Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 7752

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

No meaningful analysis of the extent of supporting infrastructure in the two settlements.
Primary schools and doctor's surgeries in Hampton-in-Arden and Yew Tree Lane are already at capacity. Catherine de Barnes has neither.
Local trains only service Hampton village; bus services run through both villages but are at hourly intervals and do not run on Sundays. Taxibus service was withdrawn in 2016.
Need reference to the Neighbourhood Plan which contains agreed Policies, Objectives and Outcomes for the next 10 years.

Comment

Representation ID: 7753

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Concerned that development will add pressure to local infrastructure, particularly the primary school and the doctor's surgery which are both currently operating at capacity.
Concerned that extra traffic generated will overload the existing priority junction of Lapwing Drive and Meriden Road.
No clear plan exists for the development, including layout, and for that part of the land which should be returned to Green Belt.
Approval should be conditional on providing an upgraded junction to cater for the additional generated traffic. This should include a pedestrian crossing on Meriden Road as no path exists on the development side of Meriden Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 7754

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Capacity of Site 24 (Oak Farm) is overstated.
Any development here needs to include sufficient car parking space as local public transport services are wholly inadequate. Concern that 80 dwellings could only be achieved through the construction of multi-storey apartments or tightly packed terraced homes with no or limited parking facilities, which would be wholly inappropriate.
Consider that 2012 SHLAA conclusions on this site still apply.
We propose some conditions on developing Site 24 (Oak Farm).

Object

Representation ID: 7755

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Strongly oppose development of Site 16 (Lugtrout Lane)
With regard to:
Protecting the Catney Gap in accordance with Challenge E of the 2013 Plan;
Loss of defensible boundaries for Green Belt protection;
Inability of the local infrastructure to handle the development
The scale of the proposed development which will gridlock existing roads and junctions, already at capacity.
The reasons given for rejecting this development in SHLAA 2012;
Strongly oppose the extension of Site 16 north of Lugtrout Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 10420

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Following the Governance Review in Hampton-in-Arden, all references to Site 16 need to be moved and included within the Hampton-in-Arden section. This site must now also be considered within the context of the infrastructure and rural environment of the Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council Area.
With references to sites 12, 85, 96, 106, and 143, the parish segment for these sites has been left blank. These sites will fall within Hampton Parish from April 2019.
The Plan should recognise the multiple threats posed against the Meriden Gap by HS2, M42 Junction 6 and MSA.