We do not agree that the proposed level of growth is realistic or justified by the statistics given.
In the initial consultation 'Helping shape the District'
Scenario 1 proposed 250 homes and 58% of respondents supported this, a further 28% supported 500 homes.
The plan has been based on unrealistic projections, made after a period of growth, which has led to a global recession and not made on local requirements.

In principle we support a CIL but the funds must be allocated to specific areas, agreed during the planning process, for work identified both locally and District wide.

The original allocation of 6986 dwellings in Table 7.1 has been increased to 8360 in Table 7.2 to cater for likely shortfalls and the possibility of the Gateway development occurring.
Significant additional housing in villages will cause transport requirements and costly multiple infrastructure improvements.

The Gateway development should be considered as an additional requirement and planned as a separate project requiring housing in the locality rather than throughout the District.

Development in the villages should be reduced to maintain the specific individual character of the Warwick District villages

Development of this site will create growth which will intrude into the space dividing Leamington and Warwick from the villages of Bishops Tachbrook and Barford which could eventually lead to existing settlements merging in direct contradiction of PO3.
The effect of developing this site on the boundary of Warwick Castle Park will change the rural nature of this area and impact on this important District asset.
Additional traffic from this area will use existing busy roads into Warwick and Leamington and create more congestion. Traffic travelling North and going to Stratford will cause additional problems in Barford on the already overloaded narrow roads of High Street and Church Street.

Barford is approximately half the size of the other category 1 villages yet it is being allocated 100 houses. A category 1 village is defined as having the benefit of a school, shop and village or
community hall. Barford has fought to maintain a Church Aided school at primary level only. The only commercial shop left in Barford closed a few years ago and the residents have created a successful Community Shop run by volunteers. The Village Hall in Barford was built in 1930 and has a capacity of 100.
Although the village has been allocated category 1 status the facilities that determine this are limited and have been retained only by the efforts of the residents. If Barford is to be considered as a category 1 village then considerable investment will be needed to provide additional school, shop and village hall facilities to support an increased population.

There is very little employment available in Barford so new residents will inevitably need to travel to work. Public transport is limited and so car journeys will be increased causing additional congestion and pollution.

The construction of Bremridge Close in 2008 created 62 houses and there are plans to create 2 new developments each of over 50 houses which may be granted before the new plan is in effect.
To maintain the very strong community spirit in Barford future development should be at a level per year over the 15 year period which enables new residents to easily become part of the village.

The total number of houses recommended for rural locations is 830, 500 + 'about 330'.
In para 7.38 the transport modelling ranged from 0 to 400 houses in rural areas - but did not consider double that amount. The effect of building houses in rural areas is to place additional multiple requirements on transport and infrastructure which will not be easy to satisfy.

The SHMA survey found a need for 698 Affordable houses per year but this exceeds the total number of houses to be built and is justly described as an unrealistic target by the Council. In 7.47 the SHMA suggests that about 77% of new homes being affordable will meet its needs but accepts that 30% is reasonable. We maintain that the SHMA survey is basically flawed.
A recent survey in Barford, Wasperton & Sherbourne has indicated that 10 Affordable homes are needed and that this number will satisfy the foreseeable need. Affordable housing is often only required as a starter home and becomes available for re-occupation after a short time. It is important that the occupiers of Affordable housing have access to good transport facilities to enable them to travel to work or to social activities. It is important therefore that Affordable Housing in Rural locations should be provided only for Local Need so as to minimise the requirements for transport, unless employment opportunities are available in close proximity to the rural housing location.
Local Housing Needs surveys should determine the level of Affordable housing required and a blanket allocation of 40% is likely to fail to provide Affordable housing where it is needed.
A provision in the plan to ensure that funds are available to provide Affordable housing could be made through the CIL so that developments in rural areas providing fewer Affordable homes can assist those in Urban areas who may need to provide a greater proportion of Affordable homes.

Support the requirement to build homes to meet Local Need. Too often a developer will build expensive homes to maximise profit. The needs of specific groups - eg elderly - can be ignored as bungalows or groups of sheltered housing can be expensive to build and only appeal to a limited market. In a rural situation building a home for an elderly single occupant may enable that person to remain in the village that has been their home for many years. It can also release a larger home for a family and reduce overall housing need twice over

The land designated for major housing south of Leamington and Warwick is not near the proposed major employment sites of Coventry Airport, Honiley Airport and the University of Warwick. Mention is made in this section of 'Enabling the growth of appropriate rural businesses and diversification of the rural economy' but this is not backed up by plans to encourage employment in the Category 1 or 2 villages.

Barford Residents Association is fully in favour of protecting our heritage assets from inappropriate development. This does not only involve the buildings but also the surroundings and approaches of major historic buildings such as Warwick Castle must be preserved.