Revised Development Strategy
Yn dangos sylwadau a ffurflenni 151 i 180 o 214
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mr David Bancroft
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mrs Belinda Attwood
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mr Thomas Attwood
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Tim & Gill Moore
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Howes
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Miss Louise Wilson
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill.
-Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary.
-The scale of proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to absorb this increase and will negatively impact on the semi-rural character of the neighbourhood.
Testun llawn:
Response to the Consultation in respect of Hampton Magna - 31 December 2013.
The Warwick District Council . Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Consultation November 2013 (the "Consultation") contains a proposal for an additional 100
dwellings in Hampton Magna. On the basis of public meetings and market research
undertaken by the Hampton Magna Residents' Association, this figure is considered too high
and a substantial reduction is necessary. There are a number of reasons for this as listed
below. Any possible increase to this number by a future proposal is strongly opposed.
Green Belt Land and Loss of Amenity
Green Belt land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and the change must be
sustainable. The consultation acknowledges this in principle. However, the proposed scale of
development fails to adequately take account of it.
If the village envelope is enlarged as presently suggested it will significantly encroach into the
adjoining countryside and result in unacceptable loss of existing amenity which will place an
unsustainable burden on existing residents.
The scale of the proposed growth is disproportionate to the ability of Hampton Magna to
absorb this increase and will negatively impact.on the semi rural character of the
neighbourhood which is a key feature for residents.
The local school is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms and
school run parking around is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems.
Additional numbers will add to this problem.
The consultation refers to an "Indicative Settlement Boundary". A cast-iron guarantee is
required that there will be no future increases to the designated number of houses to be built or
sites on which they will be located.
Increased Traffic Congestion and air pollution
Traffic volumes in the surrounding area have risen considerably over recent years due to
increased traffic flows from Hatton Park and Warwick Chase estates, expansion of the
Warwick Parkway Station and associated parking and the Premier Inn on Birmingham Road. In
addition the Gateway Project will introduce more traffic and congestion onto the Birmingham
Road and the A46, particularly lorries travelling to and from the logistics centre (storage depot)
at the Gateway Project near Coventry.
The Consultation recognises the need to carefully consider the impact of the development on
traffic but fails to address the significant traffic problems created by the 100 houses expansion.
Congestion already exists as access to and from Hampton Magna is through an alternating
traffic lights single flow system or a narrow winding road which is not designed to absorb major
traffic flows. The additional extra traffic from 100 houses is likely to create even more
congestion and delays particularly at peak times and result in increased journey times to and
1
from the village. It could also increase the time needed for emergency vehicles to reach the
village, thus endangering lives.
Further traffic pollution would cause problems for people with asthma, bronchitis and other lung
problems.
Direct Road Link with the A46 and Second Road Link via Ugly Bridge Road to
Birmingham Road.
Any such alternative road schemes are strongly opposed. We do not support a direct link with
the A46. We understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station
was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and
the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
At the Exhibition on 17 December, It was suggested that plans were being considered for an
additional road link via Ugly Bridge Road. We oppose any such plan as it would use a country
lane as a road as well as acting as a second cut through.
Once a site has been found developers tend to come back with further planning applications in
the future. Any new road would "unlock" all sites, if not now, then in the future. The village was
never designed for this.
Period of BUild.
The Consultation refers to "phased development". The time taken to build any new houses
must be fixed to prevent open-ended disruption. We do not want (say) ten houses being built
in the first year and the profits used to finance more houses and so on. Building work entailing
disruption and noise could continue for many years. We only have to look at other estates
nearby e.g. Warwick Chase to see this prinCiple in operation.
The Type and mix of Housing
This must be known and should be tailored to the needs of residents who already live here or
their relatives. The Council should be speaking to the Residents' Association as well as the
Parish Council and not confine their discussions to Developers and Public Housing Providers.
The large organisations like Developers and Housing Associations must not be allowed to
override the wishes of ordinary residents.
There should be cast-iron guarantees that local people will benefit instead of decisions being
left to Developers and Housing Associations. Cawston House has been trying to rent empty
flats for months. In the meantime they stand idle at public expense. There has been an
obvious over-provision or the residences provided are unattractive to the target market.
Green Self Builds should be included in the Development
There is no provision for Green self builds in the development and there should be. This would
provide employment for local builders and craftsmen and residents. Self builds are usually
much more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient than mass produced housing. The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 50) makes special reference to self
builders and the District Council has duties to include them in any local plan.
2
Needs Survey on which a "need" has been discovered for 31 permanent and 12 transit pitches.
WOC acknowledges that many of the Gypsies and Travellers already have permanent homes.
Site of Special Historical Interest
The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are
one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to
stand there.
Wildlife.
There may be bat roosts, protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. in the area. A thorough
study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied
equally stringently to developers.
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital.
Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique
problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on
the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A
First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried
bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their
impact must be assessed.
Sharing development
Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why
there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although we are
opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional
expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons
for this should be fully explained in detail. We refer to the National Planning Policy framework
2012 (paragraph 55) and the WOC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities
should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use
them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them.
Guarantees are required that:
The proposed number of houses will be decreased.
The decreased number of houses finally agreed by the Council will be final and will not be
subsequently increased.
Building developers and Housing Associations are not allowed to override the wishes of local
people.
4
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton-on-the-Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities (NPPF 2012 Paragraph 5; WDC Local Plan Page 9). It is not clear why there is no option to development any housing at Hampton-on-the-Hill.
-Some proportionate additional expansion could be considered at Hampton-on-the-Hill. If it is not considered appropriate then reasons should be fully explained.
-Proposed level of growth in Hampton Magma is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. Hampton Magna has expanded in past years and there have been many developments in the surrounding district which impact on the sustainability of the area.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Barford is wrongly re-categorised as a Secondary Service Village down from a Primary Service Village. With the simultaneous 'promotion' of Green Belt villages such as Cubbington via the statistical manipulation of their sustainability scoring system, as well as the convenient disregard for any impact of Green Belt considerations in such assessments, this is completely intuitive to National Policy leading to a baseless set of biased categorisations.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: West Midlands HARP Planning Consortium
Asiant : Tetlow King Planning Ltd.
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-We query how the Council might deal with any increase in the housing requirement resulting from the joint SHMA. It might be prudent to delay further work on defining the settlement boundaries until the true scale of the housing need has been objectively assessed on the basis that additional rural capacity might need to be found to ensure the needs are met.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Bloor Homes Midlands
Asiant : Marrons Planning
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Bloor Homes express concern that the Preferred Options set out within this consultation report have failed to even achieve the housing provisions made to the most sustainable villages (1,000 dwellings in total) as part of the interim level of growth within the Revised Development Strategy.
Testun llawn:
PARAGRAPH 4.10 LEVEL OF HOUSING GROWTH
1.1 These submissions relate to the proposed level of housing provision to be accommodated within the District's most sustainable village locations.
1.2 The Council acknowledge at paragraph 2.13 of its consultation report that its interim level of growth of 683 dwellings per annum set out within the Revised Development Strategy (June 2013) may be revised pending the findings of the Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). This SHMA has now been published and, whilst its findings have yet to be tested, it concludes that the assessed housing need for the District is 720 dwellings per annum.
1.3 Over a plan period to 2031, the interim level of growth is therefore some 740 dwellings less than the most up-to-date evidence of assessed need. The SHMA also provides up-to-date evidence as to affordability, the numbers of newly forming households in need of affordable housing, as well as market signals.
1.4 The Council will therefore need to reconsider its future housing requirement figure in light of this evidence and the possible need to accommodate housing requirements from other authorities under the Duty to Co-operate. Furthermore, it will also need to test the implications of higher housing figures than that indicated in the Revised Development Strategy, and reconsider the level of growth proposed for the most sustainable villages. Bloor Homes have made submissions to the Council previously as to the need and potential for the rural area to accommodate higher levels of growth than envisaged within the Revised Development Strategy.
1.5 In this context, it is of concern that the Preferred Options set out within this consultation report have failed to even achieve the housing provisions made to the most sustainable villages (1,000 dwellings in total) as part of the interim level of growth within the Revised Development Strategy. The statement within paragraph 4.10 of this consultation report that the lower figure now proposed of 835 dwellings reflects environmental and access restrictions will need to be robustly demonstrated if this is to be taken forward into the Draft Local Plan and found 'sound'.
1.6 The Council will be aware of the relevant test within paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (referred to as the 'Framework'). This requires that objectively assessed needs are met unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.
1.7 In respect of its land interests not allocated as Preferred Options, Bloor Homes do not consider the Council has demonstrated within its evidence base that the adverse impacts of their development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Moreover, having regard to paragraphs 17 and 70 of the Framework and the requirement to allocate land of lesser environmental or amenity value where consistent with other policies of the Framework, Bloor Homes do not consider the Preferred Options identified in some of the villages represent the most appropriate when assessed against their alternative land interests which are more consistent with the policies of the Framework. The evidence to support these statements is set out in within separate submissions.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Leek Wootton & Guy's Cliffe Parish Council
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-It is not clear why Leek Wootton should be close to the maximum target for a 'Secondary Village' when 'Primary Villages' such as Kingswood (Lapworth and Rowington) and Hampton Magna (incorporating Norton Lindsey) are both proposed as less than half the minimum projection (62 and 100 respectively).
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Less development should be allocated to the more sensitive parts of the District, such as the Primary Service Centres at Cubbington, Hampton Magna, and Lapworth. The allocation of new housing to all Secondary Service Centres in the Green Belt such as Hatton Park, Leek Wootton and Bagington should also be removed or significantly reduced.
-Development should be concentrated in areas outside of the Green Belt.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Barwood Development Securities Ltd
Asiant : HOW Planning LLP
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Following the Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment it is very likely that Warwick District Council will have to release more land in order to meet its own and potentially neighbouring authorities' housing requirements.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Crest Strategic Projects
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-The overall housing provision for the District will not meet the objectively assessed housing needs and part of Coventry's housing provision will need to be met on land within Warwick District.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Crest Strategic Projects
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-It is unclear from the evidence base exactly why Burton Green is identified as a Secondary Growth Centre and it is considered that a proper analysis of the evidence indicates that it should be a Primary Growth Cetnre.
-There has been a reduction in the housing numbers of 163 units with no apparent indication as to how or where additional housing numbers are to be met.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL
Asiant : Tyler-Parkes Partnership
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
We raise OBJECTION to the 'Warwick Local Plan Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries' DPD on the grounds that it is not 'sound' and it fails to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) or fully meet the legal Duty to Cooperate.
It is apparent that the approach taken to housing land allocations preferred options within the document is not wholly consistent with the Framework which, amongst other matters, seeks to: provide certainty by planning for the long term; locate development in the most sustainable locations; protect the future viability of settlements; ensure a variety of housing is provided to meet identified needs; ensure a 5 year housing land supply is maintained; alter Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances (such as required to meet housing need) to ensure they are capable of enduring beyond the Plan period; and ensure the legal Duty to Cooperate has been satisfied. the DPD is not sound because it fails to - provide certainty over the long term; identify sufficient land within or adjacent to the Villages to meet the housing requirement over the plan period;include sufficient deliverable sites to respond to a 20% buffer in the 5 year housing land supply; fails to fully consider the implications on Warwick District of the potential housing land shortfall in the Housing Market Area as required under the Duty to Cooperate; offer developers sufficient deliverable housing land choices to ensure a rolling 5 year housing land supply is maintained; alter Green Belt boundaries to meet the identified growth requirement in line with the findings of the Settlement Hierarchy and the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy proposed policies; ensure that Green Belt boundaries are capable of enduring beyond the plan period through the identification of 'areas of development restraint' or 'safeguarded land' including in/adjacent to the most sustainable Villages; identify a quantum of housing land allocations appropriate to the scale and sustainability of settlements as evidenced by the Council's own research; provide sound, accurate evidence to justify discounting the site for housing development; and remove part of our client's sustainable and deliverable land from the Green Belt, include it within the Settlement Boundary and allocate it for residential.
Warwick District therefore had a significant annual housing shortfall in delivery, following cessation of the housing moratorium at the end of 2009. This we believe is a 'persistent' annual under delivery when measured against the annual housing requirement. Once a 'persistent under delivery' has been proven, which we contend it has, the 5 year housing land requirement would rise by a 20% buffer rather than a 5% buffer. The 'Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation' DPD is therefore unsound because it does not identify sufficient preferred housing sites to contribute towards meeting the need for a five year annual housing target of between 1040 and 1102 units, which includes a 20% buffer. It fails to address the need to ensure sufficient deliverable sites are identified and available to be developed in the 5 year timeframe. Without additional sustainable sites being identified in the most sustainable villages, there is a risk that the emerging housing policies will not be considered up-to-date.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: David Wilson Homes
Asiant : Turley Associates
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
Agree that Burton Green is a sustainable location for growth.
Testun llawn:
see attached
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-The outcome of the Gateway and JSHMA may change the housing needs in the district.
-The importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council is highlighted in the document. Budbrooke PC has been communicating their objection since the start of the process and they have not yet been listened to.
-It is unfair that villages are having housing built on Green Belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed due to Green Belt issues.
-Concerned that more houses are proposed on Green Belt compared to non-Green Belt villages.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton-on-the-Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities (NPPF 2012 Paragraph 5; WDC Local Plan Page 9). It is not clear why there is no option to development any housing at Hampton-on-the-Hill.
-Some proportionate additional expansion could be considered at Hampton-on-the-Hill. If it is not considered appropriate then reasons should be fully explained.
-Proposed level of growth in Hampton Magma is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. Hampton Magna has expanded in past years and there have been many developments in the surrounding district which impact on the sustainability of the area.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mrs Linda Durand
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-The outcome of the Gateway and JSHMA may change the housing needs in the district.
-The importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council is highlighted in the document. Budbrooke PC has been communicating their objection since the start of the process and they have not yet been listened to.
-It is unfair that villages are having housing built on Green Belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed due to Green Belt issues.
-Concerned that more houses are proposed on Green Belt compared to non-Green Belt villages.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mrs Linda Durand
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton-on-the-Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities (NPPF 2012 Paragraph 5; WDC Local Plan Page 9). It is not clear why there is no option to development any housing at Hampton-on-the-Hill.
-Some proportionate additional expansion could be considered at Hampton-on-the-Hill. If it is not considered appropriate then reasons should be fully explained.
-Proposed level of growth in Hampton Magma is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. Hampton Magna has expanded in past years and there have been many developments in the surrounding district which impact on the sustainability of the area.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mr Maurice Durand
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-The outcome of the Gateway and JSHMA may change the housing needs in the district.
-The importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council is highlighted in the document. Budbrooke PC has been communicating their objection since the start of the process and they have not yet been listened to.
-It is unfair that villages are having housing built on Green Belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed due to Green Belt issues.
-Concerned that more houses are proposed on Green Belt compared to non-Green Belt villages.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mr Maurice Durand
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-Hampton-on-the-Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities (NPPF 2012 Paragraph 5; WDC Local Plan Page 9). It is not clear why there is no option to development any housing at Hampton-on-the-Hill.
-Some proportionate additional expansion could be considered at Hampton-on-the-Hill. If it is not considered appropriate then reasons should be fully explained.
-Proposed level of growth in Hampton Magma is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. Hampton Magna has expanded in past years and there have been many developments in the surrounding district which impact on the sustainability of the area.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Ymatebydd: Mr Stacey Ellis
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
-The outcome of the Gateway and JSHMA may change the housing needs in the district.
-The importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council is highlighted in the document. Budbrooke PC has been communicating their objection since the start of the process and they have not yet been listened to.
-It is unfair that villages are having housing built on Green Belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed due to Green Belt issues.
-Concerned that more houses are proposed on Green Belt compared to non-Green Belt villages.
Testun llawn:
General commentary about proposal in Hampton Magna - OBJECTIONS
Housing Numbers and Duty to co operate with other district councils - the outcome of the Gateway and other research initiatives into housing numbers particularly the JSHMA may well change the housing needs in the district. This is acknowledged in the document but importantly any reduction in numbers of houses deemed necessary through this must immediately lead to removal of any building on village green belt areas without debate.
Parish Councils view important - The document highlights the importance of agreeing any development with the Parish Council. Budbrooke PC have been communicating their objection since the start of the process against the development including its scale yet are not being listened to
Residents View - Planners and the council must stop ignoring the opinion of residents in these consultation processes. The voices of 830 resident in Hampton Magna who signed a petition with good arguments against proposals in the village have been cast aside despite reasoned argument and local knowledge of the issues faced.. To quote Cllr Caborn on the local plan website ".....it is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with our local plan and these consultations will give us the chance to do that with an understanding of what people think...." So what is the point to the process if opinion is ignored ?
Road Links - I do not support any possible proposal for a direct link with the A46 into Hampton Magna. I understand that it was considered too dangerous when Warwick Parkway station was built and the same applies even more now. Any such link has the potential for gridlock and the use of the village as a cut-through to surrounding locations.
Village discrimination - it is biased and therefore unfair that villages are having houses built on green belt land when other potential development areas such as Milverton have been removed from the proposals due to green belt issues there. Again an independent review of the decision making process is necessary.
Sustainability - the proposed level of growth in Hampton Magna is unsustainable with infrastructure and transport unable to cope. As stated in Chapter 2 Hampton Magna has had considerable expansion in past years. In addition there have been many developments in the surrounding district impacting on sustainability of the area. The scale of the development is at best too large.
Infrastructure - There has not been sufficient planning and analysis of infrastructure issues to be able to make a reasoned judgement on the viability of the potential sites. Sewerage and Drainage issues have been a particular concern consistently from many residents who have experienced the problem. The sewerage and electricity systems in Hampton Magna make the village a special case as they are already in need of major upgrading and the proposed numbers of additional housing will make matters even worse. There are major problems with the drains all over Hampton Magna. Even when they were newly built Severn Trent refused to accept them because of the standard of construction. The electricity system dates back to the old Barracks and is inadequate.
Transport/congestion - A major issue that has to be considered in choosing a site is the increase in traffic which if brought within the village estate would be dangerous (see comments under specific site sections later). Equally planners rejecting residents previous consultation comments about transport issues by saying and i quote "advice from transport experts at the county council suggest that the development proposal can be accommodated" is ridiculous. The only way to know for sure is for proper analysis and research to be undertaken by an independent party , not the council and this would reveal how transport and the dangers around the village and particularly the preferred site would stop the development.
Village development in green belt - It is a concern that the proposal has more houses proposed on green belt compared to non greenbelt villages - this position must be reviewed again for other non green belt opportunities. By default development on green belt cannot be justified under the "exceptional circumstances" caveat within government policy when there are so few houses proposed on green belt around villages compared to the total 12 000 district wide presumed housing need. Just 500 houses across village green belt (100 in Hampton Magna) cannot be so important in the overall total number to justify green belt destruction. Common sense must prevail.
Local school capacity - This is already undergoing expansions with plans for further classrooms. School run parking is already leading to traffic congestion and safety problems. Additional numbers will add to this problem
Sharing development with Hampton on The Hill - Hampton on the Hill adjoins Hampton Magna and utilises its amenities, so it is not clear why there is no option to develop any housing at all in Hampton on the Hill. Although opposed to any disproportionate housing expansion in Hampton on the Hill, some additional expansion should be seriously considered. If it is not considered appropriate then the reasons for this should be fully explained in detail. I refer to the National Planning Policy framework 2012 (paragraph 55) and the WDC Local Plan P - 9. Hampton Magna infrastructure facilities should be considered as shared with Hampton on the Hill as residents from this village use them and there is no natural boundary e.g. road or river between them. Also see comments on the specific site options later regarding site 6.
Independent Inspector examination of the site options - Planners opinions should be independently tested as the planning departments site conclusions are too "blinkered"
Hampton Magna Site Area 1 Preferred location (land south of Arras Boulevard) - OBJECTIONS - site is not considered appropriate against others
Land Usage and Covenants - The site has previously had footpaths in existence. It is also believed that there are covenants in place restricting use of the land through the original land Endowment to King Henry VIII Endowment Trust.
Transport - Access to this site is dangerous if Arras Boulevard is used to access the site and significant changes to roads are against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'.. Importantly there are 3 blind corners along Blandford Way and the southern part of Arras Boulevard adjacent to the site where presumably access to the houses would be . Also the exit from Curlieu Close is a blind sharp exit on a corner itself which would be dangerous with increased traffic volumes up and down Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard. There have already been motor accidents at this location. It should also be noted that Driving Schools use Arras Boulevard extensively and also worryingly conduct manoeuvres between and around the blind corners. Bringing large increases in traffic through the village estate roads when children walk to school and to the recreational park area at the end of Curlieu Close would create considerable dangers. Curlieu Close is used by many as an alternative drop off point to the school because of the congested area immediately outside the school which will only get worse at it is forced to expand - more dangers and residential impact.
On Left
Blind access route up Blandford Way
On Right
Further blind access route Blandford into Arras
On Left
Further blind access route Arras - adjacent to site 1 access point
On Right
Blind corner on Curlieu Close - Arras right and Blandord Way left
Dangerous manoeuvres on Blandford Way and between blind corners on access road to site 1
Flooding - Whilst not on the Environment Agency flood map the field regularly floods and this would only be worse with development on it. Increased numbers of houses on the scale proposed could increase this risk and so a full study of flood risk should be undertaken so that residents are not subjected to greater risk of flooding from large amounts of the area being concreted over.
Flooding in the preferred site field December 2013 and another example of the open character countryside of the village that would be lost.
Ecology - There are bats in the hedgerows which are protected under legislation , this has been highlighted by the two land owner investigations in summer 2013. There are also wild birds and birds of prey and wild foxes. Animals were "moved on" when the Warwick Parkway Station was built (on green belt) and should not be disturbed again. Protected species of frogs, toads, newts etc. are also known to be in the area. A thorough study should be undertaken and the rules applied to individual householders should be applied equally stringently to developers
Residential Impact - The report implies that residential impact will be minimal. Closer inspection would show that this is not true with at least 60 houses being impacted (for just 100 new ones on the site). It should be noted that Site 5 has been eliminated due to residential impact yet that impact is little different to that felt at site 1. Planners should review again the residential impact which is acknowledged as an important factor.
Landscape Impact - contrary to the report the impact on the landscape would be significant with fantastic open views across the countryside looking outward to the South. That open character should be protected in line with the NPPF paragraph 86.
Site 1 green belt field and the open character views of the village across the south
Site of Special Historical Interest - The Gog Brook ponds and ancient hedgerows should be preserved and protected. They are one of the few remaining links with the past and belonged to the old monastery which used to stand there
Buried armaments from the old Barracks / First World War Hospital - Hampton Magna is built on the site of the old Budbrooke Barracks and therefore has a unique problem with buried armaments. Several have been uncovered over the years. The Copse on the preferred site should have entry forbidden as, it is believed, armaments are buried there. A First World War hospital was situated on the proposed site and as a result there may be buried bodies in the surrounding area. These factors are not recognized in the Consultation and their impact must be assessed
Conflict of Interest -The land is owned by King Henry VIII Trust who also partly own a critical piece of land to the Local Plan around Europa Way and which the local district plan attaches great importance to developing. It was known in Hampton Magna circles that Site 1 (land South of Arras Boulevard) was a preferred location for building before commencement of any consultations. A fully independent review of the decision to prefer site 1 in Hampton Magna should be undertaken to ensure there has been nothing prejudicial to the process from such conflicts of interest.
Hampton Magna site area 4 (West of Stanks Farm) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Detachment from the village - The statement in the report that this area is detached from the main settlement is incorrect. On review of the map it is clear the area is as close to the school and park as other areas of the village to the south west of the village apron verging on Hampton On The Hill.
Landscape impact - impact would in fact be relatively low with use of appropriate screening along perimeter road on access to the village area under the railway bridge . Some natural screening already exists. This site would also naturally extend the village housing perimeter along the main access road.
Village main access view of site 4 , screening easily possible as already in part
Ecology - Low impact on wildlife compared to other sites. Much of the wildlife was disturbed and has moved on and resettled following building of the Warwick Parkway Station.
Coalescence - Site has a natural permanent break from further expansion to other areas with the railway , Parkway Station and main Birmingham Road infrastructure between Warwick and Hatton.
Residential Impact - relatively low plus the land naturally falls away from existing housing.
Location - Being close to the train station would attract professional people (a quoted reason for expansion) who commute to Birmingham/London without the need for driving/parking at the station reducing congestion and alleviating further car parking pressures on the station facilities.
Traffic - the site would significantly reduce dangerous traffic flow as vehicles would not need to travel along the estate roads themselves if access was provided from Old Budbrooke Road. A junction off there would also slow speeding traffic along Budbrooke Road.
Hampton Magna Site Area 6 (Maple Lodge) - OBJECTIONS - site has not been equally considered against others
Residential Impact - minimal due to the position and outlook of existing houses on the estate.
Landscape Impact - the report commentary is incorrect. There is already natural "screening" from the main road so impact on landscape views from the village and Old Budbrooke Road is very little. There are also few houses or main approaches to the village on the North West flank of the proposed site so visual landscape impact is small. The falling nature of the site will help here as well. Use of this site would protect the open character of the village (NPPF paragraph 86).
Traffic -A further 100 to 150 houses using their vehicles through the single carriageway main access to the village would put a vast amount of strain on these minor roads, as a result they may require modification, this would be against policy in the current LP (chapter 8) RAP10 which states that 'development would not be permitted which would require major modification to surrounding rural roads'. It is suggested that site 6 is much more appropriate for development as there is access via the A4189 onto Hampton Road rather than just the traffic controlled railway bridge and minor roads. The same principle would reduce dangerous traffic impact as vehicles would not need to come through the centre of the village unlike the preferred option site 1. There is good access off the main perimeter road to the site as entry would be off straight piece of road near Maple Lodge lending itself well to a roundabout system with existing estate road. Other access plans could also be formulated. This would also help break up the speeding traffic rat running through to Warwick Parkway Station or when there are problems on the M40/A46. There is also an alternative access to the area off the main Birmingham Road via Ugly Bridge which would help to a degree with traffic diversification in addition to the access off Hampton Road.
Perimeter road access area into Maple lodge site 6 and showing natural screening
Site Suitability - this site should be one of the most relevant sites for any development to occur as it conforms to many of the existing policies outlined in the LDF and policies contained within the LP which are still in existence. In particular chapter 8 of the LP (Rural area policies) sets out some key policies for rural development that are still in use, RAP1 states that development will only be permitted where it is on previously developed land within limited growth villages (Hampton Magna is one of these limited growth villages). All of the selected sites, bar sites 3 and this site 6 are previously undeveloped sites, therefore if the new housing development is to conform to this policy it should immediately make site 6 much more attractive to the LPA than any of the other 4 sites. WDC states that it is because site 6 is located within a very sensitive landscape area as its reason for dismissing the site, however , all of the sites around Hampton Magna are sensitive landscape areas, all are zoned as greenbelt with no additional policies or protections (such as SSSI or Site of Nature Conservation Interest) on any of the sites. Further to this site 6 is an area already developed (25% of the site already contains buildings/development of some sort), therefore the impact on the current landscape will be much less on this site than on any of the green field sites, and as this is the only reason given for dismissing this site it MUST be reconsidered.
It is also mentioned several times within both the LDF and the LP that any development should prevent towns from merging together, the NPPF also states that two of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land are to 'prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and to "'check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas" (Paragraph 80). It could be argued that development to the North, South or East of the village will bring the border of the village dangerously close to Warwick, whereas to the West there are no towns within close proximity, this again would make site 6 a preferred site. Although it may be suggested that development will serve to merge Hampton Magna with Hampton on the Hill these two developments have already merged to a degree. There has been a lack of a thorough consideration of the site in the first instance.