I don't object to the proposed site but I do object to the number of proposed dwellings. Shrewley Common consists of very generous dwellings with large plots of land. Cramming so many homes onto a small site isn't at all in-keeping. I'm very concerned that the proposals will result in a downgrade of the area. It will lead to the usual shoebox homes which form the typical 'estates' seen elsewhere across the country. Very concerned about this bringing the area down and increasing traffic. Completely confused as to how this will 'sustain existing services/facilities'.

strongly object.
access.

Our concerns are given in our comment on the Preferred Option(s) paragraph embracing both sites.

This particular site is entirely "genuine" green belt land at the time of writing (before the village boundary is finalised), the field in question being used annually for cultivation of crops. The site also includes the only access to this field from Shrewley Common.

Building 12 houses on this site would threaten the two existing oak trees on its border with Shrewley Common.

Hugh and Lindsay Darwen
103, Shrewley Common

The "Gatehouse" piece of land.
Currently green belt land but if developed could sensibly contain four bungalows or houses with main road frontage.
John Gough 101 Shrewley Common

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.

see attached

see attached