Having defined boundaries to each village will, my opinion, halt the ever increasing spread of development in our beautiful countryside.

keeping style and mix of housing in keeping with the existing village. It is important not only the mix but the style of housing and also the village hall and perhaps including a play group with parking within the village hall. Accessible pavements and footpaths to enable access to the local centres and infrastructure

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

N.B. The following response is the result of Working Party discussions between Rowington Parish Councillors and is therefore subject to formal resolution at the next Council Meeting on February 13th 2014.

1. The results of the recent Parish Design Statement Survey confirmed that a significant number of respondents identified the need for smaller housing units to accommodate both young families with historical roots in the Parish and existing elderly residents wishing to downsize and remain in the parish. Only 17% of residents wished to leave Rowington Parish upon retirement. Anecdotal evidence also supports the view that many young families will already have left Rowington Parish and therefore would not have participated in the survey.
It is appreciated that Warwick District Council are only likely to undertake preliminary analysis of the suitability of sites, with full design solutions being the responsibility of the developers. Where significant infrastructure works are required to overcome specific site issues, the Parish Council is concerned that initial development proposals, which are acceptable to residents and the Parish Council, may not then be financially viable to the developer, or acceptable to WDC, at the density and layout originally proposed. This may lead to pressure being applied to the planners to accept a higher density proposal, or one that is inappropriate, leading perhaps, to withdrawal of the PC's support.
Rowington Parish Council wishes to safeguard the interests of residents who might be directly affected by future developments. However, Rowington Parish Council has no objection in principle to Warwick District Council undertaking further investigation of the Kingswood sites, which are located within the Parish of Rowington, in order to ascertain whether those sites are suitable for development. This agreement is based on further consultation, including the following conditions.

1. Sight of detailed hydrology modelling on sites 1 and 6.
2. Application of criteria based on recent actual occurrence of flooding, to ensure that deficiencies in the hydrological models do not allow development on land prone to flooding without diligent attention to flood mitigation and prevention, particularly with regard to the land to the rear of Kingswood Cottages.
3. Sight of outline proposals regarding housing numbers, to include housing design and mix of housing type/size.
4. Sight of outline and detailed landscaping proposals to include site screening.
5. Agreement and confirmation of the indicative settlement boundary for Kingswood village.
2. Other Sites
Rowington Parish Council has been asked to give consideration to possible small scale development at Rowington and Lowsonford, namely Areas R132, R133 and R152 in the Location Plan of Rowington dated 25 September 2013. These have been stated to be presently off the agenda for the Local Plan.
Continued........../

Continuation....... /

Parish Councillors have recently become aware that Rowington Almshouse Charity has expressed interest in developing further almshouses which it considers are needed within the parish. The Parish Council believes that these almshouses permit elderly and less affluent residents to remain within the parish, with the additional benefit that a homogeneous mix of residents is retained, as far as possible, within the community.
Specifically, Area R133, adjacent to land already owned by Rowington Almshouse Charity, has been identified by the Charity and the Parish Council believes that this should be looked upon favourably by parishioners and the Parish Council. Such support is a requirement of Paragraph 2.16 in the draft Local Plan.
Rowington Parish Council would therefore be prepared to consider, in principle, other small scale developments where appropriate, subject to normal planning rules and including sight of development and traffic management proposals where applicable. In addition, confirmation of site suitability and sustainability, including confirmation that existing drainage facilities have adequate capacity to facilitate the developments at the indicative densities, given the extremely limited infrastructure available in all areas of the parish.

Response to Para.2.16
The Rowington Almshouse Charity would like to see area R133 (land at the apex of Queen's Drive and Old Warwick Road in Rowington) explicitly included in the Local Plan as a potential site for the development of Affordable Housing.
The Rowington Almshouse Charity has been a provider of social housing for more than 100 years and currently provides 19 one-bedroom bungalows in Beech Close and The Avenue.
The Charity's Scheme requires that almshouses be offered to those "in need, hardship or distress and resident in Rowington and adjacent parishes". A test of financial means is applied but there is no age test. Rents are slightly below assessed Fair Rent for social housing.
Over the past decade, trustees have appointed residents of all ages, leading to a diverse, vibrant and self-supporting community. This has also provided valuable and practical insight into the true housing needs for people of limited financial means in the local rural area.
The Charity therefore believes that it is a long-standing Provider of social housing and we are currently exploring being formally recognised as such.
Our experience confirms the population trends described in Sections 2.2 to 2.10, i.e. a stagnant, ageing population with younger working people of modest means being forced to move out of the local rural area because of the lack of affordable housing resulting from the continuing gentrification of both the population and the housing stock. Current almshouse residents include working couples and single people, including divorcees who, having had to leave the family home, would have been forced to move away from the village and from their children if an almshouse had not been available.
Housing need is demonstrated by the fact that there are generally several well-qualified applicants for each almshouse vacancy, and most of these are younger working people of the type described above, demonstrating that it is this segment of the population which currently experiences the greatest housing need.
The Charity has sound finances with substantial reserves, and potential access to further advantageous finance through the Almshouse Association. The trustees are exploring options for a modest development (in the range 4-10 units) of additional 1-2 bedroom units within the Parish, thus making a contribution to a re-balancing of the population profile and a diversification of the housing stock as envisaged in §2.10 (2).
One clear option is an extension to the existing development of Beech Close into area R133. The landowner is sympathetic to the Charity's objectives, giving an excellent basis for collaboration. In addition the Charity is exploring the option of acting as a Section 106 Provider to the proposed development at Meadow House, Kingswood (see our response to §7.10).
Referring to §2.16, we believe that the necessary conditions for a rural exception planning consent would be satisfied as follows:
*We believe that Rowington Parish Council would support such a development
*A previous housing needs survey supported the grant of planning consent for the building in 2006 of two new units on the present almshouse site. We believe that a suitably focused new survey would confirm recent experience from almshouse applications of a significant unmet housing need among younger working people with strong connections to the Parish.
*The Charity believes that it qualifies as a "supportive social housing landlord" as a long-standing provider of social housing in the Parish.
*Area R133 is in the heart of Rowington village, in close proximity to local facilities including Rowington Village Hall, Tennis and Cricket Clubs, The Rowington Club, Allotments, Local bus routes and Itinerant tradesmen (fishmonger, etc).
*Additional affordable housing would increase the utilisation of the above facilities and enhance their sustainability

see attached