H28 - Hatton Park - north of Birmingham Road
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68101
Received: 16/03/2016
Respondent: Mr Charles Cain
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The infrastructure cannot cope with added vehicles on the A4177. The traffic will be a danger to school children who get the bus from Hatton park or cross the traffic to use Ugly Bridge Road.
The roads and fields flood. There is no plan to cope with this.
It is prime green belt land that provides a natural boundary for the existing development.
The infrastructure cannot cope with added vehicles on the A4177. The traffic will be a danger to school children who get the bus from Hatton park or cross the traffic to use Ugly Bridge Road.
The roads and fields flood. There is no plan to cope with this.
It is prime green belt land that provides a natural boundary for the existing development.
Support
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68136
Received: 01/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Richard Dubelbeis
I support the inclusion of this land for further housing. I do question the apparent suitability of the land which does not seem capable of being drained. This area is very often saturated and the consequence is the flooding of the adjacent A4177 thus creating further danger on an already problematic road.
I support the inclusion of this land for further housing. I do question the apparent suitability of the land which does not seem capable of being drained. This area is very often saturated and the consequence is the flooding of the adjacent A4177 thus creating further danger on an already problematic road.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68147
Received: 04/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Greg Meadwell
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The proposed development does not accord with development in the greenbelt as set out and established in NPPF.
Little or no consideration has been made in respect of improvements to local services including, but not limited to:
transport and travel
Education
Doctors/Dentists
Reference to the site as 'Brownley Green Lane' is misleading. The site is to be accessed via Barcheston Drive, within Hatton Park. Little or no consideration to this appears to have been nade given the tight housing estate roads, difference in ground levels between Barcheston Drive and the proposed development, access to/parking at the Hatton Park Village Hall
The proposed development does not accord with development in the greenbelt as set out and established in NPPF.
Little or no consideration has been made in respect of improvements to local services including, but not limited to:
transport and travel
Education
Doctors/Dentists
Reference to the site as 'Brownley Green Lane' is misleading. The site is to be accessed via Barcheston Drive, within Hatton Park. Little or no consideration to this appears to have been nade given the tight housing estate roads, difference in ground levels between Barcheston Drive and the proposed development, access to/parking at the Hatton Park Village Hall
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68150
Received: 04/04/2016
Respondent: mrs cherylin preston
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
I object to the prosed plans as there is a lack of detail, the impact on the environment, the increased congestion and the proposal to build on a flood plain. Hatton Park lacks all facilities and requires those living there to travel by car or public transport for everything, shopping, schools, doctors and there is only one road to and from Warwick which is heavily congested morning and night. No plans have been put in place to improve the infrastructure.
The proposed land for development next to Tidmington close is known to frequency flood already and so is not suitable for housing. Being at the bottom of the hill the surface runoff collects in this field and can be water logged for several months a year. More development will put pressure on the sewerage system to increase the risk of flooding.
There are no plans to increase the facilities on Hatton Park, all children already have to catch a bus to both primary and secondary schools, which causes massive congestion, with parent dropping off and collecting, further housing would add to this.
The Birmingham road is already very congested during rush hour and queues frequently tail back into Warwick in the morning. Additional housing would add to this problem. the council has no plans to update the infrastructure before development.
Noise pollution, air pollution from extra cars and building on green belt land will damage the local ecosystem. Badgers, birds, pheasants and even deer have been in the field. Loss of habitat will negatively affect the wildlife.
The local primary school, Ferncumbe is already over subscribed and quiet often siblings are unable to attend the same school. The council has not put any plans forward to build a new school.
The only facilities nearby is a very small convenience shop to buy very basic necessities, a recent consultation stated Hatton Park had a well stocked store which is simply not true.
There is no doctors surgery or NHS dentist nearby either. All these services require travelling into Warwick, along a congested road.
The council has not released plans about access roads to any prosed developments. So Roads like Ebrington could have a massive increase in traffic, where cars are often parked on one side of the roads already.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68151
Received: 04/04/2016
Respondent: Lesley Roberts
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Flood risk
Traffic congestion
School and preschool placements
Health services
Increased pollution
I objected to the earlier draft when 80 houses were proposed and my reasons are the same as before. The additional houses will only compound the potential problems associated with a build in a flood risk area, and will have a detrimental impact on local residents, roads, traffic etc. the Birmingham road has frequently flooded, as have the fields either side, and I would anticipate this to be an escalated problem with additional housing.
Also the Birmingham Road has seen a huge increase in traffic over recent years and will be unable to accommodate the huge impact to traffic that would be evident with all the local proposed additional housing, not just H28 and H53, but also the local villages.
I believe local schools are already at capacity so again anticipate problems placing the anticipated increase in school children. The same applies to health services, and pre-school placements.
Increased pollution is a concern. It has been pointed out to me that there is a heightened number of asthma suffers locally, potentially due to the proximity to several motorway networks, the increased traffic would only increase this risk
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68152
Received: 04/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Michael Preston
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Field is a flood risk already, more houses would add to this.
The Birmingham road faces major congestion each day, more houses will add to this.
Increase pollution and loss of green belt will spoil the environment.
There is no plans to improve or alleviate the pressure on local services such as schools.
All major developments should be fully consulted with the residents already living there, this has not been done. When surveyed, most Hatton Park residents strongly disagree with any further development of the site. There should be an agreed local plan, where all views have been considered, this has not been done.
Building 120 new houses would put a greater strain on the local infrastructure. There are frequent traffic jams on the Birmingham road already, leading to long journey time to work. The pollution from more traffic will impact the health and the environment. The Birmingham road is already an accident hot spot, more traffic will add to this.
The proposed site is green belt land. This should be protected. This will lead to a loss of habitat for wildlife.
The proposed development site is a flood plain. Trenches run along the Birmingham road which frequently fill with water and the field floods often. More housing will put increased pressure on to the sewerage system. The Birmingham road itself floods.
Hatton Park lacks basic facilities. No supermarket, doctors, schools. There are no plans to improve facilities here in the local plan, only to add more houses without improving facilities. The local primary school is already full to capacity. There will be extra pressure on the fire brigade, NHS and police without adequate planning.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68166
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Dr Paul and Alison Sutcliffe
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The methodological flaws in the data gathering process, failure to incorporate and synthesise all the available evidence should be taken extremely seriously and cast doubt on the objectivity of decisions made from it.
We note that concerning the Duty to Cooperate, the Inspector in his letter of the 1 June 2015, "was satisfied that the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in terms of overall housing provision and indeed other strategic matters. I conclude therefore that the Council has complied with the duty to co-operate." This may look to be the case from reading the documents produced, however we do not feel that the council has "actively engaged" through a transparent and appropriate methodology which has enabled the general public an opportunity to participate and engage constructively. We feel that the council has repeatedly made poor attempts at responding to questions by residents of Hatton Park at meetings. There have been strong oppinions voiced over many years about about these damaging ongoing plans (H28) and yet the reported "evidence base" seems based on a select number of willing responders who are capable of understanding how to make a representation. The data is therefore skewed, non-representative, and biased. Had more appropriate research evidence-based methodology been considered, for example mixed methods (i.e., both qualititative and quantitative research), and a greater breadth of synthesis techniques, then a more robust and rigorous evidence-base would have been gathered. This in turn, would have given us greater confidence that a more representative documentation of the plethora of objections would have been reported.
We feel helpless in the decisions that are being made about these future plans. The council are still unable to answer our questions about road access to these increased number of houses on this site, issues regarding flooding on the land which remains waterlogged for most of the year, and many other issues (e.g., managing the overcapacity of local schools, damage to wildlife, severe traffic congestion).
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68171
Received: 07/04/2016
Respondent: Pauline Neale
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The proposal to build 120 new houses is unsuitable for land which is subject to flooding, attachment shows its current waterlogged state. Egress onto the A4177 will be impossible to manage due to the already clogged road network through narrow Ebrington Drive to Barcheston Drive & the congested access onto the A4177. The proposal is not environmentally sustainable and poses a risk to health and well-being through flooding and vehicle pollution. There would be a need for retail, school and medical facilities on such a large estate. This is not a Housing Market Area that can take any more development.
The proposal to build 120 new houses is unsuitable for land which is subject to flooding, attachment shows its current waterlogged state. Egress onto the A4177 will be impossible to manage due to the already clogged road network through narrow Ebrington Drive to Barcheston Drive & the congested access onto the A4177. The proposal is not environmentally sustainable and poses a risk to health and well-being through flooding and vehicle pollution. There would be a need for retail, school and medical facilities on such a large estate. This is not a Housing Market Area that can take any more development.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68350
Received: 18/04/2016
Respondent: John Higgs
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
I object to the Hatton Park proposals unless assurances concerning highways & community facilities are explored.
I object to the Hatton Park proposals unless assurances concerning highways & community facilities are explored.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68545
Received: 22/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Carla Smith
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Reasons for removing this land from the green belt are not sufficient. Proposed density is too dense. Proposed land floods every time it rains. Too much pressure on local amenities (schools, Warwick Hospital, GPs). Too much traffic on the Birmingham Road (which is already at a standstill eastbound outside Hatton Park during rush hour). No sufficient public transport--one bus into town per hour if you're lucky (with a travel time into Warwick of an hour!).
Reasons for removing this land from the green belt are not sufficient. Proposed density is too dense. Proposed land floods every time it rains. Too much pressure on local amenities (schools, Warwick Hospital, GPs). Too much traffic on the Birmingham Road (which is already at a standstill eastbound outside Hatton Park during rush hour). No sufficient public transport--one bus into town per hour if you're lucky (with a travel time into Warwick of an hour!).
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68554
Received: 22/04/2016
Respondent: mr Simon Evans
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
1] the area is a flood plane
2] the area can not copy with the increase traffic 3] you do not have enough School places
4] the council can not look after its current Residence let alone bring more people to the area
1] the area is a flood plane
2] the area can not copy with the increase traffic 3] you do not have enough School places
4] the council can not look after its current Residence let alone bring more people to the area
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68614
Received: 14/04/2016
Respondent: Jean Faulkner
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of green belt
Lack of infrastructure
Flooding on site
Lack of capacity in existing facilities and services
Pollution
I wish to register my objections to the above revised
1 My prime strong objection is to the loss of Green Belt land for future generations , when more suitable sites exist.
2 Infrastructure is not in place for these new homes and we are told that this does not take place until after the homes are built. Not much planning there then.
3 The land proposed for 120 houses H28 has been flooded for most of this winter, and has flooded in previous years.
4 I am assured that local schools cannot cope with increased numbers, and from what I read in the local press, neither can the local Hospitals.
My last concern is the pollution which will come from the further traffic levels on A4177
Please listen to local people, and put forward our concerns.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68617
Received: 21/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Sian Fellows
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection towards increased development for 175 houses because Ferncumbe School and Budbrook school will not be able to cope with increased population and the A4177 already experiences high level of traffic on daily basis. Another 2 issues for sites between Charingworth Drive and A4177: 1. Ancient woodland being locked by the development and also the wildlife will be affected even though suggested plan allows for wildlife corridor but this would not be sufficient as this wildlife is feeding off the insects and vegetation with the field. 2. Assuming an increase in 150 plus cars would lead to congestion during peak travel times with increase in traffic and resulting in a potential accident spot.
I would like to register my objection to the Warwickshire revised local plan (2016) for Hatton Park.
My concerns over the planned increased development for 175 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 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.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68710
Received: 21/04/2016
Respondent: Veronica Chapman
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
- Plans to put traffic lights on the stanks roundabout to relieve traffic congestion or accidents on M40 or A46 will not help on the Birmingham road.
- H28 is prone to flooding during heavy rain and doesn't hold surface water - flood occurs.
- Building houses will reduce the green belt area.
- The existing traffic problems along with other infrastructural problems need to be acknowledged.
I do not believe that development of these areas, when the infrastructure is already severely under strain can in any way show that these plans have been positively prepared.
In my previous objection, which I assume is still on record, I wrote of the virtually impossible task of getting into and through Warwick on a weekday basis without leaving Hatton Park at a ridiculous hour in the morning. This is still the case, as is the utter gridlock which occurs whenever there is an accident on the M40 or A46, which frequently happens. Plans to put traffic lights on the Stanks roundabout to relieve the congestion of cars exiting the A46 for Warwick, will in no way help the queue of traffic on the Birmingham Road which, at various times in the peak travel hours sees traffic backed up to Five Ways Island, a distance of some three miles or more.
My previous comments relating to the number of accidents that have occurred on the Birmingham Road, two local schools which are already full, despite recent expansion of one, overburdened doctors surgeries and local hospital remain relevant.
H28 in particular is prone to flooding during heavy spells of rain and badly holds surface water. It has been stated, that any potential developer would have to satisfy the Environment Agency of their plans to satisfactorily rectify this problem prior to development, in order not to cause future problems. This however does not inspire confidence. It is frequently reported in the news where new homes have been built on similar pieces of land and due to shoddy groundwork regularly flood, with the residents paying the price.
A survey conducted by our local Parish Council identified the need for a small number of homes within the parish, this number was under 20. It was felt that these homes could be provided by building on Brownfield and windfall sites. The survey was well prepared with a high percentage of residents responding. In the time that has elapsed since the survey, no huge changes in the area have taken place. The sudden inclusion with no prior notification of H53 within the plan, along with an increased number of houses for H28, bringing the number of proposed new homes for Hatton Park to 175, which do not appear to be needed, cannot justify or show exceptional circumstances for removing these parcels of land from the Greenbelt.
I do accept the need for further housing but only when plans have been well prepared and thought out. What is happening in Warwickshire seems to be neither. The destruction of Greenbelt without demonstrating exceptional circumstances flies in the face of the Governments' own policy. No further building work should be allowed throughout much of Warwickshire and certainly not in the immediate Warwick Town area. The existing traffic problems need to be acknowledged, a sensible long term plan for dealing with major traffic increase along with other infrastructure problems needs to be produced. Foisting thousands of new homes into an area and then attempting (or not) to deal with the resulting problems is madness.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68754
Received: 31/03/2016
Respondent: Mr Robin Morton
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The proposed conversion of areas H53 and H28 on the Hatton Park Proposed Modification should be rejected.
The areas are GREEN BELT, and must be preserved.
The areas are working farmland and must be used for crop growing and livestock.
The current boundaries of Hatton Park should be maintained.
see attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68856
Received: 19/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Elaine Dixon
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to proposal: -
- loss of green belt
- land subject to flooding
- impact on current balancing solution
- extant congestion would be exacerbated
- impact on local schools
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68977
Received: 21/04/2016
Respondent: Mr. A. Burrows
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Surely it would be better for WDC to plan for a new school on the site along with development of sites H28 and H53 which would provide a far more sustainable option for existing and future residents as this would increase social cohesion and reduce the need to travel?
Lack of soundness and effectiveness
I am concerned that very little attention has been paid to the infrastructure needs required to complement the scale of development being proposed.
There appears to be a lack of credible planning for schools, highways and healthcare, particularly for developments in more rural areas.
What little detail there is seems to show that developments will not benefit local people. In fact development is more likely to adversely affect existing communities and diminish existing quality of life.
For example, there will need to be increased travel and higher vehicular movements to transport children to extended schools on already severely congested roads.
Hatton Park is a case in point. Surely it would be better for WDC to plan for a new school on the site along with development of sites H28 and H53 which would provide a far more sustainable option for existing and future residents as this would increase social cohesion and reduce the need to travel?
The town of Warwick seems to be already under great strain from recent surrounding housing development. The plan puts unsustainable pressures on already stretched healthcare and transport systems.
The plan as proposed is not effective and needs far better infrastructure planning for it to become credible.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69279
Received: 22/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown
Agent: Brown and Co
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
To maintain our objection to the proposed allocations, etc. of Sites H28 and H53 at Hatton Park and the fact that Hatton Green has still not be classified as a Growth Village or another category created and generally the inappropriateness of some of the sites indicated. They lead to development in far less sustainable and appropriate locations and will be challenged in the Inquiry process.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69389
Received: 21/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs P Legg
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Plan is not positively prepared as the necessary Infrastructure planning is not forthcoming , school places, doctors and shops are all currently oversubscribed.
Area is a flood risk zone.
Traffic remains a problem on the local network and construction traffic would make the situation untenable. The exceptional circumstances for removing this land from the Green Belt are not made.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69412
Received: 22/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Michael Staley
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
These representations are in addition to objections made at the Draft Local Plan stage. Increase in numbers for this site suggests increase in density out of character with Hatton Park. The increase will result in more congestion and will increase air pollution. It would also increases the risk of flooding onto Birmingham Road
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69416
Received: 19/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Susan Halliday
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The proposals for Hatton Park are not consistent with the NPPF for te following reasons:
Transport: para 32 requires safe and suitable access. Birmingham Road is already congested and will get worse as a result of housing proposals. Access through Hampton on the Hill is not a suitable alternative. The access point for site H28 is not safe.
Cumulative impacts: the cumulative impacts of proposals in Hatton Park and Hampton Magna need to be considered, plus new homes at Opus 40 and expansion at Warwick Parkway. Together this is likely to have a major impact on traffic flows. Theoretical modelling has failed to address these issues adequately. This will have knock-on effects for public transport too.
Infrastructure: The general superficial assurances in the IDP are not sufficient for water supply, waste water, and energy. No assessment has been made in relation to GP surgeries.
The plan is not positively prepared. It should encourage reductions in green house gas emissions and reduce congestion and should minimise the need to travel. The allocations at Hatton Park conflict with these requirements.
The Plan is not justified: the proposals for 175 dwellings at Hatton Park has not been justified including as measured against the capacity of Birmingham Road. The indicative capacity at Hampton Magna has been significantly exceeded, but no account has been taken of the impact of this on infrastructure.
The sustainability appraisal for an adjacent site to H28 was considered for Gypsy and Travellers but was assessed as having a major negative impact relating to air, water and soil and the prudent use of land. There were also concerns regarding noise, air quality and light pollution which could have negative impacts on health.
The plan is not effective particularly in relation t infrastructure delivery which lacks detailed assessments for water, sewerage sand electricity transmission. Drainage is already an issue on Birmingham Road and an assessment has not been made as to how this should be mitigated. Further no assessment has been of the capacity at Hampton Magna GP surgery to cope with the additional housing. The education capacity an future has not been fully assessed and there is no clear plan to put in place expanded accommodation at the time it is needed.
The Plan s not legally compliant as the site at Hatton Park has failed the sustainability assessment
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69419
Received: 18/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Steve Halliday
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The proposals for Hatton Park are not consistent with the NPPF for te following reasons:
Transport: para 32 requires safe and suitable access. Birmingham Road is already congested and will get worse as a result of housing proposals. Access through Hampton on the Hill is not a suitable alternative. The access point for site H28 is not safe.
Cumulative impacts: the cumulative impacts of proposals in Hatton Park and Hampton Magna need to be considered, plus new homes at Opus 40 and expansion at Warwick Parkway. Together this is likely to have a major impact on traffic flows. Theoretical modelling has failed to address these issues adequately. This will have knock-on effects for public transport too.
Infrastructure: The general superficial assurances in the IDP are not sufficient for water supply, waste water, and energy. No assessment has been made in relation to GP surgeries.
The plan is not positively prepared. It should encourage reductions in green house gas emissions and reduce congestion and should minimise the need to travel. The allocations at Hatton Park conflict with these requirements.
The Plan is not justified: the proposals for 175 dwellings at Hatton Park has not been justified including as measured against the capacity of Birmingham Road. The indicative capacity at Hampton Magna has been significantly exceeded, but no account has been taken of the impact of this on infrastructure.
The sustainability appraisal for an adjacent site to H28 was considered for Gypsy and Travellers but was assessed as having a major negative impact relating to air, water and soil and the prudent use of land. There were also concerns regarding noise, air quality and light pollution which could have negative impacts on health.
The plan is not effective particularly in relation t infrastructure delivery which lacks detailed assessments for water, sewerage sand electricity transmission. Drainage is already an issue on Birmingham Road and an assessment has not been made as to how this should be mitigated. Further no assessment has been of the capacity at Hampton Magna GP surgery to cope with the additional housing. The education capacity an future has not been fully assessed and there is no clear plan to put in place expanded accommodation at the time it is needed.
The Plan is not legally compliant as the site at Hatton Park has failed the sustainability assessment
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69502
Received: 21/03/2016
Respondent: Mrs Ruth Speczyk
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
-Building 55 number of dwellings will impact on the dynamics of the local community.
-The scenic views across open countryside would be destroyed due to this development.
-Extra facilities like local schooling, nearby children's recreation area, health clinic will be required which is not stated in the plan.
-Increase in traffic.
-Pleasant village will turn into an urbanized town.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69534
Received: 20/04/2016
Respondent: Ms Myra Styles
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The modification plans with increased housing numbers have been issued without proper consultation with the local community and without regard to the burden on the existing infrastructure. No definite assurance of what will be done prior to any development for improving the local road network, safety from increasing accidents in the H28 (A4177), easing the traffic congestion, overcoming the existing poor drainage issues and adding the poor air quality from this main road. No school or health services included and no identification of 'open spaces' in the proposal. No regard for greenbelt or sustainability in the long-term.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69548
Received: 21/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Elaine Kemp
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Lack of infrastructure in Hatton
Need to provide the infrastructure before the housing
Increase in housing will cause additional traffic issues
Site is located within a flood risk area
No exceptional circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt
Impact on school places and NHS services
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69580
Received: 20/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Robert Cochrane
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The modifications have not been subject to proper consultation. They do not take in to account impacts on infrastructure. There is no clarity as to how the local road network in terms of congestion and safety issues will be address prior to development. The area experiences poor drainage and suffers from poor air quality which have not been addressed. The access is dangerous. There are insufficient school and GP places. No open space is identified. No clear proposals for the site layout. No regard is given to the impacts on the green belt and long term sustainability.
In all this is just an outline concept which cannot be sound.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69866
Received: 19/04/2016
Respondent: Hatton Parish Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Site lies in green belt - no exceptional circumstances justify its removal
Site omits strips of land to north and east,, which are not agriculturally viable and no indication how dereliction will be prevented.
Re: Local Plan preparation - final revision of site (reducing site area without reducing density) was not subject to consultation with community
See attached
Support
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 70092
Received: 21/04/2016
Respondent: The Burman Family
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates Ltd
Support release of H28
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 70101
Received: 14/04/2016
Respondent: G R Knibb
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to allocation: -
- lack of consultation with residents
- WDC did not seek alternative sites
- green belt boundaries should only be altered under exceptional circumstances
- allocation of sites at Hampton Magna and Hatton Park in excess of what is required
- WDC did not consider Bubbenhall as a growth village close to Coventry, nor Stoneleigh or Weston under Wetherley
- site assessments not properly updated, inadequate
- poor accessibility
- lack of local infrastructure, community facilities and capacity constraints
- drainage /sewage issues
- adverse impact on environment, wildlife, recreational activity
- additional congestion
- pollution
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 70150
Received: 20/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Wilkie
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Previous objections to H28 have been ignored and the modification to H28 has increased the number of houses proposed from 80 to 120.
Hatton Park should not be considered a "growth village" as it does not have amenities such as schools and doctors that are required to justify changing the green belt boundary.
The proposed development would increase traffic from Hatton Park by 25% and is not sustainable as there are no advantages to current residents.
See attached