support this proposal

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.

At the Ordinary meeting of Baginton Parish Council (BPC) on 2.1.14 we discussed the above consultation documents. We then attended the Public Consultation at Baginton Village Hall on 4.1.14, where we discussed the proposals with the planners and the public. We further discussed this matter at an Extra-ordinary Meeting of BPC on 9.1.14.

We have taken account of the following in our deliberations:-

1. WRCC/BPC Housing Needs survey of Feb 2008, which identified a need for social housing for 17 new properties
2. WRCC/BPC Affordable Housing for Local People Study of October 2009, which reviewed three sites.
3. Our Parish Plan of 2012, following extension public consultation and public questionnaire in 2011. Its conclusions are self explanatory. In summary, almost 9 out of 10 respondents are in favour of supporting new houses for local people and most people support modest growth.
4. Our letter L075A to you of 8.1.12. & L090 to you of 18.7.12.
5. Letter from MP J Wright to BPC 24.7.12.
6. Our letter L122 to you of 21.7.13.
7. Your consultation documents issued 26.11.13, including (but not limited to) Section 7 Baginton and Section 15 Oak Lea, Finham.
8. Views of the public made at previous Ordinary BPC meetings.
9. Views of the public made at the public consultation of 4.1.14 and made in formulation of our housing needs survey and Parish Plan.
10. Discussions at the Extra-ordinary Meeting of 9.1.14 where 8 out of 9 Cllrs were present.

We write following consideration of all the above and make the following points:-

1. The proposals include up to 35 houses in area 1 of Section 7 on page 35 and up to 20 houses in Section 15 on page 61 (assumed 10nr Baginton, 10 nr Stoneleigh), in a village of approximately 356 dwellings. Whilst more than the 20 number expressed in our previous letters we understand from discussions with your planners on 4.1.14 that such developments would need to be supported by a mix of housing including 40% social housing and a mix of other properties. Having considered all the issues this Parish Council is in favour of sustainable development to allow modest village growth, from a mix of social housing, market housing and sheltered accommodation, for up to ( no more than) 45 number new residences on both sites. This would provide for the young and old and free up existing housing stock for families, encouraging organic growth of the village whilst maintaining the village character.

2. The plan on page 35 of the document shows the "village boundary" in brown. This is unrepresentative as Baginton includes far more properties. We understand from your planners that the brown line is the proposed boundary of the green belt de-restriction, with land inside removed from Green Belt and all land outside remaining in the Green Belt. We also note on page 32 that you need to take careful account of how the Green Belt is defined to include property boundaries or outlines of dwellings. BPC gave this much discussion at the extra-ordinary meeting of 9.1.14, where it was resolved that none of the land should be removed from the Green Belt. We therefore OBJECT to the removal of any part of the village from the Green Belt. The reason is to protect the area against inappropriate development and infill development, both of which would not be welcomed.

3. The plan on page 61 does not show the proposed site with any Green Belt removal, but is proposed for development of up to 20 houses. We believe there may be very special circumstances for developing this small triangle of land within the Green Belt, so BPC endorses this proposal.

4. We understand that removal of the Green Belt from defined areas would allow for less restrictive development within the brown line whilst maintaining Green Belt restrictions elsewhere. BPC recognise the need for organic growth in the village to maintain its viability in the future. BPC does not want the village to wither and die. The longstanding recognised need for further housing to support sustainable organic growth is supported by the proposals, so BPC have no objection in principle and we believe there may be very special circumstances for developing the two proposed sites were they to remain within the Green Belt. Should WDC insist on removal of Green Belt, which we object to, then the following must be put in place before this happens: -
A. Individual consultation between WDC and all householders affected by the change in their land from Green Belt to Non Green Belt. Cllrs are aware of some individuals who do not want their own land declassifying and wish the village to remain wholly in the Green Belt. All previous consultations had retention of the Green Belt and BPC requests retention of the Green Belt.
B. Under no circumstances shall the definition of the line go beyond the boundaries of the individual properties defined in the document. We do not want there to be any ambiguity. We favour the line be drawn to the rear of the dwellings to ensure back gardens are not inappropriately developed, should WDC insist on removal of Green Belt, which we object to.
C. A professional consideration of whether the preferred land marked 1 on page 35 can be developed whilst remaining in the Green Belt, given that very special circumstances may exist, as per the land on page 61. Do very special circumstances exist? Please offer advice on this pivotal point, as Cllrs do not want the Green Belt removed from any area if the preferred option site number 1 on page 35 can proceed on the basis that it fulfils defined local need, hence has very special circumstances. If this was the case BPC would be minded to support such a development given defined needs, retaining the entire village in the Green Belt.
D. The village conservation area and other areas remain in the Green Belt, as shown.

5. BPC welcomes the statement on page 26 that the Green Belt and landscape assessment work has emphasised the need to protect the villages from coalescence with nearby large settlements. This is certainly important as it helps maintain the open setting, identity and character of Baginton and protects it from Urban Sprawl. There must be no removal of any Green Belt to ensure that this protection is maintained in full. BPC believes that this vital requirement will be watered down if there was any release of the Green Belt so OBJECTS to removal of any Green Belt.

6. In all cases any housing shall be in wholly in character with the village, be sympathetic to the amenity of existing properties/people and shall not interfere with the Green Belt, as previously requested on numerous occasions.


7. We note from page 27 that the proposals in area 1 of page 35 would require substantial environmental screening. We request more details of what this might entail?

8. There have been many requests for the junction between Stoneleigh Road and Bubbenhall Road to be improved to a standard 90 degree T junction, yet continually this has been quashed due to cost. Any proposal must be supported by changes to the road infrastructure in this area, including changes to the junction and chicane.

9. The existing schools serving the village, mainly Priorsfield in Kenilworth but including others, are oversubscribed. BPC are concerned that the provision of new housing in the village is not supported by adequate schooling facilities for the general public. It is essential that any growth in housing beyond the housing needs survey of 17 properties is supported by an adequate policy for provision of schooling. Please can WDC confirm that adequate state schooling will be provided for any new housing as part of their proposals?

10. BPC require WDC assurance that there will be adequate public facilities such as enhanced bus services to Coventry as well as WDC areas, and Doctor facilities, given that one of the current Doctors surgeries is in Coventry. Please confirm adequate facilities will be in place for new housing?

11. There is no mention of S106 agreements. BPC would expect a S106 agreement be drawn up whereby a significant sum be provided by any developer for the provision of enhanced amenities for the village, such as the provision of a multi surface play area, improved children's facilities and such like. Can this be written into any agreement?

12. BPC does not support development of areas 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the plan on page 35 for the reasons given by WDC.

In conclusion, BPC OBJECTS to the removal of any land from the Green Belt, but SUPPORTS the preferred development sites for housing within Baginton, provided they have very special circumstances for development of the Green Belt with sympathetic housing, developed to serve defined needs of the village.

We ask that you account for our requests above and take notice of what we say, ensuring your documents are amended accordingly when they are issued for further consultation in due course. We trust this is helpful to yourselves and please do contact us should you have any queries,

The Oak Lea Farm , Finham which has been identified to build 20 dwellings was discussed at our recently held Parish Council meeting. In principle the Parish Council has no objections to these houses being built on this Green Belt which is situated both in our Parish and also in Baginton.

However, it was suggested that the Parish Council thought this site may be suitable to build retirement living as it is located near the A46 for easy access and has the associated services and facilities as it forms part of the Finham suburb of Coventry.

The Parish Council wishes that this suggestion be considered.

See attached