Preferred Options

Response to WDC Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation

Parish Councillors have encouraged residents to make their own feelings known through the Preferred Option Response Form and directly in writing or via the internet. It has been very clear from the start that they cannot easily understand the process or the consultation because no real sites in rural areas have been identified and therefore it is our view that this will mean a relatively low response. However, this should not be taken as a lack of interest or a green light for the District Council to continue with the proposed plans, because there are flaws that need to be rectified in the concepts in the plan.
General statement
The identification of rural locations being allocated for development, the calculated determination by WDC that 850 need to be spread around the district, is an arbitrary determination. Similarly the reasoning that Category 1 villages should have 100 houses is equally inappropriate and untenable as an argument as all the villages have their unique set of circumstances, so would not logically be suitable for exactly the same development.
There is no more reasoning that the excess housing needs should be placed in Category 1 villages, than the alternative that Category 3 or 2 villages with additional infrastructure would become less isolated and more socially cohesive.
The rationale that 550 houses will be needed every year also substantially exceeds the annual number of properties developed during the boom years.
The NPPF and the 2011 census data are now available these figures should used to re-calculate projected development downwards.
Local Needs and Agreed Plans
Recent Surveys of the Parish's wishes for future show no support for further development (reference BPC Parish Plan 2011 [reviewed in December 2011]) confirming the results of any earlier survey by the Parish Council. A Housing Needs Survey carried out independently by Warwickshire Rural Community Council and presented to Budbrooke PC in early 2012 showed a local need for 5 extra houses, 4 of which met the WRCC criteria. The Parish Council doesn't have a mandate to change the Parish Plan to exceed this number of properties.
There seems to be an assumption that all development needs should be identified at the outset and not in the 5 year phases in the plan. This is irrational and the same logic should be applied to all developments.
Preferred Options Rationale
The Council agrees with the overall strategy to put most of the new developments on sites adjacent to the three local towns. However the split of the rest of the housing, if necessary following the ONS census data for 2011 etc [see below], to five Category 1 villages and six smaller Category 2 villages despite the rationale of "Category 1 means villages with infrastructure" is arbitrary and is not consistent.

The use of the term village rather than parish is a concern, by using parish this would allow parishes to use their local knowledge to suggest areas outside villages which would have other advantages.
The absence of Cubbington from the major Category 1 villages seems inconsistent. This argument also applies to Bubbenhall and Baginton.
For example, Cubbington has a Cost-cutter, a post office and a hardware shop in the village centre. The boundary of Cubbington civil parish includes a large residential area along Kenilworth Road. These are supported by a row of shops along the Cubbington road, far closer than any available in Budbrooke. There is a school and a village hall. There are also substantial employment opportunities and several large businesses located within the parish and on the boundary of the village. On this basis alone, Cubbington is evidently a category 1 village.
The Hatton Park/King Edwards conurbation contains more properties than some of the Category 1 villages. Improving the infrastructure (e.g. building a school) would open up the area to more properties while reducing some of the strain on the roads.
Quality of Infrastructure
The rationale presupposes that the infrastructure existing in the Category villages is capable of supporting the proposed extra housing. In the case of Hampton Magna this is far from the truth:
The Roads:
*Budbrooke Parish Plan highlighted road traffic and safety alongside speeding, poor driver behaviour and parking as key issues for the parish.
*Hampton Magna is served by a single C grade road and internal estate roads. The roads leading to Hampton Magna from the major routes are also C roads and are used as feeder routes to Warwick Parkway station
*With the building of an additional 222 car parking spaces at Warwick Parkway Station, there is the prospect of even more traffic using the road.
*This is a Parish which is already under great pressure from traffic which use it as a commuter 'rat run' from eg Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and elsewhere to Warwick Parkway Station / M40 / A4177 / A4189 via Old Budbrooke Road, Woodway and Ugly Bridge Road which is a narrow country lane route between the Birmingham/Warwick Road and the Henley Warwick Road and Junction 15 of the M40 with the A46.
*Traffic on the Birmingham Road will also be increased if the proposed development at Hatton, Shrewley, Rowington and Lapworth is approved which will further impact on the Stanks Island roundabout over the bypass which already has severe congestion at the peak periods.
*These delays on the A46/A4177 roundabout are already a major cause of tailbacks on the Old Bubrooke Road.
*Hampton Magna is in the middle of all this and the addition of any more housing will only make the situation worse.
*We understand that thesuggestion that CIL money could be used to improve the infrastructure. This would only be acceptable if possible improvements were identified and assessed before the Category 1 definition for the village was confirmed. In our view, because of the particular circumstances of the problems, no amount of road improvements would solve them. The tunnels under the railway and the bridge over the Grand Union Canal will need substantial engineering or management.

Budbrooke School:
*The school has increased its standard number and remains oversubscribed
*The amount of school related traffic at start and end of the school day leads to gridlock and parked cars filling the centre of HM.
*The proportion of pupils from Hampton Magna attending the school is reducing. The school already takes children from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow. More children from additional housing will impact on quality of educational standards.
*Any increase in the size of the local school to accommodate additional pupils will generate extra traffic and exacerbate the existing problems caused by parents parking near the school when dropping off and picking up their children. Because of the lack of suitable parking some parents are forced to park in dangerous positions. This is a hazard that the Police are unable to address satisfactorily

The Sewage arrangements:
*When Hampton Magna was built Seven Trent Water Authority refused to accept the road sewage system built by the developers, because they were below their acceptable standard. Despite many appeals to the Authority, they stuck by this view, until privatisation, when there appeared to be an "amnesty" to get such difficulties out of the launch prospectus.
*The quality of the sewage system has not had any improvement since then.
*The sewerage system remains 'below acceptable standard'. Even the smallest increase in housing has had a significant detrimental effect on this key infrastructure. By way of example, 6 additional properties built earlier in South view, off Curlieu Close have given rise to problems which regularly need to be dealt with.
*It is imperative that planners proposing sites researches the sewerage requirement and identifies before all else the cost of upgrading the road and household sewerage system.

Electricity Supply:
*The main local electricity supply arrangements area the same as those for the barracks which left nearly 50 years ago. Supplies into the village are subject to frequent fluctuations and outages.

Alternative view:
If other Category 1 villages have similar infrastructure quality to Hampton Magna, would it not be a better idea to put some more development into the Category 2 villages and bring their infrastructure up to a better standard. One can think of areas such as Hatton Park, which is Category 2 because it has no school despite having more houses than Hampton Magna. Why not build a school on Chase Meadow or at Hatton Park.
Other points
Increasing the concentration of the housing on Hampton Magna depends on the very shaky belief that current infrastructure can cope with the extra build. It means that other good brown field or infill sites outside the village envelopes could be missed.
All developments proposed will be outside the village envelope, so why restrict the location to Hampton Magna rather than within the Parish?
All developments proposed will be on currently designated green belt land, and large parts of the local green belt are designated as special landscape sites. Development should occur in the brown field sites and windfall sites first. There is published evidence that there is far more available land within the towns than has been highlighted by Officers. Development needs to be phased with Brownfield sites within the towns having the first hit.
How does the local plan take account take of the District Council's Environmental Policies and the reduction of carbon emissions; the proposal appears to be contrary to this.
How will the changes to green belt around villages be implemented? It seems inappropriate to either designate areas outside the village envelope as non green belt and similarly it seems in appropriate to yoyo the village envelopes over time. With 80% of Warwick District being Green Belt then the Inspector should accept a lower figure as that appropriate to this district.
The Parish Council believes that because any expansion of Hampton Magna would lead to severe problems with the traffic, sewerage and electricity infrastructure, it should not be considered as a Category 1 village. The Parish Council would welcome a discussion with the District Council to explain in more detail why this is the case.