I wish to object to the proposed redesignation of village boundaries at Hatton Station :

(1) as far as it facilitates development on existing green belt land, and in particular the areas highlighted as "preferred" in the plan, I find the expansion of Hatton Station wholly unjustifiable in terms of major irreversible detriment to local environment and a false assessment of any future beneficial impact on sustainability.

(2) I strongly refute the specific proposal relating to the site at the rear of Oakden/Antrobus Close which is a valuable local amenity with many natural benefits to the local community and wildlife.

We strongly object to the Oakdene Crescent development.
The site is a natural habitat for wild animals, including several endangered species.
The area in general suffers from poor drainage and sewage services which will not be helped by further building.
Access to the proposed site is poor. There are existing parking and safety issues in Oakdene as result of a recent development. This road is frequently blocked when deliveries are made. Further building will add greatly to the current safety issues.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposed policy.

Network Rail is the "not for dividend" owner and operator of Britain's railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations - the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network.

Network Rail has the following comments to make.

Hatton Station - Network Rail would highlight that proposals to provide additional housing in the village should be accompanied by S106/CIL developer contributions towards improved access/passenger facilities at the station, given that development is likely to increase patronage with increased footfall at the station as a result of the increased number of dwellings.

Shrewley - sites identified for housing are positioned at the top of a railway cutting. Developers will need to seek advice from our asset protection team to ensure that the necessary measures/advice are in place to prevent any proposals from impacting upon the safety, integrity and operation and performance of the railway..

Where growth areas or significant housing allocations are identified close to existing rail infrastructure it is essential that the potential impacts of this are assessed. Many stations and routes are already operating close to capacity and a significant increase in patronage may create the need for upgrades to the existing infrastructure including improved signalling, passing loops, car parking, improved access arrangements or platform extensions. As Network Rail is a publicly funded organisation with a regulated remit it would not be reasonable to require Network Rail to fund rail improvements necessitated by commercial development. It is therefore appropriate to require developer contributions or CIL contributions to fund such railway improvements; it would also be appropriate to require contributions towards rail infrastructure where they are directly required as a result of the proposed development and where the acceptability of the development depends on access to the rail network.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that councils should, "work with...transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development...or transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of ...other major generators of travel demand in their areas." Also, "encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plan, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport."

The likely impact and level of improvements required will be specific to each station and each development meaning standard charges and formulae may not be appropriate. Therefore in order to fully assess the potential impacts, and the level of developer contribution required, it is essential that where a Transport Assessment is submitted in support of a planning application that this quantifies in detail the likely impacts on the rail network.

To ensure that developer contributions can deliver appropriate improvements to the rail network we would recommend that the Warwick - Local Plan Consultation - Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries include provisions for rail. The policy should include the following:

A requirement for developer contributions to deliver improvements to the rail network, including any development that occurs as a consequence of the Warwick - Local Plan Consultation - Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries.
* A requirement for Transport Assessments to take cognisance of impacts to existing rail infrastructure to allow any necessary developer contributions towards rail to be calculated.
* A commitment to consult Network Rail where development may impact on the rail network and may require rail infrastructure improvements. In order to be reasonable these improvements would be restricted to a local level and would be necessary to make the development acceptable. We would not seek contributions towards major enhancement projects which are already programmed as part of Network Rail's remit.

Improvements to rail transport contribute to the public good and railway developments should not be expected to support other public projects. Our infrastructure projects and station developments and improvements support regeneration, increase the attractiveness of settlements and benefit communities.

I believe some limited development is suitable within Hatton Station, on the proviso that any new housing is accompanied by the provision of amenities and facilities for the benefit of local residents, including:

- abatement of noise from the M40
- provision of a play area for children, with equipment suitable for a relatively wide age range
- provision of allotments for local residents
- improvements to pedestrian access from the principal residential area to the railway station
- upgrade to sewerage system in the event that further properties are to be connected to it

Development should be limited in numbers, whichever (if any) potential sites are recommended. The vehicular ingress and egress to the site at the rear of Oakdene Crescent is constrained by on-road parking and this site is therefore not suitable for the number of dwellings being proposed.

The site to the west of the old Station Road is in my opinion suitable for a ribbon of housing along the road frontage, provided of course the road itself is brought back to sufficient width for two vehicles to pass and is resurfaced.

The site at The Dell is not suitable for the numbers of houses being proposed and the landowner should be obliged to restore the trees, wild flowers and natural habitat which has been consciously removed during recent months to reduce the potential barriers to obtaining consent for development on this site.

The boundary of the village settlement to the north of the railway station should be drawn much closer to the buildings at Oakslade Farm. The plot of the farm and "garden" is far too large and would I believe risk a very large number of houses being built if approved. The land is currently not used in the manner of a domestic garden.

Hatton Station is the only village of the 15 listed located on a country lane. A lane which is narrow and has a number of difficult bends (report by planning officer to committee 21/05/203). For drivers negotiating walkers, cyclists and horses is difficult and dangerous, particularly on bends. How much more so with increased traffic. There is no pavement for walkers to use, and no grass verges for anyone to escape onto - including cars meeting larger vehicles. This is not the only traffic hazard which would increase greatly with a greater volume of traffic. The junction with the station approach is invisible to anyone driving from the Pinley direction over the railway bridge. Leaving the station it is impossible to see over the bridge to your left and to your right there is a dip in the road into which cars disappear and when they appear again they are almost upon you. The station is well used and an increased volume of traffic would make this junction even more hazardous. The junction with Oakdene Cresent is also dangerous. I can support comments made about parking/congestion in Oakdene Crescent, but not only is access to the sight poor but to the village as a whole.
I can also support comments on sewage/drainage. I have a cess pit. When we came here 26 years ago we tried to be joined to mains drainage which we had been lead to believe could be done for a fee. We were firmly told that the system was full to capacity and could not take even one more. Apparently, a difficulty being that all services have to go over the railway and canal bridges. Another difficulty of access.
I see that an early years nursery is listed as an asset. This is a commercially run nursery recently opened and listing it presupposes parents would be willing and able to pay fees, and also that the venture is profitable enough to survuve.. However there is no primary school within easy reach and the nearest at Hatton Green is well oversubscribed being well used by the large Hatton Park estate. It would be difficult for a one car family to survive here. This makes the increased traffic from 20(25) houses proportionally greater than might otherwise be expected.

I am writing to represent my concerns about any expansion to the hatton park area. This is because there are a number of issues faced by existing residents which would be further exacerbated. These include:
1. The a4177 is already highly congested at peak times, making commuting and the school run awful already. Adding building traffic and then potentially another 180 cars (most are 2 car families if 90 homes are built) will make this commute impossible with considerable road problems and a potential increase in accidents on an already dangerous road. This is not taking into account even more additional traffic if areas such as hatton station are expanded.
2. All the schools in the area are over subscribed and are already at times taking beyond their allocated capacity. This is unsafe given no increase in funding for communal facilities/ space and staff. Adding a considerable number of children in catchment by increasing hatton park and hatton station is not possible unless additional places at quality schools are created. Furthermore, the ferncumbe bus drop off/pick up sites on hatton park are already dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike as there are so many cars parked along the roads. Adding to this will increase the likelihood of accidents considerably.
3. Hatton park is under resourced in terms of facilities for the existing number of homes. The play park is small and poorly equipped compared to other areas and the parking at the village hall already inadequate. There is nothing for teenagers to do. Getting to doctors and dentists already requires a commute and these services will be stretched further by additional residents, resulting in increasing waiting times and a poorer service.

Creating homes is important but making the hatton park area undesirable and unliveable is counterproductive.

SHREWLEY COMMON SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY
There has been little comment about the settlement boundary, probably because it follows the backs of residents' gardens closely and the PC accepts the proposal.
SHREWLEY COMMON - SITES 1 AND 2
The Parish Council (PC) has concerns about the number of dwellings proposed for each site which would make it difficult to maintain the linear development character of Shrewley Common. Cramming so many homes on to these small sites is not at all in keeping and could mean that two cul-de-sacs are proposed, which could create an inappropriate dumbbell effect at the end of the village.
The average age of the population of the village is currently high, with a large proportion of retired couples and elderly single people. The PC feels it would be an advantage if some of the new dwellings were priced in a bracket accessible by first time buyers, together with some retirement bungalows. The Village Stores, the Village Hall, and the Durham Ox public house would be pleased to see new people coming into the village to increase footfall.
During the past 20 years the volume of traffic through the village has increased significantly. Many of the residents complain about the traffic volume and speed, and that driving in and out of their entrances to the road is becoming increasingly hazardous. Residents near the Village Stores are particularly concerned as vehicles often either restrict their view of the road dangerously, or even block their drives completely. Public transport is virtually non-existent and access to private transport is vital. More homes in the village will of course increase the traffic and parking problems and the design of the developments will need to ensure that the on-street parking is not further aggravated.
There are several mature trees and evidence of badgers on the sites, both of which will need to be protected. Evidence of a Roman settlement on one of the sites will need an archaeological survey report before any development is commenced. Development plans will also need to ensure that access is maintained to the fields behind both sites.
HATTON STATION SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY
The PC proposes that the settlement boundary should NOT include the dwellings to the North of the canal, ie maintaining the status quo, with the whole area to the North being washed over by the Green Belt as there are no suitable sites for development.
To the south of the canal, the boundary should be drawn at the bottom of existing gardens, as indicated on the map. If any of the sites 1, 2 and 3 are not chosen for development, then the boundary for Site 1 should be at the bottom of existing gardens, and for Sites 2 and 3 at the curtilage boundary of 106 Station Road. If any of sites 1, 2 and 3 are developed, then it is expected that the boundary will be drawn at the bottom of the gardens of the new dwellings.
HATTON STATION SITE 1 - Land to the rear of Antrobus Close
The PC disagrees with WDCs recommendation that this is a preferred site, unless an up to date housing needs survey clearly shows there is a need for new housing in Shrewley Parish, (in contradiction to the recent Parish Plan survey) which cannot be satisfied by developing the two preferred sites in Shrewley Common.
Also the proposed number of new dwellings on this site is disproportionate to the overall size of the adjoining estate. 20 houses added to the existing 35 represents a 57% increase. The impact of such an increase on existing housing is NOT acceptable. However, we propose that IF new housing is required on this site, there should be an upper limit of 10 dwellings, which would represent an increase of up to 28%. The impact on existing dwellings would therefore be significantly reduced. We also strongly support the principle of protecting and enhancing the environmental diversity and civic amenity of this site. By reducing the number of dwellings to a maximum of 10, it would create an opportunity to enhance the natural environment and meet residents' concerns. We would expect that IF any development took place on this site, WDC would insist that there was adequate on-site parking, so that there would be no impact on existing dwellings.
We also acknowledge WDCs statement that "the sewerage and drainage systems of Hatton Station are at capacity and that any new scheme will have to manage its impact and avoid adding to local problems."
HATTON STATION SITE 2 - Land to the west of old Station Road
The PC disagrees with WDCs recommendation and proposes that the site loses its preferred status because the close proximity to the M40 means that "A comprehensive approach to alleviating motorway traffic noise" is not feasible and this is also a GREENFIELD site.
HATTON STATION SITE 3 - The Dell
The PC agrees with WDCs recommendation that this site should not be considered for development for both reasons given in WDCs site appraisal, on access and the impact on existing housing amenity. This is also a GREENFIELD site.
FINAL COMMENTS
The proposal for about 45 dwellings in Shrewley Parish on four preferred sites represents a 20-25% increase in dwellings in both settlements. A recent survey conducted for the Shrewley Parish Plan, which had a response rate of over 60%, showed that the majority of residents (55%) felt that no new housing could be accommodated within the Parish in the future. However, the Parish Council (PC) does not object to some development but believes that the proposed increase in the number of dwellings is unsustainable. The Shrewley Parish settlement scoring (Hatton Station 18 and Shrewley Common 33) indicates that both settlements have few local services for residents. The PC also considers that development on this scale would be detrimental to the character of both settlements and that the narrow lanes in the Parish, particularly Station Road in Hatton Station, will have difficulty coping with the increased traffic.
The PC is also concerned over the phasing of any new developments. The Local Plan needs to provide capacity to increase housing supply incrementally over the next 15 years. However, developers are likely to want to build much more quickly. The PC strongly opposes any plan which would mean mass building of new homes in the early years, leaving no capacity to increase in the future. The PC proposes that the Shrewley Common sites are developed first to satisfy any local housing needs which are supported through an up-to-date housing needs survey. WDC must ensure that the requirements of Section 4.4.6 of the Revised Development Strategy June 2013 as restated below are met in full and require developers to agree to phased development to cover the whole period through to 2029:
"... The scale of development will need to be carefully managed and it is the Council's intention to introduce capped proportional growth rates for the smaller settlements, subject to further consultation with parish councils and in light of ongoing work on green belt, ecology and landscape considerations. Locally agreed growth rates will allow parish councils to support development which is of a proportional scale to their settlements and help places maintain their distinctiveness and character."
The PC re-emphasises the importance of WDC ensuring that the requirements of Section 4.4.7 below are met before any detailed planning proposals are determined.
"... limited infill housing development of an appropriate proportional scale will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that:
* it is supported by the parish council and/or neighbourhood plan;
* a registered social landlord is supportive of the development;
* it is supported through an up-to-date housing needs survey covering local affordable and market need;
* it is located within a defined village or settlement envelope;
* it would deliver clear improvements to local services and facilities."
Finally, following agreement on the new settlement boundaries, there must be assurances that there can be no further boundary changes for the duration of the Local Plan, so preventing creeping expansion and further development in the Green Belt between now and 2029.

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.

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