Hatton Park, including the Hertford Hill estate has no provision of services that would sustain more development.
There is currently no need for additional schools, doctors shops, however with more development then these services would be needed as Budbrooke would be overrun with people visiting the village on a daily basis. The A4177 is also a very busy road, extra traffic in the form of c 180 vehicles a day will hamper traffic flow into warwick.
You could do so much more with brownfield sites rather than a mere 5% of the plan.

This is a query at this stage. Can you tell me the precise plot/plots of land earmarked in Hatton Park (along with a shaded map) for the development of 70 -90 homes in phases 1,2 and 3 and the dates that these phases would take place. Thank you.

This would be a sensible option if this plan preserved the integrity of the existing community. There are, however, concerns about the infrastructure for what is already a significant development.

I strongly object to development of Hatton Park on the grounds that there is no infrastructure to support this.

The traffic is a nightmare currently on the Birmingham Road.

It would also spoil the surrounding area.

In addition R115 is precious farm land.

I cannot see how the local schools could support this either.

I wish to object to the proposed building of houses on land next to Hatton park. This area is greenbelt and should not even be considered for new housing. There are plenty of brownfield sites around Warwick which are far more suitable.
I live on the Birmingham road and between 7.30AM and 9.15AM and again between 4.30PM and 6.45pm traffic is stationery due to volume of cars.
But most of all the schools are FULL. My son goes to Ferncumbe school, but as the school is now popular my 4 year old daughter faces going to a different school miles away. This is unacceptable, therefore more children on introduced to the area will make it even worse.

Hatton Park is presently a pleasant semi-rural development which is serviced adequately by the surrounding infrastructure.
To propose to develop a further 70-90 houses not only will be a determent to the area but will over-stretch existing resources within the area.
Additionally, the decision was taken only two years ago by Warwick DC not to proceed with this development for all the good reasons raised at the time. We therefore cannot comprehend why this decision is being over-turned without substantial justification.

My objections are based on four key points:
1. Lack of consideration for diverse wildlife in Smith's Covert, in particular badgers, deer, bats and bird life that are resident.
2. The road network specifically the A4177 already at capacity at peak times.
3. Hatton Park not having the infrastructure to sustain additional homes. For example, I understand that the local shop is classified as a supermarket, which is clearly not the case.
4. The continued sacrifice of green belt sites when brownfield sites are available locally and nationally.

Any further development here was ruled out by The Planning Inspectorate in his review of the 2006/11 district housing plan
No school. no church and proposed development area far away from the main road - A4177 through road system designed purposely for number of houses they serve.
access onto A4177 is only just sufficient for present number of dwellings.
houses at Hill farm will detrement the green belt vista from the public footpath running to the north west of the Park - ref is made to the fact that this was a major factor in the downturn of the travelers site on Beausale/Kites Nest Lane.
Hatton park Residents have voiced their need for allotments - suggest this is solved with this area being available for this purpose as there is no other area suited for allotments.

I would like to object to the development of one of the fields identified for house buildiing within Hatton Park. This field was marked for potential development withing the estate among several others.

I cannot find anywhere on this website it's identification, although it was referred to in the Hatton Parish meeting I attended.

Do you have a map for Hatton Park with plot numbers so that I can identify it and object properly?

Best regards

Alan Barrett

I would like to support the building of new houses on the development plot R38 at Hatton Park. This plot is the logical choice out of the proposed building plots and would have the least impact on existing residents.

With immediate access to the A4177 the new development would reduce the traffic within Hatton Park.

There is no indication as to where the proposed allocation is and thereforecomment is greatly hindered.
The Secretary of State's inspector ruled that any increase of the developed area should not be entertained in his report on the 2006-2011 local plan.
If, as anticipated ascorrect, the area of Hill Farm will mess the existing road system which was designed for as is. it will effect the landscape from the footpath that runs through it.
The distance from the main entrance of Hatton Park will be compromised. This is already to capacity. There will also be a rat run created to the entrance on Brownlow green lane with all consequences on this narrow road and hence increased traffic on the overloaded catchem end onto the A4177.
Hatton Parish plan has stated that there is an avid unmet demand for allotments. It is suggested that Hill farm is reserved for this purpose. There is no other area within the design of Hatton Park suitable. the alternative is land to be taken out of the natural envelope of the design of Hatton Park. Allotments have always proved to be an important mainstay of community spirit.
Hatton park, most importantly offers no primary school. and the generation of extra traffic for school runs, substantial shopping trips, doctors, pubs, restaurants and recreational facilities, countryside recreation from 90 houses will be highly detremental to the purpose designed infrastructure of hatton park.
important to note that hatton parish council includes both hatton park and hatton green. personal representations have been made by members of the parish council direct on behalf of residents within the parish to the district council distracting housing from hatton green to hatton park. these representors, including the chairman live in hatton green. these individuals are strongly in violation of the adopted protocols of the council and accepted rules of constitutional governance adopted by other substantial bodies.
hatton green was originally identified by the council for the housing allocation.

I object to the planning application opposite Dorsington Close in Hatton Park. The estate is very busy with traffic often speeding around the perimeter road. The Birmingham Road is often at a standstill due to the high volume of traffic. There have been several fatalities in the last 5 years. Schools over subscribed and resulting in siblings being refused places at the same school.
Building on the greenbelt surrounding Hatton Park would cause disruption and noise for existing homeowners. Majority of home owners on Hatton Park purchased there homes for the rural aspect of the estate.

Objections to the local plan concerning the building of further housing development in and around Hatton Park.

1. Traffic dangers in the snow
Hatton Park is a housing estate built on a hill, whilst this provides a very pleasant outlook it is not without its dangers, especially in the winter months. Many residents who live at the top of the estate struggle to even get their cars off their drives and hence park their vehicles along Barcheston drive. This causes a significant hazard to other road users including the buses, who struggle to navigate around the numerous parked cars on what are very dangerous roads. Adding more houses to this site will significantly increase this risk, especially if they themselves are built on a sloping site, reference R114 and R115. If new houses need to built on Hatton Park I would strongly recommend they were built on flat land such as R117.

2. Infrastructure
Hatton Park is already a large housing estate without any local facilities such as schools or doctors. Building 70 to 90 new houses will only put more strain on the facilities utilised in other villages. The local Fencombe school is already over subscribed so what provision will there be for schooling for these extra families? There could be up to 100 more children needing access to a local school.

The A4177 is a major road between Warwick and Birmingham which already has a large volume of traffic especial at peak times leading to major congestion, especially around the A46 and Warwick Parkway railway station. Adding more traffic to this site would only make the situation worse.

3. Green belt, foot path and common ground
Much of the area surrounding Hatton Park is greenfield site surrounded by footpaths and bridleways. It is used by a great deal of people for walking, cycling and riding horses and any development that impacted this beautiful space would have a very large impact on a great deal of peoples lives, both resident and non resident. In particular R114 has a major bridleway that goes all the way to Kenilworth along side it which is used by a great deal of people. Also R115 is very heavily used by local residents, where children play, dogs are walked and in the winter many families come to toboggan. The loss of such a valuable space would be detrimental to the lives of many residents.

4. Affordable housing
While there is always a need for further executive housing I would be concerned wether the proposed development at Hatton Park would fulfil the councils brief of providing further affordable housing. Even 2 bedroom houses on this housing estate command a premium compared to other areas within Warwickshire.

5. Suggested development
If there is a genuine need to build more houses in and around Hatton Park I believe the proposed R117 site would be the best solution. Assuming there was a roundabout built to accommodate the traffic joining the A4177 this site is flat, would not bring further traffic through the current estate road network, would keep disruption of current residents to a minimum and would preserve the current play areas and bridleways of Hatton Park.

The Hatton Park site is a parkland development built as far as I know within the old hospital grounds and it is surrounded by greenbelt land. To build additional houses in this location, apart from encroaching on greenbelt, which is valuable to society and standards of living, will place more pressure yet again on an already creaking infrastructure.
The Birmingham Road is already extremely busy and dangerous to cross/access and further housing with inevitable demands on school runs etc, when no facilities are on site, will add to the pressures.
There must be brownfield and other sites with less such pressures that could be prioritised.
The only possible sites that could be contemplated without impinging on the greenbelt are the two adjacent to the Birmingham Rd, but even with these, one still faces the busy road/infrastructure issue.

In response I object to the allocation of houses to Hatton Park as a consequence of its classification as a secondary service village. I would like to make four points.
1. More new housing development in Hatton Park would be contrary to the principles of Sustainable Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages. Growth in more sustainable villages. The availability of services and facilities within settlements should be a key consideration in the distribution of housing because it reduces the need to travel significant distances. Hatton Park has a high population but has few services and facilities which would be exacerbated by the addition of new housing. Hatton Park has to be the most unsustainable settlement within Warwick District Council. Rural residents travel furthest for work, shopping and leisure hence to allocate housing to the villages is simply to increase the pressure on the road network and damaging the environment.
2. The model of hierarchy of settlement gives Hatton Park 37 points but whilst the model is supposed to provide the evidence of sustainability (since it was based on Blaby's model) but it deals badly with extreme cases such as Hatton Park. The key ought to be to balance the facilities and the population but by adding these two together the model fails when a large population has few facilities. Whilst leek Wootten has 38 points of which 33 were for facilities and 5 for population and Norton Lindsey has 32 points of which 29 were for facilities and 3 for population Hatton Park has 37 points of which 25 were for facilities and 12 for population. Hatton park has fewer facilities that Norton Lindsey and therefore should not qualify as a secondary service village..
3. Moreover, the Points system for Hatton Park seems exaggerated. Your model has no points for the mix of housing types. The housing has a good mix and therefore no arguments surrounding development to maintain the villages services apply. The village gets two points for having a school within walking distance, but the students have to be bussed up the hill because with the level of traffic makes it far too dangerous to walk to school. This would reduce the points by 2. Bus service is two an hour not every 15 minutes as stated, reducing points from 3 to 2. All told this means there should be 34 points rather than 37.
4. Also village housing requires infrastructure 'improvements' that are prohibitive. Hatton Park has already a traffic problem and concentration of housing in villages is to make it all join up contrary to your policy to 'avoid coalescence'
W

Hatton Park should not have a specific requirement (currently proposed for 70-90 dwellings in the plan period) for the following reasons:

* The Revised Strategy makes little or no distinction between the villages' status in the Green Belt - the principle of building in the Green Belt should not be conceded like this. There must be sequential testing of all brownfield and non- Green Belt areas first. The current proposals are one-dimensional and unsatisfactory.

* Protection of the Green Belt is strongly retained in the NPPF compared to non Green Belt development.

* The Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report (which I don't believe we have been consulted on) concedes in Paragraph 4.14 that the designation of settlements into categories is arbitrary. It is unfair therefore that Hatton Park, being the lowest-ranked Secondary Service Village, should have this significant target, while there are such dramatic disparities with the Small and Feeder Villages (that lie just the other side of the cut-off) with no target.

* The A4177 (Birmingham Road) already shows excessive congestion at peak times. Further expansion of Hatton Park will add to an already existing problem and diminish the rural characteristics of Hatton Park.

* There are no suitable development sites around Hatton Park - it is unallocated, undeveloped greenfield land in the Green Belt, at times heavily sloped with a protected oak tree off Barcheston Drive.

* During an Inquiry in 2006 concerning the potential to expand Hatton Park, the Inspector concluded that the settlement had already reached its natural boundary and further development would not be appropriate.

If it were possible to create a greater allocation in this area, this would offer a larger population and a wider socio-economic mix that would be much better able to support the ongoing commercial operation of a bus service in this location, and one that is less circuitous than the present route, which given existing levels of patronage, requires Local Authority financial support.
The current design of internal roads also makes the existing development exceptionally difficult for bus services to penetrate, owing to the detailed design of traffic calming features. Any traffic calming measures introduced must be low floor bus friendly and very minor works within the highway could address this as part of future development proposals, and should be required to do so.

I object on the basis of the loss of Greenbelt land, particularly on sites adjacent to the Grand Union Canal which would have a detrimental impact on the natural amenity enoyed by both the local community and many visitors to the area. I also object on the basis of additional traffic load on the already stretched trunk road into Warwick.

As a resident at hatton park I would like to raise my concerns about the possibility of further development of the hatton park area.
My objections are based on three things.
Firstly any further development adjacent to this stretch of the A4177 will mean that traffic congestion both into Warwick and onto the A46 will be intolerable. Hatton Park residents currently experience long tail backs getting onto the main road in the morning. Further development will only increase traffic on the busiest A Road in the district. Drainage and sewerage for Hatton Park will also be affected.
Secondly the provision of services cannot be maintained. Further development in this area will put a huge strain on schools that are already oversubscribed, health provision such as doctors and dentists will also be degraded as local surgeries are full to capacity.
Thirdly the environmental affect on this area cannot be ignored. The area is an important green-belt area. It is a local tourist attraction with the hatton locks providing Warwick with important additional tourist footfall after the castle. Further development in this area will affect local wildlife and detract from a very attractive countryside break between Warwick and the border with the West Midlands.

My family and I are strongly against further done elopement in the Hatton Park area.

We wanted to provide some general feedback on the plethora of information available related to the New Local Plan. Over recent years we have attended two meetings in Hampton Magna. We are aware of some of the issues that residents are concerned about. We will aim to outline the main issues below and also include our own personal thoughts. However, these are not exhaustive and we strongly encourage you to speak to your representatives, who attended all of your meetings, to get their feedback on issues that were raised.

We strongly object to the development of additional housing on land connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115). Please see below for a detailed explanation as to why we oppose this development at site R115: a) Birmingham Road would not cope with the considerable congestion that this would cause; b) transport links are already stretched; c) it would have a significant impact on our wildlife that is established on this land; d) our local primary schools would not have capacity; e) impact on drainage; f) impact of current residents quality of life; and g) impact on child development through added pressure on transportation to schools.

We also object to the development on R125 & R75. Our main reason for this objection is that, although we are highly supportive of finding a suitable site for travellers, being near a main road and locks on the canal worries us, as this presents danger if young children are residing on this site. The Birmingham Road is already highly congested and difficult to cross. The canal has many deep locks and at night the lack of lighting presents considerable danger. A more safe location should be identified quickly for this important community.
.
Evidence base
We are extremely concerned that the available documents are still not fully engaged in "evidence-based" consultation. Specifically, it is our concern that there are limitations in the methodology used to develop the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. This is an important foundation to any research, report and future recommendations. The consultation documents still lack transparency in terms of the employed methodology. We strongly encourage you to document how you plan to utilise the information gathered at meetings across the district. This is a valuable opportunity to gather qualitative evidence on people's acceptability, satisfaction and attitudes towards the plans. There has been a lot of frustration voiced at meetings related to the apparent failure to consider, appreciate, and operationalize people's views. There is a need to inform people how their views are going to be considered and synthesised to inform your decisions. For example, large scale questionnaires have been undertaken with residents by local parishes (Hatton Park and Hampton Magna) which provide valuable information. These state clearly that the majority of respondents strongly oppose any further development on sites connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115). People need to feel listened too. At the meetings in Hampton Magna we were assured that housing development would not take place in Hatton Park. I feel extremely disappointed that our voices and views were not taken on board. It is important to allow people to voice their opinions and acknowledge how they will be considered. You need to empower people. Your research will then be richer and more representative. At present it is not representative and lacks the rigour on which you are planning to make decisions.

We are extremely concerned about the generalizability of your 'research' / 'evidence base' to date. There are clear weaknesses in the rigour and robustness of your methodological approach and evidence base which need to be considered again. How you synthesise the data already collected is crucial. If you have lots of meetings and don't report all the views at these meetings, then your data gathering is confounded and flawed - I am sorry to say, this appears to be the case.

Housing on land adjacent to Hatton Park (R115)
From a personal point of view we need to express our upmost disapproval over expanding housing adjacent to Hatton Park (R115) on green belt land. There is considerable worry and upset among residents who live on Hatton Park and surrounding areas about potential increased housing on this site. This would significantly impact on their quality of life. These small communities are already overburden by through traffic (e.g. Birmingham Road) and schools are at capacity. Please work closely with parishes and residents before considering any expansion in these areas.

Schools and early year care:
There needs to be greater focus on how schools will be expanded. For example, as you are aware, Budbrooke Primary is at capacity and it takes children from Chase Meadow & Hatton Park. The Ferncumbe Primary School at Hatton is over capacity. How much expansion is needed? Further growth in R115 would result in more children having to travel to schools outside the catchment area, resulting in greater pressure on families and impact on their quality of life. If you go ahead with development on R115 you would force people to leave the area and take their businesses elsewhere due to the likely impact on commuting, links to the A40 and transport to schools. This would certainly be the case with my family. Children are already having to set off earlier and earlier to get to school on time - again this is likely to have an impact on their maturational development and quality of life. I cannot take this risk for my family.

Early-year care needs careful consideration at an affordable price. Already many nurseries are at capacity or in considerable demand. The costs are also unmanageable for many parents wanting to return to work after maternity leave. Added housing would place increased demand on these services.

Respecting our green spaces and green belts:
The wildlife on the land occupying R115 needs to be respected and the natural habitats for our wildlife maintained. Housing on this planned site has resulted in considerable frustration and objection at meetings we have attended. Consult with residents please. Please note that Muntjac deers, bats, birds of prey, pheasants, and many small mammals reside on R115. I feel strongly about destroying their habitat. Protecting our natural flora and fauna is important. Adding just a small number of houses will have a high price on our wildlife which will not be repairable.

Transport:
Expanding our road networks is going to be important to deal with the increasing cars on our roads. Birmingham road is already heavily congested. People on the Hatton Park estate are being required to set off earlier and earlier to avoid the congestion which results every morning. We also need to consider the impact this will have on noise and air pollution for residents already residing in places of growth. How will this impact on their quality of life? Consult with residents please.

Public Transport:
There needs to better public transport in areas of expansion. More regular bus services, in particular, to train stations and Universities are needed.

Parking:
More affordable parking in town centres and at train stations are urgently needed,

Drainage:
We are extremely concerned about how the current drainage system will cope with expansion on R115. The costs this could involve should not be overlooked. This small expansion could cause considerable problems (e.g. Hatton Park). Caution is needed and careful mapping of the current foundations is essential.

Employment:
Greater housing expansion requires more employment. Expansion in the health, retail and educational sector presents good opportunities.

Emergency services:
An increase in the population of the District will lead to an increased need for community policing and an increase in the number of local "incidents" to which the policing service will be required to respond. We need to make sure residents are protected from crime.

Healthcare:
Ensuring that GP surgeries and hospitals can cope with the housing expansion will be of upmost importance. GP surgeries are already struggling to cope.

To reiterate, we strongly object to the development of additional housing on land connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115).

We appreciate your careful consideration of these issues and would like to receiveclearlly communicated feedback on how these issues will be addressed.
We appreciate your careful consideration of these issues and would like to receive clearlly communicated feedback on how these issues will be addressed.

We should also encourage you to think very carefully about how access will be made to any planned housing on Hatton Park (i.e. R115). Accessing directly from Birmingham Road would cause even more havoc and significant congestion. Some people are already considering moving off Hatton Park because of the problems with traffic and the inability to access Birmingham Road. If traffic was intending to enter Birmingham Road and turn right from R115, they would be waiting for a very long time during rush hour periods. It can sometimes take me over 20 minutes to get from Hatton Park to the end of the Birmingham Road. If traffic control measures were implemented, this would result in even longer cues of traffic in both directions on the Birmingham Road (plus greater air polution problems which will impact on our protected rural souroundings). This would create a huge problem for commuters getting to work, accessing schools and in cases of emergencies getting to local hospitals (which for me, is a very significant concern). If there were plans to develop an alternative access via Ebrington Drive, this is simply not possible as traffic parks along this road from neighbouring houses, this has resulted in it being a single lane road during almost all times in the day and night. This would cause extreme difficulties for contractors and for any new residents. I strongly encourage you to retract this ludicrous plan and focus on other larger scale housing developments in other areas. Please refer to our other considerations below.

Please note there is a great deal of concern among residents on Hatton Park that the local government is not listening to our objections. Please confirm that you have received and read this email.

I am a resident of Hatton Park and I would like to object to the scale of new development planned by Warwick District Council for the next eighteen years.

The infrastructure of the area will simply not sustain such development. The amount of traffic on our roads already causes huge problems on a daily basis. I refer in particular to the possible building of between 70 - 90 new homes in the Hatton/Hatton Park area.

The A4177 is gridlocked in the mornings with the queue of cars attempting to get into Warwick often starting at the Hatton Arms. Under these circumstances leaving Hatton Park is nothing short of a nightmare. To introduce a significant increase in the number of cars joining the daily commute is short sighted and ill thought through. The 4177 in the last few years has already seen many accidents, some with fatalities. This raises the questions of how the emergency services are going to cope with busier roads? How the local schools which are already full to capacity will cope with extra children? How doctors' surgeries, some of which already cannot offer routine appointments for up to two weeks are going to cope with extra patients?

The possible sites identified in Hatton Park and other sites across the district lie within the Green Belt. On July 2nd a ministerial statement was released reiterating that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It also states that it is becoming apparent in some cases the Green Belt is not being given sufficient protection. This clearly shows that even if WDC cannot meet their need on non Green Belt sites, it doesn't necessarily outweigh the loss of Green Belt.
The Warwick area does need and cannot cope with the amount of new homes that the council are proposing. I urge the council to review their figures and to adopt a plan for fewer homes which can be accommodated on non Green Belt sites.

I would also like to add that I do not feel that traveller/ gypsy sites in the Green Belt fall into the category of special circumstances. I therefore strongly object to the possible siting of a traveller/gypsy site at Oaklands Farm. That particular area like the existing traveller site in Kites Nest Lane is prone to flooding. It floods from water which runs from fields on the opposite side of the A4177, including the two fields shown on your map of proposed sites as R115 and R126. My understanding is that there are a myriad of pipes and also balancing tanks in these areas from the old psychiatric and chest hospitals. Are these therefore really suitable areas for new homes?

There is also the matter of the loss of wildlife habitat. Smiths Covert is the home to Muntjac deer, badgers, foxes, pheasants and many others wildlife species and birds.

We just wanted to object to the local plan and in particular the increased housing that has been ear marked for Hatton Park. The District Council had suggested that Hatton Park has reached its natural capicity and we agree. Not only will the additional hoses cause a strain on services but also to congestion on the Birmingham Road which is already a nightmare at peak times. The increased traffic on the estate would also be detrimental. We all moved here to have some peace and quiet and enjoy the countryside. Building new houses on this location is not a popular choice.

We just wanted to object to the local plan and in particular the increased housing that has been ear marked for Hatton Park. The District Council had suggested that Hatton Park has reached its natural capicity and we agree. Not only will the additional hoses cause a strain on services but also to congestion on the Birmingham Road which is already a nightmare at peak times. The increased traffic on the estate would also be detrimental. We all moved here to have some peace and quiet and enjoy the countryside. Building new houses on this location is not a popular choice.

I would like to enquire as to what the plans are for the infrastructure surrounding your planned increase in housing stock in Hatton Park. My feeling is that to add 70/90 more homes will overload the A4177 to an intolerable level. If each of the new homes has two cars or more that is approximately another two hundred cars trying to get onto the A4177 during the rush hour when it is already extremely difficult to get on to this road right now.

I am also concerned about the schools, surely they are already full, we read in the papers that Warwickshire does NOT have a policy of siblings taking preference when joining a school. Perhaps Warwickshire District Council can explain how a parent can split him/herself into two to collect young children from more than one school? I assume Warwickshire District Council are aware both parents need to work in this day & age to enable the payment of such bills as the Council Tax etc; so how are they meant to cope with the safe collection of their children?

I am also concerned about the capacity in our GP surgeries, will they be able to cope with the added load. Same applies to Warwick Hospital.

All of the above concerns also apply to the plans for Travellers Sites. Will they actually be paying Council Tax? Will part of their contract ensure that each site is constantly cleaned up or do we have to live with the mess AND pay for the cleaning up? If the sites are near a main road into Warwick will this affect how visitors view this lovely country town?

I do hope Warwickshire District Council are really, really thinking about this thoroughly. It would be good not to have another High Street/ Jury Street debacle because that has caused a great deal of trouble to traders & shoppers alike not to mention the dreadful cost to tax payers, & it still isn't finished! Please, please be very careful in your decisions as we will have to live with the end result for a long time.

I refer to the proposal to build houses on the land behind Tidmington Close, Combroke Grove & Ebrington Close (proposal R115), on Oakland Farm on the A4117 adjacent to the Shell Garage (proposals R25 & R125), & on land at the top of the Barcheston Drive loop (proposal R114) and on other sites along the A4117 owned by Mr Arkwright. I object to these proposals as the infrastructure and the road system of Hatton Park adjoining the A4177 are not adequate to deal with the increased amount of traffic that building an extra 70 - 90 houses there between 2015 and 2029 would create. Such development would desecrate existing green field sites which preserve the distinction between Warwick town and outlying communities such as Hatton Park. In addition, nearby Ferncumbe Primary School is already oversubscribed and there are no medical facilities to cope with the needs of the considerably enlarged population that would result. The gypsy site at Beausale Lane is still il! legally developed with their refusal to accept the eviction order that has been placed on them, so what hope would there be of a good relationship between them & the local community if a gypsy site is sanctioned at Oaklands Farm? On all these counts, I object to the proposed development of these sites.

1. I object to the proposals to allocate 70-90 additional houses on Hatton Park set out in the Revised Development Strategy June 2013.

2. In the document, Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village. Para 4.3.13 states that information on the approach to demonstrating a robust and justifiable approach to the establishment of a settlement hierarchy is contained in the technical paper Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013.

3. Secondary Services Villages are defined in that Report as ..."offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities.."

4. I do not consider that Hatton Park is sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Revised Development Strategy nor the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report and Appendix 5 of that Report. I do not consider, therefore, that this is a fair, transparent and accessible consultation. I also have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly given the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses.

5. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

6. I consider that the proposed 70-90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network and particularly when there are options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).

1. I object to the proposals to allocate 70-90 additional houses on Hatton Park set out in the Revised Development Strategy June 2013.

2. In the document, Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village. Para 4.3.13 states that information on the approach to demonstrating a robust and justifiable approach to the establishment of a settlement hierarchy is contained in the technical paper Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013.

3. Secondary Services Villages are defined in that Report as ..."offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities.."

4. I do not consider that Hatton Park is sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Revised Development Strategy nor the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report and Appendix 5 of that Report. I do not consider, therefore, that this is a fair, transparent and accessible consultation. I also have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly given the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses.

5. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

6. I consider that the proposed 70-90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network and particularly when there are options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).

Dear Sir
I wish to formally lodge my concerns regarding the proposed development of land around Hatton Park for dwellings and the nearby travelling site, and therefore oppose any forms of planning application in this matter.
Reasons for my opposition are simple and plain.
* The importance of the Green Belt, which all land around Hatton Park is currently in,
* The fact that the 2006 Planning Inquiry concluded that the boundaries of Hatton Park should be retained in the face of petitions to remove parts of the boundary from the Green Belt, citing that "Hatton Park has reached its natural boundaries" and "the development is balanced",
* The current principle that development in the Green Belt is possible only in exceptional circumstances (this is national policy under Planning Policy Guidance - PPG - 2),
* That the current Local Plan only allows development in rural areas that has a clear and direct local need, and only exceptionally in the Green Belt,
* That protected trees must remain so (the 'Dorsington site' contains a protected oak tree)
* That Smith's Covert (the wood on the right as you drive up the Charingworth Drive) is protected woodland.


In my opinion substantial additional housing, while desirable where affordable in the current economic climate, is likely to place excessive pressure on services, utilities, drainage, transport, education. I also believe the A4177 is showing signs of excessive congestion at peak times. It goes without saying that further expansion of Hatton Park will also diminish the rural characteristics which attracted many of us here in the first place.

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.

Dear Sirs,
Please note my objection to the proposed building on R115. I object to this proposed site on the basis that the site will not have sufficient infrastructure in order for the proposed development on greenbelt land. The infrastructure I am referring to is Road infrastructure coping with the increase in traffic on the Birmingham Road and the road safety issues related with this dramatic increase of 90 - 100 houses.At present Warwick can not cope with the increase in population in relation to community facilities such as the provision of school places,medical facilities such as GP provision and indeed Warwick Hospital provision . On top of this, and the proposed development of a travellers site on Oaklands farm the road safety issues are a real concern .
The situation of the proposed building site near to a proposed travellers site would bring into question the commercial viability of being able to sell the properties.
Another major concern is the ground works that leads to the balancing lake that runs under the land (R115) .This is a main drainage / balancing of water from all the Hatton Park estate.There is also underground streams that run under the proposed site.
At a public meeting in 2011 assurances were given that this land would not be built on and I understand this has been revoked and the land thrown back into the proposal pot.Warwick was known for protecting its land and for considerate planning .It appears that this proposal is beyond all comprehension.There is a building in Saltisford (The gas works) that could accommodate apartments and assist with the housing shortage. I understand this is privately owned.This property is an eyesore in its present state.Why don't you consider using that?
Please note my objection.