After consultation and discussion NLPC has submitted the following response to the South Warwickshire Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation.

Submission

Norton Lindsey Parish Council represents 368 residents in 161 households (source 2021 census) in the parish of Norton Lindsey, which covers the majority of the village of Norton Lindsey. The village is situated immediately to the south of the proposed HAT new settlement.

The Council fully supports and endorses the consultation submission made by Keep Hatton Station Rural action group (KHSR).

The Parish Council held an open meeting in the Village Hall on Monday 15th June, which was attended by over 60 residents and dealt with many questions with regard to the draft South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP) and its potential impact on the village. Representatives of KHSR attended to discuss their representations.

There was no support shown at the meeting for the SWLP allocation of the proposed HAT settlement.

All households in the village had previously received a flyer advertising the meeting, which was also advertised on the Facebook Village page and the Council’s website. The Council also participated in the Joint Parishes Liaison Group which met to discuss the impact of the SWLP on the surrounding neighbourhood.

The KHSR document represents a fully researched, factual assessment of the viability, sustainability and deliverability of the HAT proposal in the SWLP and concludes therefore that the Plan is unsound and undeliverable.

It illustrates that a proposed new settlement, centred on Hatton Station will severely damage the surrounding Green Belt and have a huge adverse environmental and economic impact on the countryside and village settlements in the surrounding area.

Policy ID.1 Securing Infrastructure Provision

Traffic

This submission however considers the most significant potential impact that will affect the Parish of Norton Lindsey directly – that of increased traffic on the local rural road network. The impact of this development on this network would be significant and, without substantial mitigation, disastrous.

NLPC believes that insufficient traffic modelling has been undertaken – even at a high level – to understand the impact of HAT on traffic moving through the parish of Norton Lindsey and therefore believes that the SWLP is unsound.

All traffic from the proposed site leaving in a Southerly direction would need to travel down one of two routes

• Dark Lane over the M40 motorway and then either continuing along Dark Lane to its junction with the A4189 or along Norton Curlieu Lane to its junction with the A4189
• Staton Road over the M40 motorway and then continuing to its junction with Dark Lane.

Dark Lane is a ‘single-track road with passing places’ with numerous blind-bends.  Norton Curlieu Lane is also a ‘single-track road with passing places’, several blind-bends (being even narrower than Dark Lane) and is also signed as being unsuitable for Heavy Goods vehicles.

It is likely that if a development of this size, at this location was granted, that either:

A. Vehicular traffic must be prevented from exiting/entering the site to/from the South, by ‘stopping-up’ Dark Lane.  This would force all traffic North from the site avoiding the local rural road network. Whilst recognising that this would have an unfortunate impact on residents of Norton Lindsey Parish who use this road to travel North, this would ultimately lead to the best overall outcome for the Parish of Norton Lindsey.

OR

B. An alternative package of significant mitigation measures such as the following would need to be adopted (For the avoidance of doubt, Norton Lindsey Parish Council is not proposing or supporting these ‘possible’ highway changes, rather it is at this stage simply outlining the magnitude of the likely changes that would be required if this development went ahead) 

1. Significant widening of Dark Lane, with a probable requirement for compulsory purchase orders, would need to be undertaken to allow two-way traffic along its full-length
2. Norton Curlieu Lane would likely need to be closed at its junction of Dark Lane to vehicular traffic. Appropriate widening of Norton Curlieu Lane would not be possible due to the proximity of houses to the highway.
3. Significant alterations at the junction of Dark Lane and the A4189 would be needed –likely requiring either traffic-controlled signals or a roundabout. It is not clear if this would be possible without significant highway realignment that would potentially require purchasing of neighbouring properties.
4. To prevent traffic utilising the village of Norton Lindsey as a ‘rat-run’ for traffic heading in the direction of Stratford-upon-Avon, Wellesbourne etc, then significant and intrusive traffic calming would need to be put in place – particularly around Curlieu Lane, Wolverton Road, Main Street and Snitterfield Lane.
   a. Main Street in Norton Lindsey has no pavement for a significant part of its length and has narrow ‘pinch points’ where pedestrians walking in the road and vehicular traffic meet without appropriate separation. This area has been identified as having poor pedestrian safety and a 20-mph zone has recently been implemented. If the Hatton development were to take place, significant alterations to pedestrian safety on Main Street would be likely necessary – however any scheme would be complicated by the proximity of properties to the road, the conservation area status of this street and nearby listed buildings.
   b. It is likely that Brittons Lane would need to be closed at the junction of the A4189, as this lane is not suitable for any increase in traffic due to its width, blind bends and the nature of its junction with Warwick Road. If it remained open it would also likely need to be made one-way and necessitate significant and intrusive traffic calming on New Road.
   c. Curlieu Lane is also on the route to Wolverton School for children walking to school. The junction with Wolverton Road already has limitations in visibility and approach speeds and there would need to be appropriate mitigation put in place.
5. Is likely that a significant improvement of the junction of the A4189 and the B4463 would be needed given the undoubted increase in traffic accessing J15 of the M40 or continuing along the A4189 into Warwick. This would likely further require changes to the junction of Warwick Road and the B4463

Norton Lindsey Parish Council recognises that no appropriate traffic modelling has yet taken place for this proposed site.  Whilst understanding that modelling may be done in the future, it does make it very difficult to raise specific points during this part of the consultation process.  The previous comments are therefore based on the current understanding of the Council of the proposed development.   

Any issues on the local principal road network – particularly affecting Junction 15 of the M40 or the A46 – currently results in significant increases in traffic through the village of Norton Lindsey.  This new development would exacerbate that significantly and would undoubtably lead to a requirement for more traffic calming through the village.

Norton Lindsey Parish Council are concerned that there has been a view put forward by the developer that suggests very little traffic will travel South from the site.  Current behaviour and local knowledge proves that this is at best naive, and at worst misleading.    These local roads are already used as an alternative route to the M40, A46 and Stratford, Henley etc and have caused traffic issues for residents for many years.

If the roads out of the site are improved, this will simply be moving the traffic issues to other locations, such as the centre of Norton Lindsey, Snitterfield, Heath End, Saddlebow Lane etc.

Healthcare provision

Norton Lindsey is currently served by two local GP practices, at Budbrooke Medical Centre and a satellite surgery of the Stratford upon Avon Trinity Court practice at Claverdon. Due to housing development at Hampton Magna, the Budbrooke practice is fully subscribed and the on-site pharmacy has extended lead times for repeat prescriptions to three days, due to increased demand.

The concern of NLPC is that the HAT development and the growth in population will not be matched by the provision of primary health care services on the site of the new development, especially in early stages of the development.

Furthermore, Warwick Hospital is located on a congested site and already struggling to meet demand in A&E, clinical surgery and car parking for patients and staff. There are no known plans to accommodate the growth in population associated with the huge growth in housing included in the SWLP.

Conclusion

In the Parish Council’s view proposal HAT is unsound: it is not justified, not effective, not evidenced and not consistent with national policy.