Possible Housing Sites Identified by NDP

The group drawing up a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) for the whole of Tanworth parish presented its latest draft to a meeting of the full Parish Council on Thursday 22 June.

An NDP is a central government sponsored scheme to allow communities,among other things,to have a say on where housing and other developments should be located and what they should look like.  Suggesting no housing development is not an option with an NDP.

Inevitably,the most contentious issue is the identification of possible sites for housing in addition to those already permitted under existing Green Belt legislation –such as Cank Farm and Doctor’s Close. The list of such sites finally agreed by the Parish Council and deemed to conform to other policies by an Inspector will be put to residents in a referendum.

A simple majority of those voting will be required for the adoption of the whole NDP.

Stratford District Council has identified three Local Service Villages (LSVs) –Tanworth,Wood End and Earlswood –where it thinks housing would be appropriate so long as any proposals conform with existing Green Belt Rules. In general these have to be either brownfield,limited infill and small scale developments.

If you want to see the particular sites that have been identified by the NDP group under Mike Saunders and Jonathan Ashcroft please follow the links to the Tanworth Parish Council website or the Tanworth NDP site.   This document should be available soon.   You should also see the criteria that were adopted to assess their suitability.  If you want more information please contact the Clerk, Mrs Julie White,on 703200.

It is anticipated that public meetings will be held in each LSV in coming months to allow residents to give their views on these proposed sites and the draft document as a whole.

Two sites –behind the Warwickshire Lad pub on Broad Lane and in Butts Lane near the school –are expected to be particularly controversial.

The hope is that,by discussing these sites at an early stage and judging whether they are likely to attract wide public support,the eventual referendum can be less contentious. That,at any rate,is the hope.

Other sites could still be proposed at this time. It could even be decided to reject all but one site and still technically meet the strict requirements laid down by the government. The decision is down to individual residents to make an effort to acquaint themselves with the proposals as soon as possible and express their opinion on each site to Mike and Jonathan.

Doing nothing would definitely be a bad idea.


(Source:Tom Ross)

Comments are closed.