The Joint Parish Council continues to object to the Preferred Option level of growth. Previous consultation OVERWHELMINGLY supported lower levels of growth and the JPC does not find adequate evidence to support the chosen level. The JPC believes that growth should only be linked to predicted demand from the current population, closely matching housing and employment needs and should not be "encouraging" inward migration into the district.
In particular growth directed towards villages must take account of recent and currently proposed developments.
Agricultural land should wherever possible be protected and growth must not drive mineral demands from high quality land - other mineral options must be explored.

The JPC has concerns over just how a CIL may be administered locally and believes that use of such funds must be in negotiation with the local (ie Parish and Town) councils

BARFORD in particular is concerned that directing significant levels of growth to villages will overload local infrastructure beyond what is reasonable - specifically whilst the school is adequate for current needs and could take modest increases the proposal of 100 extra homes will cause gross overloading well beyond plans for single form entry.

The Joint Parish Council objects strongly to this proposal on various grounds - The housing numbers are excessive for this location and can only make the traffic issues which currently exist through our villages much worse given that a significant percentage of the new households will add to the traffic flow into Leamington/Warwick at peak times, despite proposed improved access to the M40.
Building the whole of the area will have a deleterious impact on Warwick Castle Park and the approach routes to both L/Spa and Warwick.
There will be unecessary loss of good agricultural land and important rural landscape.
The shape of the site "projects" inappropriately into the rural area and creates further future infil opportunities.
If this area is to be included at all it should be held back as long as possible and only utilised if the level of demand materialises.

It is not realistic to expect villages to be able to sustain this level of growth - even those with CURRENTLY adequate infrastructure. If the 500 homes proposed is contuinued then at least it should be distributed across the Cat 1 villages pro-rata according to size and not a blanket 100 per village. Barford is the smallest of the Cat 1 villages and in the published Sustainability Appraisal achieves the third worst score, with only Rowington and N/Lindsey scoring lower. Whilst the village has fought hard over the years to maintain its sutainability a large increase at this stage would not be sustainable, particularly relating to our very successful school.
Any proposed increases should and must take account of recent developoments and increases in village size to ensure that changes over relatively short periods are not so extreme as to distort the community balance.
Proposals currently in the pipeline should be full taken into account when counting the allocation to each village.

JPC supports this proposal

The JPC broadly supports this proposal

The JPC objects to the blanket imposition/provision of 40% Aff Homes where there may not be a specific and proven need, In particular it believes that IN VILLAGES an Aff Home provision must be solely for local (ie that parish) need and not merely contribute to district wide needs. Where a scheme comes forward in which 40% would exceed that local need then commuted sums should be taken to contribute towards Aff Homes at other locations in the WDC area where they are actually needed. To provide extra Aff Homes in rural and less sustainable locations is neither appropriate nor sustainable.
Furthermore any such provision in villages must match the local need in terms of number and in terms ofmix/type rather than be merely dictated by the economic whims of the developers (solely to comply with the requirement).

In villages the mix of housing provision should match only the need identified in that community and should not be required to reflect district wide requirements.

The JPC regrets that there is no clear strategy, even in outline, to accommodate the Gateway proposals which if they come to pass will have immense impacts for our area given the tens of thousands of employment places that would be created and no doubt fuel inward migration.
There seems no mention of the rural economy and the need to protect food production land whilst assisting farms to adapt to developments.
No reference to the importance of bridleways and cycleways in supporting the rural economy.
NPPF Para 28 should be taken fully into account.