Testun llawn:
Thank you for your letter of June 19th inviting responses to the above consultation documents.
Unfortunately the Steering Group has not been able to carry out a comprehensive consultation of residents in the time available, but the Parish Council has held a public meeting to discuss the revised Plan and will have forwarded its views to you separately.
The Steering Group itself, however, welcomes the revised proposals which seem to be better balanced and more appropriate to the needs of the District and the wishes of its residents than the original ones.
In particular we welcome the reduction in the number of settlements proposed for development along the A4177/B4439 corridor, which would have threatened the integrity of the Green Belt through pepper-potting.
The concerns of the Parish centre primarily around four issues, namely:
1) The Level of Housing
As you will be aware from the Parish Plan, those who expressed a view were strongly opposed to further housing at Hatton, though a minority were in favour of more affordable development. For its part, the Steering Group recognises that the Local Plan is required to contribute to the national housing shortfall and recognises that the Parish cannot stand still. Assuming Hatton Park meets the criteria for a secondary service village (which some people question), then 70-90 houses over a 15 year period does not seem unreasonable. Most of the views expressed at the Parish Council's public meeting were concerned with whether the infrastructure could cope with more development and the likely environmental impact of individual sites, rather than with the numbers per se. We would also like to know what measures, if any, are proposed to ensure that the 70-90 houses is all that the Parish will be required to provide in the plan period, as past experience suggests that the homes will be built quickly, necessitating a further allocation in the next review of the Local Plan in five-years or so time.
2) Infrastructure Provision
The principal issues here are travel and education. Despite the recent, very welcome safety improvements, the geometry of the A4177 and B4439 make these inherently dangerous roads. Congestion is also a problem at peak periods and whenever there are problems on the M42 as they are then used as a diversion to the M40 at Longbridge. Further development and future traffic growth will naturally increase the dangers and we would like to know what improvements, if any, would be sought by way of developer contributions to make these roads safer.
As regards education, all children from Hatton Park have to be bussed to school (or taken by parents in cars). The excellent Ferncumbe School at Hatton Green is over-subscribed and its catchment area at Hatton Park has had to be redrawn (hopefully only temporarily?), with more children being directed to Budbrooke School, which is also at capacity. We would like to know if the District Council has carried out any population profiling to see whether either school is likely to have spare capacity in the future and, if not, whether developer contributions would be sufficient to pay for any necessary improvements. It should be noted that both on-site and off-site improvements would be required at the Ferncumbe School in Hatton Green, where parking congestion is a particular problem. Indeed, the school has initiated a voluntary one-way system through the village to try and alleviate this problem, which is further exacerbated by the number of vehicles left on the road outside Hatton Autocare near to the dangerously blind junction of Hatton Green and the B4439.
Some residents also referred to the inadequate shopping facilities at Hatton Park, though it has to be acknowledged that a modest increase in the number of houses is unlikely to produce sufficient trade to change the situation.
3) Environmental and Social Impacts
As the Parish Plan demonstrates, there is strong support for retaining the Green Belt. The Grand Union Canal is also a highly valued environmental asset and these two features figured prominently in the discussions about the four proposed housing sites within the Parish (Ref. Nos. R114, R115, R117 and R124) and the three adjoining its boundaries (Ref. Nos. R75, R125 and R126).
All seven sites fall within the Green Belt, the primary function of which is to prevent urban sprawl and the coalescence of settlements. This principal would be strongly prejudiced by development of Sites R117 and R124, which would extend ribbon development up Hatton Hill and so join Hatton Park with Canal Lane. It would also be prejudiced by development of Site R126 and, to a lesser degree by Site R115, both of which would extend development along the Birmingham Road and so reduce the gap between Hatton Park and the A46 Warwick By-pass. Development of Sites R114 and R75/R125 would impact least on the Green Belt. Six of the seven sites front the A4177, creating a strong risk of ribbon development, which would be contrary to sound planning practice.
Four of the seven sites (Ref.Nos. R117, R125, R75 and R126) are also adjacent or close to the canaI. The flight of locks at Hatton, descending through a rural landscape towards Warwick with the tower of St Mary's Church in the distance, is an iconic feature of the British Canal network that brings many tourists to the area. Whilst it would no doubt be attractive for developers to exploit the waterfront, it would be a tragedy to lose this priceless approach to the county town.
With regard to social impacts, sites R117/R124, R125/R75 and R126 are all severed from Hatton Park by the busy A4177. For them to become an integral part of the community on the other side of this road and avail themselves of the shop, village hall, school bus pick-ups, children's play area and sports area, would be fraught with difficulty and added danger.
We appreciate that some of these views contradict one another and we apologise for not being able to express a preference for any particular site, but we have no mandate to do so. We would, however, ask that all these points are taken into consideration in finalising the Local Plan.
4) Traveller Sites
Our fundamental concerns are the impact that any site will have on the environment and people's lives.
We are particularly opposed to sites (except perhaps brownfield ones) that are in the Green Belt, since this would be give travellers a privilege denied to ordinary people. We are aware that travellers claim special dispensations because of their lifestyles, but once a site is established it becomes a permanent feature just like any other housing development and the transient nature of its occupants are no different to ordinary people moving house, albeit perhaps more frequently. Clearly the recent decision of the Communities Secretary to intervene in appeals involving traveller sites in the Green Belt because "in some cases the Green Belt is not always being given the sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers" must be a relevant consideration.
We are especially concerned that acquiescing to the Kites Nest Lane site would be an open invitation for anyone to flout the planning laws and then seek retrospective permission, citing this as a precedent.
We would also be opposed to development of the Oaklands Farm site as this would serve to narrow the Green Belt between Hatton Park and Warwick, impact on the rural setting of the Hatton lock flight, introduce turning lorries and caravans onto the A4177 at a dangerous location where there has been a fatal accident. It would also adversely affect neighbouring properties and detract from the approach into Warwick along one of the major routes into the town.