No

ID sylw: 98454

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Burton Dassett Parish Council

1) All brownfield sites are included in achieving the goal of strategic growth aspirations and housing needs and the use of brownfield sites is prioritised over greenfield, given their likely close proximity to existing road and rail infrastructure and services including health care, education, retail and leisure.

2) The additional development is designed to encourage growth prospects for that area, rather than simply providing a dormitory for workers to commute from, to existing centres. Where existing centres need more people, build more dwellings within the curtilage of that centre, so public transport can be easily extended rather than created from scratch.

3) The proposals do not fundamentally change the character of the surrounding area unless the growth in economic and social benefits from that change can be shown to justify the change. Do not "ruin" the character of a small community/environment by simply adding 100 dwellings and nothing more.

4) All developments are in proportion to the likely growth prospects for the area.

5) Where consideration is being given to the housing needs of the area.

The PC would not support the SWLP where the proposed sites would conflict with the following points:

1) The use of prime agricultural land - SG13/14 G1,F1/2/3 seem to conflict with this.

2) Where flooding is already an issue and will be exacerbated - SG14 G1,F3 seem to conflict with this.

3) Lack/overload of local infrastructure at sites - primary/secondary schools, doctors surgeries, hospitals, grocery and retail outlets, rail links (Network Rail does not intend opening a new station at Deppers Bridge, nearest rail link would be at Banbury or Leamington Spa and the railway next to G1 is for MOD, Kineton use only) as well as utilities - water, sewage, mains gas, electrical supply. The SWLP is looking at reducing the reliance on cars, but the current suggestions would only increase their usage in areas where there is lack of public transport - SG13/14 G1,F2/3 seem to conflict with this.

4) Unsuitable road network, access is only by B roads or country or single track roads. SG13/14,G1 are next to or near the M40 and increase in traffic would put a considerable strain onto an already congested Junct.12 at peak hours, it being the nearest junction for JLR, AM and the Upper Lighthorne development - G1,F2 seem to conflict with this.

5) All sites, would see an increase in light pollution, detrimental to the whole of these areas.

6) Would seriously impact the views from Burton Dassett Country Park, a Special Landscape Area looked after by Warwickshire County Council and/or Chesterton Windmill. Both sites, from their raised positions have far reaching views over open countryside and these sites would impact the character of the area - SG10/11/13/14 G1,F1/3 seem to conflict with this.

7) Cultural and historic assets. These developments run alongside the Fosse Way where there are potential Roman sites. At G1 the Old Salt road (a single track lane) runs alongside this proposal where both medieval and Roman sites have already been found during the recent construction stage of a solar farm - SG10/11,F1 seem to conflict with this.

8) Avoid the swamping of existing villages, irreversibly changing their character to the detriment of existing residents, particularly Gaydon, already blighted by multiple threats of inappropriate development - SG13/14 seem to conflict with this, would swamp the village making it an undesirable place to live.

No

ID sylw: 98456

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Burton Dassett Parish Council

1) All brownfield sites are included in achieving the goal of strategic growth aspirations and housing needs and the use of brownfield sites is prioritised over greenfield, given their likely close proximity to existing road and rail infrastructure and services including health care, education, retail and leisure.

2) The additional development is designed to encourage growth prospects for that area, rather than simply providing a dormitory for workers to commute from, to existing centres. Where existing centres need more people, build more dwellings within the curtilage of that centre, so public transport can be easily extended rather than created from scratch.

3) The proposals do not fundamentally change the character of the surrounding area unless the growth in economic and social benefits from that change can be shown to justify the change. Do not "ruin" the character of a small community/environment by simply adding 100 dwellings and nothing more.

4) All developments are in proportion to the likely growth prospects for the area.

5) Where consideration is being given to the housing needs of the area.

The PC would not support the SWLP where the proposed sites would conflict with the following points:

1) The use of prime agricultural land - SG13/14 G1,F1/2/3 seem to conflict with this.

2) Where flooding is already an issue and will be exacerbated - SG14 G1,F3 seem to conflict with this.

3) Lack/overload of local infrastructure at sites - primary/secondary schools, doctors surgeries, hospitals, grocery and retail outlets, rail links (Network Rail does not intend opening a new station at Deppers Bridge, nearest rail link would be at Banbury or Leamington Spa and the railway next to G1 is for MOD, Kineton use only) as well as utilities - water, sewage, mains gas, electrical supply. The SWLP is looking at reducing the reliance on cars, but the current suggestions would only increase their usage in areas where there is lack of public transport - SG13/14 G1,F2/3 seem to conflict with this.

4) Unsuitable road network, access is only by B roads or country or single track roads. SG13/14,G1 are next to or near the M40 and increase in traffic would put a considerable strain onto an already congested Junct.12 at peak hours, it being the nearest junction for JLR, AM and the Upper Lighthorne development - G1,F2 seem to conflict with this.

5) All sites, would see an increase in light pollution, detrimental to the whole of these areas.

6) Would seriously impact the views from Burton Dassett Country Park, a Special Landscape Area looked after by Warwickshire County Council and/or Chesterton Windmill. Both sites, from their raised positions have far reaching views over open countryside and these sites would impact the character of the area - SG10/11/13/14 G1,F1/3 seem to conflict with this.

7) Cultural and historic assets. These developments run alongside the Fosse Way where there are potential Roman sites. At G1 the Old Salt road (a single track lane) runs alongside this proposal where both medieval and Roman sites have already been found during the recent construction stage of a solar farm - SG10/11,F1 seem to conflict with this.

8) Avoid the swamping of existing villages, irreversibly changing their character to the detriment of existing residents, particularly Gaydon, already blighted by multiple threats of inappropriate development - SG13/14 seem to conflict with this, would swamp the village making it an undesirable place to live.

Other

ID sylw: 107541

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Burton Dassett Parish Council

We, Burton Dassett Parish Council would support the general concept of the SWLP if and only if:

1) All brownfield sites are included in achieving the goal of strategic growth aspirations and housing needs and the use of brownfield sites is prioritised over greenfield, given their likely close proximity to existing road and rail infrastructure and services including health care, education, retail and leisure.

2) The additional development is designed to encourage growth prospects for that area, rather than simply providing a dormitory for workers to commute from, to existing centres. Where existing centres need more people, build more dwellings within the curtilage of that centre, so public transport can be easily extended rather than created from scratch.

3) The proposals do not fundamentally change the character of the surrounding area unless the growth in economic and social benefits from that change can be shown to justify the change. Do not "ruin" the character of a small community/environment by simply adding 100 dwellings and nothing more.

4) All developments are in proportion to the likely growth prospects for the area.

5) Where consideration is being given to the housing needs of the area.

The PC would not support the SWLP where the proposed sites would conflict with the following points:

1) The use of prime agricultural land - SG13/14 G1,F1/2/3 seem to conflict with this.

2) Where flooding is already an issue and will be exacerbated - SG14 G1,F3 seem to conflict with this.

3) Lack/overload of local infrastructure at sites - primary/secondary schools, doctors surgeries, hospitals, grocery and retail outlets, rail links (Network Rail does not intend opening a new station at Deppers Bridge, nearest rail link would be at Banbury or Leamington Spa and the railway next to G1 is for MOD, Kineton use only) as well as utilities - water, sewage, mains gas, electrical supply. The SWLP is looking at reducing the reliance on cars, but the current suggestions would only increase their usage in areas where there is lack of public transport - SG13/14 G1,F2/3 seem to conflict with this.

4) Unsuitable road network, access is only by B roads or country or single track roads. SG13/14,G1 are next to or near the M40 and increase in traffic would put a considerable strain onto an already congested Junct.12 at peak hours, it being the nearest junction for JLR, AM and the Upper Lighthorne development - G1,F2 seem to conflict with this.

5) All sites, would see an increase in light pollution, detrimental to the whole of these areas.

6) Would seriously impact the views from Burton Dassett Country Park, a Special Landscape Area looked after by Warwickshire County Council and/or Chesterton Windmill. Both sites, from their raised positions have far reaching views over open countryside and these sites would impact the character of the area - SG10/11/13/14 G1,F1/3 seem to conflict with this.

7) Cultural and historic assets. These developments run alongside the Fosse Way where there are potential Roman sites. At G1 the Old Salt road (a single track lane) runs alongside this proposal where both medieval and Roman sites have already been found during the recent construction stage of a solar farm - SG10/11,F1 seem to conflict with this.

8) Avoid the swamping of existing villages, irreversibly changing their character to the detriment of existing residents, particularly Gaydon, already blighted by multiple threats of inappropriate development - SG13/14 seem to conflict with this, would swamp the village making it an undesirable place to live.

For all the above reasons we would not support the SWLP as presented.