Rowington parish appears to have been largely overlooked with over emphasis upon Kingswood (which is only marginally within Rowington parish) There is considerable public opposition to Kingswood but little regard appears to have been paid by WDC for the opportunity of modest small scale development within other areas of Rowington. Latest weather predictions suggest that areas such as Kingswood are likely to incur flooding and or increase the risk of flooding to current homes yet the current plan appears to simply concentrate housing at Kingswood for ease and simplicity whilst seemingly ignoring other opportunities. This is despite the local opposition which appears to be primarily because of previous flood history.

There is however a need to consider that current Rowington residents with either large or difficult to maintain homes (perhaps older properties or homes with large gardens) do not necessarily wish to move to small two bedroom homes or to new village developments.

Rowington parish is quietly dying due to a lack of new middle age residents because of the lack of suitable new housing. Parish council, village hall and various clubs are all losing and failing to generate new members with membership profiles becoming generally older.

WDC need to fully consider the actual needs of the parish rather than simply fulfilling numbers of new homes with disregard to residents objections and needs.

Meanwhile management and employees of high growth companies such as Jaguar Land Rover fail to find suitable homes in the very same area.

Rowington parish is quite centrally located re the various sites of some of these companies including JLR and its suppliers (main sites at Gaydon, Solihull, Coventry and Birmingham). Key management drawn from all parts of Europe are not seeking starter homes.

In many instances such employees are forced to live at places such as Rugby, Northamptonshire, Oxforshire, Worcestershire and even Wiltshire.

The only key planned preferred sites within the current local plan are unlikely to meet the needs of many current residents or indeed provide housing opportunity for potential younger middle age / middle class families.
Without such stimulus communities such as Rowington will continue to die re lack of younger, vibrant participants in village activities who in reality often come from management style roles and backgrounds.

The current proposal has failed to take heed of opportunities re sites which were suggested (at Pinley) which would modestly help this current imbalance. There is a need for greater distribution of housing to include smaller sites.
There are other and greater opportunities to create modest housing sites by very slight modification of parish boundaries.

A proposal was made re a site at Pinley (Grid reference Easting 04208335 / Northing 02664706).

This site has to date been regarded as being within Shrewley and has to date been subsequently dismissed due to not being fully adjacent to current development within Shrewley but is in fact adjacent to current development at Pinley and should be reconsidered for the following reasons.

With very minor boundary change this total rather than partial site could be fully accommodated within Pinley and thereby Rowington parish.

Apart from having potential good access onto the main B road the nominated site is on the edge of a development which is within realistic walking distance of the local school, a nursery, doctors surgery two churches and the shops, pubs and post offices of two villages (Shrewley and Claverdon) as well as the Ardencote manor leisure facilities.

Hatton and Claverdon railway stations are both accessible by foot.
The site additionally provides quick and easy access to the village halls of four local villages ie Claverdon, Shrewley, Hatton and Lowsonford not to mention Rowington. A bus route passes the door and the local collection point for school buses re children is circa 100 yards away.

This site is discreet and virtually unseen from the roadway and surrounding area being shrouded by trees on all sides with a variety of further trees growing to the frontage to help provide additional screening. It is additionally not in a potential flood area unlike some of the proposals currently being focused upon by WDC which are drawing considerable public opposition.

The site in question has been used domestically for 15 years and is currently under appeal re Lawful Development Certificate.

There are other and greater opportunities to create modest housing sites by very slight modification of parish boundaries.

A proposal was made re a site at Pinley (Grid reference Easting 04208335 / Northing 02664706).

This site has to date been regarded as being within Shrewley and has to date been subsequently dismissed due to not being fully adjacent to current development within Shrewley but is in fact adjacent to current development at Pinley and should be reconsidered for the following reasons.

With very minor boundary change this total rather than partial site could be fully accommodated within Pinley and thereby Rowington parish.

Apart from having potential good access onto the main B road the nominated site is on the edge of a development which is within realistic walking distance of the local school, a nursery, doctors surgery two churches and the shops, pubs and post offices of two villages (Shrewley and Claverdon) as well as the Ardencote manor leisure facilities.

Hatton and Claverdon railway stations are both accessible by foot.
The site additionally provides quick and easy access to the village halls of four local villages ie Claverdon, Shrewley, Hatton and Lowsonford not to mention Rowington. A bus route passes the door and the local collection point for school buses re children is circa 100 yards away.

This site is discreet and virtually unseen from the roadway and surrounding area being shrouded by trees on all sides with a variety of further trees growing to the frontage to help provide additional screening. It is additionally not in a potential flood area unlike some of the proposals currently being focused upon by WDC which are drawing considerable public opposition.

The site in question has been used domestically for 15 years and is currently under appeal re Lawful Development Certificate

see attached

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.