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 often come from management style roles.

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

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 often come from management style roles.

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.
Summary:

We are concerned that insufficient assessment has been undertaken of the impact that the development of these proposed sites could have upon the historic environment. These impacts could include direct impacts upon archaeological sites, impacts upon the historic landscape character of the proposed sites and their wider vicinity, and any impacts upon the settings of any heritage assets within the wider vicinity of the proposed sites.

Of particular concern is that two sources of information which would provide relevant data, the Warwickshire Historic Environment Record (HER) and the English Heritage funded Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) project, do not appear to have been consulted during the shortlisting of these proposed sites.

In addition, as noted in our previous responses to the earlier Options paper of July 2008, the 2009 Proposed Submission Core Strategy and the 2012 New Preferred Options consultation, there will also be archaeological sites as yet undiscovered which will not be recorded on the HER, and even in areas where no archaeology has been recorded, evaluation may be required to confirm the presence/absence of remains. Consultation on a site by site basis will remain the best means of identifying archaeologically sensitive areas on the basis of current knowledge, as well as areas where archaeological potential will need to be assessed through more detailed work. On the other hand, the programme of HLC just concluded means that we have now been able to develop a more consistent understanding of this particular aspect of the historic environment across the District. There is now a developing methodology for identifying Historic Environment Character Zones which integrates the data from HLC with the site-specific data on particular monuments recorded in the Historic Environment Record; other authorities have found this type of study a useful tool for spatial planning.

We recommend that further work be undertaken in order to identify any potential issues in respect of the historic environment.

This should assess any potential impacts upon both designated and undesignated heritage assets.

Whilst we are concerned in principle to the selection criteria, since they do not allow for a proper consideration of Historic Environment, we do not object in principle to the majority of sites selected providing that proper appraisal is undertaken and allowance made where necessary for preservation of sites of national Importance (in the sense of the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act and the National Planning Policy Framework).

We would be very happy to meet your strategic planning team in person to discuss our comments and recommendations whilst the Local Plan is prepared, and to contribute to any supplementary planning documents in respect of historic environment.

We are concerned that insufficient assessment has been undertaken of the impact that the development of these proposed sites could have upon the historic environment. These impacts could include direct impacts upon archaeological sites, impacts upon the historic landscape character of the proposed sites and their wider vicinity, and any impacts upon the settings of any heritage assets within the wider vicinity of the proposed sites.

Of particular concern is that two sources of information which would provide relevant data, the Warwickshire Historic Environment Record (HER) and the English Heritage funded Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) project, do not appear to have been consulted during the shortlisting of these proposed sites.

In addition, as noted in our previous responses to the earlier Options paper of July 2008, the 2009 Proposed Submission Core Strategy and the 2012 New Preferred Options consultation, there will also be archaeological sites as yet undiscovered which will not be recorded on the HER, and even in areas where no archaeology has been recorded, evaluation may be required to confirm the presence/absence of remains. Consultation on a site by site basis will remain the best means of identifying archaeologically sensitive areas on the basis of current knowledge, as well as areas where archaeological potential will need to be assessed through more detailed work. On the other hand, the programme of HLC just concluded means that we have now been able to develop a more consistent understanding of this particular aspect of the historic environment across the District. There is now a developing methodology for identifying Historic Environment Character Zones which integrates the data from HLC with the site-specific data on particular monuments recorded in the Historic Environment Record; other authorities have found this type of study a useful tool for spatial planning.

We recommend that further work be undertaken in order to identify any potential issues in respect of the historic environment.

This should assess any potential impacts upon both designated and undesignated heritage assets.

Whilst we are concerned in principle to the selection criteria, since they do not allow for a proper consideration of Historic Environment, we do not object in principle to the majority of sites selected providing that proper appraisal is undertaken and allowance made where necessary for preservation of sites of national Importance (in the sense of the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act and the National Planning Policy Framework).

We would be very happy to meet your strategic planning team in person to discuss our comments and recommendations whilst the Local Plan is prepared, and to contribute to any supplementary planning documents in respect of historic environment.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached