1) Land north of Birmingham Road

I have concerns over whether the lack of appropriate healthcare and other services within the Hatton Park village can sustain another sizeable development of houses.

Were there no alternative to the need to develop further houses in the village, then I believe that the traffic calming measures identified in another proposed alternative (the discounted option 2, which includes a roundabout at the bottom of the hill approaching the village from the Birmingham direction) provide a concrete reason for preferring this option. Speeds, particularly those entering the village from the Birmingham direction are generally far too high.

Dear Development Policy Manager.

After hearing about your local plans I felt I needed to write as I am a little concerned about your local plans for Hatton and feel areas of land have been looked at without the consideration of local people and the environment they live in.
It looks as if no ground surveys have been carried out apart from looking at plots of land.
My main concern was to here about the private proposal laid out below from my family having attended the local meetings over the last two weeks.
My other worry is that Hatton Estate posted out leaflets prior to these meetings to the houses on Hatton Park but did not include any of the houses within the vicinity of the land plots numbered 2 and 3 on your plan.
My direct feelings to this is they are trying to slip something through the back door without proper consultation.
I do not feel any of the sites you have marked in the plan are suitable without major highway improvements due to the grid lock in peak periods. Also a lot of work will be required to prevent flooding as it is now bad in areas around your sites and more hard standing will take away areas for the water to drain slowly away and create more flooding as this water will need to go somewhere.

I have lived in the area for fifty years in Canal Lane. (named Canal Road in the comments)
A local resident spoke to me and said he had laid out some concerns and was going to wright, having showed me his concerns they are the same as my own and can fully agree with the points he has made.
I therefore requested a copy and have attached below to save reinventing the wheel.

I look forward to your comments on how the council will progress with the local plan and to how you will resolve the many issues before granting any developments for the area.

Regards Bob Gee

Comments on the Hatton Estates/Bloor Homes/Marron Housing Development Proposal
Reaction to a proposal by Hatton Estates and Bloor Homes produced by Marrons Planning for the development of an area of land off Birmingham Road between Hatton Park and Canal Road, Hatton Hill, Hatton, Warwickshire.
Introduction
This proposal is a private development proposal to develop a site for 70 to 90 houses of mixed style and function and including some social housing. The site is currently a south facing sloping field under agricultural management. The site is introduced as another option to another site to the south of the Hatton Park estate.
Warwick District Council's preferred option for future housing development is not this site but the site to the South (south east) of Hatton Park. In order to promote this possible option Marrons Planning has produced a document that suggests the 'Canal Road' site has a number of advantages.
Comments
* Green Belt. The site is to the South of the Birmingham Road where historically development within the Green Belt has been refused. Development of this site would significantly affect the visual amenity of the area and destroy an important buffer area between the Birmingham Road and the canal.
* Part of the attraction of the canal system in the area is that it is not over used and providing additional parking and access would not improve the quality of the environment. Should any housing development occur we would not expect residents to be supportive of car parking within a residential area that would adversely affect their privacy and quality of life.
* The site is primarily agricultural land but adjoins the canal network at the Hatton flight of locks which is a historically significant feature and an area of local (arguably national) and natural importance. Privacy and preservation of this area is unlikely to be improved by the development of housing. There could be some important Industrial Archaeology in the area which would need to be investigated, recorded and preserved but it is better that nothing is disturbed by development in the first place.
* The field boundary is surrounded by trees but these are not of sufficient density to screen any development from nearby properties. Any development would be a significant loss of visual amenity as well as an unwanted visual intrusion in the countryside.
.1.
* There is the possibility that there would be a loss of some mature trees during the course of any development and even though compensatory planting might be included in any plans this might not cover the losses. We would hope that the existing trees significant tree would be covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to prevent such incidents.
* The site is not central to the amenities of Hatton Park or indeed connected to Hatton Park in any way. The amenities in Hatton Park are not well used and the village shop in particular struggles to remain a viable business. This development is even further away from a central hub and is unlikely to add additional business to activities within Hatton Park.
* An additional 70 to 90 houses in this location would indeed assist business at The Hatton Arms and possibly The Falcon. The Hatton Arms is now a thriving business that on occasions is too busy with an overloaded car park, especially in the summer months. There have been and are concerns for road safety at the entrance to the Hatton Arms on the Birmingham Road. A development of housing in this area could possibly increase the evident danger.
* The views from the houses on Canal Road that overlook the field would be dramatically changed for the worse and would represent a reduction in the quality of the environment.
* During the 'rush hours' of 07.45 to 09.00 and 17.00 to 18.30 the traffic on the Birmingham Road is often stationary, especially going in to Warwick in the morning. The addition of a new roundabout at the bottom of Hatton Hill would very likely increase the traffic problem. Recently traffic has been witnessed queuing as far back as the Five Ways Island at Wroxall during the morning rush hour.
* The speed limit is 50mph down to 40 mph at the bottom of Hatton Hill and the construction of a road island would very likely increase and not reduce the potential for accidents.
* Local residents would have no wish to see a large traffic island constructed at the bottom of Hatton Hill. The stationary traffic and noise of acceleration away from the island would increase disturbance and pollution levels in the area.
* Adding another 70 to 90 houses in this area would generate a lot more traffic with the potential to cause more congestion at busy times of the day. It would seem that a full traffic study would be required before any such development is considered. This study would also apply to the preferred site nearer to Warwick. In addition it may be necessary to consider a study of the adequacy of the existing infrastructure.
* Already the road drainage in the area of Brownley Green Lane is inadequate with water often flooding the nearby so called lay-bye area adjacent to the Birmingham Road/Beausale Lane junction.
.2.
* The environmental impact of further street lighting in the area could be quite significant. Due to the contour of the land, street lights and housing would be very visible rising up Hatton Hill and no screening would be able to hide the development.
* The concept plan provided by Marrons Planning does not have sufficient detail to comment on the layout, style and density of any proposed properties but as this site is wholly detached from Hatton Park it might not be necessary to use that as a blueprint for design should further consultation occur. This might be a good thing.
* A Birmingham Road crossing point would need further explanation. It is thought that a bridge would be inappropriate in the location.
* A cycle link to the other cycle ways in the area would be welcome.
* Should there be a need to increase the car parking at Hatton locks alternative options might exist that do not involve a significant development of houses with the offer of providing parking as an incentive.
.3

I believe that the building of new homes on the canal side of the B'ham Road to be a much better option, because it will be more convenient for amenities, reduce the speed & improve the junction with Brownley Green Road, and the entrance to Hatton Locks car park. It will bring the locks more into the community, with cycle paths, walks & Eco areas. I am totally against the Councils proposal as this will create a sprawl of characterless houses with no community spirit or identity, merging the village with Warwick town centre.
John Rudge

This is the best option as it would be better integrated into the existing development. The drive to the old Chest Hospital forms a natural boundary to the east. Land beyond this must be safeguarded from development to avoid encroaching towards Warwick. However, care must be taken to ensure Smith's Covert retains a substantial connection with the wider countryside to maintain the wildlife corridor.
Development to the south of the A4177 must be avoided to prevent ribbon development and to safeguard the setting of the canal, preserve the landscape and visual character and conserve the wildlife value. Development south of the A4177 would also be detatched from existing village facilities e.g. village hall, shop and school bus stops.

As a resident of Hatton Park I wish to register my comments and concerns related to the proposals obtained in the latest update of the Local Plan.

1 Hatton Park has been allocated the status as a secondary village and therefore deemed suitable for development of additional housing based on the outcome of the Settlement Hierarchy Report. This implies that Hatton Park has an appropriate level of facilities to support such a development, an assertion which I strongly contest. There appears to have been a gross exaggeration of the importance attached to the use of such facilities such as village shop, community centre and limited play area for young children, as result of inflated scores attached to many of the indicators.Local schools have no available spaces and doctors and dentists are a long way away. Admittedly there is a bus service but it is rarely used and there is no evidence that habitants of further housing would have any greater propensity to use it.
Sometimes it is important for those people responsible for assessing such important issues as facilities and services to 'look out of the window' rather than relying totally on the dials!!
The reality is that Hatton Park does not have anything like sufficient facilities and services to support even the existing level of housing never mind a further expansion.

2.Green belt is a precious commodity and I can see nothing in the proposed plan which demonstrates exceptional circumstances to support the erosion of this for the purpose of furthering the number of houses for which there is no supporting evidence.

3. The preferred option has a number of major concerns in addition to the overall concerns referred to above, namely -
- adverse impact on Smith's covert
- significant increasing in the volume of traffic on the A4177
- dangers associated with increased traffic and the convergence of traffic in and
around the entrance/entrance to and from Ugly Bridge Road, the newly developed
petrol station and the proposed entrance/egress to and from the proposed new
development.
- dangers associated with children in particular, being tempted to cross the road
(A4177).
- potential flooding as a result of 'drain off' from the development onto the A4177
which already suffers for this problem.

I would urge the Council to rethink the proposals and exclude Hatton Park from any further development for the reasons outlined above.

I object to the addition of new homes on the proposed Site 1 because it would cause more traffic leaving the estate in the mornings.

In my view Site 2 by the canal is more suitable given that a new roundabout about is proposed. Additionally, Site 2 would accommodate the number of houses proposed whereas Site 1 is larger which will mean further development can be undertaken.

However, whichever site is given permission I want to know how the council intend to deal with the extra school places which will be needed and the resultant stretch on the existing ailing infrastructure. Or, will these new houses only be available to childless people without cars?

I wish to register my objections to the Options for Hatton Park as illustrated in your Local Plan Document on the following grounds:

The Proposal is a breach into the green belt
An over development of the proposed Option site
Will cause widespread traffic congestion in the surrounding area.
Lacks the infrastructure to support such a development, schools, doctors, public transport etc.
Will increase the risk of flooding
Increases the risk of loss of amenity for residents
Will be an over development of the Hatton Park area
Lacks public transport infrastructure
Will upset the balance of nature for some protected species, flowers and woodland
Will have a detrimental effect upon tourism to the area

Due to current high levels of traffic on the Birmingham ,the increased pressure on already over stretched local services - doctors/schools and the lack of community facilities.

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.

Dear planning department I would formally like to object to the proposed housing development. My main concern is the extra volume of traffic that would be created. the A4177 is already congested with nose to tail standing traffic in the mornings especially, as it is the only local link to the M40 & A46. Queuing traffic up to the Hatton Arms has created a near miss accident as drivers come over the brow of the hill.
Any housing development would be 'the thin end of the wedge' as it is obvious that there is more green space next to the proposed site that would be torn up for housing. It won't just be 70 to 90 houses.

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.

I emailed you with my objections to the proposed 70-90 new houses planned for Hatton Park at the end of last year, since then I have attended the consultation held in the village hall on 6th January 2014 and was most unimpressed. We moved here from Solihull, there, when a consultation took place it was a proper consultation, several members of the appropriate council department held the informed meeting and a question and answer session followed. It was even possible for a show of hands! This is what I expected upon arrival at the village hall, this was not to be, there was, as you must be aware, a pin board with a copy of the information we already had plus one young lady to answer any questions! As over 100 residents were already waiting to speak to your representative I'm afraid I gave up.

The following week a meeting was called by the Parish Council, this was most informative and helpful. It was a proper meeting with many points made & many views exchanged. I would like to repeat the points I made in my previous email.
I feel most strongly that the Birmingham Road will not take the extra traffic, certainly not once the proposed extra properties are built in Hampton Magna and Budbrooke. How does the Council imagine the A4177 will cope, especially if there is an accident on the motorway or the A46, the A4177 is in total chaos when this happens now, the schools are already filled to capacity, local GP surgeries are always busy, can Warwick Hospital deal with more patients?

Looking at the latest plan by the builders/planners the new housing will be far too close to the area known as Smith's Covert - this will have a dreadful impact on the local wildlife - of this I am sure you are aware, perhaps you could inform the builder/planners of this. The proposed housing is also for too close to existing properties, why is all the housing squashed into one area when double that land capacity is there? Presumably, the builders/planners will then decide to build even more properties at a later date, thus causing more problems for the local community. This land is needed to support local wildlife.

We have very few facilities in Hatton Park, we have a bus service, a very small shop, a community hall and a childrens' playground, not a great deal to serve the community.

As we are all aware of flooding issues this year especially, has anyone taken land drainage into consideration? Is it a good thing to build yet more housing and prevent yet more water draining off the land? This could be a very costly business if due thought hasn't been taken. We all know how badly local roads have flooded this year, adding more housing isn't going to help.

Because of the debacle over the High Street/Jury Street saga and the apparent lack of thought by Warwick Council of the process of communicating ALL information to the residents of Warwick I really feel very afraid that this whole process will be so badly thought through that, I hate to say, I have no confidence in the local housing plan. We are all fortunate enough to live in a beautiful area, you, our Council, are supposed to take care of this, please make sure you do.

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.

I object to this site being the preferred option for the following reasons:

The A4177 is the main road providing access to the A46 leading to the M42/M40 and A45/M6 - there is already significant traffic congestion, particularly during rush hours, which will be exacerbated by this development (which will be made worse by the proposed works to the Stanks junction giving traffic on the A46 priority). The proposed exit onto the A4177 is already an accident blackspot and will encourage the use of the Shell garage as a local shop increasing the accident risk with no safe pedestrian crossing.

Development of this site will result in Smith's Covert - an ancient woodland - being predominately locked by development. This piece of woodland is home to many protected animal species; bats as well as deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, and birdlife including green and spotted woodpeckers and buzzards to name a few. These species will suffer if this corridor link from Smith's Covert to the greater countryside is blocked by housing.

The local school has already been extended and is full to capacity.

Facilities/amenities within Hatton Park are insufficient - there is a community centre and small village shop - but that is all. Hatton Park village shop would benefit from additional residents - however the location of the preferred site would provide the Shell garage with additional business - not the village shop.

Public transport within Hatton Park is insufficient. The bus service is sporadic and unreliable and therefore underutilised. Residents have to rely on cars to access supermarkets, doctors surgeries, post offices, dentists, train stations, restaurants etc.

Local flooding on the Birmingham Road at the junction with Ugly Bridge Road is a regular occurrence and is likely to get worse with additional development.

Traffic congection on the estate at peak times is problematic particularly getting on to the Birmingham Road which sees significant congestion, more so if the M4 is blocked.Another 90 houses would worsen this. The drainage/flood system seems inadequate at the Bham road. Lastly, the negative impact on wildlife is unnecesary. The estate has poor infrastructure as it is for schooling and ameneties for young people. More housing will put more pressure on what little there already is.

I strongly object to this proposal.
Anyone cueing along the Birmingham road in the mornings towards Warwick, or exiting Hatton Park on work day mornings will know that there is simply no further capacity for the roads to cope with further development on Hatton Park.
Additionally, if there is an accident on the M40, (which there was 3 times in 2 weeks before Christmas) the length of cueing traffic is excessive, and is sheer gridlock.
I have concerns for safety of school children crossing the road to their bus stop, 'dodging' cueing traffic, trying to exit from Hatton Park.
The pollution impact is a concern from this standing traffic.
I also have concerns regarding the impact on flooding along the Birmingham Road, with such potential development, and the risk of accidents as a result.
The impact on local wildlife will be significant, which will have a knock on affect on residents well being.
If the council have stated in the past that development will not take place on this site due to the road capacity, how can this decision be reversed?

I wish to register an objection to the preferred option of further development of the Hatton Park Estate. My objections are based on the following issues:
1 The facilities on Hatton Park are very limited to that of a small shop, village hall and children's playground and remain inadequate for any further expansion.
2 There is regular flooding of the Birmingham Road as a result of surface water run-off from the existing estate. This flooding poses an extreme danger to traffic
3 The main Birmingham Road that runs alongside the estate is extremely dangerous with the four mile stretch of the road that abuts the estate having an above average number of fatal car accidents during the past 5 years.
4 In particular the junction alongside the Shell garage leading to Ugly Bridge is very dangerous and one can foresee a major accident occurring here if no road improvements are undertaken
5 The ancient woodland of Smith's Covert will be adversely affected by the development as environmental passage routes to the covert will be lost.

I would appreciate acknowledgement of my objection and a record made within your administrative systems

1. I object to the proposals to allocate 90 additional houses on Hatton Park set out in the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation of November 2013. This document provides further information about the specific preferred site options identified in the Revised Development Strategy of June 2013.

2. In the Revised Development Strategy, Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village. Para 4.3.13 of that document states that information on the approach to demonstrating a robust and justifiable approach to the establishment of a settlement hierarchy is contained in the technical paper Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013.

3. Secondary Services Villages are defined in that Report as ..."offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities.."

4. Hatton Park is not sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Consultation document, the Revised Development Strategy nor the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report and Appendix 5 of that Report.

5. Hatton Park does not have good public transport connections. The 68 bus service that serves the estate is infrequent, unpunctual, unreliable and does not integrate with the rail service.

6. I have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly given the proposed two new accesses including one directly onto the Birmingham Road (A4177) and the impact of the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses. Notably there are a number of existing accesses onto the Birmingham Road in close proximity to the proposed new access and specific visibility issues are identified in the Site Appraisal Matrix (Appendix 6 of the Consultation document).

7. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

8. I consider that the proposed 90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network in isolation and together with the options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).

I write this email to comment and object on the planning proposal to build an additional 90 homes on the Hatton Park development.

As a resident of Hatton Park I would like to strongly object to any additional house building at Hatton Park.

The current traffic levels are horrendous at peak times. The Warwick Road is heavily congested at rush hours and even at quieter times of the day is very busy. Crossing the Warwick Road to reach Hatton locks is very difficult. Additional houses will only add to the problem.

In addition to the traffic levels, added parking problems, the development phase will cause chaos. Slight road works in Warwick Town Centre currently result in grid lock at Hatton Park.

Enough is enough, building on green fields, expanding existing housing areas has to stop sometime

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

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.

I would like to register my objection to the Warwickshire revised local plan (2013) for Hatton Park.

My concerns over the planned development for 70-90 houses in the Hatton park area are:
1. Ferncumbe primary school and Budbrook school are both on site restricting their growth. With the proposed planning in Hatton Park and Hampton Magna these schools will not be able to cope with the increased population, resulting in children having to be transported further afield.
2.The A4177 of which the suggested site feeds onto, already experiences a high level of traffic and has congestion on a daily bases, this will not only be increased by the suggested 70-90 houses for Hatton park but also by other planned developments along the route.


Objection to WDC preferred site between Charingworth Drive and A4177 (Birmingham road)

I have two major objections to this site
1. This site boarders Smiths Covert- an area of ancient woodland. Developing this area will result in this ancient woodland being locked in by development. This is of grave concern as there is a large amount of protected animals within the site: Bats, Muntjac Deer, Badgers, Foxes, Birds of prey, Green and spotted Woodpeckers to name but a few. I understand that the suggested plan allows for a wildlife corridor, but I feel this would not be sufficient as currently this wildlife is feeding off the insects and vegetation with the field and by reducing the size to a wildlife corridor would not be sufficient to provide for the large amount of species within the woodland therefore, dramatically upsetting the biodiversity resulting in the deterioration of an irreplaceable habitat. According to WDC a 'critical friend' analysis of Warwick district council draft green belt assessment this is exactly what you want to avoid - it even highlights preventing deterioration of ancient woodland of which would occur by developing this site.
I am shocked to see other site were discounted due to the effect on wildlife, when this site is the one that would have the most effect due to proximity to the ancient woodland.

2. The access to the suggested site is also of great concern. Within Hatton park the average house has two plus cars, resulting in an increase of 150 cars plus any vehicles servicing the house. I believe two access points are planned one directly onto the A4177 and another along Ebrington drive, Congestion within peak travel times currently backs into Hatton park which will become unbearable with the increase traffic. The potential planned access point directly onto the Birmingham road is of great concern as this would be very close to the turning to ugly bridge road and into the petrol station, resulting in a potential accident blackspot.

see attached

1. We object to the proposals to allocate 90 additional houses on Hatton Park as set out in the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation of November 2013. This document provides further information about the specific preferred site options identified in the Revised Development Strategy of June 2013.

2. In the Revised Development Strategy, Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village. Para 4.3.13 of that document states that information on the approach to demonstrating a robust and justifiable approach to the establishment of a settlement hierarchy is contained in the technical paper Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013.

3. Secondary Service Villages are defined in that Report as ... "offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities..".

4. Hatton Park is not sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Consultation document, the Revised Development Strategy or the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report and Appendix 5 of that Report.

5. Hatton Park does not have good public transport connections. The No. 68 bus service that serves the estate is infrequent, unpunctual, unreliable and does not integrate with the local rail service.

6. We have concerns about the safe access to the road network, particularly given the proposed two new access points including one directly onto the Birmingham Road (A4177) and the impact of the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses. In particular there are a number of existing access points onto the Birmingham Road in close proximity to the proposed new access and specific visibility issues are identified in the Site Appraisal Matrix (Appendix 6 of the Consultation document).

7. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. In 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure sufficient places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

8. I consider that the proposed 90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network in isolation and together with the options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).

see Attached

With reference to the Hatton Park development, these are some concerns I have;

1. I object to the proposals to allocate 90 additional houses on Hatton Park set out in the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation of November 2013.

2. Hatton Park is not sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Consultation document or preceding documents.

3. Hatton Park does not have good public transport connections. The 68 bus service that serves the estate is infrequent, unpunctual, unreliable and does not integrate with the rail service.

4. I have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly given the proposed two new accesses including one directly onto the Birmingham Road (A4177) and the impact of the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses. Notably there are a number of existing accesses onto the Birmingham Road in close proximity to the proposed new access and specific visibility issues are identified in the Site Appraisal Matrix (Appendix 6 of the Consultation document).

5. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places.

6. I consider that the proposed 90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network in isolation and together with the options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).

The A4177 is truly awful already ... the idea of adding another what 180 cars potentially onto that road at 8.30 in the morning seriously concerns me.

Yours Sincerely,

Neil Ford.

see attached

see attached

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

Dear Sir/Madam, I'm a resident of Hatton park. Robert Wilson, My major concern is by adding up to 90 new homes and assuming that most households may have 2 cars. Today the traffic is jammed between the hours 7:30 am to 9am on the exit roundabout to the A4177 I know I'm stuck daily trying to get to the dual carriageway. Some days I travel north just because of the traffic at a stand still. My office is in Nuneaton! So help me understand how this additional households will help the current situation as I suspect that many will be professional levels incomes and will leave at the same time?

Warwick District's Rural Areas

Warwick District, while in population terms mainly urban, has attractive rural areas. The quality of the District's countryside, and the conservation value of many of its villages, are major assets. They play a major part in making the District attractive to live and work in.

The size of the District and the short distances between the villages and the main towns mean that the District does not have a 'rural economy'. Links between the villages and the towns are close and social distinctions are few. There is no justification for development in any of the District's villages for economic or social purposes, except for some limited social (rented) housing to meet local needs. And because of the short distances, that need may be met in a different village from where it arises without adverse effects.

It is important to stress that there has been tight control on development in Warwick District's villages for 40-50 years. The designation of Conservation Areas in a number of the District's villages took place in 1967-75, mostly prior to the creation of Warwick District Council (April 1974). From 1974 the policies of the District Council have successfully maintained a strict control on development in most villages, especially those within the Green Belt. Limited new housing has been permitted, with one major development on an old hospital complex - Hatton Park.

It would be damaging and regrettable if the New Local Plan were to undermine this success because of a controversial estimate of the requirement for new housing. The balance of urban and rural areas has been firmly established over the last 40 years and very strong justification would be needed to disturb it.




The Green Belt

Warwick District's rural areas are mostly designated Green Belt. This Green Belt status dates from the 1960s with the Green Belt being formally confirmed in 1975. It is thus 50 years old and has played a large role in conserving the character of the District.

The villages within the Green Belt have been 'washed over' and have not been inset (omitted from the Green Belt). It is important to stress this. Successive Structure and Local Plans have been adopted with the Green Belt being continuous. Gaps in the Green Belt, notably the 'white island' of 'white land' or non-Green Belt land at Lapworth (Kingswood), were replaced by as 'washed-over' status for the whole villages.

When Hampton Magna, and more recently Hatton Park, were developed, the Green Belt status was kept. They were not excluded and 'inset'. This enabled consistent planning policy to be applied over the whole area west of Warwick.

The effectiveness of the District's Green Belt is shown by the fact that the rural areas of Warwick District have remained unchanged, or little changed, in the last 40 years. The strict control of development that the Green Belt has provided has been on major benefit.

No harmful or adverse effects on the District's economic performance have been identified as resulting from the Green Belt. The attractive countryside and villages that it has facilitated are more likely to have assisted it by providing an attractive living environment.

The fundamental feature of the Green Belt is that it provides openness. The low density development of most villages, with areas of open land within them, is protected by Green Belt designation. New houses (infill) or house extensions can be strictly controlled and refused if they would harm openness of the Green Belt. This principle has been effective in application where large house extensions or rebuilds, or new buildings such as stables, would be harmful to the character of a village.


CPRE's view of the proposal to remove Green Belt status from several villages


In our view it is not necessary to remove Green Belt status from a village in order to permit some new development within existing villages or in some cases on their edge. Some development within the Green Belt is permitted, subject to all relevant factors including sustainability and the impact on the environment and openness of the area. Conditions can be imposed to avoid unnecessary impacts.

Removal of green belt status from the land within a village boundary will remove the Green Belt controls restrictions set out in the NPPF. This would make possible applications for development which would increase housing density, and the bulk and height of houses; which would be refused were Green Belt status to remain. Removal of Green Belt protection creates the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity, and openness will be lost.

CPRE would prefer to see some villages designated as suitable for "limited infill" without removing Green Belt status. As the title suggests this allows very limited infill with detailed limitations on such matters as the amount and type and design of any infilling. Blanket removal of green belt protection has the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity.

We are also concerned that a number of Neighbourhood Plans are under development and more are likely in the future. Decisions about green belt status should not be used to undermine the possible wishes of residents and other interested parties.

We urge that a more careful approach is taken to the development of each village with appropriate conditions on such matters as the amount, type, style and design of development in the village. Each village should receive individual consideration.

There should therefore be a strong presumption against changing the Green Belt in Warwick District. The Draft Local Plan proposals for removing several villages from the Green Belt and 'insetting' them would revive the 'white islands' that were eliminated in the 1970s. To create areas in the middle of the Green Belt which are not covered by Green Belt policy risks allowing overdevelopment and an undermining of the character of villages.

Affordable housing - generally rented Housing Association housing - can be permitted in villages while they remain 'washed over by the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at para 86 that

"If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt."

In Warwick District the majority of villages contribute to the openness of the Green Belt and should therefore remain washed over by the Green Belt.

A particular type of settlement in the Green Belt in Warwick District where removal from that status would be harmful to openness is the elongated settlement, generally a single road, where housing was developed in the interwar era and in some cases up to the 1960s. CPRE considered that in these cases openness is retained by use of strict Green Belt controls; those would be lost if the Local Plan were to crease 'white islands', contrary to all past Council and Government practice.


CPRE's response on the proposals for individual villages

The following settlements (mostly villages) now 'washed over' by Green Belt are proposed for removal from it:
Baginton, Burton Green, Hampton Magna, Hatton Park, Kingswood (Lapworth), Leek Wootton, Hill Wootton, Hatton Station, and Shrewley.

Outside the Green Belt the following settlements are proposed to have significant new housing:

Barford, Bishop's Tachbrook, Radford Semele.


Baginton: Baginton is an elongated village close to Coventry. It makes a contribution to openness as it is. Its closeness to Coventry makes Baginton very sensitive to new development. It should be retained as it is now with washed-over status.

Barford: Not in the Green Belt. Any development on the land around Barford House is strongly opposed. This has been refused twice now on clear conservation grounds. Locations 1, 2 and 3 will probably be suitable over time, but have problems of access.

Bishops Tachbook: CPRE would wish to see the location for any new housing determined by local opinion and the Parish Council.

Burton Green: Burton Green is mainly a long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove Burton Green from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Burton Green should stay with 'washed-over; status.

Cubbington: The village is not in the Green Belt. The proposed site should be reduced in size to Location no 1 only, eliminating the projection northwards into countryside that site 2 would result in.

Hampton Magna: the historic village (Hampton-on-the-Hill) is within the Green Belt. The new (1960s/70s) settlement was tightly drawn to the area of the former barracks. The site is prominent on the hill west of the A46. Retaining Green Belt status is justified. If this were to be lost, there could be intensification of development at Hampton Magna resulting in more intrusion and a loss of openness.

Hatton Park (former Hatton Hospital site): This was retained in the Green Belt when the extensive new housing was permitted. It is accepted that this location could be taken out of the Green Belt without major harm.

Hatton Station: this is a set of houses built south of the station in around 1970 on former railway land. This is not a village as Hatton Village (church, school) is some way to the east. There is no justification for removing this loose grouping of houses from the Green Belt. The present level of development does retain openness, but intensification would harm openness.

Hill Wootton: This is an attractive small village, which helps create openness of the Green Belt. The proposal for up to 5 dwellings in the village (if achievable) does not justify the removal of the village from the Green Belt.

Kingswood (Lapworth): This is another long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove the Kingswood part of Lapworth from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Kingswood should retain 'washed-over; status. (It is this area which was 'white land' within the Green Belt until a Local Plan Inquiry in the late 1970s.)

Leek Wootton: This village is attractive and makes a contribution to the Green Belt by its openness. It should remain 'washed over'. We oppose the suggested new housing sites 1-3.. The conversion to residential units of Woodcote House (on departure of Warwickshire |Police) is reasonable. But this does not justify removing the whole of Leek Wootton from the Green Belt, and as a conversion can be undertaken while the site remains Green Belt.

Radford Semele: Not in the Green Belt. CPRE would support the option (if any) which is preferred by the local residents and Parish Council.

Shrewley: The two small housing sites at the south end of the village against the railway cutting are capable of being fitted in to the village with the right design. The scale of this development is small and does not justify taking the whole village out of the Green Belt. The village should stay 'washed-over'.

Aylesbury House Hotel near Hockley Heath: there is no justification for permitting new housing in the Green Belt around the existing building. Conversion to residential (flats) of the old building (the Hotel) can be undertaken without changing the Green Belt status.

Oak Lee, Finham: this is a location which could be developed - it is trapped land between Warwick Lane and the A46 Kenilworth Bypass.