Kingswood

My wife and I have seen the current local housing development plan. We would like to congratulate and thank you on what appears to be a very sensible and balanced proposal for the villages of Lapworth and Rowington.

The plan has satisfied a need for development of housing but in a way that does not impact greatly on existing residents and protects our beautiful and productive greenbelt land.

Well done and thank you.

Local Plan Consultation on Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation - Kingswood

I refer to the Local Plan Consultation on Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation, in particular relating to Kingswood and wish to object to the sites 1, 2 and 6 identified in the above consultation. The previous consultation focused on Lapworth as a primary service village and indeed many meetings were held with residents from Lapworth, but no such opportunity was granted to the residents of Rowington as no development was envisaged due to Rowington being classed in the small village/hamlet category.

I wish to object as a resident of Rowington parish, to where it was indicated that your Council are looking for land from green belt within Lapworth (Kingswood) and that there would be very limited, if any, development in Rowington. This was a misleading consultation.

You are now looking at identifying sites within Rowington, without any proper consultation taking place with the residents of Rowington and who no doubt are of the opinion that there will be no development.

It is noted that some of the sites in Kingswood have been discounted due to flooding issues. I understand from the Environment Agency that they have not been consulted over any proposals for development at the Kingswood sites.
They advise that given that the area experiences flooding, and the sites are to be included as part of the Local Plan, they would request that a flood model is undertaken as part of that process to inform those involved in the decision making process.

Some of the Kingswood sites referred to in the Consultation, have been discounted due to flooding, but others included as preferred options, notwithstanding flooding being experienced. How has this judgement been made if the Environment Agency have not been consulted?

The Consultation Document is incorrect. It states that option sites have been discussed with Rowington residents. What was the basis of discussion of proposed option sites. It was not with the Parish Council and there was no notice of any public meetings. Please clarify.
Lapworth and Rowington are completely separate villages in their own right. Local people do not make particular reference to living in Kingswood, they live in either Lapworth or Rowington and are proud to do so.

Preferred option sites 1 and 6 suffer from and have the potential to suffer from flooding, a point of concern raised previously by the Environment Agency when an application for development in the area of site 1 was submitted in the past. There is a proposal in preferred option site 1 to erect a gabion wall if development takes place. This is an acknowledgement of flooding potential and by erecting such a gabion wall where will any flood waters go, or is this not a matter of concern for the Council.

The sites identified at Kingswood are bounded by either Kingswood Brook and or canals, and local residents have had many years' experience of flooding where the Kingswood Brook passes under the Old Warwick Road by a restricted culvert and similarly by a restricted culvert under the feeder canal between the Grand Union Canal and the Stratford Canal. This has led to the flooding of local houses, shops and a garage and at times, leaving the Old Warwick Road impassable.

Further development can only aggravate the situation and from contact which has been made with the Environment Agency, it has not been consulted on the specific plans for these sites under the Draft Local Plan. Since this is the statutory body with the expertise into flooding at the present time, I find it alarming that your Council has not been in touch with them to determine that these sites are suitable before arriving at decisions with regard to preferred options. Good governance would say this is wrong.

The grouping of sites 1, 2 and 6 is far too over intensive having regard to the limited size of the local settlements. The locations are all backfill sites not infill sites which is generally regarded as an inappropriate means of justifying development taking place.

If any development is required, then surely this should be restricted to infill and spread throughout the settlement to avoid overcrowding and other problems associated with services and infrastructure for the area.

The Old Warwick Road is now a busy thoroughfare and access to the proposed sites in on a bend at the foot of a hill, and adjoining a busy garage which itself generates of lot of parked vehicles. The speed of traffic is often far in excess of the 30mph speed limit and with such potentially large developments creating in effect, a cross roads, this will be a traffic hazard. Have the police been consulted for their views?

The sites all have canal boundaries and which Kingswood Brook runs under. Have the Canal & Waterways Trust been consulted prior to a decision being taken over the preferred options? If not, why not?

There is poor public transport serving the area and emergency vehicles have at least a 10/15 minute journey before they can arrive in the vicinity. Have the Police and Fire Service been consulted?

The former Kingswood Nursery site is not only within green belt at present, it is also a Special Landscape Area which your Council determined and which it should be seeking to conserve and protect. Over development will have a detrimental impact on the rural landscape.

The character of the surrounding area, the local street scene including listed buildings, watercourses, would make any development detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining residents as well as detrimental to the character of the area.

There is an abundance of wildlife in the area and I question whether or not the Council has undertaken a survey to establish whether there are protected species on the sites in question, in particular, bats and slow worms etc all of which have been seen locally.

In the initial consultation undertaken by your Council, 57 respondents were against
Development and only 5 in favour. Those in favour being either developers or landowners wanting to develop their land.

Your Council is being challenged by a number of parish councils with the support of many other parish and town councils. Should you not defer any decisions until the outcome of this challenge is known. If your Council is wrong, then it has unnecessarily incurred a great deal of expenditure in a flawed consultation process.

Why for the sake of a few months, until a decision is made about the validity of your housing needs figures has been determined, should you be continuing with this exercise.

If you determine sites now and it is found they are unnecessary then surely, you will set yourself up to challenges by developers and landowners.

Rowington parish appears to have been largely overlooked with a seemingly over emphasis upon Kingswood (which is only marginally within Rowington parish) There is considerable public opposition to Kingswood but little regard appears to have been paid by WDC for the opportunity of modest small scale development within other areas of Rowington. Latest weather predictions suggest that areas such as Kingswood are likely to incur flooding and or increase the risk of flooding to current homes yet the current plan appears to simply concentrate housing at Kingswood for ease and simplicity whilst seemingly ignoring other opportunities. This is despite the local opposition which appears to be primarily because of previous flood history.
Additionally the Local plan at the moment appears to questionably place little or no emphasis upon the reality which the proximity of the area to Warwick Parkway will present in future years.
This raises questions re WDC support for local parishes and local industry as well as recognizing the reality of the closeness of Warwick Parkway links to London and the housing needs which that link alone creates.

There is however a need to consider that current Rowington residents with either large or difficult to maintain homes (perhaps older properties or homes with large gardens) do not necessarily wish to move to small two bedroom homes or to new village developments.

Rowington parish is quietly dying due to a lack of new middle age residents because of the lack of suitable new housing. Parish council, village hall and various clubs are all losing and failing to generate new members with membership profiles becoming generally older.

WDC need to fully consider the actual needs of the parish rather than simply fulfilling numbers of new homes with disregard to residents objections and needs.

Meanwhile management and employees of high growth companies such as Jaguar Land Rover fail to find suitable homes in the very same area.

Rowington parish is quite centrally located re the various sites of some of these companies including JLR and its suppliers (main sites at Gaydon, Solihull, Coventry and Birmingham). Key management drawn from all parts of Europe are not seeking starter homes.

In many instances such employees are forced to live at places such as Rugby, Northamptonshire, Oxforshire, Worcestershire and even Wiltshire.

The only key planned preferred sites within the current local plan are unlikely to meet the needs of many current residents or indeed provide housing opportunity for potential younger middle age / middle class families.
Without such stimulus communities such as Rowington will continue to die re lack of younger, vibrant participants in village activities who often come from management style roles.

The current proposal has failed to take heed of opportunities re sites which were suggested (at Pinley) which would modestly help this current imbalance. There is a need for greater distribution of housing to include smaller sites.
There are other and greater opportunities to create modest housing sites by very slight modification of parish boundaries.

A proposal was made re a site at Pinley (Grid reference Easting 04208335 / Northing 02664706).

This site has to date been regarded as being within Shrewley and has to date been subsequently dismissed due to not being fully adjacent to current development within Shrewley but is in fact adjacent to current development at Pinley and should be reconsidered for the following reasons.

With very minor boundary change this total rather than partial site could be fully accommodated within Pinley and thereby Rowington parish.

Apart from having potential good access onto the main B road the nominated site is on the edge of a development which is within realistic walking distance of the local school, a nursery, doctors surgery two churches and the shops, pubs and post offices of two villages (Shrewley and Claverdon) as well as the Ardencote manor leisure facilities.

Hatton and Claverdon railway stations are both accessible by foot.
The site additionally provides quick and easy access to the village halls of four local villages ie Claverdon, Shrewley, Hatton and Lowsonford not to mention Rowington. A bus route passes the door and the local collection point for school buses re children is circa 100 yards away.

This site is discreet and virtually unseen from the roadway and surrounding area being shrouded by trees on all sides with a variety of further trees growing to the frontage to help provide additional screening. It is additionally not in a potential flood area unlike some of the proposals currently being focused upon by WDC which are drawing considerable public opposition.

The site in question has been used domestically for 15 years and is currently under appeal re Lawful Development Certificate.
Summary:

See attached.

Strongly object to the change in status from washed over by greenbelt to inset in greenbelt. It seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the rural nature of the village and facilitate future developments.

We broadly support the latest plan but very much hope that the village envelope will not be extended further into the green belt.

I am pleased to note the revision by WDC of the plan for the 'Kingswood Settlement'. I am generally supportive of these proposals. However I would like to raise the following points :

1. Phasing of the Development.
Presumably this will embrace the full duration of the Plan. If built in the early years this would cause problems re adaptation of infrastructure and create pressure from outside interests to build more (?).

2. Priority to affordable housing should be given to people with local connections.

3. The boundaries defining ' Kingswood Settlement ' are sensibly defined. Pressure to build outside this boundary should be strongly resisted as this would lead to the destruction of the character of the settlement and put impossible pressures on basic elements of the infrastructure notably sewage and general drainage.

I object to the use of the name Kingswood in this report. There is no sign with that name, it has no postcode and is therefore undefined. The village is called Lapworth.

I object to the details in the "Background Information".
Whilst Lapworth has a station very few trains stop there. There is 1 bus to Solihull 5 or 6 days a week. The Post Office is under threat of closure and the Primary School appears to be full.

I am pleased that WDC has reduced the number of dwellings to a proportionate number of 62 which will have far less impact on the character of the village than the previous number of 150.

However, further clarification is required on the phasing of the possible developments and the approach that will be taken on flood mitigation.

In addition I should like to see some assurance that the sustainable housing would be for people with local connections.

I welcome the reduction from the disproportionate number of 150 dwellings in the last consultation to 62 in the current proposal. It should be possible to integrate 62 into the village provided that the developments are phased rather than concentrated in the first years of the Local Plan. In addition the affordable housing components should be reserved for young families and the elderly of the village.

There is still a need for clarity over the role of windfall sites in the Local Plan.

My objections relate to Preferred Option 4 of the Kingswood Plan relating to proposed development of land to the rear of Brome Hall Lane.

There is no easily defined access to the proposed site without demolishing an existing property in Brome hall Lane.
As with preferred Option 3 where the capacity has been reduced to six dwellings on the same developable area, due to insufficient highway access this should also be taken account of for the Brome Hall Lane site and the number of proposed dwellings should be reduced accordingly.

Approximately 20% of the proposed site appears to be unsuitable for residential construction due to the proximity of residences in St Chads Mews, Brome Hall Lane and Clover Hill. Sufficient space must be left between existing properties and any new construction.

The development site includes three large trees which have tree protection orders on. Also on this piece of land there are a number of mature trees in existence e.g. hawthorn, oak and elder which may need to be protected.

The proposed development site has become a natural habitat for many forms of wild life including, monk jack, squirrels, rabbits, pheasants . Bats have also been sighted in the area. A full environmental study should take place to assess the potential effect of any construction.

The sewage and drainage infrastructure of the houses located on the Clover Hill Estate are believed to cross the proposed development site therefore construction work in this area could cause serious disruption to residents.

Although I have concerns regarding the developement of the Kingswood area of Lapworth, I generally support the proposals outlined in the new local plan incorporating a reduced number of dwellings spread out throughout the village envelope. However I am concerned with a number of issues as highlighted by the Kingswood Residents group in their submission of November 2013 and welcome your response.

I wish to support the latest proposed housing development plan for Kingswood. Having read the detail of this proposal I think that the District Council's decision to protect and preserve the street scene and surrounding landscape in Station Lane is very heartening. The avenue of ancient oak trees along the lane is intrinsically part of this landscape, and although I realise that we cannot always keep things that are beautiful, sometimes it is definitely worth trying.

see attached

Following our last discussions and my response form, I have been in discussions with Tyler Parkes Planning consultants. I have instructed them to deal with the proposal to relocate the draft proposed village boundary to include my property, which should be received today before the deadline.

I also held discussions with Tyler Parkes about them producing information to support my proposals to include my field (Option 13) as a preferred option housing site, however unfortunately due to time and financial constraints this has not been possible. However they did state that due to the research they have already undertaken for another landowner (with regard to housing numbers) and after viewing and researching my field, that an excellent case could be produced to promote this option. Therefore I have below outlined some additional information that was not covered in my last submission. Hopefully the fact that I have not instructed a planning consultant to deal with this matter does not impact our chances of success.

Housing Numbers
Although I have been unable to undertake my own research on this matter, it is my understanding (from discussions with Tyler Parkes Planning Consultants) that the housing numbers allocated to Lapworth have been underestimated as it offers a more sustainable location then other villages therefore more houses should be allocated.

Landscape Value
It is our view that too much emphasis may have been place on the landscape value of the land, we appreciate that it is adjacent to the Canal, however as previously mentioned this is the same as several of the other preferred option sites. The land is very well screen on all sides with mature trees and high hedges meaning that development of the land will not impact on the surrounding landscape. In addition to this it is our intention to seek for development a low density very high quality housing scheme, which would have a very limited impact on the surrounding landscape. It is worth noting again that their is already housing either side of the field (unlike some of the other preferred option sites) which lends to a natural extension to the village.

Connections to local wildlife sites
As I live in foreman's Cottage adjacent to the field I believe that there is no wildlife present over and above that expected on any of the preferred option sites. I understand that a full habitat survey has not been carried out and I would be happy to undertake these works as part of the planning process.

I trust that this email and my previous response form may help you to reconsider my field as a preferred option housing site, should you require any further information I would be happy to provide this.

I refer to the above consultation on the draft Local Plan which commenced in 2011. Sites are now being considered as preferred options in a high risk flood plain, at which a number of properties have been flooded, when other sites at risk of flooding have been dropped. The Planning Department have previously been provided with photographs of flooding and the impact of flooding at these sites.

In the initial consultation undertaken by your Council, 57 respondents were against
Development and only 5 in favour. Those in favour being either developers or landowners wanting to develop their land. How can you call this process consultation, when the outcome of such consultation is totally disregarded?

Any proposals for affordable housing should meet the statutory criteria for affordable housing and should be pursued through the Rural Housing Trust and not under the control of developers, landowners and/or local charities.

Why have decisions been made to include sites as preferred options in a high risk flood plain, without the Environment Agency being consulted?

The restricted culvert under the canal at site 1 and also the restricted culvert under the Old Warwick Road, create bottlenecks and have resulted in flooding. Will the Highway Authority accept responsibility for flooding if development is permitted, but the culvert under the Old Warwick Road is left as it is at present.

The proposed development is over intensive and will affect the character of the surrounding area, including watercourses and listed buildings, and will clearly impact on such buildings and the local street scene as well as being detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents.

The proposed access/egress points of sites 1, 2 and 6 on the Old Warwick Road, are at the foot of a hill, on a bend and at a point where traffic does speed, and also adjoin, or are opposite listed buildings.

Allowing a development of this magnitude in the area does not take into account the lack of available public transport. Any younger people taking up residence in the area will need to rely on cars to travel to work, bearing in mind, there is very little chance of local employment.

The time for emergency services to reach the area is a minimum of 10/15 minutes and is probably in reality, a lot longer. This will impact on the elderly requiring emergency hospital treatment.

There is a legal challenge by a number of parish and town councils over the housing quota put forward by Warwick District Council. If this challenge is successful, it would bring into serious question, the whole of the Local Plan put forward by Warwick District Council. By not awaiting the outcome of this challenge, I think Warwick District Council could be seen as negligent in trying to steam roller through what could turn out to be a flawed Local Plan.

If there is any development proposed in the local plan for the parish of Rowington, other identified sites which are not in a high risk flood plain and which would equally serve the local community should also be considered for development.

Any proposed development should be infill and not backfill.

It is felt that there is insufficient local infrastructure, in particular, the sewage system which in a number of areas, still combines both storm water and foul water.

Settlement Boundaries Consultation

It is sad that you feel it necessary to alter the village settlement boundaries. A few years ago, Rowington Parish Council undertook a poll of local residents in Rowington (Kingswood) who by a substantial majority voted for no changes to be made to parish boundaries, since they all had ties and attachments to Rowington and not Lapworth, and more recently by local residents responding to the Boundary Consultation process undertaken by your Council. Please leave Rowington out of the village settlement boundary.

Warwick District's Rural Areas

Warwick District, while in population terms mainly urban, has attractive rural areas. The quality of the District's countryside, and the conservation value of many of its villages, are major assets. They play a major part in making the District attractive to live and work in.

The size of the District and the short distances between the villages and the main towns mean that the District does not have a 'rural economy'. Links between the villages and the towns are close and social distinctions are few. There is no justification for development in any of the District's villages for economic or social purposes, except for some limited social (rented) housing to meet local needs. And because of the short distances, that need may be met in a different village from where it arises without adverse effects.

It is important to stress that there has been tight control on development in Warwick District's villages for 40-50 years. The designation of Conservation Areas in a number of the District's villages took place in 1967-75, mostly prior to the creation of Warwick District Council (April 1974). From 1974 the policies of the District Council have successfully maintained a strict control on development in most villages, especially those within the Green Belt. Limited new housing has been permitted, with one major development on an old hospital complex - Hatton Park.

It would be damaging and regrettable if the New Local Plan were to undermine this success because of a controversial estimate of the requirement for new housing. The balance of urban and rural areas has been firmly established over the last 40 years and very strong justification would be needed to disturb it.




The Green Belt

Warwick District's rural areas are mostly designated Green Belt. This Green Belt status dates from the 1960s with the Green Belt being formally confirmed in 1975. It is thus 50 years old and has played a large role in conserving the character of the District.

The villages within the Green Belt have been 'washed over' and have not been inset (omitted from the Green Belt). It is important to stress this. Successive Structure and Local Plans have been adopted with the Green Belt being continuous. Gaps in the Green Belt, notably the 'white island' of 'white land' or non-Green Belt land at Lapworth (Kingswood), were replaced by as 'washed-over' status for the whole villages.

When Hampton Magna, and more recently Hatton Park, were developed, the Green Belt status was kept. They were not excluded and 'inset'. This enabled consistent planning policy to be applied over the whole area west of Warwick.

The effectiveness of the District's Green Belt is shown by the fact that the rural areas of Warwick District have remained unchanged, or little changed, in the last 40 years. The strict control of development that the Green Belt has provided has been on major benefit.

No harmful or adverse effects on the District's economic performance have been identified as resulting from the Green Belt. The attractive countryside and villages that it has facilitated are more likely to have assisted it by providing an attractive living environment.

The fundamental feature of the Green Belt is that it provides openness. The low density development of most villages, with areas of open land within them, is protected by Green Belt designation. New houses (infill) or house extensions can be strictly controlled and refused if they would harm openness of the Green Belt. This principle has been effective in application where large house extensions or rebuilds, or new buildings such as stables, would be harmful to the character of a village.


CPRE's view of the proposal to remove Green Belt status from several villages


In our view it is not necessary to remove Green Belt status from a village in order to permit some new development within existing villages or in some cases on their edge. Some development within the Green Belt is permitted, subject to all relevant factors including sustainability and the impact on the environment and openness of the area. Conditions can be imposed to avoid unnecessary impacts.

Removal of green belt status from the land within a village boundary will remove the Green Belt controls restrictions set out in the NPPF. This would make possible applications for development which would increase housing density, and the bulk and height of houses; which would be refused were Green Belt status to remain. Removal of Green Belt protection creates the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity, and openness will be lost.

CPRE would prefer to see some villages designated as suitable for "limited infill" without removing Green Belt status. As the title suggests this allows very limited infill with detailed limitations on such matters as the amount and type and design of any infilling. Blanket removal of green belt protection has the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity.

We are also concerned that a number of Neighbourhood Plans are under development and more are likely in the future. Decisions about green belt status should not be used to undermine the possible wishes of residents and other interested parties.

We urge that a more careful approach is taken to the development of each village with appropriate conditions on such matters as the amount, type, style and design of development in the village. Each village should receive individual consideration.

There should therefore be a strong presumption against changing the Green Belt in Warwick District. The Draft Local Plan proposals for removing several villages from the Green Belt and 'insetting' them would revive the 'white islands' that were eliminated in the 1970s. To create areas in the middle of the Green Belt which are not covered by Green Belt policy risks allowing overdevelopment and an undermining of the character of villages.

Affordable housing - generally rented Housing Association housing - can be permitted in villages while they remain 'washed over by the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at para 86 that

"If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt."

In Warwick District the majority of villages contribute to the openness of the Green Belt and should therefore remain washed over by the Green Belt.

A particular type of settlement in the Green Belt in Warwick District where removal from that status would be harmful to openness is the elongated settlement, generally a single road, where housing was developed in the interwar era and in some cases up to the 1960s. CPRE considered that in these cases openness is retained by use of strict Green Belt controls; those would be lost if the Local Plan were to crease 'white islands', contrary to all past Council and Government practice.


CPRE's response on the proposals for individual villages

The following settlements (mostly villages) now 'washed over' by Green Belt are proposed for removal from it:
Baginton, Burton Green, Hampton Magna, Hatton Park, Kingswood (Lapworth), Leek Wootton, Hill Wootton, Hatton Station, and Shrewley.

Outside the Green Belt the following settlements are proposed to have significant new housing:

Barford, Bishop's Tachbrook, Radford Semele.


Baginton: Baginton is an elongated village close to Coventry. It makes a contribution to openness as it is. Its closeness to Coventry makes Baginton very sensitive to new development. It should be retained as it is now with washed-over status.

Barford: Not in the Green Belt. Any development on the land around Barford House is strongly opposed. This has been refused twice now on clear conservation grounds. Locations 1, 2 and 3 will probably be suitable over time, but have problems of access.

Bishops Tachbook: CPRE would wish to see the location for any new housing determined by local opinion and the Parish Council.

Burton Green: Burton Green is mainly a long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove Burton Green from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Burton Green should stay with 'washed-over; status.

Cubbington: The village is not in the Green Belt. The proposed site should be reduced in size to Location no 1 only, eliminating the projection northwards into countryside that site 2 would result in.

Hampton Magna: the historic village (Hampton-on-the-Hill) is within the Green Belt. The new (1960s/70s) settlement was tightly drawn to the area of the former barracks. The site is prominent on the hill west of the A46. Retaining Green Belt status is justified. If this were to be lost, there could be intensification of development at Hampton Magna resulting in more intrusion and a loss of openness.

Hatton Park (former Hatton Hospital site): This was retained in the Green Belt when the extensive new housing was permitted. It is accepted that this location could be taken out of the Green Belt without major harm.

Hatton Station: this is a set of houses built south of the station in around 1970 on former railway land. This is not a village as Hatton Village (church, school) is some way to the east. There is no justification for removing this loose grouping of houses from the Green Belt. The present level of development does retain openness, but intensification would harm openness.

Hill Wootton: This is an attractive small village, which helps create openness of the Green Belt. The proposal for up to 5 dwellings in the village (if achievable) does not justify the removal of the village from the Green Belt.

Kingswood (Lapworth): This is another long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove the Kingswood part of Lapworth from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Kingswood should retain 'washed-over; status. (It is this area which was 'white land' within the Green Belt until a Local Plan Inquiry in the late 1970s.)

Leek Wootton: This village is attractive and makes a contribution to the Green Belt by its openness. It should remain 'washed over'. We oppose the suggested new housing sites 1-3.. The conversion to residential units of Woodcote House (on departure of Warwickshire |Police) is reasonable. But this does not justify removing the whole of Leek Wootton from the Green Belt, and as a conversion can be undertaken while the site remains Green Belt.

Radford Semele: Not in the Green Belt. CPRE would support the option (if any) which is preferred by the local residents and Parish Council.

Shrewley: The two small housing sites at the south end of the village against the railway cutting are capable of being fitted in to the village with the right design. The scale of this development is small and does not justify taking the whole village out of the Green Belt. The village should stay 'washed-over'.

Aylesbury House Hotel near Hockley Heath: there is no justification for permitting new housing in the Green Belt around the existing building. Conversion to residential (flats) of the old building (the Hotel) can be undertaken without changing the Green Belt status.

Oak Lee, Finham: this is a location which could be developed - it is trapped land between Warwick Lane and the A46 Kenilworth Bypass.

see attached

see attached

Lapworth Parish Council is pleased to see that several of its representations have been accepted as reasonable and incorporated into the latest version of the Local Plan. In particular:

1. that an increase of 62 dwellings is close to the 15% increase which is reasonable and proportionate for the settlement, as opposed to the previous near 40% increase possibility
2. that some of the sites, particularly the fields to the east of Station Lane, are of particular importance not just to local residents but also to visitors walking the canal and Baddesley Clinton driveway, as well as being of significant ecological, environmental and aesthetic value
3. that flooding concerns need to be recognised and addressed as appropriate, as in the Rising Lane sites

For these reasons the Parish Council welcomes the new version of the Local Plan as being a much improved reflection of the overwhelming view of parishioners about development, as described in the Parish Plan. It cannot do so wholeheartedly however, unless/until the following concerns have also been satisfied:

1. that the density of new dwellings remains at or below the envisaged level, i.e. the land made available has tight restrictions on the number of dwellings that would be given planning permission in each area
2. that all flooding concerns are tackled fully. This needs to start from understanding and resolving the existing causes of flooding in the Lapworth/Rowington boundary areas where existing properties and businesses are already flooded in severe storms. This needs to be done before embarking on any new builds which can only make the situation worse. It is of particular concern that Site 6 is adjacent to the high risk area according to the Environment Agency website; Site 1 is 50% within the high risk zone; and although Site 2 is outside it, it feeds into Site 1. The whole area requires serious hydrology mapping before any further development is permitted, as is acknowledged in the Local Plan.
3. that attention is given to protecting the view from the canal if the Meadow House and Kingswood Farm sites are developed
4. that construction is phased over the full period so that there is no sudden change to the village which would cause excessive stress on the existing infrastructure and facilities
5. that Affordable Housing should be suitable for the needs of locals primarily, either young people unable to afford starter housing in the area or older residents wishing to downsize. The Parish Council does not believe that Kingswood is generally suitable for affordable housing because there are few jobs here, the transport links to possible employment opportunities are poor, and the local facilities are expensive. We do not however object in principle to appropriate sorts of Affordable Housing
6.that the red/brown line drawn around the settlement is maintained as a very tight line so that the potential for further development within it is very limited
7.that confirmation is received that the land outside the red/brown line will remain unavailable for development for the duration of the Local Plan
8. that concerns are addressed about the effect on traffic and parking. The development of Sites 1 and 2 opposite Site 6 will lead to a crossroads, close to a blind canal bridge. Assurance is needed that all safety aspects have been considered carefully, and any implications for traffic-calming measures discussed with the residents before any Planning Permissions are granted.

Should Lapworth Parish Council receive satisfactory assurances about these points it would be pleased to welcome the Local Plan.

It needs to be noted that many of the new dwellings are set to be within the Rowington Parish Council's part of Kingswood, and Lapworth PC cannot comment on how they might view the Local Plan. Both Parishes are affected by the decisions however.

See attached

see attached

Lapworth Parish Council is pleased to see that several of its representations have been accepted as reasonable and incorporated into the latest version of the Local Plan. In particular:

1. that an increase of 62 dwellings is close to the 15% increase which is reasonable and proportionate for the settlement, as opposed to the previous near 40% increase possibility
2. that some of the sites, particularly the fields to the east of Station Lane, are of particular importance not just to local residents but also to visitors walking the canal and Baddesley Clinton driveway, as well as being of significant ecological, environmental and aesthetic value
3. that flooding concerns need to be recognised and addressed as appropriate, as in the Rising Lane sites

For these reasons the Parish Council welcomes the new version of the Local Plan as being a much improved reflection of the overwhelming view of parishioners about development, as described in the Parish Plan. It cannot do so wholeheartedly however, unless/until the following concerns have also been satisfied:

1. that the density of new dwellings remains at or below the envisaged level, i.e. the land made available has tight restrictions on the number of dwellings that would be given planning permission in each area
2. that all flooding concerns are tackled fully. This needs to start from understanding and resolving the existing causes of flooding in the Lapworth/Rowington boundary areas where existing properties and businesses are already flooded in severe storms. This needs to be done before embarking on any new builds which can only make the situation worse. It is of particular concern that Site 6 is adjacent to the high risk area according to the Environment Agency website; Site 1 is 50% within the high risk zone; and although Site 2 is outside it, it feeds into Site 1. The whole area requires serious hydrology mapping before any further development is permitted, as is acknowledged in the Local Plan.
3. that attention is given to protecting the view from the canal if the Meadow House and Kingswood Farm sites are developed
4. that construction is phased over the full period so that there is no sudden change to the village which would cause excessive stress on the existing infrastructure and facilities
5. that Affordable Housing should be suitable for the needs of locals primarily, either young people unable to afford starter housing in the area or older residents wishing to downsize. The Parish Council does not believe that Kingswood is generally suitable for affordable housing because there are few jobs here, the transport links to possible employment opportunities are poor, and the local facilities are expensive. We do not however object in principle to appropriate sorts of Affordable Housing
6.that the red/brown line drawn around the settlement is maintained as a very tight line so that the potential for further development within it is very limited
7.that confirmation is received that the land outside the red/brown line will remain unavailable for development for the duration of the Local Plan
8. that concerns are addressed about the effect on traffic and parking. The development of Sites 1 and 2 opposite Site 6 will lead to a crossroads, close to a blind canal bridge. Assurance is needed that all safety aspects have been considered carefully, and any implications for traffic-calming measures discussed with the residents before any Planning Permissions are granted.

Should Lapworth Parish Council receive satisfactory assurances about these points it would be pleased to welcome the Local Plan.

It needs to be noted that many of the new dwellings are set to be within the Rowington Parish Council's part of Kingswood, and Lapworth PC cannot comment on how they might view the Local Plan. Both Parishes are affected by the decisions however.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached