Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
Report to Ettington Parish Council
Date: 12 June 2013
Agenda Item
14
Affordable Housing Appendix 4
Correspondence has been received and is attached for the attention of Council which is asked to
consider and respond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection to Social Housing proposal – Warwick Road, Ettington
We strongly object to the proposed residential development off Warwick Road, Ettington, for the
following reasons:
At no time have any residents received any information or formal notices of the discussions taking
place/feasibility studies, delivered to homes. We have never been consulted. The aim of the last
survey was to assess local housing needs, i.e. housing needs within and relating to the parish of
Ettington. Planning policy at all levels (national, regional and local) imposes considerable restraint
on new housing development in rural areas. There is, however, capacity for this restraint to be
relaxed in exceptional circumstances where new housing would meet a ‘local’ need identified by
Ettington village residents.
An important decision such as proposed feasibility development in Ettington has been poorly
represented by Ettington Parish Council. They have failed to communicate with residents on all
levels. There are planning tools available which they could have used and would have been the most
helpful in achieving local communities' aspirations and needs. The Parish Council have at no time
set up community forums and encouraged active discussions and debates on this proposal.
The Parish Council have not taken any measures to make sure that the whole
Community is aware of their intention to develop. They have at no time provided information in
other languages and formats, to make sure that, for example, ethnic minority groups or those who
with disabilities or partially sighted can be involved.
The site off Warwick Road has significant ecological bearing – a variety of protected species of bats,
garden birds and birds of prey together with game birds reside and nest on this site. Hedging
provides nests and forage for local wildlife.
1
Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
The Spitfire proposal does not in any shape or form stand up for the countryside. It does not sustain,
enchant and inspire future and present generations.
Has the proposal been subject to Sustainability Appraisal? The proposed site does not protect and
create open space, does not offer nature reserves, allotments, play areas, parks and gardens, and
the planting of trees. Ettington needs its designated local Green Spaces.
A development should be built in the heart of the village, not on the boundary. This site is close to
the A429 and the A422, both are busy main highways which are noisy and with large volume traffic.
There is no mains gas in Ettington. Oil and LPG and Electric energy sources are all that are available.
Traffic issues would be an issue – young families would be subject to walking and crossing a busy ‘A’
road in order to walk into Ettington. The new playground and Community Hall is in the Centre of the
Village and not close to the proposed site. The local School is not close to the proposed site. There
are no bus stops or bus shelters close to the proposed site. There is no street lighting.
Ettington does not support or offer a range of good quality jobs, businesses, shops and services that
meet the needs of local people. It does not offer new and diverse leisure and recreational activities
in order to promote healthy and crime-free lifestyles, particularly for youngsters. A proposal such as
this should be sited in a small rural Town, Shipston-on-Stour or a larger village, Wellesbourne, for
example.
Ettington does not offer good transport links.
A scaled down bus service.
That’s it.
The housing proposal is a too intensive development. 19 homes are far too many. Having viewed
the plan, there is a minimum amount of amenity area to each individual dwelling.
Ettington is unable to further develop or expand the local School. There are no local health facilities.
Who are Spitfire Properties?
Who are Spitfire properties acting for?
Is this proposal for AFFORDABLE HOUSING? Or SOCIAL HOUSING?
In accordance with the local plan, has the following criteria been followed so the local Community
can benefit from any such opportunity?
 A household containing an individual who was born in the parish
• A household currently living in the parish and has done so for a period of at least twelve months
• A household that previously lived in the parish for at least 3 years but has moved away in order to
find suitable and/or affordable accommodation.
• A household containing an individual who works in the parish and has done so for at least twelve
months.
2
Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
• A household containing an individual with a close relative currently living in the parish and where
this relative has been resident in the parish for at least 3 years.
Such a scheme meeting the above criteria would alleviate the current housing need for those who
cannot afford to secure a suitable property in Ettington, but wish to stay in the parish or return to be
close to family members that are currently resident.
Lindsey and Maurice Nathan
3 Nelson Close
Ettington
Warwickshire
CV37 7SL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We are writing to object, in the strongest possible terms, to a proposed social housing development on the field
to the rear of Ettington Grange, which John Molloy recently submitted to the Parish Council for
consideration. Not only will such a development have a disproportionately high impact on the value of our home
(and those of our neighbours) but it will also destroy the beautiful countryside in which we’re extremely
fortunate to live.
Plans to develop on the field will completely transform the outlook from our flat, robbing us of one of the key
elements that make our property unique, appealing and saleable. Furthermore, the proposed housing
development will introduce noise levels and light pollution that will have a damaging effect on our quality of
life. The suggestion that these housing plans will have no impact on the Grange is laughable and woefully
inaccurate. For us, the impact will be truly devastating.
We had understood that the field was originally rejected as unsuitable for development, so we're curious to
know why this proposal is once again on the table for consideration. All of the factors that existed when the site
was first looked at are still in place (including the properties upon which this development will have such an
adverse effect) so we would be interested to know the reasons and motivation for breathing fresh life into this
potentially damaging development plan.
As I hope you will appreciate, we are extremely anxious about these proposals and ask that you take our
objection seriously. Please can you confirm the date and time of the June Parish Council meeting, as we are very
keen to attend.
Best wishes,
Andy & Claire Tootell
Flat C, Ettington Grange
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Baker
Apartment E Ettington Grange
Stratford Road
3
Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
Ettington
Stratford-Upon-Avon
CV37 7NU
Email – nick_baker25@yahoo.com
13th May 2013
Objection to the Social Housing Development on Field Behind Ettington Grange
Dear Ms Furniss,
I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to build new social housing in
the field behind the flat which I own at Ettington Grange. Having owned the flat in the Grange, a
beautiful converted vicarage, for the past 5 years, I have enjoyed the peace and tranquillity which it
provides and the glorious views over open fields to the rear of the building.
I was shocked to hear that having originally been rejected it is now being reconsidered for
development. Can you confirm why this would be the case? Surely once rejected the field cannot be
then reconsidered?
Having seen the proposed plans for the development, the close proximity of the houses would no
doubt have significant impact on all owners of the Grange and the nearby Mews properties. My
view from the top floor would be significantly impacted as the entire right side of the empty field
would become a housing estate! The increased noise and light pollution from the new houses would
be awful.
In terms of the impact on the value of my apartment, I expect that the development would be
significant and cause a large reduction to the value of my property. One of the unique selling points
of the Grange is its quiet and peaceful location and tranquil outlook – I have no doubt the new
development would ruin this outlook and have a direct impact on my ability to sell the apartment in
future.
I gather there is an alternate potential site on the other side of the Old Warwick Road which I would
encourage you to pursue and looks far more suitable for the development than the field behind
Ettington Grange.
I look forward to your response is due course. Please email your reply to the above address as I am
currently renting the apartment out.
Yours Sincerely,
Nick Baker
Owner – Apartment E, Ettington Grange. Director (Ettington Grange Management Company).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
Ettington Grange Management Ltd
David Hughes
Ettington Parish Council
12 May 2013
Dear Mr Hughes
Proposed Site for Social Housing
The plans for the development of the field behind Ettington Grange have been
circulated to the directors of Ettington Grange Management Limited. We would like
to raise our objections to these proposals in the strongest terms.
Our objections to the development are set out below:
Process
a. Five preferred sites have already been identified as suitable for social housing
development by Mr Phil Ward (Rural Housing Enabler). It has been stated that
only one land owner has responded to a request to enter into dialogue regarding
the development of these sites and that development plans have been presented to
the Parish Council by this land owner.
We believe that, before considering any other sites, the Parish Council should be
able to clearly demonstrate through the provision of evidence:
• that it, or its representatives, have made best endeavours to enter into
discussions with the landowners of all 5 sites;
• that it has made best endeavours to agree a suitable proposal with the
landowner who has already put forward a development plan;
• that it has rejected the plans for the development of any, or all, of these
5 sites on grounds that can be clearly justified;
Please could you confirm that you are in possession of this evidence.
b. If the evidence clearly indicates that none of the 5 sites can be used to meet the
social housing requirement, the Parish Council should then consider all other
sites that may be available for development. It should not demonstrate
preferential and anti-competitive bias towards any individual landowner.
Ettington Grange Management Ltd, Company Registered in England & Wales: 1161769
Ettington Grange Management Ltd
Please could you explain the reasons why you have decided to consider Mr
Molloy’s request at this stage, having earlier rejected it as unsuitable, and why he
appears to have been given preferential consideration above other landowners in
the village. We would also like to understand:
the manner in which the negotiations between Mr Phil Ward and Mr
Molloy was initiated; and
whether Mr Ward was acting under instruction from the Parish Council in
conducting these discussions with Mr Molloy.
c. The site behind Ettington Grange is on the outskirts of the village and
development of the site will have a disproportionately high impact on the
surrounding properties. The site was originally rejected by Mt Ward as
unsuitable for development and the basis upon which he decided that the site was
unsuitable has not changed. We should be grateful if you would provide evidence
to:
a. set out the reasons why Mr Ward, who we understand was acting on
your instruction, initially rejected the field behind Ettington Grange as
a site for social housing;
b. indicate why you now feel that it is appropriate to consider a site which
has already been rejected; and
5
Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
c. explain why you are now prepared to consider this site in a manner that
might be construed as biased and anti-competitive by other landowners
in the village.
Impact on Ettington Grange
Mr Molloy claimed that his proposed plans would have 'no impact' on Ettington
Grange. Clearly this is not the case. Several of the houses will be sited within a few
metres of the garden boundary of the Grange. They will be clearly seen from the
Grange. Besides having a detrimental impact on the outlook of The Grange, the
development will also cause ‘noise pollution’ and ‘light pollution’.
This impact is likely to have a significant detrimental, and disproportionately high,
impact on the value of the properties at The Grange.
Additional Consideration
The Parish Council has already received plans for the development of the field on
the
opposite side of the Old Warwick Road. This development, which is one of your
preferred locations, is likely to proceed regardless of the support of the Parish
Council. We believe that the Parish Council should use its influence to control this
development, rather than considering additional sites for yet more housing.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
Richard Cordery
Chairman, Ettington Grange Management Limited
cc. Isobel Seccombe, Stratford District Council
Nick Solman. Cp Bigwood
Dear Mr Cordery,
Further to my previous email the responses to the queries you raised on behalf of Ettington Grange
Management are to the best of my knowledge as follow:
Process a)
There were originally 7 potential sites identified and they did not include the one which is the subject
of your objection. In order to obtain some informed opinion the seven sites were initially run by the
District Council planning office to see if there would be any merit in pursuing them. Only three were
deemed worthy of following up after this exercise and the owners were duly approached by Mr Ward
on the Council's behalf. The only expression of interest came from the owner of the site to the South
of Old Warwick Rd.
b) Mr. Ward was invited to the Council Meeting on 8th May to provide an update on the situation
regarding the latter site. He had intimated that there had also been an offer of land for the purpose
from the North side of the Old Warwick Rd. and so without any preconceived ideas of interest in the
site, knowledge by the Council of its precise location or ownership , he was asked to provide
details. The Council had not anticipated details of a development but Mr Molloy, having attended, was
allowed to say his piece. Mr. Ward invited the Council to decide whether it felt it prudent to give the
Molloy site consideration as a fall back option should
it prove impossible to achieve satisfactory agreement with the owner and developer of the
site to the South side. The Council declined to make a judgement until the June meeting when it will
have had the opportunity to visit the site and deliberate on the propriety of so doing. How Mr. Molloy
made his approach to WRCC I have yet to discover.
6
Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
c) The land has not previously been rejected as it was not in the original list of identified sites. The
Council has to date made no commitment at all in regard to the site.
Councillors will see for themselves the impact on the Grange when they visit.
It is certainly the intention of the Parish Council to apply what influence it has in ensuring that all the
constraints imposed on a rural exception site are observed on the field opposite. It is certainly not
inclined to pave the way for more development. I should add that whatever recommendations the
Council might make all are subject to approval by the Planning Authorities even on rural exception
sites.
I hope this allays your immediate concerns and those of other residents who have also made
representation.
Yours sincerely,
David Hughes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that Mr & Mrs Prosser of the Coach House have asked me (in my capacity as a
Parish Councillr) to notify you that:
a) They object to the plans presented by Mr Molloy for social housing on the field off Old
Warwick Rad that is located behind Ettington Grange and adjacent to Oak House and feel
that the site is not suitable for development (as per the original view of Mr Ward).
b) They do not object to the development of the field on the other side of Old Warwick Road
for Social Housing (as originally proposed by Mr Ward).
Please note that Mr & Mrs Prosser are unable to attend the June meeting of the Parish
Council and have asked me to raise this objection on their behalf.
Without Prejudice
You will be receiving separate objections from residents of The Mews, The Grange,
Ettington Grange Management Limited and their advisors.
As discussed at the Parish Council meeting, you will be receiving an invitatiion to view the
proposed development site from residents of Ettington Grange and The Mews.
You should be aware that factually incorrect statements were made at the Parish Council
meeting, which amount to an expression of personal opinion by individual Parish
Councillors. Specifically:
1. One councillor noted that the field appeared to be low grade agricultural land which was
effectively waste ground. In fact the field, is specifically designated as grazing ground and
has been leased by Mr Molloy for several years for this purpose. Horses have bene grazed on
the land for a period in excess of 5 years, and it is currently used for grazing sheep as well as
for storing logs and wood chippingss.
2. One councillor initiated a discussion on the possibility of converrting the wooded
coppice into a picnic area. This comment was made by the councillor without any knowledge
of either the suitability of the coppice for such use, or of the access rights to the land.
7
Appendix 4 - 13 06 12
It is possibly also worth noting the Mr Molloy explained that he owned the freehold to the
Grange and The Mews. This is incorrect. The residents of The Mews are freeholders of the
area occupied by The Mews and the surrounding land, including access to the area identified
as the Gardeners Cottage. You may also wish to note that the leaseholds on the land occupied
by The Grange (which includes access to the coppice), were renewed by some residents last
year and are in place for a period of 165 years.
Finally, I have already declared a conflict of interest wth regard to this issue. Please note that
I am currently seeking legal advice on whether I shoud resign as a Parish Councillor. If the
advice is that I should do so, I will resign at the start of the June meeting and join the
members of the public.
Regards
Jane Eccles
8