see attached

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.

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

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Some points on the website Appendix 6 that need amending......

P323 "there are two bus stops within 250 yrds of site." There is one pick up point by the phone box at Oakdene Crescent. It is a TWO buses a week service! That may be where the TWO comes from.

P327 "adjoins Hatton Park Station" delete Park

P328 Under the Heading Landscape Characteristic Assessment last para. There is reference to development of the zone and the three small fields to the south of the zone. No one understands this! Is there a mix up with another site? Also reference to the River Alne Local Wildlife Site. Is there such a thing? The stream eventually goes into the Alne to the west of Henley in Arden!

Page 49 in the booklet and on the website. The blue arrow for primary access to site 1 goes through the Station Car Park!

see attached

see attached

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.

See attached

see attached

see attached