Kingswood (Lapworth)
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54101
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Dr Louises Stewart
The proposal for Lapworth and Kingswood is unrealistic and ill-considered, placing a significant strain on the current village infrastructure and making no reference to the additional infrastructure requirements needed to support a 40% increase in the size of the village.
Having reviewed the proposed plans for Lapworth /Kingswood, it is abundantly clear that the proposal to add 100-150 new homes would:
1) Compromise the rural nature and reputation of the village, turning it into a mere junction between Birmingham and Warwick
2) Place considerable strain on the village infrastructure including sewerage, roads and amenities
3) Cause significant pressure on services already at capacity including parking, school, doctor's surgery
4) Further damage inter-generational relationships in the village due to lack of facilities for children and young people, leading to a requirement for an increased police presence
5) Not increase the allocation of affordable housing for rural/low-paid workers and would compromise the value of existing properties
6) Require a significant improvement in public transport in order to reduce residents' reliance on motor transport
In conclusion, it is clear that this proposal is unsustainable and should be further reviewed. As a parish resident I am not prepared to support these plans as they are currently mooted.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54127
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: mr leslie flavell
I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed excessive developement of houses for the kingswood / lapworth area. The infastructure will not support such over developement and it is not needed or wanted by the local population. I would like to associate myself with and support the objections already expressed by the kingswood residents group and the parish council.
I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed excessive developement of houses for the kingswood / lapworth area. The infastructure will not support such over developement and it is not needed or wanted by the local population. I would like to associate myself with and support the objections already expressed by the kingswood residents group and the parish council.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54150
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Grace Kew
Given the information supplied by Kingswood Residents group, and being a resident residing on Station Lane - I strongly feel that factors such
Growth of residents will impact on traffic on Station Lane as we already have problems
Lapworth school has not got the capacity to have a bigger number of pupils without putting in place the infrastructure to support it.
I object to the idea and hope that further considerations and investigations will be made.
Given the information supplied by Kingswood Residents group, and being a resident residing on Station Lane - I strongly feel that factors such
Growth of residents will impact on traffic on Station Lane as we already have problems
Lapworth school has not got the capacity to have a bigger number of pupils without putting in place the infrastructure to support it.
I object to the idea and hope that further considerations and investigations will be made.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54234
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: mrs elaine perrin
I support the views presented in the Lapworth Steering Group submission and the Kingswood Residents Group submission. I would like to see small scale developments of say, up to 10 affordable houses/flats on several small sites rather than a large housing development in one area. It would mean local young people may be able to stay living in Lapworth. A large scale development in the Station Lane area would be out of keeping with the area and cause all sort of traffic problems. Lapworth does not have the transport links/amenities/school to cope with a large development.
As a resident of Lapworth for the past ten years my representation is not really an objection to the need for new housing, but comments about the quantity and the sites currently under review. I understand that the planning officer walked the area of Kingswood with members of the Parish Council and suggested sites are available for view. There are many other sites around Lapworth that could be used for new housing but do not seem to have been considered. It is impossible for the area of Station Lane to accomodate the numbers suggested. Many people in this area understand that new housing is necessary but a large scale development is not practicable for many reasons, including the transport available to Lapworth (no regular bus route) the size of the current primary school (nowhere to expand) the amenities (only one local shop for limited provisions) a post office (which may close) and I support many of the other reasons presented by the Steering Group and the Kingswood Residents group. Station Lane is just that - a lane. It has no footpath, is very narrow, is used by children and horses. There are sections of Station Lane that are suitable for small developments of say, 10 houses at a time. I support the view that affordable housing should be built, especially to enable local younger members to continue to live in the community. New people to the area who buy the affordable housing will need to travel by car because of the limited transport links. Lapworth is not the same size as the other villages named in this section, it is a lot smaller with less amenities.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54343
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Simon Ray
Lapworth Parish Plan
I would like to raise my objection for the latest Lapworth (Kingswood) Plan.
I am opposed to development in this area and believe it will ruin a beautiful village with traffic and damage to greenbelt.
Lapworth Parish Plan
I would like to raise my objection for the latest Lapworth (Kingswood) Plan.
I am opposed to development in this area and believe it will ruin a beautiful village with traffic and damage to greenbelt.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54470
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Sue Reynolds
We live in a rural area where the infrastructure would not cope with increased numbers of people and houses. Services within the Lapworth area can only just cope with the current population, we have a small school, there are no areas for children to play, we have a limited train service and no buses, with people reliant on owning their own vehicle. Rural is the key word, we do not want to change what we have and building large numbers of houses would spoil the environment. We want to continue to live in the country!
We live in a rural area where the infrastructure would not cope with increased numbers of people and houses. Services within the Lapworth area can only just cope with the current population, we have a small school, there are no areas for children to play, we have a limited train service and no buses, with people reliant on owning their own vehicle. Rural is the key word, we do not want to change what we have and building large numbers of houses would spoil the environment. We want to continue to live in the country!
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54558
Received: 30/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Mark Tilson
Putting 100 to 150 houses into the Kingswood area will destroy the village, double its size and Station Lane/Road cannot take any more traffic. Why are houses not going in Rowington, Lapworth or other surrounding villages which have many fields around them?
I think putting 100 to 150 houses into the kingswoods area will destroy the village.
That amount surely is almist going to double the village in size.
Ig the numbers were alot lower I couldn't see an issue.
I can't see why out of the area we are taking such a large brunt.
Station lane/road for one can not really take any more traffic as it is.
What had happened to any house goimg in Rowington or other surrounding villages.
What will happen to the school??
I have to say I think its crazy to builf so many in Kingswood just probably yo vut down on costs. Lapworth hasn't been touched lile Rowington yet there are many fields around these areas?
I have just got back from holiday and have found a letter with a deadline of yesterday so jope my voice is heard.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54813
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: John Lange
Strongly objects to the scale of development proposed for Lapworth:
* The initial consultation was 'strange' with significant input from land owners and their planning advisers with local residents unaware of events.
* Kingswood has been designated as a Category 1 village, this decision needs independent and pragmatic review.
* Kingswood is facing a potential 40% increase in housing on top of all the recent new build and extensions.
* The land between 128 and 160 Station Lane ref: R85 is Green Belt, outside the village envelope and is productive beautiful farm land. By definition this should not be developed.
* Architecturally, the village is already excessively linear in layout.. The redeeming feature is the way Green Belt fields and scenic views etch into the village.
* This is a predominant feature around the Kingswood area. Please do not destroy our village.
I strongly object to the scale of development proposed for Lapworth.
* The initial consultation was 'strange' with significant input from land owners and their planning advisers with local residents unaware of events.
* Kingswood has been designated as a Category 1 village, this decision needs independent and pragmatic review.
* Kingswood is facing a potential 40% increase in housing on top of all the recent new build and extensions.
* The land between 128 and 160 Station Lane ref: R85 is Green Belt, outside the village envelope and is productive beautiful farm land. By definition this should not be developed.
Lapworth is a lovely village to live. Architecturally, the village is already excessively linear in layout. The redeeming feature is the way Green Belt fields and scenic views etch into the village. This is a predominant feature around the Kingswood area. Please do not destroy our village.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54831
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Haydn Rees
Questions why Kingswood should be given the same allocation of new houses when it has a smaller population than other Primary Service Villages-an almost 45% increase? How is this squared with the 20% baseline growth rate for Primary Villages explained in Section 5.9?
In addition questions scoring system giving Kingswood Category 1 status. If Kingswood were a secondary settlement, baseline growth rate would be 15% i.e. 381 * 15% which equals 57 new houses in Kingswood.
Confident that a 57 house increase spread over a number of years could be managed in Kingswood and without encroaching on the most highly valued greenbelt land. 57 is vastly easier to envisage than150!
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!
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 54889
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: mrs kathlyn craig
Disagrees with the listing of Kingswood (Lapworth) as a Primary Service Village: There is no regular bus service to and from the village - has a single bus a day going only to Solihull. The Post Office is under threat of closure as it is sited in a Wine Merchants which is for sale at the moment. The Village Shop is very small with no parking, and no room for expansion. There is no Church of England place of worship in Kingswood - the primary denomination of most residents. The Lees Chapel caters for only a small proportion of the residents. The nearest town or large village for all shopping is Knowle, 5 miles distant, and with no rail station, making it in all practical terms inaccessible from Kingswood other than by car. There are no recreation or open spaces other than the canal tow paths and the field footpaths - these are both quite clearly unsuitable for all games and sports, and for children to play. The village Junior and Infant School is already at its full capacity. Kingswood (Lapworth) should be a Secondary Service Village.
Kingswood has at present 381 dwellings. An additional 100 - 150 dwellings would mean an increase of nearly 40% in a green belt area, completely altering the rural nature of Kingswood. This area has poor services which are already stretched. Overhead power lines cause problems, there is no mains gas supply, and poor drainage causes flooding every time there is heavy rain.
Given the rural nature of Kingwood it would be preferable for any development to be in small blocks of no more that 5 - 10 houses, on sites spread all across the parish, and phased to spread the work over the whole of the plan period. Any large scale development would be totally out of keeping with the village. "Windfall" sites should be included in the total number of dwellings permitted. It appears that all the sites so far indicated are clustered in the Kingswood area, which would unbalance the village.
The only need within the village is for reasonably priced houses for first-time buyers and young families. At present the young people growing up in the village cannot afford to buy a house here. There are already quite a number of larger houses for sale in the village as a whole, which are proving very hard to sell in the current economic climate. A small number of houses that are affordable, or shared-ownership, would be of help, but too many would be unnecessary.
Believes that far more in-depth investigation and consultation with the residents is required before any plan can be decided upon.
In response to the Local Plan revised Development Strategy, I have to object on a variety of grounds.
1. The listing of Kingswood(Lapworth) as a Primary Service Village is based on a number of factors with which I disagree.
There is no regular bus service to and from the village - we have a single bus a day going only to Solihull.
The Post Office is under threat of closure as it is sited in a Wine Merchants which is for sale at the moment.
The Village Shop is very small with no parking, and no room for expansion.
There is no Church of England place of worship in Kingswood - the primary denomination of most residents. The
Lees Chapel caters for only a small proportion of the residents.
The nearest town or large village for all shopping is Knowle, 5 miles distant, and with no rail station, making it in all
practical terms inaccessible from Kingswood other than by car.
There are no recreation or open spaces other than the canal tow paths and the field footpaths - these are both quite
clearly unsuitable for all games and sports, and for children to play.
The village Junior and Infant School is already at its full capacity.
For all these reasons the correct category for Kingswood(Lapworth) would seem to me to be that of a Secondary
Service Village.
2. Kingswood has at present 381 dwellings. An additional 100 - 150 dwellings would mean an increase of nearly 40%
in a green belt area, completely altering the rural nature of Kingswood. This area has poor services which are already
stretched. Overhead power lines cause problems, there is no mains gas supply, and poor drainage causes flooding
every time there is heavy rain.
3. Given the rural nature of the village, and Kingswood in particular, it would be preferable for any development to be in
small blocks of no more that 5 - 10 houses, on sites spread all across the parish, and phased to spread the work over
the whole of the plan period. Any large scale development would be totally out of keeping with the village. "Windfall"
sites should be included in the total number of dwellings permitted. It appears that all the sites so far indicated are
clustered in the Kingswood area, which would unbalance the village.
4. The only need within the village is for reasonably priced houses for first-time buyers and young families. At present the
young people growing up in the village cannot afford to buy a house here. There are already quite a number of larger
houses for sale in the village as a whole, which are proving very hard to sell in the current economic climate. A small
number of houses that are affordable, or shared-ownership, would be of help, but too many would be unneccessary.
I believe that far more in-depth investigation and consultation with the residents is required before any plan can be decided upon.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55036
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs M O'Donnell
Number of people: 2
Why has the number of proposed new build been raised from 100 to 150?
Need clarity on the proposed sites Council have in mind for such development.
In such a rural community small scale pocket development would be appropriate rather than one large scale site.
The school is at capacity so how will additional the extra children be accommodated?
Station Lane is narrow and lined by trees with protection orders on them and therefore is not able to safely cope with the extra traffic that major developments would produce.
In response to the New Local Plan as it refers to Kingswood (Lapworth) we woul like to make the following points.
1.Why has the number of prposed new build been raised from 100 to 150?
2.We need clarity on the proposed sites you have in mind for such development.
3.In such a rural community small scale pocket development would be appropriate rather than one large scale site.
4. We are aware that the school is at capacity so how would you accomadate the extra children?
5.Station Lane is narrow and lined by trees with protection orders on them and threfore is not able to safely cope with the extra traffic that major developments would produce.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55126
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Leslie Roxborough
The site has, for many years, been used to raise cattle. The proposal to end its current use and build houses on the site seems a poor decision when sites currently lying idle are available. Appreciates that communities are required to contribute to the need for housing throughout the country but questions the practice of providing one amenity by destroying another.
Recent nearby housing developments in Station Lane have been reduced in scale and type.
An initial "infill" proposal for 12 properties will have a substantial effect on the properties directly opposite; eliminating an "open" view and reducing privacy.
Station Lane is already a very busy road, more properties will increase traffic; new residents, visitors and deliveries will all create problems requiring solutions which will further change the nature of the area. An increase in residents will inevitably create difficulties for the limited facilities the village offers.
I wish to register an objection to the proposed development and change of use to the site R85 Kingswood (Lapworth). The site has, for many years, been used to raise cattle. The proposal to end its current use and build houses on the site seems a poor decision when sites currently lying idle are available. I appreciate that communities are required to contribute to the need for housing throughout the country but I question the practice of providing one amenity by destroying another.
I live directly opposite the site R85 so it is not a surprise that the proposed development is of concern to me. The most recent nearby housing developments in Station Lane have, as a result of representation, been reduced in scale and type; where development is imposed, it is of concern that the scale and type of property is sympathetic to the size and nature of the community into which it is imposed; the location of properties within the area to be developed is also a concern.
An initial "infill" proposal for 12 properties will have a substantial effect on the properties directly opposite; eliminating an "open" view and reducing privacy; concerns which I realise are small matters in the world of development but are of real issues for current residents.
Station Lane is already a very busy road, more properties will increase traffic; new residents, visitors and deliveries will all create problems requiring solutions which will further change the nature of the area. An increase in residents will inevitably create difficulties for the limited facilities the village offers.
I suppose my concerns are not unlike those expressed by many other village communities but that in itself does not reduce their importance. The need for more housing is very real, but, like others, I am anxious that I am not required to accept a significant down grade in my situation to facilitate an easy solution for planners.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55216
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mr stuart weir
There is no development proposed for Rowington in the Local Plan. There is development proposed for Rowington, but this is incorporated in the Local Plan under Lapworth (Kingswood). Local Plan (2007) clearly defines what is regarded as the Lapworth, Kingswood envelope boundary, and which does not include land now under consideration as being in Kingswood, Lapworth, namely Kingswood Nurseries and Kingswood Farm, both of which lie within Rowington. Only the houses which formed part of the previous Kingswood Nursery development fronting Old Warwick Road are in the Kingswood envelope boundary. Residents in Rowington are being misled about development in Rowington and as a result may not be commenting on what is proposed. Once the Local Plan is approved, residents will be unable to object to the principle of development as set out in the Local Plan, they will only be able to object on design grounds etc and I am therefore setting out my grounds of objection to development at the former Kingswood Nursery Site being incorporated in the Local Plan as follows:-
Access to the site from Old Warwick Road is subject at times to severe flooding which affects adjoining properties, shops and local garage. Future development at this site may aggravate the situation. Proposed development is over intensive. The site is green belt and should remain as such.
Access from the Old Warwick Road is on a bend and close to a hump back bridge and situated close to a busy garage. Would introduce lighting pollution to all of the houses backing onto the site along Old Warwick Road.
Existing infrastructure for Lapworth and Rowington would be incapable of coping with such a significant development. Any development should be on the basis of infrastructure first, in particular, schools, sewage systems etc. The cost of any infrastructure should fall on developers.
There are very few local jobs, therefore younger people looking for houses, will be faced with expensive travel costs. Great play is made about sufficient housing to enable downsizing for the elderly. Government reports express concern for the elderly in rural areas due to lack of suitable facilities.
The figures used by the Council to identify the number of houses needed within the area is questionnable. They are looking at national statistics as opposed to local need. Reference is made to provision of affordable housing, yet the housing proposed does not meet the statutory definition of affordable housing.
Assumes that any new boundary review is to change the boundaries to enable development to take place in Rowington. The inclusion of the proposed development under Kingswood, Lapworth, at this stage would appear to be a pre determination of a consultation process only now just started.
I refer to the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan consultation and object on the following grounds:
There is no development proposed for Rowington in the Local Plan. There is development proposed for Rowington, but this is incorporated in the Local Plan under Lapworth (Kingswood).
Warwick District Council Plan 12 dated July 2007 clearly defines what is regarded by Warwick District Council as the Lapworth, Kingswood envelope boundary, and which does not include land now under consideration as being in Kingswood, Lapworth, namely Kingswood Nurseries and Kingswood Farm, both of which lie within Rowington.
Only the houses which formed part of the previous Kingswood Nursery development fronting Old Warwick Road are in the Kingswood envelope boundary.
Residents in Rowington are being misled about development in Rowington and as a result may not be commenting on what is proposed.
Once the Local Plan is approved, residents will be unable to object to the principle of development as set out in the Local Plan, they will only be able to object on design grounds etc and I am therefore setting out my grounds of objection to development at the former Kingswood Nursery Site being incorporated in the Local Plan as follows:-
The access to the site from Old Warwick Road is subject at times to severe flooding which affects adjoining properties, shops and local garage. With regard to the shops and garage it has been necessary for them to close because of flooding. It may not be from this site, but future development at this site may aggravate the situation.The proposal includes a 1m high gabion wall along Kinswood Brook.This is an acknowledgement of potential flooding.If put in place where will any flood water be directed. The Environment Agency objected to the original planning application at this site for erection of 11 dwellings and withdrew it's objection based on the reduction to 4 dwellings.
The proposed development is over intensive.The site is green belt and should remain as such.
Access from the Old Warwick Road is on a bend and close to a hump back bridge and situated close to a busy garage. Backfill as this would be, would introduce lighting pollution to all of the houses backing onto the site along Old Warwick Road.
The existing infrastructure for Lapworth and Rowington would be incapable of coping with such a significant development as is proposed under the Local Plan. Any development should be on the basis of infrastructure first, in particular, schools, sewage systems etc.The cost of any infrastructure should fall on developers.
There are very few local jobs, therefore younger people looking for houses, will be faced with expensive travel costs. Great play is made about sufficient housing to enable down sizing for the elderly. The latest Government reports express concern for the elderly in rural areas due to lack of suitable facilities, medical and social support, bearing in mind that it can take a considerable period of time for ambulances to reach Rowington and Lapworth.
The figures used by Warwick District Council to identify the number of houses needed within the area is questionnable. Even their own predictions over the last few years conflict with what is now proposed. They are looking at national statistics as opposed to local need. Reference is made to provision of affordable housing, yet the housing proposed does not meet the statutory definition of affordable housing.
I assume that any new boundary review is to change the boundaries to enable development to take place in Rowington. The inclusion of the proposed development under Kingswood, Lapworth, at this stage would appear to be a pre determination of a consultation process only now just started.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55238
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Mary Toogood
Lapworth has been wrongly categorised. Whilst a small amount of development is inevitable it should certainly not be on the level currently proposed by WDC. Supports the comments from the Parish Council and Lapworth Parish Plan Steering Group which represent the views of many of the residents of Lapworth.
Dear Sirs
Rather than repeat the lengthy comments you have no doubt received I would just like to add my support to the comments regarding Lapworth that you have received from the Parish Council and Lapworth Parish Plan Steering Group which I feel represent the views of many of the residents of Lapworth. I also feel strongly that we have been wrongly categorised which has been challenged accordingly. Whilst a small amount of development is inevitable it should certainly not be on the level currently proposed by WDC.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55255
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Kingswood Residents Group
Number of questions with regards to Lapworth (Kingswood) :
1 Why is Lapworth (Kingswood) considered a Category 1 Village Village when it doesn't appear to meet the criteria?
2) Why has the proposed number of new houses to be built been increased from 100- 150?
3) What are the initial sites under consideration and why?
4)What are the factors / criteria that determine where the houses get built in Lapworth?
5) What are the anticipated effects on the infrastructure for the village - including increased traffic, need for footpaths, school facilities and capacity, village services etc?
6) Is there any restriction on how many houses can be built in one development at a time?
In regards to Lapworth (Kingswood) I would like to question;
1) the lack of clarity surrounding the scoring system for Category 1 Village - why is Lapworth (Kingswood) considered a Category 1 Village when it doesn't appear to meet the criteria?
2) Why has the proposed number of new houses to be built been increased from 100- 150?
3) What are the initial sites under consideration and why - there is very confusing and little guidance or indication where these are proposed to be?
4) What are the factors / criteria that determine where the houses get built in Lapworth?
5) What are the anticipated effects on the infrastructure for the village - including increased traffic, need for footpaths, school facilities and capacity, village services etc.?
6) Is there any restriction on how many houses can be built in one development at a time?
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55274
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Kingswood Residents Group
Concerned the 12,300 figure is being challenged by a group of Parish Councils and that the figure may be revised pending the findings of the Joint SHMA and the resulting co-operation between the authorities.
An estimate of 2,800 windfall sites has been made, but there is no clarity on either their location or their nature other than that WDC has informed us that the rural figure is 504. The possible implications for a village, such as Lapworth, are not clear and are of concern.
There is not a criterion to determine whether a village is in the Primary or Secondary Service Village Category and categorisation is subjective rather than objective.
Not clear why the allocation of development to the villages has increased since the 2012 Plan although the balance of housing to be provided on new allocated greenfield sites has decreased.
Understood from WDC that the reason that Lapworth in the 2012 Plan has become Kingswood (Lapworth) in the 2013 Revised Plan, is that it is WDC's intention to concentrate the development in Lapworth in the Kingswood area so that it is close to the existing amenities. This seems a questionable decision in view of the fact that, based on WDC's figure of 381 dwellings in the Kingswood area, the planned 100 to 150 new houses represent an increase in housing of 26% to 39% in the Kingswood area. It should be noted that these figures are inconsistent with the baseline growth rate of 20% for Primary Service Villages stated in Section 5.9 of The Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report which would indicate a figure of only 76 new houses. Hence, WDC does not appear to have applied its own guidelines to Kingswood (Lapworth).
Not opposed to phased small scale development distributed throughout Lapworth, but strongly opposed to major development in any part of Lapworth, including Kingswood.
In a recent survey there was a 45% return rate of Lapworth residents and the majority view (88%) was that housing development in the Parish should be phased in small (5-10 property) developments that blend into the existing landscape.
Inconceivable that the existing infrastructure of Kingswood could support an increase of 26% to 39% of the current housing stock for the following reasons:
* Village school is at capacity, and site is constrained. Has further work been undertaken to identify a suitable site for expansion of the school?
* Station Lane is a narrow road which is severely congested at the start and closure of each school day and when there is an event at the Lees Chapel. Has consideration been given to how Station Lane and the other roads in Kingswood will cope with the increased vehicular traffic emanating from 100-150 new houses?
* Surface water flooding occurs in Kingswood. Flooding map (Plan B2) in the 2013 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Report does not appear to reflect local knowledge of the seriousness of the problem in Kingswood.
Although we have been referred to the site selection methodology for strategic sites, we have been unable to ascertain either the criteria or methodology that WDC are employing to identify potential sites in Kingswood (Lapworth). Lists by WDC omit potential sites known to local residents. No clarity over which of these sites would actually be made available for development by their current owners. What are the criteria being adopted by WDC to identify sites in Lapworth?
Dear Sir or Madam
Revised Development Strategy
I enclose the response from the Kingswood Residents' Group to the consultation on the Revised Development Plan. In an email of 28 May 2013 Stephen Hay confirmed that the Group would be included on your consultation list.
I realise that the response does not adopt your preferred response format, but we did not find that our comments fitted such a format.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should wish for clarification of any of the points made in the response.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55310
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: David W Smith
Questions why comments are sought on proposed development when boundary changes are being proposed. Building a large number of houses in this area would impact on the villages rural character due to increased light pollution and traffic. Development would access an already busy road notorius for speeding, close to a hump bridge, bend, busy garage, shops and office. The road is also subject to flash floods, set to increase with climate change. It would be irresponsible planning to ignore that Kingswood Brook is in a flood plain. A good plan should make good use of space, creating a pleasant environment for the wider community not just enable developers to make profit.Acknowledgement of flood mitigation need is significant and any measures will only prevent flooding of new homes as the water will go somewhere and natural soakaway will be reduced. Also queries whether other services cope.
With regard to the development strategy for the local plan of Kingswood I have the following comments and objections.
The plan which the County Council is seeking comments on is dated June 2013, however boundary changes are being proposed/revised on which none of the people who are effected have been notified. Why are boundary changes being considered again when they where rejected last time, and is it to enable a larger number of houses to be built in this area with little development taking place away from Lapworth/Kingswood.
Proposals and preliminary plans are in place for a considerable number of houses to be built at Kingswood Nursery and Kingswood Farm, which if given planning permission would be in breach of green belt and previous boundary envelopes.
Any large number of houses built in this area would greatly spoil this area as a rural village as there would be twenty four hour light pollution,
and a large increase in cars and commercial vehicles serving the new houses. The village would change in character from rural, having properties with conservation status to a general housing state typically as seen around Warwick.
Any development would need access onto a already dangerous road close to a hump bridge, bend, busy garage, shops and Post Office.
The police are unable to control the speed of the traffic and it is notorious for speeding cars and motor bikes in the summer. It would have all the makings of an Accident Black Spot.
It also well known by all, that this road is subject to flash floods which seam to be set to increase with climate changes. It would be a complete irresponsible planning folly to ignore the fact that Kingswood Brook is in a flood plane, and further building would inevitably bring flash floods there by creating problems for the shops, Post Office, and nearby properties. A good strategic plan should be to make a good use of space, with facilities to create a pleasant and pleasing environment for the wider community and not just to enable developers to make money irrespective of what they spoil and damage
Any building of Gambion dams is a big admittance that there is a serious problem, and may prevent flooding of the new homes but to hell with everybody else as the water has to go some where, and the natural soak away effect would be greatly reduced. The brook needs to flow through a culvert beneath the canal and was not designed to cope with sudden large volumes of water.
Also can the sewers, and all other services cope in this area ?
Lapworth Kingswood seams to have been neglected for a number of years, ie., trees which have died have never been replaced, parked cars have been allowed to damage grass verges, there are no parking restrictions on bends in the road, the road drains are always chocked etc. Now should be the time to improve not create irreversible damage.
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55473
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Bull
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Support the proposed designation of land for housing on the edge of Kingswood (Lapworth), which is rightly identified in the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013 as one of the most sustainable villages in the District.
Its size and level of sustainability mean it would be able to accommodate up to 150 dwellings without detriment to the overall operation, character or appearance of the settlement. It is noted, however, that the Lapworth parish boundaries are drawn very closely around the southern edge of the village.
The subsequent allocations should not take into account the Parish boundaries, but should look at the suitability of all sites on the edge of the settlement to accommodation additional development. Particularly support the allocation of land off the Old Warwick Road at Meadow House, which has previously been promote
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56488
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Steele Raymond LLP & A Rajkowski
Agent: Savills
The identification of Lapworth as a primary service village is supported. Lapworth represents a sustainable location for new housing development to meet identified needs having a population of approximately 2,000 people, with a range of facilities including pre-school and primary school, GP surgery, village hall, shops, pubs and restaurants.
The settlement benefits from a railway station on the Chiltern Line from London to Birmingham, offering regular services to Birmingham, Solihull, Warwick and Leamington Spa.
Lapworth is identified in Policy RD5 for 100-150 dwellings over the plan period.
There is scope for Lapworth to accommodate development at the upper end of this range and above, and consideration should be given to increasing the level of housing proposed for Lapworth as part of ongoing cross boundary housing needs assessment and economic growth benefits of additional housing.
An accompanying report sets out the potential for land to the East of Station Lane, Lapworth to accommodate new development which is suitably and sustainably located to meet identified local housing needs by providing a mix of dwelling types, styles and tenures including family homes at a location that is well related to existing services, facilities and public transport.
The benefits of the site can be summarised as follows:
* Freehold ownership, land is available now
* Certainty of delivery
* A self contained, easily and quickly developed site
* Limited infrastructure requirements and short lead-in to development
* Local facilities within easy reach
* Well located in relation to Solihull and Leamington Spa, offering significant employment, retail, community facilities, services and public transport.
* The site has scope to deliver additional new facilities for Lapworth, to be agreed locally.
* Highly accessible to Birmingham and other main centres.
* Free from significant environmental constraints
* The site is well defined and contained by existing features (road, canal and existing development).
* Development of the scale proposed will not compromise the role and function of the Green Belt
This site represents a sustainable, well located and deliverable opportunity for high quality development to meet identified housing needs. The site should therefore be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for development to meet the housing needs of the area.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56565
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: F S Johnson
Agent: MR. JOHN WILSON
Supports allocation of between 100-150 houses to each 5 identified Primary Service Villages. Where villages are currently washed over by green belt, as is the case with Lapworth, new village envelopes will be established to enable development to take place.
The concentration of the main housing development in villages which score highest for settlement sustainability, and the increase in their proposed allocations to 100-150 is supported as being entirely consistent with the advice given in the NPPF
Sets out planning justification for and request that land at Station Lane be allocated for housing development and be
included within an expanded village envelope for Lapworth to accommodate the housing development proposed in the RDS.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56825
Received: 30/07/2013
Respondent: Rowington Parish Council
Reference is made to the settlement of Kingswood as "Lapworth" when in fact a large part of Kingswood is within Rowington Parish. The data gathering exercise for the Rowington Parish Design Statement provides a strong evidence base of the need for small infill developments of residential units for the young and elderly alike, which would allow a balanced community to be maintained in the rural areas. This appears to have been largely ignored within the Development Strategy at this point.
It seems that rather than spread the burden of new development across Warwick District, much of the proposed new housing is in the form of concentrated and large scale developments.
* Strong support for the retention of open spaces (Green Belt and Special Landscape Areas) Difficult to comment further without information regarding potential changes to green belt boundaries.
* Clarification of the area referred to as "Rowington" is still required. Reference is made to the settlement of Kingswood as "Lapworth" when in fact a large part of Kingswod is within Rowington Parish
* The data gathering exercise for the Rowington Parish Design Statement provides a strong evidence base of the need for small infill developments of residential units for the young and elderly alike, which would allow a balanced community to be maintained in the rural areas. This appears to have been largely ignored within the Development Strategy at this point.
* It seems that rather than spread the burden of new development across Warwick District, much of the proposed new housing is in the form of concentrated and large scale developments. As mentioned above, the proposals have ignored the needs of the small rural villages in favour of the big developers who are only interested in such large scale developments.
Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
* The overriding concern of the Parish Council is that any CIL is levied on a particular site and remains attached to that site area i.e. no levy should be consumed within a central "pot"
* Because CIL is intended to be mandatory, smaller developments such as those likely to occur in the rural settlements, may be unable to bear the cost of this levy and developers will not therefore be encouraged to come forward.
Sustainability Appraisal and Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
* Need further clarification on the definition of a "pitch" and how this is to be utilised i.e. single or multiple occupancy per pitch? Not clear what is meant by a "pitch".
* Clear guidelines on the numbers of pitches per site and a preference for permanent as opposed to itinerant occupancy. Permanent occupancy may encourage occupants to become part of the community and therefore develop a sense of inclusion and ultimately, responsibility.
* Will the proposed sites/occupiers incur rental charges etc? As in the case of council accommodation provided by WDC. We believe that the occupiers should be subject to rental and other charges and would like to know how such charges will be collected by WDC.
* How will these sites be administered i.e. will the sites be self managing or managed by
WDC? We are concerned that the sites will certainly need to incur costs associated with hygiene, waste disposal, school transport and maintenance alongside overall supervision/administration costs if they are to remain usable. These costs are running costs as opposed to capital infrastructure costs mentioned below.
* What are the likely costs of the provision of necessary infrastructure for these sites and how will such infrastructure be funded.
* Following the creation of approved sites, how will the settlement of travellers or gypsies of the type that are "unpredictable economic migrants" be handled in the event of their occupation of sites over and above the official sites provided?
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56913
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Katherine Russell
Object to the Lapworth (Kingswood) RDS and the proposed development of Kingswood Nurseries and Kingswood Farm on following grounds:
Kingswood Nurseries and Kingswood Farm:
The Land that these proposed sites occupy are in the parish of Rowington and not the parish of Lapworth as stated. . As residents of Rowington parish and who live opposite the proposed sites, have not been notified of any proposed development within the parish of Rowington.
Understand lack of notification due to the fact that there is no proposed development for Rowington parish ?
Flooding:
The Environment Agency has previously objected to the development of these sites on the grounds of flooding. A previous application for 11 dwellings (compared to 50 proposed) was refused due to the risk of flooding in 2004/5.
The land and nearby properties are already subject to flooding and the proposed size and scale of the new development can only serve to exacerbate this
Highways:
The Old Warwick Road is designated as a 30mph zone. However, traffic regularly speeds through the village. The proposed site has a hump back bridge to the east and a bend in the road to the west. In addition, there are vehicles parked on the verge and on the highway throughout the day and night, making the proposed access dangerous to both users of the proposed junction and to passing traffic.
Retirement / Social Housing:
Existing almshouses and retirement bungalows within both Rowington and Lapworth parishes already meet the needs of local retired people.
There are few local job opportunities, no local amenities, and no frequent public transport links which make the village unsuitable location for social housing.
Greenbelt:
The proposed sites are both within designated greenbelt land which is protected from development.It is unacceptable to put forward a development proposal on greenbelt land when more suitable local sites are available without the inherent problems listed above.
Village category:
Rowington and Lapworth should not be classed as category one status. They are both small settlements that do not have the infrastructure, services or the environment to support such large-scale development as is being proposed
We wish to object to the Lapworth (Kingswood) Revised Development Strategy and the proposed development of Kingswood Nurseries and Kingswood Farm.
Our objection is based on the following points:
1. The proposed development sites - Kingswood Nurseries and Kingswood Farm
The Land that these proposed sites occupy is not in the parish of Lapworth as the proposal states. They are in fact in the parish of Rowington. As residents of Rowington parish and who live opposite the proposed sites, we have not been notified of any proposed development within the parish of Rowington. We understand that we haven't been notified due to the fact that there is no proposed development for Rowington parish.
2. Flooding
The Environment Agency has previously objected to the development of these sites on the grounds of flooding. A previous application for 11 dwellings was refused due to the risk of flooding in 2004/5. The new proposal for 50+ houses by far exceeds what has previously been refused by the Environment Agency. The land and nearby properties are already subject to flooding and the proposed size and scale of the new development can only serve to exacerbate this. In recent years, the road has become impassable due to the level of flood water from Kingswood brook, which bounds the proposed site. The hairdressers, post office and residential properties opposite and adjacent to the site have all been regularly subjected to flood water.
3. Highways
The Old Warwick Road is designated as a 30mph zone. However, traffic regularly speeds through the village. The proposed site has a hump back bridge to the east and a bend in the road to the west. In addition, there are vehicles parked on the verge and on the highway throughout the day and night, making the proposed access dangerous to both users of the proposed junction and to passing traffic.
4. Retirement / Social Housing
It is unreasonable to suggest that Rowington Parish needs additional retirement / social housing. There are almshouses and retirement bungalows within both Rowington and Lapworth parishes which already meet the needs of local retired people. The fact that there is no real prospect of obtaining a job locally and the fact that there are no local amenities such as a convenience store, chemist or other retail shops would also question the need for social housing especially as there are no frequent public transport links serving Rowington. From firsthand experience, we know that these issues exclude people without their own transport as it makes living in the parish a very isolated and lonely existence. Developments such as this proposal are more suited to areas that have good public transport links and those that have good local amenities.
5. Greenbelt
The proposed sites are both within designated greenbelt land. Under current legislation, greenbelt land is protected from development. By definition, this means that sites that are not greenbelt should be considered and developed ahead of any greenbelt site. It is unacceptable to put forward a development proposal on greenbelt land when more suitable local sites are available without the inherent problems listed above.
6. Village category
We believe that Rowington and Lapworth should not be classed as category one status. They are both small settlements that do not have the infrastructure, services or the environment to support such large-scale development as is being proposed.
We wish our objection to be registered with all future consultation processes and communications regarding the proposed development at Kingswood Nurseries and Kingswood Farm.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57598
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Richard Baker
The proposal to build 150 dwellings at this location is unacceptable. It will increase the number of dwellings by about 25% which will significantly change the character and nature of the exisitng settlement and would require significant advances in infrastructure. These dwellings should be located within the run-down urban areas (brownfield alternatives).
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57606
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Dr E R Austin
The description of Kingswood as a village is incorrect. Lapworth has a poor public transport service with limited social and cultural facilities in the vicinity. The proposed development at Kingswood would be better located in the more urban areas. The development at Kingswood would change the whole nature of the village (especially if high density affordable housing is introduced) as this would have an adverse effect on both the settlement and its residents.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57666
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Sybil Parr
The traffic on the local lanes has increased byat least 15% over the last few years . It is already impossible to stroll safely around the local lanes. The building of a further 500? properties in the locality would flood the road network making it even more unsafe.
Lapworth is also built over springs and there are numerous cases of property and land subsidence that make it unsuitable for development. It should be noted that after rainfall the lanes are always flooded and would not be able to sustain any further traffic movements / be unsafe/ dangerous.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57668
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Alexander Jackson
The proposed amount of development for Kingswood is far too much a smaller number of dwellings spread across the whole Parish would be more acceptable. Kingswood already has a high density population and if the railway station is the driver for this location being used the timetable (and lack of frequent service ) should be scrutinised!!).Notwithstanding the above if Kingswood is too take some development it should be planned in small clusters so as to prevent 'ribbon development'.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57697
Received: 18/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Richard Squires
The allocation for development of Kingswood/Lapworth as a Primary Service Village is wrong for a number of reasons but in my opinion for one principle reason.
Compared with other villages in the group, Lapworth suffers primary service in hospital/ambulance and police security presence.
See Map 2, page 24, Lapworth stands out as isolated compared with the other villages in the group.
The best emergency call out times we can expect is about 20 minutes whereas other villages are grouped close to Warwick/Leamington.
Committing 100-150 more houses to those further risks seems wrong.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57829
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: John Maiden
The scoring criteria for Primary Service Village category is not objective and seems to be based almost on whim.
In the case of Lapworth/Kingswood this seems to be based on an intention that it will be placed in the highest category come hell or high water rather than anything else. .
It is accepted that some development in any village is inevitable. However in the case of Lapworth the development is now to be concentrated in the area of Kingswood and proposed level of housing numbers would swamp that area, with adverse effects on the local infrastructure.
The character of the area will be damaged.
I write this with no great belief that any notice will be taken. The District Council approach to the villages involved seems to me to be one of obfuscation and concealment of information. One guesses that this tactic is be able to claim that people have been consulted whilst doing exactly what suits them and the building industry. I restrict my comments to the following three concerns.
1. The ILG figure of 12300 has been called into question and is thought too high. However there seems to be a lack of clarity on this and there seems to be an implication that this could even rise with consequences for building allocations.
2. The scoring criteria for Primary Service Village category is not by any measure objective and seems to be based almost on whim. In the case of Lapworth/Kingswood this seems to be based on an intention that it will be placed in the highest category come hell or high water rather than anything else. .
3. It is accepted that some development in any village is inevitable. With good sense this can be done without affecting too much the character of the place. However in the case of Lapworth the development is now to be concentrated in the area of Kingswood.and proposed level of housing numbers would swamp that area, with adverse effects on the local infrastructure. As to the character of the place, that, of course will go out of the window - but hey what does that matter !
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57849
Received: 12/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Gerald Tanner
The status of Lapworth as a Primary Service village is inappropriate and fails to take into account the nature of the villages supposed infrastructure links and facilities. Objects to the proposal for 150 homes as it would amount to a disproportionate increase in the size of the village, would put an unrealistic strain on the current infrastructure, would add to the total amount of housing stock on the market which is not selling. Objects to the redesignation of the proposal as Kingswood and not Lapworth. This is unfair and divisive. It is also vague and imprecise on the exact area.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57894
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Business Flats Ltd
Supports proposals for 150 homes in Lapworth / Kingswood. Proposes site in Kingswood / Lapworth area shown on plan for development. The site is 1.1 acres and bordered by housing and the canal and would be an appropriate extension of the village boundary.
see-attached