Niobe

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

Representations on Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Rural Communities, particularly in respect of rural housing?

Representation ID: 33897

OBJECT West Midlands Regional Assembly (Tim Williams)

Summary:

There does not appear to be a limit on amount of rural housing. Para 9.10 states that the scale of housing is "likely to be significant". Although some of the housing will come from windfalls, there is concern that the policy will lead to an over-provision of housing. There is no firm policy for managing rural land supply as suggested in emerging RSS Phase 2 Policy CF10.

Representation ID: 33863

OBJECT Lenco Investments represented by RPS Planning (Paul Hill)

Summary:

Developing at appropriate levels in a highly sustainable village location at Baginton provides the opportunity to develop a mix of housing to meet local needs, secure a high level of affordable housing and greatly assist funding and providing local infrastructure and facilities.

A spatial strategy which allows a proportionate level of housing/employment and local needs growth at such a location, alongside peripheral development around the main towns provides an optimum development strategy.

Representation ID: 33824

OBJECT Gallagher Estates (Mr David Keyse)

Summary:

The level of growth required to make village services viable is a subjective approach, unless limited, could lead to inappropriate levels of development seemingly at odds with addressing the causes of climate change.

Representation ID: 33760

SUPPORT Shirley Estates represented by Davis Planning Partnership (Mrs Jill Davis)

Summary:

Development of appropriate scale can support rural communities and industries and maintain vitality.

Representation ID: 33730

SUPPORT Sharba Homes represented by PJPlanning (Graham Parker)

Summary:

The 'bottom-up' approach is entirely correct, especially in respect of Barford.

Representation ID: 33718

OBJECT Mr John Burman represented by Bigwood Associates Ltd (Mr Nigel Gough)

Summary:

This does not support the needs of the elderly either generally or specifically. We have identified a need at Hatton Park. There are considerable secondary benefits in the trading-down of the elderly thus releasing family market housing.

Representation ID: 33614

SUPPORT Warwickshire County Council represented by Savills (L&P) Ltd (Mr Rob Wells)

Summary:

Support a framework for considering proposals for new development within villages as opposed to identifying specific requirements. However, there is a recognised local resistance to new developments in both villages and the countryside and those in most need of housing often lose out to organised minorities objecting to development.

More guidance should be given to how the Council will assess proposals for new development in the villages and countryside. Recognition should be given to the unique nature of urban fringe locations. Strategies must be flexible enough to allow for reasonable development in locations deemed acceptable.

Representation ID: 7713

COMMENT Warwickshire County Council - Environment & Economy Directorate (Eva Neale)

Summary:

By limiting the amount of development in villages, hamlets and the open countryside, the impact of traffic on rural roads within the District will be minimised.

Representation ID: 7687

OBJECT Ray Bullen

Summary:

If young people of rural families as opposed to dormitory, cannot afford to buy in village then, housing benefit system should allow direct support to buy/rent market properties. Housing association houses generally have to be higher standard and so cost more. If HA's bought houses in the recession, keeping occupant in the home, it would help rebuild confidence.
Policy should be to encourage HA's to buy normal houses. Where HA's have entered into such arrangements it would be reasonable to allow the market to build replacement market houses if local need exists and acceptable sites found.
"Local needs" = those already living within parish or have dependents living in parish. The "local need" must be determined by the PC through Parish Plan.

Representation ID: 7661

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Forrester of Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe represented by Barlow Associates Limited (Mr Nick Barlow)

Summary:

Support, but should be more wide ranging. Employment is often needed in villages, positive policies for the re-use of rural buildings are paramount.

Representation ID: 7552

OBJECT Mr George Jones

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 7469

SUPPORT Hatton Estate represented by RPS Planning (Mr Nick Laister)

Summary:

We support the Council's Preferred Option, as set out in Paragraph 9.14, which supports both market and affordable housing to meet local needs in all of its villages/hamlets. We support the recognition that the scale of need would not be limited by the Core Strategy but must be related to local needs and demonstrate it can strengthen the viability of rural services in order to reduce the need to travel. However, we would suggest that the Core Strategy could provide some guidance on which locations are likely to be preferable if they, for example, have high quality public transport links.

Representation ID: 7140

OBJECT Friends of the Earth (John Brightley)

Summary:

Object to allowing market housing in villages and hamlets, but support policy for affordable
housing restricted in perpetuity to residents who have grown up in the area. Support a policy which positively encourages provision of jobs in rural communities.
Will become less desirable to live in
countryside as petrol costs rise and value of rural property declines and therefore become more affordable for local people.
Concerned there is no policy included to ensure that enough agricultural land is protected to ensure the country and district can feed itself in future

Representation ID: 7119

SUPPORT Advantage West Midlands (Daniel Boden)

Summary:

Supports flexible, community led approach to rural development proposed and welcomes reference to West Midlands Rural Economy Study and AWM Rural Renaissance Framework and Action Plan. Whilst Core Strategy supports market and affordable housing to meet local needs and strengthen viability of services and facilities, there is also a link to encouraging small scale employment alongside housing and services. Home working can reduce the need to travel and could increase use of local services in rural areas. There is scope for range of high value employment opportunities in rural areas and higher value jobs should be encouraged alongside tourism.

Representation ID: 6994

SUPPORT Norton Lindsey Parish Council (Mr ARTHUR FOWKES)

Summary:

The policy of placing affordable housing in Rural Communities when supported by a needs survey on LOCAL NEEDS is supported. BUT ONLY IF THOSE DWELLINGS ARE RETAINED AS AFFORBABLE LEGALLY so that they cannot be developed into higher priced unaffordable homes.

Representation ID: 6935

SUPPORT Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council (Mrs Simone Bush)

Summary:

The Parish Council supports the Preferred Option for Rural Housing. However the term "local needs" should be defined to mean for those already living within the parish or who have dependents living in the parish. The "local need" must also be determined by the Parish Council through a Parish Plan or Housing need survey.

Representation ID: 6711

COMMENT Warwickshire County Council - Heritage & Culture (Museums) (Helen Maclagan)

Summary:

It would be helpful if there were reference, in the context of the creation of new enterprises and farm diversification, to the need to find sustainable uses for redundant agricultural buildings, which do not detract from any significance which they may have in respect of historic environment and their contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

We support the encouragement of Parish Plans and Village Appraisals at para 9.9, but in order that local communities are able to identify development needs that are sustainable in historic environment terms and are able to respond to local consultations in respect of heritage assets (as anticipated by the draft PPS15 Planning for the Historic Environment policy HE9.3) we would ask that local guidance on these documents be prepared which includes consideration of the significance of the historic environment.

Representation ID: 6690

SUPPORT Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd (Mr Stanley Anthony)

Summary:

Affordable housing (including rented) needs to be available in rural communities.

Representation ID: 6438

SUPPORT graham leeke

Summary:

But the option must be fleshed out and enumerated - minimum 80 new homes for each village settlement up to 2026. Small scale and in several places. There is much unused 'paddock' land in all villages and owners should be encouraged to bring it forward for development

Representation ID: 6336

OBJECT John Jessamine

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 6253

OBJECT Ross Telford

Summary:

Affordable housing is a priority but market prices housing is required plus bus services and post offices.

Representation ID: 6184

OBJECT John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 6134

OBJECT Richard and Judy Swallow and 1 other

Summary:

One cannot know whether the Council has identified all reasonable options or indeed whether any of those are identified are reasonable options.

Representation ID: 6027

SUPPORT Paul Skidmore

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 5992

OBJECT Debbie Harris

Summary:

Why not support these communities more by providing services within them and thus being able to develop more affordable housing in these areas.

Representation ID: 5913

OBJECT Mr Alan Roberts

Summary:

Village should remain small, village envelopes should remain to control development. Parish Plans should be independently produced and not by small unelected groups.

Representation ID: 5887

OBJECT Mr and Mrs C G Price

Summary:

Extra housing would lead to more traffic and more congestion.

Representation ID: 5844

SUPPORT Pamela Payne

Summary:

We have to be careful that the smaller villages do not just disapper while the larger villages get larger and become towns and lose their identity.

Representation ID: 5809

SUPPORT Ms Alison Cox

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 5760

SUPPORT Philip Wilson

Summary:

It is important to maintain existing allotment land and seek provision for future allotment land to keep it available for the community and not let it become an expensive housing estate

Representation ID: 5697

SUPPORT Roger Warren

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 5651

SUPPORT Jane Boynton

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 5609

SUPPORT Dave Crisford

Summary:

This option appears to mean that the building of market value housing within a village where this is supported by the local community will be accepted even where the village is designated Green Belt. This is an extension of the existing policy which restricts such development to Affordable Housing schemes. If this is correct, then I would be favour of this relaxation.

Representation ID: 5576

COMMENT George Martin

Summary:

Provided it is zero carbon - or a low carbon neighborhood now.

Representation ID: 5520

SUPPORT Mr and Mrs G Morgan and 1 other

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 5437

OBJECT Mike Cheeseman

Summary:

As stated it places all the emphasis on housing and I'm not sure this is the thing to be fixed first.

Representation ID: 5388

SUPPORT John Baxter

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 5337

OBJECT SEAN DEELY

Summary:

However the term "local needs" should be defined to mean for those already living within the parish or who have dependents living in the parish. The "local need" must also be determined by the Parish Council though a Parish Plan or Housing need survey.

Representation ID: 5201

OBJECT Sonia Owczarek

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 5182

OBJECT Lindsay Wood

Summary:

Village ID needs to be maintained.

Representation ID: 5043

SUPPORT Michael Morris

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 4864

SUPPORT Vera Leeke

Summary:

The option should be more detailed eg. Minimum 80 new homes in each village settlement up to 2026. Small scale and in several locations. There is unused land in all villages and owners should be encouraged to offer it for development.

Representation ID: 4666

SUPPORT V Gill Peppitt

Summary:

support

Representation ID: 4592

SUPPORT Mr S Morris

Summary:

support

Representation ID: 4529

SUPPORT Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association (Mr Adrian Pauling)

Summary:

support

Representation ID: 4368

SUPPORT A Picken

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 4249

OBJECT Kulwinder Fathers

Summary:

More affordable rural housing will encourage changes in the demographics and help rural communities, schools & services to be sustained. Bishops Tachbrook, Heathcote & Whitnash have already had significant development.

Representation ID: 4197

OBJECT Onkar Mann

Summary:

Additional affordable housing should be considered for the rural areas

Representation ID: 4041

COMMENT Mrs Diana Sellwood

Summary:

There is a need to include some housing growth in the villages - of affordable housing.

Representation ID: 4039

SUPPORT Ms Angela Clarke

Summary:

Yes - flexiblity of approach and develpopment where needed/ appropriate must be right - and with urban development too in ourtrelatively small area.

Representation ID: 3933

SUPPORT Andrea Telford

Summary:

Affordable housing is a must with extra services, eg. Post offices and bus services.

Representation ID: 3870

OBJECT Patricia Diane Freeman

Summary:

The area will be overfilled with 3500 houses and it will be very difficult to use Green Lane for traffic. The road is quite small.

Representation ID: 3699

SUPPORT Mr Richard Brookes

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 3645

OBJECT Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Summary:

Again the issue of highway infrastructure and/or public transport to outlying areas must feature in any plans to expand our villages.

Representation ID: 3395

SUPPORT Mrs M Kane

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 3267

OBJECT Mr David John Bowers

Summary:

Local shops are not supported because it is cheaper to go to supermarkets, this a fact of life. If rural housing is so good just visit rural areas around Tamworth district.

Representation ID: 3159

OBJECT Mr R.C Hadfield

Summary:

Small villages eg Leek Wotton should not be turned into mini towns

Representation ID: 3147

SUPPORT John Murphy

Summary:

This Preferred option is thoroughly welcomed provided proper, full, local consultation and meeting only the community's clearly identified needs (and wishes) is irrevocably enshrined policy.

Representation ID: 3083

SUPPORT Mr Anthony Morris

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 3021

OBJECT Bill McCutchon

Summary:

The amount of unnecessary pain this will inflict on the local population with no identifiable gain for them and the loss of the opportunity which should be taken to spread the requirement for housing over a wider area to include the sensible development of rural communities, many of which are finding it difficult to survive as communities witnessed by the closure of schools, local shops, post offices, public houses etc.

Representation ID: 2979

OBJECT Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Summary:

Strongly disagree

Representation ID: 2928

SUPPORT Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council (Mr John MURPHY)

Summary:

This Preferred option is thoroughly welcomed provided proper, full, local consultation and meeting only the community's clearly identified needs (and wishes) is irrevocably enshrined policy.

Representation ID: 2872

OBJECT Susan Butcher

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 2833

OBJECT Mr Robert Butcher

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 2792

OBJECT Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

Summary:

There should be a sensitive approach to small villages and their beauty preserved.

Representation ID: 2741

SUPPORT Pauline Neale

Summary:

Housing allocations should meet local needs and be locally driven e.g. by Parish Councils. Village schools should be supported and helped to survive during times of lower recruitment.

Representation ID: 2708

COMMENT Mr Terence Kemp

Summary:

Priority must be given to affordable housing combined with provision of local social facilities

Representation ID: 2679

SUPPORT Mrs Margaret Devitt

Summary:

Yes.

Representation ID: 2618

SUPPORT John Arnold

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 2556

SUPPORT Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson and 1 other

Summary:

As long as it does not provide inappropriate housing expansion.

Representation ID: 2493

SUPPORT British Waterways (Chrisine Hemming)

Summary:

Yes

Representation ID: 2432

OBJECT Mr Connolly

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 2393

OBJECT Roy Standley

Summary:

No.

Representation ID: 2375

OBJECT Mr Ed Rycroft

Summary:

YOUR OWN CORE STRATEGY SAYS IT PERFECTLY!!!!!!!

"9.8 - It is clearly not possible or appropriate within the Core Strategy to identify, or plan for, what the local need should be in terms of new
development within each of the villages. The 'TOP-DOWN' approach of allocating development, such as new housing or employment, to specific sites around the villages is NOT considered a REALISTIC OPTION as it would be CONTRARY TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY and would be UNLIKELY to achieve the objective of strengthening rural communities."

Why then is it ok to put 4,500 houses around Bishops Tachbrook (a rural
community)?

Representation ID: 2317

OBJECT S B Hoyles

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 2168

SUPPORT Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

Summary:

Emphasis should be places on Parish level information setting the framework (9.9)

Representation ID: 2053

OBJECT mr john jacques

Summary:

because it is based on biased unproven numbers provided by New Labour to suit own ends in getting relected, to get votes from mass of welfare dependent unemployed/unemployable hangers-on it has created in 11 years of mismanagement.


and insufficent consideration of views of local peopel and affect on environment.

Representation ID: 1840

OBJECT Mrs Helen Cheatham

Summary:

As referred to previously, infrastructure not viable.

Representation ID: 1817

SUPPORT Val Hunnisett

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 1787

OBJECT Max Bacon

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 1730

OBJECT Mr and Mrs D zacaroni

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 1682

OBJECT J.G Whetstone

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 1561

SUPPORT B.L.A.S.T. (Mr Geoff Southgate)

Summary:

9b It is important to maintain existing allotment land and seek provision for future allotment land to keep it available for the community and not let it become an expensive housing estate

Representation ID: 1551

OBJECT Mr and Mrs David and Heather Hall

Summary:

A rural housing policy should be flexible to enable schemes to be developed and adapted both within and on the edge of rural settlements. This would make the villages and their services sustainable. To do nothing will result in the loss of more village communities and then they may as well be merged into the larger connurbations.

Representation ID: 1368

SUPPORT Guide Dogs for the Blind Association represented by DNS Planning and Design Consultants (Mr Dan Drayton)

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 1234

OBJECT Andrew Horsley

Summary:

You cannot expect people not to travel unless schools, shops, employment are all facilitated in each village of course people will have to travel.

Representation ID: 1177

SUPPORT Barry Elliman

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 1155

OBJECT Alice Jarrett

Summary:

Limited expansion of desirable village development should be made easier, to increase sizes sufficient that extra services may become viable. The French appear to be able to achieve this, with British assistance in many cases!

Representation ID: 1098

OBJECT Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Summary:

Some village growth is essential to keep local shops, amenities,services, bus routes etc. Development needs to offer housing options for younger people and families. Many of the District's village primary schools are not full.

Representation ID: 1075

SUPPORT Mrs Pamela Beedham

Summary:

But new housing should be in a style that fits into the existing houses and good landscaping to fit with the village.

Representation ID: 995

COMMENT Cllr Tim Sawdon

Summary:

Where possible villages with low populations should be expanded to create more viable communities.

Representation ID: 975

OBJECT Kirit Marvania

Summary:

Disagree with Kings Hill.

Representation ID: 947

COMMENT Mrs Marilyn Bull

Summary:

Some new housing in villages would appear essential to maintaining village vitality. A modest mix of housing would allow the elderly to downsize and thus remain in their community, would create the opportunity for first time buyers and would release some of the larger properties to avoid the need to build more "executive" homes

Representation ID: 909

SUPPORT Christine Betts

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 845

OBJECT Adrian Farmer

Summary:

No need for any expansion into green belt. Services must be viable.

Representation ID: 777

SUPPORT Faye Davis

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 759

COMMENT West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium represented by Tetlow King Planning (Meghan Rossiter)

Summary:

A rural exceptions policy should genuinely enable schemes to be developed in the correct locations both within and on the edge of rural settlements.

Representation ID: 744

OBJECT West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium represented by Tetlow King Planning (Meghan Rossiter)

Summary:

It is considered inappropriate to set limitations on the scale of development that may be permitted in rural areas as this approach is unnecessarily negative. The Council should instead seek to implement positive, practical policies that encourage affordable housing development that is proportional in scale and nature to identified needs and the character and scale of the rural area to which it relates.
The conflict apparent within paragraph 9.11 should indicate that residential development should not be unnecessarily restricted through an arbitrary measure but instead be assessed against local need on a case by case basis.

Representation ID: 706

SUPPORT P.A. Yarwood

Summary:

Each large village should have 30-50 new houses.

Representation ID: 616

OBJECT Mr G.R. Summers

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 553

SUPPORT Mr A M Webley

Summary:

Support.

Representation ID: 483

SUPPORT Georgina Wilson

Summary:

Planning officers need to balance the requirements for affordable housing for local village residents with the desires of developers who prefer building for "executives".

Representation ID: 432

SUPPORT Peter Clarke

Summary:

I agree in reducing the need to travel but 4200 houses in the middle of the countryside would only cause travel and commuting problems.

Representation ID: 392

COMMENT Canon David Tilley

Summary:

Support provided the integrity of villages is preserved, e.g. avoid in-filling thus in effect merging communities

Representation ID: 354

OBJECT Peter Pounds

Summary:

Object.

Representation ID: 327

COMMENT Mr and Mrs D Bolam

Summary:

As long as the needs of the existing residents were given priority, any development to improve and ensure the communities future existence must be a good thing.

Representation ID: 228

OBJECT Mr Duncan Hurwood

Summary:

No Green-field sites should be used to build more housing.

Representation ID: 122

OBJECT R A Chapleo

Summary:

No - I think this is apolitical resonse. Rural communities IN THIS DISTRICT require no strengthening.

Representation ID: 102

SUPPORT Mrs Zita Lowe

Summary:

I feel the development of Rural land will be detrimental to the environment,we live in a rural village and would be very annoyed if houses were merged into Town. When asked at the local council meeting if there would be money given to our village to improve our facilities we were told that that would not be the case.

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult