Correct procedure does not appear to have been followed with regard to the proposed development of Site 1 in Radford Semele. Site 1 has been selected as the preferred option without it, as I understand the situation, even being proposed initially or discussed with the Parish Council which represents all the residents that are affected by any development. The preferred site (Site 1) had previously been excluded because of its rural nature, its setting and the fact that it was separate from the main village. Radford Semele Parish Council had engaged and responded positively to the WDC consultation and had expressed their preferred solution for additional houses to be built to the East of the village along the A425 towards Southam (Sites 2 &3) and many are surprised and disappointed that local representatives, who voluntarily give up their time to represent villagers and have to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions, have been roundly ignored in this process. The decision of WDC to propose Site 1 as the preferred option was not discussed with the Parish Council and for such a significant change to previous policy and reversal of earlier decisions taken by WDC, some degree of consultation should be expected rather than it being presented as a fait accompli to both Parish Council and residents. As WDC did not engage with the Parish Council in rejecting the Parish Council proposed sites (sites 2 and 3) and in deciding on a new site heretofore not discussed in this consultation, I would argue that correct procedures have not been followed.


In reviewing the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Report (November 2013) it is apparent that the summary information provided could be seen as somewhat misleading if viewed in isolation, and indeed is incorrect on occasion in both fact and interpretation:

Green Field Function - 'Surrounded by very large Green Field or strategically important parcels which plays a major role in preserving the setting of the village....'

The key strategic important parcel, indeed the only large green field in the village which does indeed preserve the setting of the village, is Site 1, the preferred option. The fact that Site 1 is being considered for development in the light of this comment is surprising as it suggests that a decision to adopt Site 1 as the preferred option has been taken in the full knowledge that the historic setting of the village and its preservation is not a priority and is expendable.

Green Field Function - '....and also the openness of the landscape from the east of Leamington'. Landscape and Habitat Impact - 'Landscape openness a particularly strong feature towards the east of the settlement'.

These points (duplicated so as to indicate greater significance maybe?) are only relevant when well outside the village heading east and on beginning the drop down towards the Fosse Way. Until that point the landscape and vista is not truly open. The same is also true when looking back towards Radford Semele and Leamington from the Fosse Way as the village and fields close to the village are not visible from the Fosse way because of the hills and escarpment. A development close to the village as suggested with sites 2 and 3 does not therefore impact as is suggested. In reviewing the potential sites 2 and 3 and subsequently rejecting them WDC have stated that there would be a high visual impact from along the Fosse Way and surrounding areas. This is actually a statement made not with regard to sites 2 and 3 which cover relatively small amounts of land close to Radford Semele but made with regard to much larger parcels of land RS03 and RS04 in the WDC Environmental Report. These larger areas, of which sites 2 and 3 are small parts, do indeed stretch all the way from Radford Semele down to the Fosse Way and if houses were built all the way down to the Fosse Way then visually there would be a high impact. The view of the Parish Council is that a development on either side of the A425 at sites 2 and 3 would have least visual impact on the residents of Radford Semele and on people travelling through or past the village. I agree with the view of the Parish Council on this issue.

A further point is that the 'openess' of Site 1 to views from the A425 through the village and further afield from Newbold Comyn round to Cubbington, which is a much more visually intrusive and obvious issue, has been disregarded by WDC. The decision to note a visual impact issue (that doesn't exist) for sites 2 and 3 and not to note the visual impact issue at the heart of the village requires some explanation by WDC.

Site Access and Deliverability - 'Substantial restrictions on site access to the east of Radford Semele'.

This comment refers to sites 2 and 3 and would appear to be incorrect as access is achievable, and this has been confirmed by two independent traffic experts, with the both current road configuration and the current speed limit of 50mph. Should the village be extended then it would be expected that a village speed limit of 30mph would be extended, which would be a requirement under DOT advice on speed limits for villages and would thus make access even easier. This point is therefore not relevant and should be discounted as a reason for the rejection of sites 2 and 3. The report is silent on whether there will be traffic issues in relation to the preferred site 1 and whilst it is apparent that enough traffic work has been undertaken to (erroneously) reject sites 2 and 3, no work has been undertaken to understand the implications for traffic at site 1. It is unclear why the report should be so inconsistent in this respect and is again a flaw that requires to be addressed by WDC.

Options and Impact - 'Preferred option focuses upon land to the north of the village, subject to a detailed landscape appraisal'.

Given the integral nature of the proposed site to the village, and the apparent acceptance of that fact in the Green Field Function comment (above), it is concerning that the decision has been taken to adopt site 1 as the preferred site without a detailed landscape appraisal having taken place, or possibly worse, not having been shared. I trust that this is not the case. If, as is suggested, a full landscape appraisal is integral to the process then it should have been undertaken before the decision to adopt site 1 as the preferred site and before the consultation process was embarked upon. This appears to be a failure of procedure and has resulted in site 1 intentionally being selected without the full information to actually make that decision being available.