PO16:Green Belt
The green belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited development or new housing on a proportionate scale. Accordingly there is no need to redra the green belt boundary

Norton Lindsey should be Declassified as it is entirely unsuitable for additional development.No public transport, no shop,long distances to travel to work,leisure facilities, schools (after primary)in fact does not conform to the broad location of growth(PO3).
Narrow roads frequently used by farm machinery,horses, cattle etc.

Norton Lindsey is a small village with minimal public transport, narrow unsafe roads, no shop. It is also positioned on the very edge of Warwick District means it is impacted by development in neighbouring parishes which are not taken into account by this plan. In particular a recent development of housing off Curlew Lane while technically in Stratford District is in reality a growth and development of Norton Lindsey.

To accomodate up to 80 new houses in Norton Lindsey, a completely new infrastructure would be required.This would totally change the character and rural enviroment it currently enjoys.Having narrow lanes regularly used by the farmers, poor public transport facilities and no shops such a proposal is a complete nonsense.

I believe the allocation of 30-80 houses to Norton Lindsey represents a disproportionate increase in the size of the village which will change its character very substantially. The presence of a primary school, which is already full, is a flimsy justification for cramming so many houses into one small village.

Given the existing level of growth in Norton Lindsey, this would be an acceptable number to develop over the next 18 years.

The village of Norton Lindsey does not have the infrastructure to sustain further dwellings, either in terms of public transport, shops or the already at capacity school. There is already a substantial amount of new affordable housing as a result of neighbouring council's work.

Norton Lindsey does not have the roads or infrastructure for such a dramatic increase in the number of houses. There are no shops, poor bus routes and limited social facilities. I thought the whole point of a greenbelt is that you limit new building developments. A new development of this scale would ruin the character of the village.

Norton Lindsey does not have the facilities and road- and transport infrastructure to accommodate the proposed number of homes and it being identified as a Category 2 village is at odds with PO3 and the requirement for housing to be built close to existing shops, schools (with free capacity), leisure facilities, workplaces. An increase of 30-80 houses would be entirely disproportionate to the current size of the village and would as a result have a significant impact on the current environment and inhabitants.

Norton Lindsey does not have the facilities and road- and transport infrastructure to accommodate the proposed number of homes and it being identified as a Category 2 village is at odds with PO3 and the requirement for housing to be built close to existing shops, schools (with free capacity), leisure facilities, workplaces. An increase of 30-80 houses would be entirely disproportionate to the current size of the village and would as a result have a significant impact on the current environment and inhabitants.

Norton Lindsey cannot possibly satisfy the PO3 criteria that new housing must be built close to existing services and facilities so people do not have to travel far to schools, shops, leisure or workplaces. Norton Lindsey has no school, shops or employment opportunities and has virtually no public transport facility

If a development of say 80 homes were to be built in this village, not only would it increase the number of houses by more than 50% it would also discharge about another 160 cars on an already poor road network which has a limited number of footpaths.
Also, there are no shops or medical facilities here and the school falls within the Stratford upon Avon DC.
Claverdon has recently built a small estate on the edge of our village and the increase of trafic on our roads is noticeable.

This feedback on the District Plan relates to the Category 2 villages, and in particular to Norton Lindsey, where I reside.
It is not possible for me to make any comment on the basis of the District Plan, whereby the level of growth is stated as necessary. This clearly depends on many factors, and the assumptions behind this level are only stated in general terms. Suffice to say that between now and the plan projected date of 2029, some of these factors could prove incorrect (indeed are almost bound to prove so), and others may be overtaken by events (for instance a major development opportunity or actual development at present unforeseen).
Therefore, these comments relate largely to the implementation, and specifically the "preferred options" for distribution of sites for housing.
Included in the total of 8,350 are "about 350" in category 2 villages, and although not stated in the plan, it is our understanding that some 80 - 100 are proposed for Norton Lindsey.
The effect of such housing on the existing village would be dramatic. It is difficult to see how such a change in this village (and presumably in other Category 2 villages) could possibly be seen to be consistent with the statement "to make Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit" (your caps, not mine!). At present there is wide choice in the area of rural or urban living, and this would be progressively destroyed by these proposals. There are essentially two main roads in Norton Lindsey, and such proposals would generate new traffic of some 100 vehicles per day, since the village itself has none of the facilities that might be expected by such new residents. (see below).
In particular, as has been noted elsewhere, the village of Norton Lindsey (which, incidentally is not even wholly within Warwick District - some parts being Stratford District), has no shop, no post office, only a very restricted bus service (and none to Warwick), no doctor, no cabling for fast telephone, television or broadband, and only one, now ful,l School.
The proposal therefore to build such houses in this location (with no accompanying proposal to upgrade facilities - which would in any case further despoil the existing environment) seems gratuitous. The proposed number of houses could easily be accommodated within any or all of the larger proposed developments, which will in any case need to be provided with new facilities as outlined above. The addition of the small number of houses proposed for category 2 villages amongst the larger proposed developments would not significantly impact either size, nature nor required facilities of those developments.

PO4 - NL proposed 30-80 houses is totally disproportionate to the current size of the village taking into account road safety, transportation, shops and green belt issues. There is no need to redraw the green belt are in this regard. Such development would severely impact the environment by both its location and design.

I am objecting to the proposed development in Norton Lindsey. This proposal will increase the size of the village by over 50%, for which it has not got the infrastructure to support. The inevitable additional traffic would cause dangers as the road network through and around the village is poor with no pedestrian pavement through the main street. There are no shops, medical or leisure facilities and only a basic public transport service.

The proposed development would increase the size of the village by approximately fifty percent. The village does not have the necessary infrastructure to support a development of this size, such as transport links, a shop, medical or leisure facilities. The roads in and around the village are poor and additional traffic would pose a safety risk.

NL has significant archaeological value as fine example of a Warwickshire Hilltop village with Grade 2 listed buildings and the medieval ridge and furrow fields, This needs to be preserved for future generations.
Access roads are country lanes, narrow and with blind corners, additionaltraffic that 30-80 houses will bring will increase risk of serious road accidents and create congestion
Limited facilities within NL does not meet the statement "Any housing development must be built close to existing services and facilities so that people do not have to travel far to get to schools, shops, leisure activities or workplaces.

There is absolutely no evidence of a need for so many houses in a village which has no facilities, and a poor rural road infrastructure to accommodate the additional vehicles which would result. The recent Housing Needs survey showed a need for 3 new houses in the village - allocating a number of 30-80 is just an arbitrary way of making the numbers add up, without any investigation into actual need

Norton Lindsey is a rural village with an open character which would be completely transformed by implementing the proposal in the Local Plan to allow the construction of up to 80 new houses in the Warwick DC part of the village alone.

An additional factor would be the effect of any similar proposals contained in the Stratford-upon-Avon DC Core Strategy 2012, as the village effectively straddles the boundary between the two District Councils.

The NPPF itself recognises (at para 86) the need to protect villages of this type from unsuitable and excessive development by retaining them totally within the Green Belt.

PO3 sates that 'new housing and employment must be built close to existing services and facilities so that people do not have to travel far to get to schools, shops, leisure facilities and workplaces'.
Norton Lindsey does not have sufficient existing services and facilities to meet this requirement; there is only a small village primary school (which is already fully subscribed) and one public house in the village. Consequently, living in the village necessitates regular and frequent travel of several miles to get to schools, shops, leisure facilities and workplaces.
As a result, Norton Lindsey does not meet the requirements of PO3.

I do not believe that Norton Lindsey warrants being classified as a Category 2 Village.
PO3 states that 'Any housing development must be built close to existing services and facilities so that people do not have to travel far to get to schools, shops, leisure facilities or workplaces'
Norton Lindsey has very few of these and limited transport services. The school at the neighbouring village is fully subscribed and there is no shop or medical facilities. The roads in and out of the village are relatively narrow with tight bends and are not suitable for a significant increase in traffic flow.

Norton Lindsey is a small village with very limited facilities. The narrow roads would not cope with the increase of traffic from a development of the proposed size. The nature of the village would be severely compromised by development which could increase the number of houses by more than 50%.

Norton Lindsey has too few facilities to support up to a 50% increase in the number of houses. The infrastructure, particularly the roads and highways, are insufficient for this increase with more footpaths needed. We have no Doctors Surgery, no train service, very limited bus services and no shop. Furthermore employment opportunities in the village are virtually nil and any new residents would need to travel to find work.

The village does not have the infrastructure to support such a large development. There is no shop, a very small school and very limited public transport.
Such a development would spoil the character of this lovely village.

building 80 houses in norton lindsey would destroy the village, be expensive to build (new roads, expensive utilities) and be dangerous - the village has many areas without footpaths and the roads are narrow and winding. The village is also popular with cyclists and horse riders - more traffic wil ruin this for them

Norton Lindsey is a fine example of a Warwickshire Hilltop Village with much of it being in a Conservation Area with ridge and furrow fields, which are part of Warwickshire's archeological history, at its heart. WDC Preferred Options says new builds "should not adversly impact on quality environments and historic settings" therefore a significant development is not appropriate in this village.

Norton Lindsey should be reclassified as a Class 3 Village

Norton Lindsey does not possess the infrastructure to accommodate such an increase in housing numbers of 30-80. The roads surrounding the village are minor and narrow. Footpaths for pedestrians are limited in its current status. Daily use of these minor roads is by the farming community and access to Wolverton School. There are no shops or medical facilities in the village.

We feel that to increase the size of the village in such a dramatic way will completely destroy the village. The number of homes in the village has doubled in the last 20 years, not including the 22 starter homes on the edge of village which are in Stratford District. We have no facilities in the village other than the pub, and the roads in and around the village are totally inadequate now.
It seems inappropriate to put so many extra people into an area far from shops and work etc. with no public transport and poor road connections.

I believe our village should be reclassified as a Class 3 village. We are a small village without any amenities, narrow roads with no pavements. We live in a hilltop setting, and I feel that the character of the village would be spoilt. We would be totally compromised by a development of up to 80 houses which could increase the number of houses by more than 50%. Referring to PO3
we do not have these facilities close to us. It should not impact on the environment and historical settings. I am also very concerned that the small villages could end up being spoilt by merging several into one.