We are supportive of the decision to exclude the alternative sites and agree with the findings of the site assessment matrix contained at appendix 6 in relation to these discounted sites.

Development of Site 2 would be inappropriate due to contamination and potential environmental buffer designation. Site 3 is unsuitable due to quarry / geological importance, potential contamination and landscape impact. Site 4 is justifiably discounted due to flood risk and current viable commercial use. Discounted option 5 has high landscape value as well as potential impact on impact on the conservation area and scheduled ancient monument.

Whilst I do not know the rejected sites intimately it seems a shame that this village cannot be given more housing, as it needs more than 35 to remain sustainable. In particular site 5 is centrally located and adjoins housing. There is a site north east of Church Road, outside the new envelope which is central to the village which looks useful, as well as land north of Site 1. Could not sites 3 & 4 be developed to a lower density with boundary planting, or land in the village used for elderly persons?

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,

I note the land at Mill Hill ((5) is considered a discounted option for housing which I agree with as houses built there would have a significant impact on the appearance of the landscape and traffic 24/7 to this area, but I would ask you to consider the application for the single school building and landscaping to improve and make use of this untidy waste land. With proper investigation this can be done despite the land fill as evidenced by the meeting hall built in Bosworth Close.