Other Villages

see attached

see attached

Re: Consultation Response, Village Housing Options and Settlement Norton Lindsey

I am instructed by The Rosconn Group of Union House, 7-9 Union Street, Stratford Upon Avon to make representations to the draft village housing options and settlement boundaries consultation.

We welcome the strategy adopted of allowing development within the villages but are disappointed to see that Norton Lindsey has not been selected as a village to take further development.

Norton Lindsey is a modest sized village with good facilities including a school, village hall and pub together with several sporting teams and venues. Without further development in such villages, these facilities and services are at risk of closing due to insufficient younger people coming into the village to make them viable.

Changing demographics and increased population figures based on latest census figures show that more housing is needed. It is a well-known fact, recognized by the approach to development in the new local plan that without new development villages and rural facilities and services will die out.

We ask that you take on board the comments made in this representation and reconsider Norton Lindsey as a village for new housing.

Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.

see attached

Local plan - VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS AND SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES CONSULTATION

20 January 2014

Representation Submitted by Dianne McDougall (11630) on behalf of Robin Smith-Ryland /Sherbourne Estate

Mr Smith-Ryland of Sherbourne Park, Warwick CV35 8AP would like to object to the local plan for development of Housing in Barford in so much as he would request that there be provision in the plan for the replacement of the village hall in Sherbourne.

The present Village Hall is on Church Road Sherbourne and due to the location it has no parking facilities and limited uses. The lease on the Village Hall finishes in 2022 and because of the limitations for parking and usage Mr Smith-Ryland is inclined not to renew the lease. Instead it is proposed that he will provide facility for a new Village Hall as part of a small housing development which would include affordable housing at a site near Moat Green, Sherbourne. The village of Sherbourne basically consists of two parts, the old Victorian village with limited surrounding space and the relatively new part known as Moat Green which has open space available. Sherbourne has no village shop or pub. Apart from the Village Hall and the Church, Sherbourne has no other community facilities.

The project would assist young people brought up in the village who have to look for housing outside the village when they become independent due to the high price of housing in the village and would also provide a fit for purpose Community building which could facilitate Village events for which the present Hall is unsuitable and also provide a venue for Health and Educational purposes in partnership with organisations like Outreach. This development would help Sherbourne become a more sustainable community as in section 3.10 of the consultation plan.

The Rowington Almshouse Charity supports the inclusion of the Meadow House site as a location for the development of affordable housing. The Charity has been in discussions with the landowner as a potential Provider of 1-2 bedroom affordable housing under a Section 106 agreement.
The Rowington Almshouse Charity has been a provider of social housing for more than 100 years and we believe that the development of affordable housing on this site would support the policy context outlined in section 2.2 to 2.10 by providing housing suitable for younger people and families. This would in turn support sustainability of local schools, shops and transport infrastructure to the benefit of the local area as a whole.

I have tried unsuccessfully to respond using the electronic consultation system. It said it recognises my email address - reason unknown - but I have no password. Hence a response by email.

VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS

I am responding to the whole of the document but particularly that part of the Local Plan referring to Burton Green, especially pages 40 and 41.
Page 41 shows a plan of Burton Green with a hatched area across the page. I am told that this corresponds to the proposed track of the HS2 railway. It is not defined in the index. It does not show the portals of the tunnel and the land generated over it.
The following are my opinions:
General
The village at present is in turmoil with the prospect of the construction of the HS2 railway. During the construction phase life is likely to become very unpleasant with disruption in all aspects. It is very unlikely that future residents will wish to move to Burton Green with this in mind. This has not been discussed in the Local Plan.
I suggest that no decision about future housing in Burton Green is taken until the decision has been made to start work on the HS2 project.
Concentration of housing (75 dwellings) in one plot as the preferred option at plot 1 is not acceptable.
* It is inappropriate and out of character with the ribbon development of the village
* It is the highest part of Burton Green and therefore has the most visual impact
* It is not central to the village with only a few houses down one side of the plot
* It will cause major traffic congestion in the Red Lane area (an additional 100+ cars)
* Such a concentration of new residents in one isolated area will result in lack of integration into the village and loss of cohesion as a whole.
* The proposed site will receive the blast of passing trains emerging and entering the south portal of the tunnel should HS2 go ahead.
I do not understood why an expansion of ribbon development is detrimental. The position of the houses in the village is the reason for many people coming to live in Burton Green.

Number of extra houses required.
WDC has proposed an increase of 75 houses. This is an increase of 28% of the housing stock in the village, the largest in Warwickshire. Burton Green has few amenities. It thus seems out of proportion. It seems unreasonable that Ashow for example is not expected to accept more houses.
The number of proposed houses should be much reduced. I would suggest that 60 houses could be readily absorbed throughout the whole village with little disturbance of character (see below).

Suggestions
In my opinion 60 new houses should be spread fairly and equally throughout the village by using plots 1 to 7. Land generated by the HS2 tunnel could well be used to provide a central area for some housing (The HS2 photomontage shows a new house built on the tunnel).
This would:
* Be in keeping with the character of the village
* Produce least visual impact
* Produce least traffic congestion
* Allow integration of new residents more readily into the village
* Would be easily deliverable using a variety of developers
Access has been stated as a problem to some plots. Access is readily obtained by purchasing the necessary property as is already taking place on one plot.
I know the Council is concerned about spread between Coventry and Kenilworth but development on plots 5 and 6 is limited by Lodge Farm and surrounding buildings.
A Village Hall (funding agreed by HS2) and playing fields can be incorporated into any of the plots.
If 5 houses were built on Plot1 along Hob Lane this would provide the connectivity that is mentioned with the remainder of the Lane.
INDICATIVE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
I do not understood why the area shown on the plan does not include the whole of the village in Red Lane. The whole of Red Lane within the village should be included.
The line should be drawn just beyond the building edge to prevent garden development in the gardens.
GENERAL
No plan will satisfy all residents within the village but the above appears a reasonable compromise without a major alteration in the character of the village.

see attached

see attached

see Attached

see attached