BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 97210

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms penny-anne cullen

South Warwickshire Local Plan B1 “Land at Hatton”

The fundamental aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to protect the essential characteristics of the Green Belt and prevent urban sprawl.

In the context of the Framework, my objections refer to the third Preferred Options the consultation for the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP). This phase is based on an invitation to local landowners to express their intention to sell parts or all of their land for development. This invitation to treat has generated speculation and self interest in people whom are guardians of our heritage. Hence the land that is now under consideration for development bears scant or no relationship to the Local Plans prepared by local teams from parishes and communities over the past decade. However, the current consultation has gained an added importance by the new Labour Government’s intention to build one and a half million new homes within the next five years. This objective cannot be verified by any validated data and can only be considered as a populist, ill-conceived scheme. Taking the Government’s target for housing the share for South Warwickshire is just over 2,000 homes a year, which is provided by Long Marston, Gaydon ad Lighthorne Health, Warwick Gates and Kingshill Kenilworth developments.

The Local Plan’s criteria not only address the need for housing, but also employment and infrastructure development to meet the needs up to 2050 not five years. Also, whilst protecting our open spaces, green belt and countryside from unplanned development. The criteria also require the development to support the needs of the local issues, around climate change, biodiversity, connectivity and resident wellbeing.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) states that, once established, Green Belts should only be altered according to “exceptional circumstances”. According to the NPPF, the openness and permanence of the Green Belt cannot be destroyed unless there is evidence, for the proposition. The SWLP is devoid of such compelling evidence to breach the five purposes of the Green Belt, as required according to the NPFF.

B1 “Land at Hatton” a total of 403 hectares, includes the land north of Hatton following Brownley Green Lane owned by Haseley Estates and the land north of Hatton Park owned by Kingstanding Farm. But mainly the Arkwright Estate, that includes the fields either side of Hatton Green and the land both sides of Dark Lane down to Hatton Station. There are also a number of small sites around Hatton Terrace and the Union Cannel.

Claims for these sites have been made of 8,000 high density housing and supporting employment and infrastructure. Furthermore, the proposals have been designated “More suitable” but this designation raises the question that is “more suitable than what?”. The frailty of evidence also provides no justification that “Land at Hatton”.is only rated second for “Sustainability”. In this vein, the existing schools, social welfare and medical practices cannot support a quantum increase in the population. Indeed, it is an axiom that Warwick Hospital is currently overloaded and there are np plans for its expansion. When considering the very nature of the country side, limited infrastructure, sparce support services and the welfare of the local population it is hard to comprehend what influence was brought to bear to justify such designations.

Firstly, the land to the north of Hatton following Brownley Green Lane and Hatton Park. The land proposed by Kingstanding Farm was refused planning consent some years ago on the grounds of traffic access, inadequate drainage and commercial viability. The refusal was much to the relief of the developers. It is therefore a fair assumption that the adjoining land owned by Haseley Estates would also fail planning on the same grounds should any developer be unwise to consider the opportunity.

The area of most concern for development is the land designated the Arkwright Estate. The proposals for development fail to meet any of the SWLP criteria harming the rural setting by forming urban sprawl and greatly adding to the already high traffic levels.
It vital that the Green Belt should not be undermined and the proposed development would effectively eradicate any Green Belt between Warwick, Stratford upon Avon and South Birmingham.

The areas designated for high density housing can not be supported by the inadequate areas designated for local employment. The proposals would only provide a few hundred “jobs” where as the housing volume proposed would require several thousand.
The impact of a large population on the fringe of Warwick should not be ignored. The town is congested, the majority of schools and industry lies to the south of the river Avon which is only served only by two bridges. One narrow bridge by the castle and one on the M40. As the SWLP provides little scope for employment and hence much of the new population will be obliged to travel through Warwick to seek work in the industrial estates of Tachbrook and Gaydon. This clearly is impossible.

The land is bounded by the A4177, B 4439 and local minor roads, often only a single track., to the A1448. All busy comminutor routs with commercial and school traffic. Three is also the Grand Union Cannel and a railway that will sub divide the community adding greatly to infrastructure costs. It is difficult to imagine the disruption and delay that would be caused to commuters and local travellers around this area through the prolonged construction activity the proposed development would involve. The recent and prolonged road works at Union View housing development on the A4177 at Hatton Park was a clear indication of the disruption and danger that will occurs when motorists seek alternative routs on country lanes that are totally inadequate. For example, during the construction on the A 4177 Dark Lane and Hatton Green became a common alternative route for commuters. As a result, many accidents occurred and the Ferncumbe school children at were put in danger by the traffic.

It is quite clear that there no local support for the proposed development other than that of the local landowners. A poster was displayed, briefly, stating that over 60% wanted the development. The poster was unspecific and had no justification for its claim and is palpable nonsense.

The local community is well established, having village halls, community activities are well attended. As are the churches and schools. The developments at Hatton Park has been adopted as a fair contribution to the nations growing population. However, the community values the rural nature of the area: walking, riding, jogging and cycling are all popular on the local lanes and can be enjoyed in safety. The onset of the proposed development would totally destroy these amenities.

The results from climate change and recent housing developments can clearly be witnessed in and around the lanes and fields of Hatton. For example, Brownley Green Lane, the layby off the A4177 and Dark Lane are now increasing liable to flooding. In the past flooding on these lanes could be expected only several times a year. Such floods are now a regular occurrence despite the efforts of the Council to improve the outfalls. However, it is now considered by the contractors that the road drainage outfall has over reached its capacity and any further developments would require extensive infrastructure improvements.

In conclusion the destruction of the Green Belt will add to climate change, further deuteriation in biodiversity and the disruption to the lives, wellbeing and the local community. Therefore, the entire proposals in B1 in the SWLP are untenable and unnecessary. We can only dread the impact such developments and increased traffic would have on our fragile biodiversity.

Furthermore, the authority fails to demonstrate that it has examined the reasonable options, as stated in the NPFF. Thus, any assessment the existence of alternative options, namely brownfield, grey belt and underutilised land is absent.