like to start by saying that the only reason i know about this plan is because a neighbour was
told about by a friend living
in whitnash!there was a very small mention in the last Parish Magazine but

nothing since and I have not spoken to one person who knew about the meeting last week other than the afore
mentioned neighbour.I think
everyone accepts more houses need to be built but the number is eye watering!It

is as ever the easy option, just tag on a hundred or so houses to the end of the village.Many residents of
Holt Avenue were assured houses would never be built behind them because of the close proximity to the M40,

hence they bought the houses for their open aspect.The field in question also acts as a soakaway during
heavy rain,it collects in both a huge pool at the back of the school and the ditch the farmer dug to stop
water
flooding homes [this helps in only a limited way]concreting over the field can only make matters worse.
The Plan suggests that the village needs a more "balanced housing stock"to encourage younger people to the
village the
reason why there are more mature residents is for the very fact it is NOT a housing estate with
lots of children!many people come here to retire and the fact there are many bungalows here(some of which
are in Holt Avenue
and occupied by elderley residents)few of which are built these days by greedy developers.
They came to the village because it is known to be freindly safe and have a really good community feel.All
of which will be lost if
the village is made too large,the houses will probably be bought by workers at Jaguar
many of whom will only stay and add little to the community,their children will not be able to go to the local
school it is already over
subscribed because it takes children from Warwick Gates,they are unlikely to use
the village shop as it carries only basic commodities and is at the opposite side of the village so they
will all be driving to local
supermarkets polluting the already poor quality air even more...need Igo on?

it would be a disater.

I wish to make comments on the new local plan, particularly having regard to Bishops Tachbook.

Data has already been gathered locally showing that the need for more housing in the village is small. However, the new local plan considers sites on the edge of the village proposing development on a much larger scale and while only one of these potential sites is suggested for preferred status, even that is for development on a scale beyond what is required. Such is the scale of the development outlined it could not be regarded as sustainable having regard to the present character of the village, its facilities and its infrastructure.

Bishops Tachbrook has only the infrastructure one expects to be associated with a small village .Even if one thinks just of the extra traffic generated by a development of the size proposed, roads in, around and through the village are inadequate for what would be required, quite apart from extra traffic then having to feed into already busy junctions on the Banbury Road, Chuch Hill and Harbury Lane.

The preferred site - option number 1 - is arable famland, a resource for which there is already national concern to ensure continued, sufficient, availability. Bishop Tachbrook's surrounding farmland is also one of the things helping to define the village's character and ambience. Turning any large areas of this farmland into housing would have an undeniably detrimental impact on the local landscape and would also place unrealistc demands on the village school, medical centre and parking facilities for the convenience store.

Three possible access points have been identified for the preferred site. Numbers 1 and 2 are both extremely unsuitable as they connect directly to the narrow Holt Avenue. The free flow of traffic along Holt Avenue is already seriously compromised because of substantial on-road parking. For the same reason it is even more hazardous for cyclists.

Further militating against the flow of traffic along Holt Avenue is that all but 3 properties have driveways or drop kerbs used regularly by residents to manoeuvre vehicles off or onto the road.

Within a few yards access point 1 feeds into a sharp 90 degree bend with driveways both on and adjacent to it.

Access point 2 has driveways on both sides and one corner of The Lees and there is only a short distance before The Lees joins Holt Avenue where it does so on the apex of another bend. At this bend traffic would confront vehicles travelling to and from the direction of access point 1 and from time to time, presumably, there would be traffic pausing on the bend to turn right off Holt Avenue and into access point 2.

On-road parking, which is exacerbated at school run times, and having its own driveways means the narrow Court Close is also poorly served to deal with any increase in traffic aiming to use Holt Avenue.

The Holt Avenue junction with Mallory Road is hazardous due to the speed of traffic in both directions along Mallory Road and the fact that visibility to the left is less than ideal. This particular issue is compounded by the excess speed of many vehicles approaching the junction along Mallory Road from the right. Visibility to the right is better but, as they approach from this direction and are close to leaving the village, drivers are even more inclined towards excessive speed. Coupled with the reduced left visibility already mentioned, this junction requires the highest level of caution at all times.

There is loss of playing field and it would need to be replaced or proven to be surplus to requirements. This is the requirements of the NPPF paragraph 74.

Although I agree this is a suitable site for development there should be fewer houses built. 75 houses (that is half the number suggested) will be more than adequate especially as a parish survey identified a need for under 20 houses. The absorption of any development into the village would be more beneficial for the community if the houses are built in phases and not all at once.

Only partial support. Agree that development needs to be carefully phased, but why is the proposed number (150) over 10 times that (14)identified in the local housing needs study? The need can't possibly have increased that much since the study was done. A development of even 50 houses would seem far more than enough for this village. Would the school and the medical practice, not to mention the physical infrastructure, be able to cope?

support this proposal

1) as a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, I totally support retaining the distinct boundaries between the village and nearby, Warwick Gates and Whitnash. The farmland between these residential areas and the Motorway/Banbury road should be retained along with the natural ecology around the Tach brook.

2) The WDC preferred site for more housing in Bishops Tachbrook provokes questions regarding access and increased traffic flow on the Oakley Wood and Mallory Road. Both are supposed to be 30mph speed limits but recent parish council checks established that many cars/buses/trucks already exceed that on Oakley Wood road and with more traffic this will cause more accidents and difficulties in entering/leaving Oakley Wood and noise pollution for adjacent house residents. This should be reviewed closely and solutions posed BEFORE any planning is granted. Certainly having only one additional entrance from any new development seems flawed as local roads will be more congested especially by the school and the main road will be more dangerous.

3) While some housing maybe required, there is a big difference between the parish council projected needs and those deemed required by WDC, circa 85% more. It is not clear from the plan what phasing is proposed and when, more information is needed. I question the volume of housing needed.

4) local amenities are insufficient

We look forward to improved positions on the above, in order to maintain a distinct and discrete village identity, along with a natural habitat for wildlife and safe roadways.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

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

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

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

I wish to make my feeling known about the projected site off Mallory road for 125 homes.I think that the added traffic this would create will be a hazard to the roads concerned as these are already very busy.

The number of children needing school places will create overcrowding in the local primary school which is already up to capacity and with houses being built near to school no room for expansion will be available.

Medical facilities will need to be increased as we only have a satelite surgery at present.
Shops in the village are limited so more traffic will be forced to use roads into Warwick which are already stretched in capacity likewise bus services.

I hope these reasons will help the council to defeat this proposal and to think again seriously of the needs!!

see attached

see attached

see attached