Baginton was identified as a Primary Service Village with services and facilities suitable to accommodate 70-90 dwellings under the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report in May 2013 this has been reduced to only 35 dwellings. This is due to contamination, flooding and historical constraints which has eliminated four alternative option sites; not due to the village not being appropriate. However, the density proposed on the preferred site is also below the full capacity as a result of the need for a high level of environmental screening. Whilst this may be necessary to make development of the site acceptable, it should be considered in light of the likely increase in the District housing requirement as demonstrated by the emerging evidence base.

Village Centre - creating and connecting this - the village by nature is sprawling and not sure that locating development preference of site 1, is necessary for village centre, by nature of the occupants and the community it is a village from Red Lane to Hodgetts Lane and the outer boundaries of Burton Green

The proposals for Cubbington do not seem to have taken into account the impact of HS2 on residents living to the East of Coventry Road. we are already highly likely to suffer noise and environmental pollution as a results of the construction and running of the railway. Construction on prosed site 2 in Cubbington would add to the noise and would prevent quiet enjoyment of our homes even further, being sadnwiched between HS2 and a new estate which would entirely change the character of our immediate locale.

Having read your consultation document and attended your road show I would like to make a personal comment on the plans as they apply to Burton Green.
Firstly, with reference to p.27 :Table 3 :Chapter 5 - Burton Green/Environmental Issues: I find it incomprehensible that whilst the table indicates that several sites were rejected because of issues with HS2, the preferred site option is possibly the site most affected by HS2 site of all. The site is adjacent to the proposed line of track and will be opposite the point at which site construction traffic will be at its heaviest, it will also be the point at which once the track is complete will be the marshalling point for all maintenance traffic and it will be the site most affected by noise as it is opposite the proposed site of the southern portal to the cut and cover tunnel and will be subject to severe "startle effect" as trains enter and exit the tunnel.

Secondly, with reference Chapter 7 /Settlement Plan 4/Burton Green: The proposal to build at least 75 new dwellings on such a constrained site will:
[a] Have an exceedingly detrimental effect on the nature and character of the village.
[b] Such variety of buildings will perforce mean that they are small, crowded and lacking personal recreation space[gardens] will suffer restricted parking and generally change the demographics of the village detrimentally.
[c] Services in Burton Green, particularly water supplies, [delivery pressure], are already poor - such a density of housing will only further exacerbate the problem. Local surgeries are already reluctant to take on people from Burton Green and despite your claims that transport links are good - a bus every 2 hours twice a week cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a good link with Kenilworth.
[d] The site as chosen would need to have either access or exit roads on either Hob Lane or Red Lane - neither of these roads is suitable for such additional traffic entering and exiting the site without major reconstruction - again further altering the character of the village detrimentally.
[e] I cannot see why such a density of housing is required in one restricted area and believe that the number of units could be substantially reduced whilst still adhering to the seemingly arbitrary requirements set by some faceless planner in Central Government.

VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS (VHO)

Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council (BTPC) wishes to make the following comments: -

1 General Observations

1.1 BTPC accepts that rural settlements should be expanded by accommodating new housing that will help the District fulfil its overall housing numbers.

1.2 We do not agree with the contrived village hierarchy - it's full of inconsistencies. Each rural community should be assessed on an individual basis.

1.3 We recognise that due to demographic and societal changes it is probable that all rural settlements, not just those selected in this consultation, might be capable of and benefit from some new housing.

1.4. Sites for such housing must be selected with care and in conjunction with each rural community, as they prepare their Neighbourhood Plans. Top down imposition is not acceptable, but help from officers to identify and evaluate possible sites for development is very welcome.

1.5 Communities in villages would find growth more acceptable if they were encouraged to identify possible sites and to select small local builders rather than the process being lead by large speculative developers.

1.6 Sites should be small in scale to assist with integration of newcomers into the existing community. This will also smooth entrant numbers into the local primary schools and minimise population stratification, so phasing of the development over the planned period is very important.

1.7 With a consistent approach we think that the number of new houses in rural settlements could be greater than the 937 proposed. But this will require the exercise to be extended to include ALL rural settlements, so increasing from 13 to 22/24 the number of settlements to be included.

2 BT Specifics

2.1 We agree with the Overview of Findings relating to Bishop's Tachbrook on Table 3 on page 27 of the village housing options paper.
2.2 Because of the way the village has evolved, especially the new housing built in the 70's and 80's, the village envelope is very strongly defined. Previous site reviews show that there are hardly any spaces for in-fill development - with perhaps sites for just 6-10 houses. This is not surprising because this was the District's intention when the original village was extended in the 60's and 70's and all the land included in the envelope was planned for.

2.3 As part of its Neighbourhood Plan process the Working Group has commissioned a study from Urban Vision to assess all sites in and around the village. Their draft report is just in and has considered the 3 sites referred to in the VHO as well as 10 other possible sites. There is potential for some of the local plan requirement to be met on some of these sites reducing the numbers required on Site 1.

2.4 Also as part of its Neighbourhood Plan process a community consultation took place on Saturday the 18th January. The unanimous opinion of residents was that if additional housing is required in the village then Site 1 is the best location and it should be phased and limited in total to 70 homes or thereabouts. There was absolutely no support for sites 2 or 3.

2.5 In addition the PC now has the results of a Housing Need Survey conducted by WRHA in December 2013. The 250 completed questionnaires represent a high response rate. Its findings are that our community needs 15 new homes, of which 10 should be "market" and 5 "affordable. This is consistent with the Housing Need Survey carried out in 2009.

2.6 We have participated with Stephen Hay in his review of sites immediately adjacent to the village envelope; and agree in principle with the Preferred Option set out on pp38/39 of the report.

2.7 However we are not able to agree the number of new houses suggested for Site 1. The feedback summarised in paras 2.4 and 2.5 above underpin the reasons for this objection.

2.8 BTPC has major concerns on the number indicated of 150 houses. This would represent more than an 18 % increase in the village housing stock and a 20% increase in our population. We note that this is higher than any other rural community in the District; and we have to ask why this scale of development is being considered when 4500 new houses are being proposed on sites within 2 miles of Bishop's Tachbrook. This is an overwhelming number and would damage community life and the rural setting of the village. We would like the number being required from Bishop's Tachbrook reduced and made up from settlements not yet included in the Primary and Secondary villages mentioned in para 5.9 of the VHO

2.9 Traffic on Oakley Wood Road is already a concern with morning peak volume @1910 and evening @ 1809 according to the Transport Assessment (Phase 3) With the developments set out in the Local Plan per para 2.7 these figures are predicted to rise by 45% and 46% respectively.

2.10 A similar study should be carried out for Mallory Road which is already heavily used by commuters to reach the M40 from Leamington, passing through the centre of the village. The junction of Mallory Road and Banbury Road (B4100) has a bad accident record.

2.11 The Tollgate House site has been granted to have 6 houses built on it. This number could be increased. There are other small sites around the parish - see para 2.3 above - that might be brought forward for small numbers of housing and these are being taken into consideration in our Neighbourhood Plan.

SUMMARY

3.1 A second phase VHO should be set in train immediately to address the opportunities for new housing across all rural settlements in the District, through phased development over the planned period. By spreading the housing requirement more realistically the pressure on infrastructure will be reduced.

3.2 The maximum number of new houses on Site 1 in BT should be set at 70. Part of the site should be reserved for future expansion of the school facilities and the majority of the new housing should be on the lower slopes of the site avoiding the higher part towards the crest of the hill. The southern arc of the site within the gas no development zone to form a green boundary deep enough to have amenity value and mask as much as possible the noise from the M40. This could be designated as either Green Belt by the Local Plan or Local Green Space and include Site 3 that was considered in the VHO.

3.3 WDC Planning should reject all other housing developments in the parish above 5 units.

Settlement Boundaries

4 The VHO should specify the rural area policies that will apply to any land outside the agreed village boundaries, in particular non-green belt villages per para 6.9 on page 32. This could allow "exception sites" for small, appropriate developments to be brought forward as is the case in the current Local Plan.




BTPC 20 Jan 14

see attached