21. Hatton Park

Whilst the latest plan takes into consideration concerns about the wildlife that is resident in Smith's Covert, it does not overcome the issues that additional housing will place on the environs of Hatton Park. I have specific concerns about the lack of an appropriate shop for the estate and the impact of additional traffic on Ebrington Drive and the Birmingham Road which is already contested at peak hours. Other developments in the plan will already. Be adding traffic to the Birmingham Road so without serious investment in the infrastructure, there is a significant impact on existing residents.

Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development and I do not support any development in this locality.

A Housing Needs Survey for the Parish of Hatton carried out in May 2014 demonstrated a need for 12 dwellings, for which there is already sufficient windfall and brownfield sites within the Parish. In a survey for the recently prepared Parish Plan 64% opposed any further development in the Parish, and 80% opposed any change to the Green Belt.

The assessment of Hatton Park as a Growth Village is subjective and only JUST places it into this category. If the population of Hatton Park wasn't described as "about 2020" and instead was accurately assessed as 1990, it would not be a Growth Village.

It is within and surrounded by Green Belt and not suitable for development. No 'exceptional circumstances' as required by the NPPF to justify such development are identified, nor indeed exist.

The existing local infrastructure is already struggling and any further development will result in additional stress. There is insufficient planning (including financial) for the additional infrastructure necessary to support the proposed level of growth (within Hatton Parish and Warwick District).

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/is close to full capacity.

Facilities/amenities within Hatton Park are insufficient and not in-line with a "secondary village." 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.

That said:

IF the Preferred Option is to be imposed, I support the principle that where a site is to be taken out of the Green Belt to facilitate development, settlement boundaries are drawn
tightly and decisively to provide a clear distinction between the settlement envelope and the Green Belt.

This will protect the remaining Green Belt more strongly and eliminate ambiguity where Green Belt 'washes over' settlements.

Please refer to my other detailed representations, particularly DS11, H28 that Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development.

However should this happen, I support the land area as shown because:

Revisions to the boundary from previous consultations mean that the site as shown adequately protects Smith's Covert and Ugly Bridge Road;

It is unsustainable to draw construction and scheme traffic through Hatton
Park, so development is best accessed primarily from the A4177 as shown;

The remaining Settlement Boundary must be drawn tightly to the existing development to protect the remainder of the Green Belt as shown, as land to the north and west of Hatton Park has high amenity value as Green Belt with views across the Green Belt to and from Hatton Park due to height differentials.

I suggest the following to complement this site and delivered as part of a Section 106 agreement or allocation of CIL funds as a priority:

- Bespoke vehicular access direct from the A4177 that does not require
construction or scheme traffic to go through existing roads on Hatton Park;
- Improvements to the A4177 at the Ugly Bridge Road junction, either a
roundabout or extra lane, to prevent congestion caused by vehicles turning
right;
- Traffic calming to allow safe pedestrian access to the nearby bus stop
and petrol station;

I wish to object to the plan as proposed as it does not adhere to government guidelines and is in conflict with green belt policy and cannot be supported by current local infrastructure and is not sustainable. Please refer to my previous detailed objections.