1) Burrow Hill Nursery

Strong support for this option. The village is in need of a more focused central area. The proposed area for development will be ideal for the village.

This location represents a place that is likely to require the houseowners to use cars to get about. The site is 30 minutes walk from Tile Hill Railway Station and 15 minutes walk from Westwood Heath Road.
Other of the six downselected sites are much better placed for easy access to public transport systems.

I approve of some increase in the number of houses in Burton Green but it is unfair to burden the village with 75 additional houses, a 28% increase. I understand this is the greatest increase in the country. I suggest the original figure of 35 could be absorbed into the village without greatly altering its character.

I disapprove of the preferred option 1 because:

1. It is completely out of keeping with the character of the village to impose a large block of houses in one small area.

2. It will isolate newcomers, make integration into the community village difficult and destroy the cohesiveness of the village.

3. It is the highest site in the village and would have the most landscape impact of all.

4. The site is close to the HS2 route and would suffer from noise and disruption during construction.

5. It will greatly increase traffic congestion.

I believe this is an inspired location and proposal. It will give the village a heart which it currently lacks. Children will be able to walk to school and the village hall. The benefit of not increasing the number of car journeys in this area is huge. As long as the maximum number of trees and hedging is retained, and the planned houses are not enormous eye-sores, as on Westwood Heath Rd. They could fit in very nicely.

I have viewed the recent village housing options for Burton Green and I am pleased to see the council taking a common sense approach to the future development of the village. I have received correspondence from other members of the village asking for our opposition to these plans which I will not be doing. Re development of existing land seems to me to be by far the most appropriate option for further development. I am very pleased that the plans have taken into account the rural aspect of the village and are minimising the encroachment onto working agricultural land and utilising an existing site. I am also pleased that the preferred plan will have the least significant impact onto the existing residents of the village and the outward aspects of their properties. I do have some concerns that 75 houses for such a small village does seem excessive and would need justification considering there is not even a convenience store within walking distance.

I disapprove of the preferred option, Option 1 because:
1. It is completely out of keeping with the character of the village to impose such a large block of houses in one small area.
2. It will isolate newcomers, make integration into the community much more difficult and destroy the cohesiveness of the village.
3. It is the highest site of those proposed and would have the most landscape impact of all the options.
4. It is very close to the proposed HS2 railway and would receive the blast from the southern portal of the tunnel.
5. It will greatly increase traffic congestion in that local area.

I agree with the choice of option 1 for the location of new housing and the arguments put forward in support of this choice. However, I do not agree that the number of houses to be built should be as large as 75, i.e. the specified capacity of the site. I understand that this is a 28% increase, and the largest in the county. An earlier figure of 35 houses could be absorbed into the village with much less impact on its character, leaving capacity for additional housing on this site at a later date if this is unavoidable.

The choice of Warwick District Council is a very sensible one of the preferred option chosen. The village and school would be well linked and traffic could disperse in three directions instead of pouring out onto Cromwell Lane if development was to go ahead at the Westwood Heath end. CALA Homes gave a presentation of the proposed site at the Parish meeting in Nov. There are plenty of good reasons to support the preferred site, relocation of village hall, much needed parking spaces for hall and the school and recreation fields for the school and residents. I support the decision.

I disapprove of the preferred option, Option 1 because:
1. It is completely out of keeping with the character of the village to impose such a large block of houses in one small area.
2. The proposed property density is far too high, particularly considering that a replacement Village Hall & Car Park, School playing field and a lake are also planned for the site.
3. It will isolate newcomers, make integration into the community much more difficult and destroy the cohesiveness of the village.
4. It is very close to the South Portal of the Green Tunnel forming part of the proposed HS2 railway and would receive a blast of high level noise 36 times every hour when it is running at planned capacity. Consequently properties will need good sound insulation.
5. It will greatly increase traffic congestion in that local area. Depending on when the housing is due to be built, HS2 construction traffic using their temporary vehicle access in Red Lane will cause severe traffic problems, as it is almost coincident with the proposed housing development access. These lorry movements will also cause serious noise nuisance to any new houses constructed close to Red Lane or Hob Lane.

This location is clearly the best place to develop. As commented the land further down Red Lane towards Kenilworth is very scenic and a great habitat for wildlife. It would be a drastic change for the worse to the area if the fields at New Farm were to be urbanised.

However if a housing estate is going to be built here I would like it to have the following characteristics -
1 - The houses should be astheically pleasing and have varied character.
2 - Sensible plot sizes are a must, some new housing estates are far to claustrophic.
3 - There should be aduaquate vegetation, (including hedges and hardwood trees), retained/planted to keep the countryside feel.
4 - Lastly my most important point is that if the area is to have a higher population density there should be buildings for public use. This should include a new village hall and a church as there is not one currently in this area.

I support Burrow Hill for being the best area to erect houses but not 75 for several reasons: (a) This is too many for access off Red Lane which is clearly a road unsuitable for heavy traffic due to numerous difficult bends. Another site ought to be found for part of this number where access is obtained from a main road (preferably nearer town off Cromwell Lane), (b) New houses built should have larger gardens for children to be able to play in and have room for vegetable plots (c) why not include a church in this planning application?

7. Village Plans and Housing Options 4. Burton Green
I object to the plan as proposed with 75 houses on the one location at Burrow Hill Nurseries.
This is in danger of creating a 'village within the village'.
Development should be spread over two or more sites to ensure proper integration in Burton Green.
The site is potentially suitable for a smaller number of houses (circa 35) - although it is elevated the existence of hedging will minimise visual impact.
The consequence of HS2 could be twofold - building on this site at the same time as HS2 construction would make these houses un-saleable - also there is no reliable noise impact assessment and this site is liable to be exposed to the impact of the southern portal of the cut and cover tunnel.
This site is unsuitable for affordable/social housing due to its isolation from transport services and shops/services - it would require the need for a car - especially for older residents.
One vehicular access point onto Red Lane for the main body of the estate is inadequate for the proposed number of houses.
Water pressure/loss of water supply is a constant problem for Burton Green due to pumping limitations - this will need to be resolved before building any additional housing.
Also the gas mains in the area are aged and subject to constant leaks/repairs and will require upgrading.
The location is however suitable for younger families to act as a feeder to the Primary School which is undersubscribed locally.
It is also a perfect central location for a re-sited Village Hall - accessible to all of Burton Green.
However the cost of a new Village Hall should be borne by HS2 Ltd and not the developer.

Such a concentration of new housing in a relatively small area could have a large negative effect on the social and transport patterns of the village by forming a 'village within a village'.

If Burton Green really has to have 75 new dwellings, Burrow Hill site seems a sensible option for some as this will have limited visual impact on the landscape. I support this on the following conditions: (a) around 50% of the new dwellings should be built nearer the City of Coventry where the road infrastructure is better, i.e. off Cromwell Lane. This will split the development and reduce the Village within a Village tendency which is a real consideration when communities experience rapid growth. (b) The existing ancient hedgerow/trees which form the boundary between Burrow Hill and Red Lane must at all costs be retained to screen the new houses. If a portion of land running parallel with Red Lane within the Burrow Hill site could be retained for the Village use this could be planted with indigenous trees to further screen the development. This could grow into woodland with footpaths to in someway make up for the local amenities threatened by HS2. This will also have the advantage of reducing the noise from the very nearby HS2 to the dwellings. (c) If so many houses are to be constructed, what are the implications for Burton Green school? Could the development include an asset which will benefit the school and future children down the generations such as playing fields or woodlands to further the children's education? (d) I understand the development is to include a new village hall - one thing that greatly saddens one when travelling through the villages of Warwickshire is to see the local village churches turned into all manner of other uses; surely this is an opportunity to reverse this and include in the development plans a new local village church.

Burton Green, Pref. Opt(s), 1. Burrow Hill Nursery:- Burton Green doesn't not need a housing estate on B H Nursery, or anywhere else within the Village Boundary (or outside it), & I can't believe it's even been considered until HS2 is completed. Cromwell Lane is congested every morning do we need more? Please verify if CV4 is Kenilworth/Coventry? If Coventry it's not Warwickshire?
Most people have paid a premium to buy a property in Burton Green, they want to live & die in the SEMI-RURAL area (that they bought in to) where they feel safe & the neighbours know each other.

I think the proposed development is a better option than increased ribbon development which would increase the sprawl of the village.

However, I do think that 75 houses is too much for the one site and should be a maximum of 35. The balance of houses that need to be built should be built down the Coventry end of Cromwell Lane. Hedges and trees should be maintained along Red Lane to minimise the visual impact of the development. It would also be good to include the following as part of the project to establish greater facilities in the village:

1) Provision of playing fields that can be used for sport and recreation
2) Most importantly, provision of land for a church / place of public worship

In conclusion, I support the project but subject to the following. Not too many houses should be built on Red Lane which would spoil the pleasant rural road, so therefore a maximum of 35 houses should be built on the site. As compensation, provision of a church site should be provided, and possibly a playing fields.

I am generally in support of the proposed preferred site Option 1, subject to the following points:

1. The number of houses is reduced to maximum of 30-35 due to over-development and impact on infrastructure and split over another option towards Tile Hill end (sites 2,5 or 6)

2. The development should include some substantial land for a church as this is currently lacking in the village

3. Site access is from Hob Lane instead of Red Lane

4. Existing hedgerow/trees, particularly on Red Lane side, is maintained/kept to decrease visual impact, and preserve Red Lane as an attractive, quality road

Other comments:

- Are the primary school existing facilities able to cope with substantial increases in student numbers?

- The housing numbers should definitely be split over another site (i.e option 5), as this is too much development for one site, causing increases in traffic, and spoiling/impacting visually on a quality, attractive and up-market section of the village

- Advantages of some of the housing being the Tile Hill/Westwood end is this is attractive to be nearer amenities and facilities, especially GP, and other shops, station etc, in Tile Hill.

- The housing should be quality and substantial housing, so as to attract more professional and 'white-collar' residents in keeping with the existing character of the road, and also to ensure crime levels are not increased, and other social issues are not exaggerated.

We are residents of Burton Green and wish to respond to the Local Plan for housing in our area.We feel strongly that 75 houses,or even more than this,are far too many for a small community like Burton Green to absorb.Whilst we recognize the need for more affordable housing to bring new life into the village, now due to be savaged by H.S.2, the local ammenities,especially the school,will not be able to cope with so great an influx. A lesser number of 35 would be more appropriate.
Please consider our response.

My view is that option one Burrow Hill is best, if only one site has to be chosen. However, 75 houses seems excessive, very greatly increasing the size of the village. A smaller number with better gardens would be more in character. If a new site has to be found for a new village hall, burrow hill site is the obvious position, in this case perhaps thirty houses would be more appropriate and over 20 years or so new sites could be found.

We are tenants at Burton Green, Which is opposite the preferred site of Burrow Hill Nurseries . We would rather not have any new houses in the area adding to more traffic congestion. However if this has to happen we believe this be the best site . Keeping all the new houses in one area, and also all of the construction traffic and plant in one self contained area .
We also believe this would be the best site as it will provide the village with a new village hall with ample parking which we believe the school traffic will have use of , therefore taking school parking of the road which will then make it safer for children's commute to school alot safer .
We believe affordable housing will be included in this development , which would be a good thing to help keep the young people in the village .
From what we have seen of the plans the development will be quite open and enviromentally balanced.

Good idea but better off down the other end of Cromwell Lane where the roads are better. If they do have to be on Burrow Hill site, isn't 75 a little ambitious? Fewer houses would have less of a life changing impact on this pleasant rural backwater.
I would rather support houses here than convenience shops which bring all the associated litter and anti-social problems.

I accept that Burton Green has to have a number of houses built within its boundaries and it is desirable if the houses attract young families to the village. However the number that the plan proposes seems unduly high given that Burton Green has few amenities and a very limited bus service.

Burton Green has expanded since the Second World War but the houses built have made little impact on the total size of the village, they have been absorbed within its boundaries. I feel very strongly that if the village is to retain its character any new buildings should be placed in small groups within the village. Land is available some of the areas are moderately large but others must be small . I understand that 16 plots have been offered for development A mass of housing placed in one area would totally alter the ambience of the village and the newcomers would be isolated. Putting small groups of buildings within the village would make integration much easier and would enable the new residents to become part of the village.

I am also concerned about the increase in traffic. Warwick District Council's preferred site is bounded by Red Lane and Hob Lane. Both of these roads are narrow and Red Lane is dangerous with the bends on the hill. There has been a fatality there within the last few years. A large number of cars leaving the site early in the morning combined with parents taking children to school would lead to considerable congestion.

I acknowledge that cost of build would be greater if a number of smaller sites are proposed. However I feel that if local preference is for small sites this should be accepted. I note that in your local plan document you acknowledge this page 31 paragraph 6.4

see attached

see attached

see attached

I disagree with the proposal to place 75 houses on Burrow Hill nursery site. 75 is too great an increase for a village of 263 dwellings. If this were reduced to 35 I would accept Burrow Hill as the main site for development including the village hall and a village green.
You should note, however that Tile Hill station is more than 1 mile from this site and only rare buses go past this site to Kenilworth.

Burton Green will suffer more than any other Warwickshire village from HS2. Adjusting to these changes, including loss of houses to well-established residents many of whom currently play a big role in village affairs, will be traumatic. To load us with a disproportionate number of Incomers at this time would exacerbate our settling down process.

We believe that site number 1 is the best for the village, it is away from most existing housing and continues the ribbon development of the village.
Sites 3 and 4 would also continue that line
Site number 7 is not a good idea for the village as it so close the proposed HS rail link and sandwiches those properties between the rail and a housing estate
Not exactly a rural location, and bunching up that area.
Cromwell Lane is a rat run in the morning and afternoon and access to site 7 is onto Cromwell lane so the 44 new houses and therefore cars will add to the congestion as they try to access Cromwell Lane from that middle section.
Site 7 benefits the owners of the land not the village.


Judi and Mike Hibberd

I am a resident of Burton Green (Red Lane) and would like express my support for the Council's preferred site for a large housing development in Burton Green at Burrow Hill Nurseries. I believe that this would provide a much needed focus for the village, desperately needed new housing stock for young families in particular who are priced-out of the area, and - by creating a cluster of homes with a local store - will create more of a village community feel.

Burton Green is at present a number of roads with ribbon housing which merely act as a through-route/'rat run' for commuters. (My only concern would be that, because of the heavy through traffic along Red Lane/Cromwell Lane at rush hour, having the site entrance on the Red Lane side would cause considerable travel disruption during the build. Perhaps an alternative would be to create a site entrance off of Cromwell Lane end, between the junction with Red Lane and the school, which would avoid delaying traffic on the main route but I'm not sure if this would be possible.)

Burton Green has an increasingly ageing population, as young families have been priced-out of the area in recent years. However, there are many young families who feel their needs and views as residents are under-represented. There are a small number of vocal opponents of the Council's scheme, who have claimed to represent the views of the majority here. As far as I am aware, this simply isn't the case. For this reason, can I suggest that the Council also refer to the Burton Green 'Blogspot' (here: http://burtongreen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/additional-housing-in-burton-green.html#comment-form) run by the Residents' Association which features a further five comments from residents in support of the Council's proposal, as well as a poll which shows 84% of residents are in favour of the Council's preferred site option.

see attached

Having read your consultation document and attended your road show I would like to make a personal comment on the plans as they apply to Burton Green.
Firstly, with reference to p.27 :Table 3 :Chapter 5 - Burton Green/Environmental Issues: I find it incomprehensible that whilst the table indicates that several sites were rejected because of issues with HS2, the preferred site option is possibly the site most affected by HS2 site of all. The site is adjacent to the proposed line of track and will be opposite the point at which site construction traffic will be at its heaviest, it will also be the point at which once the track is complete will be the marshalling point for all maintenance traffic and it will be the site most affected by noise as it is opposite the proposed site of the southern portal to the cut and cover tunnel and will be subject to severe "startle effect" as trains enter and exit the tunnel.

Secondly, with reference Chapter 7 /Settlement Plan 4/Burton Green: The proposal to build at least 75 new dwellings on such a constrained site will:
[a] Have an exceedingly detrimental effect on the nature and character of the village.
[b] Such variety of buildings will perforce mean that they are small, crowded and lacking personal recreation space[gardens] will suffer restricted parking and generally change the demographics of the village detrimentally.
[c] Services in Burton Green, particularly water supplies, [delivery pressure], are already poor - such a density of housing will only further exacerbate the problem. Local surgeries are already reluctant to take on people from Burton Green and despite your claims that transport links are good - a bus every 2 hours twice a week cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a good link with Kenilworth.
[d] The site as chosen would need to have either access or exit roads on either Hob Lane or Red Lane - neither of these roads is suitable for such additional traffic entering and exiting the site without major reconstruction - again further altering the character of the village detrimentally.
[e] I cannot see why such a density of housing is required in one restricted area and believe that the number of units could be substantially reduced whilst still adhering to the seemingly arbitrary requirements set by some faceless planner in Central Government.