Burton Green

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65699

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Alex Hills

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Duty to co-operate/soundness
Not enough consultation given for Local Plan
Lack of communication and missed/unanswered correspondence
Clarify position on development on different sites in order to allow for greater integration in the community across the spectrum of accommodation types

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65700

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mrs Marlene Hills

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The local plan is not legally compliant and is unsound. In this document the green belt designation does not include all gardens in Cromwell Lane, Hob Lane and most of Hoggetts Lane and all of Red Lane. The exception to this are numbers 36, 34, 32 and 30. The explanation for this was that these houses put their plots forward for development. This is unlawful and unsound

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65745

Received: 20/06/2014

Respondent: Cllr Ann Blacklock

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Does not comply with the NPPF definition of justified, it not the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives based on proportionate evidence.

The secion on Growth Villages was completed in a hasty and arbitrary manner, to meet the deadline. The Growth Village of Burton Green has been given one allocated site, which ignores evidence that at least on of the other sites put forward is equally deliverable and developable, would not lead to increas of ribbon developement, and would suffer less impact from HS2 in terms of construction distrubance and position within noise contours.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65978

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Swindells and Star Pubs and Bars Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Within Warwick District, HS2 will primarily impact the village of Burton Green,to the south, in the vicinity of the proposed housing allocation at Burrow Hill Nursery. HS2 is likely to impact the deliverability of the Burrow Hill Nursery site and ultimately render the site undeliverable within the Plan Period of 2011-2029.

Notwithstanding the deliverability of the Burrow Hill Nursery site, there is also concern that the Local Plan does not address the potential net loss of dwellings resulting from the construction of HS2.

Given the above issues outlined in respect of Policy DS11 and the deliverability of the Burrow Hill Nursery site, it is our view that the Local Plan is not effective.
In assessing the ability for Land Covered Parcels (LCP) within the Green Belt to accommodate residential development as part of the Evidence Base for the Local Plan, the first version of the Study failed to assess LCP BG_10, which the site at and to the rear of the Peeping Tom Public House sits within.
Given the discrepancy between the Study and Barton Willmore's Green Belt and Landscape and Visual Report, and the lack of a focused consideration of the site at and to the rear of the Peeping Tom Public House, it is our view that emerging Policy DS.11 is not justified as it is not based on proportionate evidence
Following the error an update to the Study was published in April 2014 including an appraisal of LCP BG_10.However the LCP covers a much wider area than just the Site and is predominantly rural in nature, except where it bounds the settlement edge of Burton Green. As such the LCP is considered to be too large to appropriately assess the Site and its location adjacent to the urban edge of Burton Green.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66201

Received: 24/07/2014

Respondent: Drs Thornton and Mr & Mrs Vernon et al.

Number of people: 10

Agent: Dr Paul Thornton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(1) The Local Plan Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation document published in November 2013 contained some serious factual errors in the information upon which the site selection process was based. As a result of these errors the site selection process was unsound.

(2) As a result of the errors contained in the Nov 2013 document, the Public Consultation which followed its publication was flawed to the extent that it should be considered invalid
(3) There is no explanation of the method by which WDC took account of the results of the Public Consultation in the formulation of the Publication Draft version of the Plan. Also, the errors relating to Burton Green in the November 2013 document are repeated in the Publication Draft, despite being highlighted in our Consultation submission. This suggests that WDC failed in their duty to consider our Consultation response.
(4) WDC have belatedly published a revised site assessment matrix subsequent to the Publication Draft. In respect of our site [Land off Hodgetts Land and Cromwell Lane], some of the errors have been corrected, as a result of which our site now compares favourably with the Preferred Option site. There has been no amendment of the Publication Draft to take account of those now acknowledged factual changes in the evidence base, which should have been recognised much earlier in the process. The Publication Draft is not justified.
(5) There is evidence to suggest that some of the information used in the site selection process has been selected or presented in such a way as to favour the Preferred Option Site at the expense of other sites. This casts doubt upon the soundness and justification of the selection process, and further undermines the validity of the Public Consultation.
(6) The deliverability of the Preferred Option site is very much in doubt as a consequence of the construction and operation of HS2. WDC have demonstrably failed to examine or properly take account of the evidence relating to the Burton Green area published by HS2 Ltd.
(7) Despite Burton Green being classified as a Growth Village, WDC have arbitrarily reduced the Housing Allocation from the original 70-90 dwellings down to 60.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66852

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Peter Stanworth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Previous Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries consultation was not widely publicised with most residents of Burton Green only aware of it late in the consultation period. This meant that responses were rushed. At this time the presentation by the site promoter of Burrow Hill Nursery to the Parish Council meant that most residents assumed that the decision had been taken.

HS2 bisects the village and has a major impact on its future, due consideration of this has not been given in the preparation of the plan.

To place a concentration of 60 houses on one site in the village is totally inappropriate and out of character. This is also the view of others in the village who have signed the attached petition.

This site will be affected by the noise and disturbance from HS2 during operation and construction. The construction of HS2 means the housing estate is unlikely to be deliverable in the plan period.

The site is not central to the village;
Concentrates traffic in the dangerous red lane area;
Landscape value is high
Accentuates ribbon development
Public transport is poor - 1 bus per week and 1.5 miles to Tile Hill station.
Fuel pipe runs across part of the land.
adjacent to a pond which contains Great Crested Newts
adjacent to a listed building, Long Meadow Farm

Land off Hodgetts Lane is central to the village and would provide a good heart.
It is not affected by noise from HS2
It has good access to Cromwell Lane
It has good public transport
It does not have a major impact on the landscape
Could deliver 30 houses
It does not accentuate development
Does not consider backland development to be an argument against it.

Land at rear of Peeping Tom pub is not affected by noise from HS2
Access through car park is secured.
does not have a major impact on the landscape
excellent transport links
It does not accentuate ribbon development
It could deliver 30 houses
Does not consider backland development to be an argument against it.

Considers that other options in the area for small development are unlikely to have significant detrimental effects on the landscape.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments: