Given that Kingswood has a population of 842 (and 381 dwellings) and has 600 fewer than the next smallest Primary Service Village, and 1300 fewer than Cubbington, I would appreciate your comments on why it should be given the same allocation of new houses - an almost 45% increase for Kingswood. How is this squared with the 20% baseline growth rate for Primary Villages explained in Section 5.9? On top of that of course is the whole question about the scoring system giving us Category 1 status. If we were a secondary settlement, as we clearly should be according to your scoring system, our baseline growth rate is 15% i.e. 381 * 15% which equals 57 new houses in Kingswood.

I am pretty confident that a 57 house increase spread over a number of years could be managed without too much grief in Kingswood and without encroaching on the most highly valued greenbelt land. Obviously the methodology used for looking at and recommending sites will be questioned seriously, but 57 is vastly easier to envisage than 150!