Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61443

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: John and Caroline Roberts

Representation Summary:

-Concerns over density of housing in proportion to site size (Site 1: 35 dwellings on 1.51 ha and Site 4: 20 dwellings on 1.76 ha)
-Why is there no commercial interest in the original Retirement Village option, with a rapidly ageing population?

Full text:

Dear Sirs, having attended a very busy Parish Council Meeting the other evening, we thought we would put our thoughts to you if we may.

To be as brief as we possibly can, it would appear that the whole of the 'Local Plan' proposal for Leek Wootton and Parish is now being controlled by what Warwickshire Constabulary want, and they in turn just cannot make up their minds!

However, our comments below are still largely based on the "Local Plan" proposals, even though we now really cannot ignore the changes we were informed of the other evening, and that the Local Plan Booklet may already be out of date with a prospect of 90 houses now being proposed, all in the Police Headquarters, and NONE at the Manor House site within Police grounds by the way!

If we are to accept there has to be some development in Leek Wooton, and a portion of this is likely to be in the Police Headquarters, then we would probably have agreed to the development at 'Area 4 Woodcote House' on the Local Plan, and at this area only, for the 20 houses mentioned. It is an interesting observation however why 35 dwellings can be squeezed into Area 1 (the Paddock) with a developable area of 1.51 ha and only 20 dwellings are destined for Area 4 with a 1.76 ha development area. It was mentioned at our meeting that 11 'dwellings worth' of flats could actually be fitted into the Manor House itself .... could this be a relevant point?

It is quite strange that there seems to be no commercial interest in the the original Retirement Village option, with a rapidly ageing population etc, and even the Local Plan booklet mentions about Leek Wootton "there are particular local challenges around older residents looking to downsize and stay locally".

We will now explain why, in our opinion, the Local Plan booklet stating "Site access acceptable for a cluster of sites on the Woodcote House Estate" is totally wrong. Indeed, the booklet also mentions that "detailed site assessment work including vehicle access requirements and physical site contraints and impact" has been carried out. "Traffic impact & congestion" is mentioned etc etc. In our opinion, we feel that a proper survey would have revealed the Anchor 'T' junction to be a real problem for ANY moderate increase in traffic flows, not to mention the rumoured increase of 90 houses now that would in effect double the 90 or so houses that already exist in Woodcote Lane/Drive, Waller Close and Quarry Fields.

1) Traffic lights or a roundabout would somehow have to be provided at the end of Woodcote Lane (Anchor 'T' junction), and there are listed buildings surrounding this already very tight junction with extremely poor visibility.

2) There is an argument that traffic flows would be similar to that of the present Constabulary traffic, however, if the Police stay, we will be talking about an EXTRA 540 movements a day (90 houses x 6 daily movements) now also including weekends of course.

3) More importantly perhaps is that present traffic movements in and out for police patrol cars and staff are staggered through flexi-time etc. We can tell you that Woodcote Drive itself is not busy at all at say 8.30am (presumably because of flexi-time), so can one really imagine the 'bedlam' at the Anchor 'T' junction with up to 90 extra cars all to going in the same direction all at this time, PLUS scores of children walking to school as well!

4) The pollution aspect of stationary cars with their engines running in this banked area, re point 3)

5) The pedestrian safety aspect re point 3). The present pavement situation is dangerous for any pedestrian, let alone children, with VERY LITTLE prospect of adequate improvement!

6) The gates at the Headquarters main entrance are very narrow, and listed?

7) It has been mentioned that Woodcote Lane could be made 'one way', resulting in all residence actually having to drive to Kenilworth to travel to Warwick and the south, or vice versa. This really would be plain nonsense - not to mention the narrowness of Woodcote Lane Bridge (is that listed?) the awkward junction into Rouncil Lane, increasing congestion at the Kenilworth 6th form school, and at the Warwick Road junction, and then back south .... probably through Leek Wootton again!

8) All the above problems would still exist if access to the Discounted Option 10 on the Local Plan became available (even though this is agricultural land?) via the Tinka-tank area into Woodcote Lane.

9) All the above problems would still exist if a completely fresh entrance into the Headquarters site is created in Woodcote Lane.

One last point is that we suspect the Police Authority will continue to dismiss any development at the Manor House site for they still will not have made their minds up if they are going or staying. However, we have now heard that the amalgamation between the Warwickshire Police and their near neighbours is DEFINITELY going to happen by 2015/16. Presumably then, the Manor House site could well become available for development again, even if their costly Communication facility remains, so why can't we all procrastinate just a little longer so we don't end up with a situation of the Police Grounds full of houses and the actual Manor House site vacant and empty, OR the apocalyptic prospect it also being eventually developed, adding the original 20 dwelling allocation (or retirement village) to the 90, resulting in the possibility of say an extra 110 dwellings in Leek Wootton, ALL in the Police Grounds!!

'Woodcote' can take it's share, but how about the far more accessible and less controversial areas for the remainder - such as Discounted Areas 7 and 12 on the Local Plan which in our view would meet with very little objection.