I believe this would be the best site for housing as it would link the village together. The school would benefit from some playing fields and parking which is much needed as Hob Lane is an accident waiting to happen at school drop off/pickup times. The village hall would be on site , the village would gain an identity of its own rather than being in danger of getting swallowed up by Coventry . A village green at the corner of Red Lane/Hob/Cromwell lane would give the village a heart and put the GREEN back into Burton Green.

Support the proposals for the preferred option for development of Burrow Hill nursery. Agree with the discounted options, they are unsuitable.

The intake of the local school is 15 pupils per year. The new development is directly next the school and since numbers 75 houses.
With an average of 1.7 dependant children each, if only a third of these are primary school age at any time, it still represents almost half the intake for the school. This will leave undoubtably lead to many people who have lived in the village all their lives being unable to send their children to the village school.

Too many new houses for the size of our village. It represents a 28% increase in numbers and the village cannot sustain this increase without changing its character for the worse.
All the houses are to be built on one site which is too small for the numbers if the estate is not to become an overcrowded ghetto.

There are complex issues to be resolved here.
At least provision should be made for those displaced by HS2 to remain if they want to.
I doubt if anyone will want to buy in the area pending construction of the railway.

I disapprove of the councils preferred option, Option1 and do not like the way it appears to be presented as a 'done deal'. Whilst I am in agreement with a small number of houses being built on your preferred site I have the following general objections:
1. 75 houses quoted is a 28% increase which represents the greatest increase in the county. Why have some village such as Stoneleigh and Bubbenhall been excluded from the Local Plan. I am very concerned that this figure does not include the 28 static caravans which have recently been approved at Le Van on Red Lane which could result in over 100 new residencies being made available in Burton Green. Can the infrastructure such as the local school cope with such numbers?
2. It is completely out of keeping with the character of the village to impose such a large block of houses in one small area. Most housing in Burton Green is ribbon development, consists of very different building styles which adds to the villages character and it is inappropriate to impose a new pattern of building.
3. I believe that there will be very high traffic congestion around Red Lane if all houses are sited here as well as the caravans at Le Van.
4. It will create a community within a community and destroy the cohesiveness of the village.
5. Other potential sites have been dismissed based on weak arguments. For example, Site 6 - the old playing field is visually a mess and one cannot see what else it could be used for in the future, if not housing. Access could be resolved and the landscape impact is no worse than your preferred option 1. I understand that the access issues for Option 2 are easily resolved and question why it would be out of character with the surrounding area when Option 1 is apparently OK. Why is the ribbon development mentioned in Red Lane a problem; that is how Burton Green has evolved. Option 1 is actually the highest site of those proposed so why is this landscape impact not mentioned
6. It is very close to the proposed HS2 railway and I believe this would have a higher impact on the saleability of these properties
7. I believe that the housing should be spread throughout the village which would cause the least impact on the landscape and have the least impact on traffic.

75 houses is too many for a village of this nature

I disapprove of the councils preferred option, Option1 and do not like the way it appears to be presented as a 'done deal'. Whilst I may be in agreement with a small number of houses being built on your preferred site I have the following general objections:
1. 75 houses quoted is a 28% increase which represents the greatest increase in the county. Why have some village such as Stoneleigh and Bubbenhall been excluded from the Local Plan. I am very concerned that this figure does not include the 28 static caravans which have recently been approved at Le Van on Red Lane which could result in over 100 new residencies being made available in Burton Green. Can the infrastructure such as the local school cope with such numbers?
2. It is completely out of keeping with the character of the village to impose such a large block of houses in one small area. Most housing in Burton Green is ribbon development, consists of very different building styles which adds to the villages character and it is inappropriate to impose a new pattern of building.
3. I believe that there will be very high traffic congestion around Red Lane if all houses are sited here as well as the caravans at Le Van.
4. It will create a community within a community and destroy the cohesiveness of the village.
5. Other potential sites have been dismissed based on weak arguments. For example, Site 6 - the old playing is visually a mess and one cannot see what else it could be used for in the future, if not housing. Access could be resolved and the landscape impact is no worse than your preferred option 1. I understand that the access issues for Option 2 are easily resolved and question why it would be out of character with the surrounding area when Option 1 is apparently OK. Why is the ribbon development mentioned in Red Lane a problem; that is how Burton Green has evolved. Option 1 is actually the highest site of those proposed so why is this landscape impact not mentioned
6. It is very close to the proposed HS2 railway and I believe this would have a higher impact on the saleability of these properties
7. I believe that the housing should be spread throughout the village which would cause the least impact on the landscape and have the least impact on traffic.

I support WDC Preferred Option. The site would be large enough to contain all construction work and vehicles/deliveries during the build phase.
If the housing was split all over the village on different sites the congestion caused with pavement parking etc. would cause havoc throughout the village.
The site already has a footprint of old buildings and a lot of concrete areas. It would not be like digging up a beautiful green field and so would preserve the green belt around the village.

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.

I understand from Peter Stanworth that the deadline for responses to this part of the new local plan consultation has been extended to midnight 24 January.

I have now had the opportunity of reading the local plan report and have a number of comments on the proposals to develop the Burrow Hill Nursery site in Burton Green.

Although I am in favour of some development in the area, and have a personal interest in such, as my family wish to purchase a house in the village if possible (we are currently in rented accommodation), I have a number of reservations about the scale of the proposed development.

The proposed development of 75 new houses would incresae the size of the village by nearly 30%. This seems totally disproportionate and would have a significantly detrimental effect on the character of the area. The village itself and the area around the proposed site particularly is characterised by open landscape and a rural and tranquil setting. Clearly, concentrating 75 new houses in 2.51 ha would be very damaging. The setting is on an elevated position and such a large development would clearly have a significant visual impact on the landscape. It is difficult to understand why this is the preferred location given that other areas, such as along Red Lane have been discounted due to the high landscape impact.

Other concerns due to the size of the development include the impact on services in the area. The access from the development would be on to Red Lane, which is a poor road in particular in relation to the lack of visibility due to the incline and blind bends at the top end of the road, near to the proposed site. As well as the fact that increasing traffic on this road could endanger road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, there is also the extra congestion that would be caused by such a large development on local roads, particularly Cromwell Lane, which suffers significant traffic at rush hour in particular. The consultation document is also misleading in its description of local transport connections. Burton Green is a linear village, and whereas it is true that it is 0.4 miles from Tile Hill station, this is only in relation to the north end of the village; the majority of the dwellings are at a significantly greater distance of up to 1.5 miles. This includes the proposed site and as a result most people who use the rail network use their car to access the station or, as is preferred by many, drive to the mainline station in Coventry.

The proposal also relies on the fact that the village has a school. However, it is a very small village school and does not have the capacity to accommodate a significant increase in the population which it serves, without substantial consequent investment. A significant increase in the size of the school would again have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and its amenities.

Finally, the area of Burton Green currently experiences significant disruption to its water supply with loss of pressure/supply featuring regularly due to the booster being unable to cope. Extra demand on the service would only exacerbate the considerable inconvenience this causes.

Most of these issues would not be a significant problem if the scale of the development proposed was in proportion to the size of the existing village and the amenities it has. A serious review of the proposal needs to be undertaken to ensure that it is a sustainable development and not one that damages the character of the area and the quality of life of its residents. For these reasons, I object to the proposal as it currently stands.

Warwick District Council Local Plan
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation

We believe the following are important considerations that need to be taken into account when determining the Local Plan for Burton Green.

* The existing nature of the village needs to be maintained at all costs i.e. open aspect, rural views, low density housing.
* Burton Green should remain a village with an independent identity and that Coventry or Solihull developments do not spread into the Parish boundary i.e the 'Crackley Gap' is maintained.
* That the village is enhanced by any future development and that development should add to the long term sustainability of the community; such as a new improved village hall, homes for young families and those looking to down size but remain in Burton Green, improved parking at the school and creating recreational and open spaces.
* That the impact of the Local Plan, HS2 developments and local needs are considered holistically not separately.

We agree that Greenbelt needs to be maintained as much as possible to retain the rural and open aspect of the village. The proposed boundaries look about right, provided it does not allow back garden developments that would be out of character to the rest of the village.

Any new development should be low density and include a mixture of housing to encourage young families to the village and bungalows for elderly residents to down size to.

We believe the preferred site (Burrow Hill Nurseries) is the most suitable location for new development providing it contains a new improved village hall linking it with the school and recreational space - irrespective of HS2 the current hall is running out of capacity and does not have sufficient open space or parking. Also the development should have rural building density not urban levels as presently proposed. 75 houses is too high for the site to retain the rural nature of Burton Green. Also the development should be used as an opportunity to provide an improvement to the pavements in Red Lane which are too narrow and in a poor state of repair, hindering access for Red Lane residents to the centre of the village and school.

In order to spread housing development across the village we believe site 2 (behind the Peeping Tom) would be suitable for a small additional development, we do not however, believe this site is suitable for the village hall as it would move the centre of the village too far towards Coventry and alienate further residents in Hob Lane and Red Lane and potentially set the village on a pathway to joining with Coventry. We would like to see any development creating a new centrally located heart of the village that will make a more cohesive and inclusive environment for all to share including green/play space with links to the school and potential new village hall.

We are aware of a proposal by local land owners for site 7 as presented at the Parish Council meeting 20th January. We believe this to be a wholly unsuitable site. Apart from it being out of character to the village, residents on Hodgetts Lane would be effectively surrounded by HS2 construction to the front of their properties and this construction to the rear, what a miserable position to be in! It also has only a single access point close to the existing junction with Hodgetts Lane, creating difficulties for emergency services and additional congestion around the two junctions.

We do not believe sites 5 & 6 are suitable as they would start to close the 'Crackley Gap'.

We do not believe sites 3 or 4 are suitable as they would be out of character with Red Lane and would be a hazard on the already narrow stretches of Red lane.

Land that will be sterilised until after HS2 construction, e.g the existing village hall site and land above the green tunnel, should be earmarked for new village facilities such as wildlife area, skate park, exercise area etc.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposals.

I have tried unsuccessfully to respond using the electronic consultation system. It said it recognises my email address - reason unknown - but I have no password. Hence a response by email.

VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS

I am responding to the whole of the document but particularly that part of the Local Plan referring to Burton Green, especially pages 40 and 41.
Page 41 shows a plan of Burton Green with a hatched area across the page. I am told that this corresponds to the proposed track of the HS2 railway. It is not defined in the index. It does not show the portals of the tunnel and the land generated over it.
The following are my opinions:
General
The village at present is in turmoil with the prospect of the construction of the HS2 railway. During the construction phase life is likely to become very unpleasant with disruption in all aspects. It is very unlikely that future residents will wish to move to Burton Green with this in mind. This has not been discussed in the Local Plan.
I suggest that no decision about future housing in Burton Green is taken until the decision has been made to start work on the HS2 project.
Concentration of housing (75 dwellings) in one plot as the preferred option at plot 1 is not acceptable.
* It is inappropriate and out of character with the ribbon development of the village
* It is the highest part of Burton Green and therefore has the most visual impact
* It is not central to the village with only a few houses down one side of the plot
* It will cause major traffic congestion in the Red Lane area (an additional 100+ cars)
* Such a concentration of new residents in one isolated area will result in lack of integration into the village and loss of cohesion as a whole.
* The proposed site will receive the blast of passing trains emerging and entering the south portal of the tunnel should HS2 go ahead.
I do not understood why an expansion of ribbon development is detrimental. The position of the houses in the village is the reason for many people coming to live in Burton Green.

Number of extra houses required.
WDC has proposed an increase of 75 houses. This is an increase of 28% of the housing stock in the village, the largest in Warwickshire. Burton Green has few amenities. It thus seems out of proportion. It seems unreasonable that Ashow for example is not expected to accept more houses.
The number of proposed houses should be much reduced. I would suggest that 60 houses could be readily absorbed throughout the whole village with little disturbance of character (see below).

Suggestions
In my opinion 60 new houses should be spread fairly and equally throughout the village by using plots 1 to 7. Land generated by the HS2 tunnel could well be used to provide a central area for some housing (The HS2 photomontage shows a new house built on the tunnel).
This would:
* Be in keeping with the character of the village
* Produce least visual impact
* Produce least traffic congestion
* Allow integration of new residents more readily into the village
* Would be easily deliverable using a variety of developers
Access has been stated as a problem to some plots. Access is readily obtained by purchasing the necessary property as is already taking place on one plot.
I know the Council is concerned about spread between Coventry and Kenilworth but development on plots 5 and 6 is limited by Lodge Farm and surrounding buildings.
A Village Hall (funding agreed by HS2) and playing fields can be incorporated into any of the plots.
If 5 houses were built on Plot1 along Hob Lane this would provide the connectivity that is mentioned with the remainder of the Lane.
INDICATIVE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
I do not understood why the area shown on the plan does not include the whole of the village in Red Lane. The whole of Red Lane within the village should be included.
The line should be drawn just beyond the building edge to prevent garden development in the gardens.
GENERAL
No plan will satisfy all residents within the village but the above appears a reasonable compromise without a major alteration in the character of the village.

Warwick District's Rural Areas

Warwick District, while in population terms mainly urban, has attractive rural areas. The quality of the District's countryside, and the conservation value of many of its villages, are major assets. They play a major part in making the District attractive to live and work in.

The size of the District and the short distances between the villages and the main towns mean that the District does not have a 'rural economy'. Links between the villages and the towns are close and social distinctions are few. There is no justification for development in any of the District's villages for economic or social purposes, except for some limited social (rented) housing to meet local needs. And because of the short distances, that need may be met in a different village from where it arises without adverse effects.

It is important to stress that there has been tight control on development in Warwick District's villages for 40-50 years. The designation of Conservation Areas in a number of the District's villages took place in 1967-75, mostly prior to the creation of Warwick District Council (April 1974). From 1974 the policies of the District Council have successfully maintained a strict control on development in most villages, especially those within the Green Belt. Limited new housing has been permitted, with one major development on an old hospital complex - Hatton Park.

It would be damaging and regrettable if the New Local Plan were to undermine this success because of a controversial estimate of the requirement for new housing. The balance of urban and rural areas has been firmly established over the last 40 years and very strong justification would be needed to disturb it.




The Green Belt

Warwick District's rural areas are mostly designated Green Belt. This Green Belt status dates from the 1960s with the Green Belt being formally confirmed in 1975. It is thus 50 years old and has played a large role in conserving the character of the District.

The villages within the Green Belt have been 'washed over' and have not been inset (omitted from the Green Belt). It is important to stress this. Successive Structure and Local Plans have been adopted with the Green Belt being continuous. Gaps in the Green Belt, notably the 'white island' of 'white land' or non-Green Belt land at Lapworth (Kingswood), were replaced by as 'washed-over' status for the whole villages.

When Hampton Magna, and more recently Hatton Park, were developed, the Green Belt status was kept. They were not excluded and 'inset'. This enabled consistent planning policy to be applied over the whole area west of Warwick.

The effectiveness of the District's Green Belt is shown by the fact that the rural areas of Warwick District have remained unchanged, or little changed, in the last 40 years. The strict control of development that the Green Belt has provided has been on major benefit.

No harmful or adverse effects on the District's economic performance have been identified as resulting from the Green Belt. The attractive countryside and villages that it has facilitated are more likely to have assisted it by providing an attractive living environment.

The fundamental feature of the Green Belt is that it provides openness. The low density development of most villages, with areas of open land within them, is protected by Green Belt designation. New houses (infill) or house extensions can be strictly controlled and refused if they would harm openness of the Green Belt. This principle has been effective in application where large house extensions or rebuilds, or new buildings such as stables, would be harmful to the character of a village.


CPRE's view of the proposal to remove Green Belt status from several villages


In our view it is not necessary to remove Green Belt status from a village in order to permit some new development within existing villages or in some cases on their edge. Some development within the Green Belt is permitted, subject to all relevant factors including sustainability and the impact on the environment and openness of the area. Conditions can be imposed to avoid unnecessary impacts.

Removal of green belt status from the land within a village boundary will remove the Green Belt controls restrictions set out in the NPPF. This would make possible applications for development which would increase housing density, and the bulk and height of houses; which would be refused were Green Belt status to remain. Removal of Green Belt protection creates the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity, and openness will be lost.

CPRE would prefer to see some villages designated as suitable for "limited infill" without removing Green Belt status. As the title suggests this allows very limited infill with detailed limitations on such matters as the amount and type and design of any infilling. Blanket removal of green belt protection has the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity.

We are also concerned that a number of Neighbourhood Plans are under development and more are likely in the future. Decisions about green belt status should not be used to undermine the possible wishes of residents and other interested parties.

We urge that a more careful approach is taken to the development of each village with appropriate conditions on such matters as the amount, type, style and design of development in the village. Each village should receive individual consideration.

There should therefore be a strong presumption against changing the Green Belt in Warwick District. The Draft Local Plan proposals for removing several villages from the Green Belt and 'insetting' them would revive the 'white islands' that were eliminated in the 1970s. To create areas in the middle of the Green Belt which are not covered by Green Belt policy risks allowing overdevelopment and an undermining of the character of villages.

Affordable housing - generally rented Housing Association housing - can be permitted in villages while they remain 'washed over by the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at para 86 that

"If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt."

In Warwick District the majority of villages contribute to the openness of the Green Belt and should therefore remain washed over by the Green Belt.

A particular type of settlement in the Green Belt in Warwick District where removal from that status would be harmful to openness is the elongated settlement, generally a single road, where housing was developed in the interwar era and in some cases up to the 1960s. CPRE considered that in these cases openness is retained by use of strict Green Belt controls; those would be lost if the Local Plan were to crease 'white islands', contrary to all past Council and Government practice.


CPRE's response on the proposals for individual villages

The following settlements (mostly villages) now 'washed over' by Green Belt are proposed for removal from it:
Baginton, Burton Green, Hampton Magna, Hatton Park, Kingswood (Lapworth), Leek Wootton, Hill Wootton, Hatton Station, and Shrewley.

Outside the Green Belt the following settlements are proposed to have significant new housing:

Barford, Bishop's Tachbrook, Radford Semele.


Baginton: Baginton is an elongated village close to Coventry. It makes a contribution to openness as it is. Its closeness to Coventry makes Baginton very sensitive to new development. It should be retained as it is now with washed-over status.

Barford: Not in the Green Belt. Any development on the land around Barford House is strongly opposed. This has been refused twice now on clear conservation grounds. Locations 1, 2 and 3 will probably be suitable over time, but have problems of access.

Bishops Tachbook: CPRE would wish to see the location for any new housing determined by local opinion and the Parish Council.

Burton Green: Burton Green is mainly a long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove Burton Green from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Burton Green should stay with 'washed-over; status.

Cubbington: The village is not in the Green Belt. The proposed site should be reduced in size to Location no 1 only, eliminating the projection northwards into countryside that site 2 would result in.

Hampton Magna: the historic village (Hampton-on-the-Hill) is within the Green Belt. The new (1960s/70s) settlement was tightly drawn to the area of the former barracks. The site is prominent on the hill west of the A46. Retaining Green Belt status is justified. If this were to be lost, there could be intensification of development at Hampton Magna resulting in more intrusion and a loss of openness.

Hatton Park (former Hatton Hospital site): This was retained in the Green Belt when the extensive new housing was permitted. It is accepted that this location could be taken out of the Green Belt without major harm.

Hatton Station: this is a set of houses built south of the station in around 1970 on former railway land. This is not a village as Hatton Village (church, school) is some way to the east. There is no justification for removing this loose grouping of houses from the Green Belt. The present level of development does retain openness, but intensification would harm openness.

Hill Wootton: This is an attractive small village, which helps create openness of the Green Belt. The proposal for up to 5 dwellings in the village (if achievable) does not justify the removal of the village from the Green Belt.

Kingswood (Lapworth): This is another long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove the Kingswood part of Lapworth from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Kingswood should retain 'washed-over; status. (It is this area which was 'white land' within the Green Belt until a Local Plan Inquiry in the late 1970s.)

Leek Wootton: This village is attractive and makes a contribution to the Green Belt by its openness. It should remain 'washed over'. We oppose the suggested new housing sites 1-3.. The conversion to residential units of Woodcote House (on departure of Warwickshire |Police) is reasonable. But this does not justify removing the whole of Leek Wootton from the Green Belt, and as a conversion can be undertaken while the site remains Green Belt.

Radford Semele: Not in the Green Belt. CPRE would support the option (if any) which is preferred by the local residents and Parish Council.

Shrewley: The two small housing sites at the south end of the village against the railway cutting are capable of being fitted in to the village with the right design. The scale of this development is small and does not justify taking the whole village out of the Green Belt. The village should stay 'washed-over'.

Aylesbury House Hotel near Hockley Heath: there is no justification for permitting new housing in the Green Belt around the existing building. Conversion to residential (flats) of the old building (the Hotel) can be undertaken without changing the Green Belt status.

Oak Lee, Finham: this is a location which could be developed - it is trapped land between Warwick Lane and the A46 Kenilworth Bypass.

I would prefer not to have any new housing in Burton Green as it will have a huge impact on the infrastructure e.g roads. Cromwell Lane already takes a huge amount of traffic and building 75 houses will create circa 150 further vehicles (based on two cars per household) using Cromwell Lane. Also this will take away the village environment, which is why I came to live here!

SUPPORT

If I have to choose one it would be 1. Burrow Hill Nursery - Preferred option by Council. This will not have such a significant landscape impact and keep the ribbon development as is.

see attached

Burton Green Parish Council (BGPC) notes the timing of the Local Plan and response date is running out of synch with the work being undertaken by BGPC in developing a Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood plan will include a full consultation with the community on the potential housing options and the 'planning environment' within Burton Green. As the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan process will not be delivered until after this Local Plan consultation closes, this response is an interim response based on evidence collected via the Parish Plan and housing Needs Survey's collected in 2013. BGPC will continue to engage with WDC over the Local Plan through the Neighbourhood Plan process and present further evidence following the Neighbourhood plan event in February.

Key themes that arose from the Parish Plan questionnaire were that residents valued the rural location, open views and pleasant location. Residents are also concerned by the impact of HS2 on the sustainability of the village and in particular are concerned that it could drive families away leading to the closure of the school. Most people did not want development at all in the village and those that did preferred schemes which did not intrude on the principles set out below. See extracts from Parish Plan appendix 1 attached.


Taking the above points into account, criteria that the BGPC believe is important to Burton Green:

* The existing nature of the village is maintained i.e. open aspect, rural views, low density housing.
* Burton Green remains a village/independent identity and that Coventry developments do not spread. i.e the 'Crackley Gap' is maintained.
* That the village is enhanced by any future development and that it adds to the long term sustainability of the community; such as a new improved village hall, improving parking at the school and creating recreational and open space.
* That the impact of the Local Plan, HS2 developments and local needs are considered holistically.


To this end we have the following comments:

Theme: Scale of development

Burton Green is a ribbon development consisting of 387 properties. When first presented the WDC Local Plan proposed 50-80 houses in the village, which at the time we considered a significant increase. With the latest version the number of proposed properties has grown to 70- 90 properties, which has an even more significant impact on the village targeting nearly 25% growth, and BGPC has a concern that development of that scale would alter the linear nature of the village as it is unlikely that those properties could be accommodated within the current ribbon development as evidenced by the sites highlighted in the Local Plan document. Also the proposed numbers were to take into account properties destroyed by HS2, current HS2 proposals have a much smaller number of properties impacted than previously thought. Therefore any new developments should be below or at the lower end of the scale proposed.

Theme: Environmental and Character impact

The existing rural and open character of the village needs to be maintained as this is highly prized by current residents. Therefore, maintaining as much as the current greenbelt is paramount, which the Local Plan appears to do.

Within the original Local Plan draft a peri-urban park was proposed, which would have ensured an important green space between Burton Green and Coventry and enhanced the local environment and habitats. We are therefore disappointed that the wildlife corridor plans appear to have been shelved, as we believe it is imperative to retain a green corridor to prevent the urbanisation and the coalescence of settlements and in some way redress the damage of HS2.

As noted above residents favour developments which would help to maintain the character of the village. None of the 7 options considered totally achieve this objective.

However, having heard from representatives in relation to sites numbered 1, 2 and 7 as set out in the Council's Consultative document we can see advantages in site number 1
It could create a new heart for the village by bringing the school, village hall and a village green together whilst avoiding urbanisation with Coventry. It would also alleviate to some degree parking problems associated with the school and the greenway. However we would argue for a smaller development, than the 75 properties proposed. This would ensure low density housing to maintain the rural village nature and minimise the impact on the local views and amenities. Within such a development there is a need for low cost housing to encourage young families to support the school, bungalows to allow elder residents to downsize, and there is an opportunity to provide housing to replace the existing almshouses that are likely to be demolished by HS2. Our main concerns about the preferred site other than the number of properties are the interaction with HS2 construction which will require careful planning and coordination, safe access off Red Lane and sufficient screening off the site and throughout it to maintain the rural feel.

By restricting the number of houses on the preferred site further smaller developments could also be progressed over time if the right land is put forward. Sites 2 and 7 though smaller than any proposed on development site 1 cannot in our view create a village centre, that is a hall, playing field/village green and parking, and provide housing at the same time. We expect to have more information on this following the Neighbourhood Plan consultation.

At present there is no real consideration for HS2, any development that is needed to address the housing need arising from HS2 demolitions, including the Village Hall, needs to be completed before HS2 work starts. Also as this plan is for the long term it needs to address land released by HS2 post construction. For example, there should be consideration given to using the land above the tunnel to provide green space, such as community orchards, allotments, skate parks or nature reserves which are some of the suggestions from the Parish Plan.

In summary, we broadly support the Local Plan but are concerned about:
* The number of properties proposed for the village.
* Getting the development right on the preferred site.
* Interaction and coordination with HS2.
* Capturing Neighbourhood plan input into the process


It is also the view of the Council that within Burton Green the green belt should extend to cover gardens associated with dwellinghouses to deter a development of those gardens on a piecemeal basis.

I am responding to the above consultation by email as, despite the consultation period being extended to Friday 24 January, the website consultation process was shut down on 20 January and I am not, therefore able to use that mechanism which would have been my preferred mechanism. Also as a result I have no information on the questions that the council are seeking consultation on and I have therefore responded in a free form fashion.

1. the plans seem to place great emphasis on the fact that the demographics of the rural community are both different from the urban community and have changed over the period 2001-2011. I do not disagree with this but I note that this has been the case since the mid 18th century in England and can not, therefore, be a logical and rationale basis for basing housing proposals on.
2. the plans refer to concerns about the impact of developments on local infrastructure but, certainly for Burton Green, contain no practical proposals to resolve these issues; this increases the likeyhood of development such as that in Balsall Common a few years ago where local medical and dental facilities were overwhelmed and remain wholly inadequate.
3. the plans also refer to the impact on infrastructure, such as roads, drainage and sewage but, again, have no concrete proposals to deal with these issues. For example effectively covering the 2.51 hectare Burrows Nursery site will dramatically increase run off down Red Lane which, as you will be aware from work you had to carry out to alleviate flooding to my property, is already particularly vulnerable to this type of flooding. Additionally, as you will, also be aware from your own traffic statistics, Red Lane is already heavily trafficked (for what should be a rural lane) because of traffic heading for Warwick University and business park and suffers from a high accident rate for such a road. Development such as that proposed would require a complete rebuild and reconfiguration of Red Lane and very substantial related flood alleviation works but this does not seem to be addressed in the proposals.
4. the proposals do, quite correctly in my view, place a considerable value on landscape; unfortunately the proposed development would be on one of the highest points of Burton Green and, consistent with other comments in the overall proposals, this would have a very high landscape value which does not appear to have been factored into the decision to choose this particular site.
5. assuming that the development would be of typical modern build properties, they would be wholly out of character with the rest of the village and the development would be in danger of becoming a ghetto separate from the rest of the village. If there is to be development in Burton Green, which I am not opposed to as a matter of principle (subject to my other comments above), it should be small scale developments in a wide variety of locations in the village to enable new residents to integrate as quickly as possible into the existing community instead of looking at a single site to meet the requirements. This would have the added benefit that those sites currently discarded for access reasons, in particular, could again be suitable development sites.
6.the proposals do mention HS2 in passing but , assuming that this development goes ahead where it is currently planned, it will be very heavily affected during the construction phase and once complete; this alone would call into question, in my mind, its suitability for development.

You will, I am sure, gather from the foregoing that, while, as I say above, not opposed to development in Burton Green per se, the current proposal seems to me to be poorly thought through and wholly unsuitable

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