Not sufficient consultation time and very little information distributed.

consider consultation period too short. consultation event not detailed enough.
no allowance made for HS2 effect on the area

Support the overall approach of working with the people in the local villages to identify local housing needs and opportunities for development.
This will never come up with the numbers of houses which the plan wants to force on them.
I query if the sites in the plan are identified on a theoretical basis, or reflect those being promoted by landowners and are actually ready and available. There may well be more potential sites which villagers could bring forward if the boundaries were wider drawn.

Burton Green development of all houses on the Burrow Hill Nursery Site.

Local Plan Cubbington Page 42, Chapter 5 - Objections to Options 1 and 2

Consultation period - There have been serious issues with communication (or should I say lack of) as most residents were unaware of this until 12 January 2014.

The views of the Parish Council may not reflect those of the Residents.

The allotments are part of the landscape and a major factor in keeping the open nature of the village and maintaining the vitality of the community.

A previous WDC survey concluded that the allotments were not suitable for development due to the impact on the landscape/greenbelt/recreational aspects.
Nothing has changed on the allotments. What makes it suitable now?

Re-establishment of the allotments, even if the ground is prepared, will take years, especially for mature trees and plants. The general ambience will never return.

The survey also concluded that the area to the north of Cubbington was not suitable due to high landscape and green belt value.
Again, what makes it suitable now?

The proposed development is excessive due to the already identified (housing survey) need for just six local homes!

Recycling of 'brown field' land is a preferred option. Options 1 and 2 are not 'brown field' land. It is 'Green belt'.

Further pressure will be put on the (already oversubscribed) local schools.

Increased traffic flow along Coventry Road and Rugby Road.

Options 3 and 4 were discounted due to insufficient vehicle access/landscape impact - roads would be built on the development so access could be improved there. Options 1 and 2 also have a landscape impact.

The sewerage from the pumping station in Coventry Road has discharged into my garden on a number of occasions and found its way down to the ditch and allotments. We have also had flooding in the house.

For the residents of Coventry Road, and others, this area of Cubbington is quiet and peaceful with lovely views of the landscape and has been this way for over 80 years! This was a main factor in purchasing our home.

The development would have an adverse effect on this area of Cubbington, with reduced 'greenery' (landscape), noise, disturbance, air pollution, light
pollution, increase in traffic.
-2-

It is often difficult to enter my drive without holding up the traffic, most residents of Coventry Road reverse onto their drives as it is safer than trying to reverse off due to the bend in the road.

My home would be overlooked, my privacy gone.
The development would block my views of the landscape.
I would be overshadowed so unable to enjoy the late evening sun/sunset.

This is apart from the fact that it is 'GREEN BELT' land.

'Green Belt' land is precious. When it's gone, it's gone forever.

Please remember we are also 'Under threat' from HS2!!!!!!!

Please accept this email as confirmation of our objection to three proposed development sites (listed below) and as outlined in your document 'Appendix 6 - Site Matrix - Part A' of the New Local Plan for Warwick District.

Objection to:
* Settlement Site - Kingswood, Option 1 Site Ref: KW1*O/R82, Site name; Meadow House, Kingswood
* Settlement Site - Kingswood, Option 2 Site Ref: KW2*O/R38, Site name; Kingswood Farm, Old Warwick Road
* Settlement Site - Kingswood, Option 6 Site Ref: KW12*, Site name; Land to the rear of Kingswood Cottages
The above sites are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:

1. Option 1 Site Ref: KW1*O/R82 & Option 6 Site Ref: KW12* are both high potential flood risk areas as registered with the Environment Agency. Any engineered flood elevation scheme proposed by a developer for these areas has the potential to be unsympathetic to the surrounding area and detract from the rural setting of the Parish of Rowington. The area of land known as Kingwood is widely known as a flood risk area and many local properties are flooded on a regular basis (at least 1 once a year).
2. Old Warwick Road serves all three sites listed above. However, the existing 30mph speed limit is regularly exceeded by 'through traffic'. Even if the visibility site lines could be achieved in order to meet current Highway Specifications the proposed access points to each site would put motorist and pedestrians at risk. The section of footway along Old Warwick Road between the Canal Bridge and the Junction of Station Lane is used regularly by 10 or more households who walk children to the local school. The footway is not currently wide enough to safely walk along with pushchairs/small children and pedestrians are often forced to walk in the carriageway in order to pass oncoming pedestrians or parked cars. The existing boundary constraints would not allow a new section of footway to be accommodated in any proposed plans for development without extensive highway works being needed. This type of work would significantly change the historic character of the surrounding area.
3. The land to the rear of Kingswood Cottages Option 6 Site Ref: KW12* has in the past been used as an abattoir and as such the land must be treated as posing a risk to human health due to contamination of the land until proper testing of the land has been carried out to determine its suitability for building homes on and confirmation that it does not pose a risk to local residents. The buildings used for this activity have only being demolished within the last 30 years.
4. Some of the information contained within document 'Appendix 6 - Site Matrix - Part A' - Option 1 Site Ref: KW1*O/R82 & Option 2 Site Ref: KW2*O/R38 is incorrect. On this basis alone the document can not legitimately be used in order to base an informed decision on the future of the local community. As such, a full review of the information contained within the document should be carried out in order to identify other areas of factually incorrect information that has used and to prevent any decisions made based on this information being unlawful.
It must be noted that Rowington Parish Council have behaved appallingly towards the residents of Rowington. No consultation about the Local Plan has taken place with local residents at any time during this process. Local residents (unlike other Parish Councils) have not even been made aware of the proposed development sites at all. The location of these sites has only come to our attention by word of mouth between residents. There is actually no planned development for Rowington Parish and the term 'Kingswood' can not be used to define areas that are in fact in Rowington. Rowington Parish Council have been made aware of this fact but have chosen not to listen to the objections raised by local residents either at PC meetings or in writing regarding this fact and have acted in an underhand and deceitful manner. It brings in to question the morality of some of the members of Rowington Parish Council. Do they have an agenda between themselves and an interest to see these sites put forward for development over more suitable sites which have been rejected yet those rejected sites are not affected by issues of flooding, listed buildings, highway constraints and land contamination as identified in the three sites listed above. Do the members of Rowington Parish Council not have a legal duty to serve their Parishioners in an honest and fair manner? A formal complaint will be raised against Rowington Parish Council with regards to how this issue has been executed. It has all the hallmarks of 'cronyism' existing within the Parish Council.

I emailed you with my objections to the proposed 70-90 new houses planned for Hatton Park at the end of last year, since then I have attended the consultation held in the village hall on 6th January 2014 and was most unimpressed. We moved here from Solihull, there, when a consultation took place it was a proper consultation, several members of the appropriate council department held the informed meeting and a question and answer session followed. It was even possible for a show of hands! This is what I expected upon arrival at the village hall, this was not to be, there was, as you must be aware, a pin board with a copy of the information we already had plus one young lady to answer any questions! As over 100 residents were already waiting to speak to your representative I'm afraid I gave up.

The following week a meeting was called by the Parish Council, this was most informative and helpful. It was a proper meeting with many points made & many views exchanged. I would like to repeat the points I made in my previous email.
I feel most strongly that the Birmingham Road will not take the extra traffic, certainly not once the proposed extra properties are built in Hampton Magna and Budbrooke. How does the Council imagine the A4177 will cope, especially if there is an accident on the motorway or the A46, the A4177 is in total chaos when this happens now, the schools are already filled to capacity, local GP surgeries are always busy, can Warwick Hospital deal with more patients?

Looking at the latest plan by the builders/planners the new housing will be far too close to the area known as Smith's Covert - this will have a dreadful impact on the local wildlife - of this I am sure you are aware, perhaps you could inform the builder/planners of this. The proposed housing is also for too close to existing properties, why is all the housing squashed into one area when double that land capacity is there? Presumably, the builders/planners will then decide to build even more properties at a later date, thus causing more problems for the local community. This land is needed to support local wildlife.

We have very few facilities in Hatton Park, we have a bus service, a very small shop, a community hall and a childrens' playground, not a great deal to serve the community.

As we are all aware of flooding issues this year especially, has anyone taken land drainage into consideration? Is it a good thing to build yet more housing and prevent yet more water draining off the land? This could be a very costly business if due thought hasn't been taken. We all know how badly local roads have flooded this year, adding more housing isn't going to help.

Because of the debacle over the High Street/Jury Street saga and the apparent lack of thought by Warwick Council of the process of communicating ALL information to the residents of Warwick I really feel very afraid that this whole process will be so badly thought through that, I hate to say, I have no confidence in the local housing plan. We are all fortunate enough to live in a beautiful area, you, our Council, are supposed to take care of this, please make sure you do.

We must firstly declare an interest in that we are part owners of Plot 7 on the Burton Green section of the Village Housing Options published document. Together with the other owners of Plot 7, all of whom are local residents, we have submitted a joint response in which we have expressed our arguments in favour of our site as well as our views on Indicative Settlement Boundaries. This brief response is intended to represent our personal views on the overall impact upon the village, and does not attempt to represent the views of any other members of the group.



Village Housing Options. Pages 40, 41. Burton Green

Nature of Representation Objection

We have lived in the village for 26 years and consider ourselves as active members of an enjoyable community. Our children attended Burton Green School and we regularly participate in a wide variety of local activities and events as well as helping with their organisation.

Our aim is to preserve the community spirit within the village, particularly in the face of possible major disruption resulting from the building of HS2. We welcome new entrants to the village, and particularly so if they are able to participate in and enhance village life. Our main concern is that a relatively large single development on the edge of the village would be isolated from the rest of the village and would bring very little benefit to the existing community. The Preferred Option (Plot 1) would fall into this category, and we feel that there is a danger that new residents on such an estate would be less likely to integrate with the existing community. For this reason, a series of smaller developments spread among the village would be preferable. Smaller developments would also help to preserve and enhance the visual appearance of the village. It may be tempting for Warwick D.C. to solve the problem of providing the housing requirement for Burton Green at a stroke by allowing a single large development, but a quick and simple solution must not be allowed to become the overriding concern.

We agree that a mixture of housing types is desirable, and that Burton Green would benefit from the influx of a wider cross section of society than at present. Such diversity can be catered for equally well by two or three smaller developments as by a single large development.

The issue of the relocation of the Village Hall should not be allowed to influence the housing decision. If the proposed HS2 construction goes ahead, then HS2 are obliged to provide the relocation site as well as the actual building. We feel that the ideal location for the Village Hall is at or near the present site, simply because it is at the geographical centre of the village. The land above and around the proposed HS2 tunnel could provide an ideal eventual location, particularly in view of the need for additional car parking.


Comment on Indicative Settlement Boundary. Page 41. Burton Green

Nature of Representation Objection

In order to satisfy the stated objectives of preventing future coalescence of Burton Green with the neighbouring areas of Coventry, Crackley or Kenilworth, the logical place to relax the Green Belt limit would seem to be in a North Westerly direction to coincide with the Warwickshire / Solihull boundary. This small relaxation would enable sufficient new development over the 15 year period to satisfy the new housing requirements within the area, but without encouraging further ribbon development.

Further comment
We find it highly regrettable that the Local Plan for Village Housing Options was published in a form which appears to prejudice the outcome of the consultation process. In particular, the use of the terminology "Preferred Option" and "Discounted Option" introduces a considerable element of bias which is very likely to affect the perceptions of those who read the report or respond to the consultation. Many people are likely to interpret "Preferred Option" as meaning "Chosen Option" and therefore take the view that the report represents a fait accompli, in which case they will be discouraged from taking part in the consultation.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Dear Development Policy Manager.

After hearing about your local plans I felt I needed to write as I am a little concerned about your local plans for Hatton and feel areas of land have been looked at without the consideration of local people and the environment they live in.
It looks as if no ground surveys have been carried out apart from looking at plots of land.
My main concern was to here about the private proposal laid out below from my family having attended the local meetings over the last two weeks.
My other worry is that Hatton Estate posted out leaflets prior to these meetings to the houses on Hatton Park but did not include any of the houses within the vicinity of the land plots numbered 2 and 3 on your plan.
My direct feelings to this is they are trying to slip something through the back door without proper consultation.
I do not feel any of the sites you have marked in the plan are suitable without major highway improvements due to the grid lock in peak periods. Also a lot of work will be required to prevent flooding as it is now bad in areas around your sites and more hard standing will take away areas for the water to drain slowly away and create more flooding as this water will need to go somewhere.

I have lived in the area for fifty years in Canal Lane. (named Canal Road in the comments)
A local resident spoke to me and said he had laid out some concerns and was going to wright, having showed me his concerns they are the same as my own and can fully agree with the points he has made.
I therefore requested a copy and have attached below to save reinventing the wheel.

I look forward to your comments on how the council will progress with the local plan and to how you will resolve the many issues before granting any developments for the area.

Regards Bob Gee

Comments on the Hatton Estates/Bloor Homes/Marron Housing Development Proposal
Reaction to a proposal by Hatton Estates and Bloor Homes produced by Marrons Planning for the development of an area of land off Birmingham Road between Hatton Park and Canal Road, Hatton Hill, Hatton, Warwickshire.
Introduction
This proposal is a private development proposal to develop a site for 70 to 90 houses of mixed style and function and including some social housing. The site is currently a south facing sloping field under agricultural management. The site is introduced as another option to another site to the south of the Hatton Park estate.
Warwick District Council's preferred option for future housing development is not this site but the site to the South (south east) of Hatton Park. In order to promote this possible option Marrons Planning has produced a document that suggests the 'Canal Road' site has a number of advantages.
Comments
* Green Belt. The site is to the South of the Birmingham Road where historically development within the Green Belt has been refused. Development of this site would significantly affect the visual amenity of the area and destroy an important buffer area between the Birmingham Road and the canal.
* Part of the attraction of the canal system in the area is that it is not over used and providing additional parking and access would not improve the quality of the environment. Should any housing development occur we would not expect residents to be supportive of car parking within a residential area that would adversely affect their privacy and quality of life.
* The site is primarily agricultural land but adjoins the canal network at the Hatton flight of locks which is a historically significant feature and an area of local (arguably national) and natural importance. Privacy and preservation of this area is unlikely to be improved by the development of housing. There could be some important Industrial Archaeology in the area which would need to be investigated, recorded and preserved but it is better that nothing is disturbed by development in the first place.
* The field boundary is surrounded by trees but these are not of sufficient density to screen any development from nearby properties. Any development would be a significant loss of visual amenity as well as an unwanted visual intrusion in the countryside.
.1.
* There is the possibility that there would be a loss of some mature trees during the course of any development and even though compensatory planting might be included in any plans this might not cover the losses. We would hope that the existing trees significant tree would be covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to prevent such incidents.
* The site is not central to the amenities of Hatton Park or indeed connected to Hatton Park in any way. The amenities in Hatton Park are not well used and the village shop in particular struggles to remain a viable business. This development is even further away from a central hub and is unlikely to add additional business to activities within Hatton Park.
* An additional 70 to 90 houses in this location would indeed assist business at The Hatton Arms and possibly The Falcon. The Hatton Arms is now a thriving business that on occasions is too busy with an overloaded car park, especially in the summer months. There have been and are concerns for road safety at the entrance to the Hatton Arms on the Birmingham Road. A development of housing in this area could possibly increase the evident danger.
* The views from the houses on Canal Road that overlook the field would be dramatically changed for the worse and would represent a reduction in the quality of the environment.
* During the 'rush hours' of 07.45 to 09.00 and 17.00 to 18.30 the traffic on the Birmingham Road is often stationary, especially going in to Warwick in the morning. The addition of a new roundabout at the bottom of Hatton Hill would very likely increase the traffic problem. Recently traffic has been witnessed queuing as far back as the Five Ways Island at Wroxall during the morning rush hour.
* The speed limit is 50mph down to 40 mph at the bottom of Hatton Hill and the construction of a road island would very likely increase and not reduce the potential for accidents.
* Local residents would have no wish to see a large traffic island constructed at the bottom of Hatton Hill. The stationary traffic and noise of acceleration away from the island would increase disturbance and pollution levels in the area.
* Adding another 70 to 90 houses in this area would generate a lot more traffic with the potential to cause more congestion at busy times of the day. It would seem that a full traffic study would be required before any such development is considered. This study would also apply to the preferred site nearer to Warwick. In addition it may be necessary to consider a study of the adequacy of the existing infrastructure.
* Already the road drainage in the area of Brownley Green Lane is inadequate with water often flooding the nearby so called lay-bye area adjacent to the Birmingham Road/Beausale Lane junction.
.2.
* The environmental impact of further street lighting in the area could be quite significant. Due to the contour of the land, street lights and housing would be very visible rising up Hatton Hill and no screening would be able to hide the development.
* The concept plan provided by Marrons Planning does not have sufficient detail to comment on the layout, style and density of any proposed properties but as this site is wholly detached from Hatton Park it might not be necessary to use that as a blueprint for design should further consultation occur. This might be a good thing.
* A Birmingham Road crossing point would need further explanation. It is thought that a bridge would be inappropriate in the location.
* A cycle link to the other cycle ways in the area would be welcome.
* Should there be a need to increase the car parking at Hatton locks alternative options might exist that do not involve a significant development of houses with the offer of providing parking as an incentive.
.3

I have recently received a leaflet regarding the proposed development of land between Hatton Park and Canal Road, unfortunately this is the first information I appear to have received. The leaflet provides a clear illustration of a second plan (2) but not for plan 1 (7.7ha )

I would like to know if there are any consultation notes available from any previous meetings. Can you also advise if there are any meetings planned before 20th January which I understand is the end of the consultation period.

I believe I am not alone in my ignorance of what is being propose ( I have spoken to several neighbours who are also unaware) and I am disappointed that this is the case. The leaflet proposes an alternative site which appears to have less impact on the current housing population and pedestrian accesses. If this is the only alternative then I support this plan (2) on the leaflet and wish to register my objection to site 1(7.6 ha in area).

Can you also send me a full plan of what the proposal site 1 ( 7.6 ha) looks like for the councils preferred location, as from the leaflet it is a much larger site and if history is anything to go by, the development of 70 -90 homes will quickly expand to maximise the site and provide the council with more revenue.

Can you also send me the original notification that was sent to all home owners in the area regarding this proposed development and why and where the request for additional housing comes from, or in truth is it that the council simply looking to increase its revenue from new housing!

I apologise for my email requesting so much information, but I do feel, along with many others that we have been left in the dark regarding these plans.

If I was allowed a voice I would strongly object to any further development in the Hatton Park area

My address is
18 Barcheston Mews
Barcheston Drive
Hatton Park
Warwick
CV35 7SZ

Thank you for taking the time to read my email, and I look forward to an early response

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Consultation on new local plan

This response is only concerned with the plan for Burton Green, which if I have to declare an interest is where I live, although it also the case that none of the consultation sites directly affect me personally and I have no financial interest in any of them.

In my opinion the requirement for the village to accommodate a further
70-90 homes is somewhat excessive as this represents a large step change in the population, but if that is what we have to deal with then so be it. However this change must be handled sensitively and with complete transparency to avoid it becoming a source of controversy within the village - as such I am slightly disappointed that this consultation was not more widely publicised, and also that the tone of the documentation is very much that the decision has already been made (within Burton Green we have also had input from the potential developer of the preferred site, which is probably inappropriate).

Looking at the possible sites I would largely agree with the opinions stated within the documentation dismissing the options at the north end of the village (plots 2,5,6) and would additionally comment that these would act to make the village part of Coventry rather than Warwickshire - this is not where the green belt should be impacted. I also agree that the plots on Red Lane (3,4) would reinforce the historical ribbon development and hence again should be discounted. Of the two remaining sites the preferred one at Burrow Hill Nursery does appear to be the best however site 7 (behind houses on Hodgetts Lane and Cromwell Lane) also offers the possibility to 'thicken' the village around the central region and appears comparable assuming that suitable access is available. On this basis my personal preferred outcome is that the housing requirements are divided between site 1 and 7, hopefully helping to maintain a relatively open aspect/lower density for the new housing in order to fit well within the current village. Note that should HS2 happen site 1 will probably be worst affected than site 7 as it will experience the greater construction impacts and operating noise, but in this case it probably becomes even more important that the development is split between the two sites to reduce the concept of living the wrong side of the tracks.

I would further comment that it would be helpful if some of the building plots are made available for self-build so that we do not end up with an 'estate' feel (however nice) but can maintain the illusion of organic growth and preserve the rather random housing styles currently within the village.

Dr Andrew Gibbs

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached