Revised Development Strategy

Support

Representation ID: 55403

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Hatton Estates & Linden Holmes

Support the general thrust of the RDS, particularly the recognition at Paragraph 4.4.5 that supporting only the
larger rural settlements runs the risk of ignoring housing needs at the District's smaller rural settlements.

Also encouraged that Paragraph 4.4.5 recognises the complexity of the District's rural areas and the assistance that future development can provide to supporting the rural
economy and protection of local services and facilities.

The Council's approach to the District's rural areas is in line with the NPPF (54) relating to:
* planning for local housing needs, particularly for affordable housing;
* potential use of market housing to facilitate affordable housing;
* location of housing to promote sustainable rural communities.

Object

Representation ID: 56378

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Hatton Estates & Linden Holmes

Concerned that the assessment criteria set out at Appendix 3 of the SHR does not give due weight to the provision of the rail service from Hatton Station.

Question why the assessment criteria only consider 'access to main towns by public transport' in terms of busses and not train.

Hatton Station scores 0 points against this criterion, when in reality, Hatton Station benefits from excellent public transport (train) links to Warwick and further afield. T The SHR should be amended to rectify this inconsistency.

Any amendment to the SHR is likely to result in Hatton Station receiving an additional 3 points and therefore being elevated to the 2nd most sustainable small village.

Additional housing growth at Hatton Station would be consistent with the overriding principles of sustainable development in the rural areas, as it would be located at a sustainable location, support local services and facilities and assist Hatton Station in continuing to provide an important role in the context of the surrounding village network.

Future residential development at Hatton Station would accord with the provisions of the NPPF in terms of sustainable rural development, therefore, in order to facilitate future growth at Hatton Station, a new village envelope should be pursued in accordance with para 4.4.6 of the RDS.

Based on the advice in the NPPF (para 86), Hatton Station should be excluded from the Green Belt and a new village envelope drawn, which "insets" the village within the Green Belt.

In undertaking a review of the current Green Belt boundary and defining a new village envelope to facilitate future growth at Hatton Station, land to the west of Station Road (SHLAA Site R71) should be included. The inclusion of Site R71 within the new village envelope, would accord with the relevant criteria of NPPF Paragraph 85. Site R71 also does not serve any of the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in para 80 of the NPFF.

The Inclusion of Site R71 within Hatton Station's new village envelope would assist the delivery of much needed housing in a practical manner without compromising the open character of the Green Belt.