Sites Review
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60596
Received: 12/12/2013
Respondent: Mr Gerald Tanner
I agree with all the concerns raised about the development potential of these sites. It is right that they should be discounted
I agree with all the concerns raised about the development potential of these sites. It is right that they should be discounted
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60627
Received: 15/12/2013
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
Objecting to the exclusion of site 13 (Land of Brome Hall Lane) as a preferred option site.
- believes the reasons for exclusion are not justified as is as close to the settlement as other preferred options, has no higher landscape value than other sites, and will have no greater impact on wildlife.
I am objecting to land on Brome Hall Lane not being a prefered option site.
I have outlined below why this site should be promoted to a prefered option site.
Unfortunately, this site has not been promoted by the landowners until this stage. As one of the owners, I very much hope that the fact that this iste has not been represented until this stage does not effect the outcome of this process.
The current reasons for this not being considered are 'distance from settlement', 'high landscapre value', 'commections to potential local wildlife site'.
Distance from settlement: Subject to the above revised village boundary (to include Foremans Cottage as outlined below) this site would be immediately adjacent to the village boundary. This site is adjacent to preferred option site number 4 and no further from the village centre than this site would be.
High landscape value: While this site is adjacent to the canal network (as with three of the preferred option sites 1, 2 & 6) it offers no additional landscape value over and above many of the other preferred option sites.
Connections to potential wildlife site: Again, I would strongly suggest that this site has no additional impact on wildlife than any of the other preferred optioon sites. I would be happy for a habitat survey to be undertaken to demonstrate this as part of the planning process.
The preferred options sites are lower impact: Development on Brome hall Lane would be a lower impact than several of the current draft preferred option sites which have no road and services network to support tham.
We would be happy to see Brome hall Lane 9option 13) developed to a very high quality low density development to respect the adjacent listed building (as proposed with preferred option site 2).
There is already residential development on either side of the field, which makes it a natural position for development.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60650
Received: 04/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Haydn Rees
Sites 8 & 9: these fields are of the greatest importance to the remaining rural feel of Kingswood. The tree frontage on Station Lane, the views from the canal towpath and from Baddesley Clinton driveway, plus the abundance of wildlife in the fields, are all of great value. For these reasons it is to be highly commended that the possibility of building on these fields has been rejected
Sites 8 & 9: these fields are of the greatest importance to the remaining rural feel of Kingswood. The tree frontage on Station Lane, the views from the canal towpath and from Baddesley Clinton driveway, plus the abundance of wildlife in the fields, are all of great value. For these reasons it is to be highly commended that the possibility of building on these fields has been rejected
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60651
Received: 04/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Haydn Rees
Sites 10 & 12: both these sites are subject to frequent flooding. It seems to be extremely sensible to remove these from consideration for possible development
Sites 10 & 12: both these sites are subject to frequent flooding. It seems to be extremely sensible to remove these from consideration for possible development
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60658
Received: 06/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Vivienne Binns
I support the development of the land to the rear of the meadow house
I support the development of the land to the rear of the meadow house
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60772
Received: 15/12/2013
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
Site 13 and Foremans Cottage should be developed because:
Site 13:
-It is located no further from the village than preferred option Site 4.
-It has no additional landscape or ecological value above the other preferred options. The site has a road and service networks to support development.
-Adjacent residential development makes it a natural position for development.
Foremans Cottage:
-Offers a natural expansion with the provision of a historic tree line as a natural boundary.
-Foremans Cottage has been extended increasing the building density.
-A natural break between Foremans Cottage and the properties further down Brome Hall Lane exists.
See attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60830
Received: 14/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Emma Lange
I fully support the removal of site 9 from the Kingswood development. The reason we bought our house was to be able to enjoy the beautiful views across the fields. This is a rural village which needs pockets of unspoilt farm land in order to retain its character. The impact of building on this site would be vast, and there are clearly more suitable sites.
I fully support the removal of site 9 from the Kingswood development. The reason we bought our house was to be able to enjoy the beautiful views across the fields. This is a rural village which needs pockets of unspoilt farm land in order to retain its character. The impact of building on this site would be vast, and there are clearly more suitable sites.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60858
Received: 14/01/2014
Respondent: Liz Beaver
Resident of Station Lane supports the discounting of Site 9 as:
-It is farming land and a valuable wildlife habitat.
-The landscape of the area would have been damaged and TPO's in the road would have little value if other neighbouring trees were to be removed / affected so substantially.
Locally it is being said that the owners of Site 9 may appeal against its removal as a preferred option. This would be somewhat disingenuous given that none of them live in the area and as such cannot be said to have the best interest of the community at heart.
As a resident of Station Lane, I support the removal of Site 9 in Kingswood as a preferred option. I had previously lobbied against its selection on the grounds that it is farming land and a valuable wildlife habitat. The landscape of the area would have been considerably damaged too and there would have been little point in continuing with all the tree preservation orders in the road to maintain the landscape if other neighbouring trees were to be removed / affected so substantially.
Locally it is being said that the owners of Site 9 may appeal against its removal as a preferred option. I would regard this as somewhat disingenuous given that none of them live in the area and as such cannot be said to have the best interest of the community at heart.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60867
Received: 15/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Robert Cousins
I commend the planning committee for it's decision to exclude these sites. The impact on the village would have been out of proportion. I urge WDC to make these exclusion permanent and save us from the endless speculation on the future of these sites.
I commend the planning committee for it's decision to exclude these sites. The impact on the village would have been out of proportion. I urge WDC to make these exclusion permanent and save us from the endless speculation on the future of these sites.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60874
Received: 15/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Jonathan Hull
I also fully support discounting the site to the south of Kingswood close. As a new resident in the street, the views across the fields were one of the main reasons for purchasing the property. It is clear that any development on this site would have impacted far too greatly on the landscape of both the fields and the frontage to Station Lane and as mentioned there are clearly more suitable sites.
I also fully support discounting the site to the south of Kingswood close. As a new resident in the street, the views across the fields were one of the main reasons for purchasing the property. It is clear that any development on this site would have impacted far too greatly on the landscape of both the fields and the frontage to Station Lane and as mentioned there are clearly more suitable sites.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60875
Received: 15/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Jonathan Hull
I also fully support discounting the site to the south of Kingswood close. As a new resident in the street, the views across the fields were one of the main reasons for purchasing the property. It is clear that any development on this site would have impacted far too greatly on the landscape of both the fields and the frontage to Station Lane and as mentioned there are clearly more suitable sites.
I also fully support discounting the site to the south of Kingswood close. As a new resident in the street, the views across the fields were one of the main reasons for purchasing the property. It is clear that any development on this site would have impacted far too greatly on the landscape of both the fields and the frontage to Station Lane and as mentioned there are clearly more suitable sites.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60900
Received: 15/01/2014
Respondent: Rowington Parish Council
-Object to the Site Review as Area R133, R133 and R152 should be considered for providing some of the housing allocation.
-Consideration should be made for other small scale developments.
-Parish Councillors have become aware that Rowington Almshouse Charity is interested in developing further almshouses, allowing elderly and less affluent residents to remain in the parish and creating a homogenous mix of residents.
-Development of Area R133, adjacent to land owned by Almshouse Charity should be looked upon favourably by parishioners and the Parish Council.
N.B. The following response is the result of Working Party discussions between Rowington Parish Councillors and is therefore subject to formal resolution at the next Council Meeting on February 13th 2014.
1. The results of the recent Parish Design Statement Survey confirmed that a significant number of respondents identified the need for smaller housing units to accommodate both young families with historical roots in the Parish and existing elderly residents wishing to downsize and remain in the parish. Only 17% of residents wished to leave Rowington Parish upon retirement. Anecdotal evidence also supports the view that many young families will already have left Rowington Parish and therefore would not have participated in the survey.
It is appreciated that Warwick District Council are only likely to undertake preliminary analysis of the suitability of sites, with full design solutions being the responsibility of the developers. Where significant infrastructure works are required to overcome specific site issues, the Parish Council is concerned that initial development proposals, which are acceptable to residents and the Parish Council, may not then be financially viable to the developer, or acceptable to WDC, at the density and layout originally proposed. This may lead to pressure being applied to the planners to accept a higher density proposal, or one that is inappropriate, leading perhaps, to withdrawal of the PC's support.
Rowington Parish Council wishes to safeguard the interests of residents who might be directly affected by future developments. However, Rowington Parish Council has no objection in principle to Warwick District Council undertaking further investigation of the Kingswood sites, which are located within the Parish of Rowington, in order to ascertain whether those sites are suitable for development. This agreement is based on further consultation, including the following conditions.
1. Sight of detailed hydrology modelling on sites 1 and 6.
2. Application of criteria based on recent actual occurrence of flooding, to ensure that deficiencies in the hydrological models do not allow development on land prone to flooding without diligent attention to flood mitigation and prevention, particularly with regard to the land to the rear of Kingswood Cottages.
3. Sight of outline proposals regarding housing numbers, to include housing design and mix of housing type/size.
4. Sight of outline and detailed landscaping proposals to include site screening.
5. Agreement and confirmation of the indicative settlement boundary for Kingswood village.
2. Other Sites
Rowington Parish Council has been asked to give consideration to possible small scale development at Rowington and Lowsonford, namely Areas R132, R133 and R152 in the Location Plan of Rowington dated 25 September 2013. These have been stated to be presently off the agenda for the Local Plan.
Continued........../
Continuation....... /
Parish Councillors have recently become aware that Rowington Almshouse Charity has expressed interest in developing further almshouses which it considers are needed within the parish. The Parish Council believes that these almshouses permit elderly and less affluent residents to remain within the parish, with the additional benefit that a homogeneous mix of residents is retained, as far as possible, within the community.
Specifically, Area R133, adjacent to land already owned by Rowington Almshouse Charity, has been identified by the Charity and the Parish Council believes that this should be looked upon favourably by parishioners and the Parish Council. Such support is a requirement of Paragraph 2.16 in the draft Local Plan.
Rowington Parish Council would therefore be prepared to consider, in principle, other small scale developments where appropriate, subject to normal planning rules and including sight of development and traffic management proposals where applicable. In addition, confirmation of site suitability and sustainability, including confirmation that existing drainage facilities have adequate capacity to facilitate the developments at the indicative densities, given the extremely limited infrastructure available in all areas of the parish.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 60954
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Helen Clark
I am pleased that WDC has taken note of the concerns expressed locally regarding the importance of some of these sites in term of aesthetics and environment, and of the serious flooding risks which would be associated with developing the sites.
I am pleased that WDC has taken note of the concerns expressed locally regarding the importance of some of these sites in term of aesthetics and environment, and of the serious flooding risks which would be associated with developing the sites.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61035
Received: 18/01/2014
Respondent: mr leslie flavell
Some degree of common sense has prevailed in the District Councils latest proposed Local Plan now that sites 8-13 have been discounted as unsuitable for development.Certain parties with a vested interest will no doubt attempt a reversal. .I would like to reiterate my strong ongoing objection to the development of this land.Such over development would destroy the rural/village environment that is Lapworth - These sites are GREEN BELT and sites 8-9 are productive farm land with oaktree lined frontages with preservationorders. The introduction of concrete covered ground can only increase the risk of flooding to which the area is prone.
Some degree of common sense has prevailed in the District Councils latest proposed Local Plan now that sites 8-13 have been discounted as unsuitable for development.Certain parties with a vested interest will no doubt attempt a reversal. .I would like to reiterate my strong ongoing objection to the development of this land.Such over development would destroy the rural/village environment that is Lapworth - These sites are GREEN BELT and sites 8-9 are productive farm land with oaktree lined frontages with preservationorders. The introduction of concrete covered ground can only increase the risk of flooding to which the area is prone.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61053
Received: 19/01/2014
Respondent: Les Clark
Development on sites 8,9 and 10 would have had significant detrimental ecological and environmental impacts on the area. In addition there would have been a significant detrimental visual impact for users of the canal, and significant detrimental visual and well-being impacts for existing local residents. Consequently I support fully the discounting of these sites in the site review.
Development on sites 8,9 and 10 would have had significant detrimental ecological and environmental impacts on the area. In addition there would have been a significant detrimental visual impact for users of the canal, and significant detrimental visual and well-being impacts for existing local residents. Consequently I support fully the discounting of these sites in the site review.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61058
Received: 19/01/2014
Respondent: Lapworth Parish Council
Lapworth 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 attached concerns have also been satisfied
Lapworth 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 attached concerns have also been satisfied
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61107
Received: 19/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Crampton
support this proposal
support this proposal
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61180
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Miss Claire Brown
I support the removal of sites 8 and 10 from the list of preferred options. Any development of sites 8 and 9 would obstruct views across the green belt for those living on station lane and kingswood close. I would also have some concerns around the infrastructure being able to support new housing in these areas - and in fact around the whole of Lapworth.
I support the removal of sites 8 and 10 from the list of preferred options. Any development of sites 8 and 9 would obstruct views across the green belt for those living on station lane and kingswood close. I would also have some concerns around the infrastructure being able to support new housing in these areas - and in fact around the whole of Lapworth.
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61209
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Susan Richards
Providing sensible consideration is given to phasing & character of developments my Husband & I Support the latest version of the Local Plan, which reduces down the no. of dwellings to 62. Particularly as it realises the importance of keeping the fields to the East of Station Lane, thereby preserving the trees & green belt and recognising the significant ecological & environmental value.
Providing sensible consideration is given to phasing & character of developments my Husband & I Support the latest version of the Local Plan, which reduces down the no. of dwellings to 62. Particularly as it realises the importance of keeping the fields to the East of Station Lane, thereby preserving the trees & green belt and recognising the significant ecological & environmental value.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61542
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: The Bateman Settled Trust and Mr A Rajkowski
Agent: Savills
-In support of Site 8 as the preferred option.
-A Masterplan, consisting of three potential proposals for Site 8 has been provided and demonstrates indicative layout options for small scale development.
-The site assessment for Site 8 has been undertaken on the basis of SHLAA Site R110 and does not take account of adjoining land at Kingswood Farm. Since the respondent's original representation of this land, their proposed masterplan now incorporates additional land at Kingswood Farm which would provide access to Site 8.
-Respondent is willing to consider how a proportion of dwellings could be reserved for local people.
see attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61695
Received: 21/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Pauline Green
Support Discounting Site 9 for development:
-Respondent is pleased that Site 9 on Station Lane has been built on as they have lived there for many years and accept that limited development is desirable.
-Site 9 should remain green field as it contains lots of nature.
see attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61713
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Samuel Lange
Support not building on Site 9 as:
-It is a lovely piece of land where I can walk my dog and building would be an eyesore.
-The land currently is one of the few open areas on Station Lane that relieves use from the sight of housing. Building on it would make Lapworth lose its open feel, which I feel is vital to the village.
see attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61720
Received: 10/01/2014
Respondent: John Lange
-Site 8 and 9 should not be a preferred option.
-Site 9 is beautiful and productive Green Belt land. Without these pockets of Green Belt land etching into a predominately linear village you would destroy the rural setting. There is a tremendous amount of wildlife in these fields. Looking towards or from the village these Green Belt areas are crucial to the visual impact.
-Site 9 is bordered by mature oak trees that have a TPO. There is already flooding in these fields.
-Please do not develop homes near the road as the problem in the adjacent area will worsen.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61729
Received: 18/01/2014
Respondent: Mr David Pickering
Agent: Mr Richard Cobb
The proximity of Kingswood and Rowington means that release of our site at -Rowington Green would take the place of at least one of the Kingswood sites to fulfil the number of dwellings required.
-62 dwellings have been designated in Kingswood leaving a balance of around 85, sites for which still need to be found. Otherwise our site could contribute additional housing to the total provision being sought by in rural areas.
-The Lyons Farm site could meet the local aspirations and dwellings compatible with the character and appearance of the area and will ideally meet the documented local need.
see Attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61733
Received: 10/01/2014
Respondent: John Lange
Fully support the decision to remove Sites 8 and 9 from the list of preferred options as Site 9 is a beautiful bit of Green Belt land with a tremendous amount of wildlife on and these Green Belt areas are crucial to the visual impact of the village. Site 9 has a tree preservation oder and flooding issues.
see attached
Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61740
Received: 22/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Phil Tanner
Support the removal of Sites 8 and 9 from the housing options. These sites are Green Belt fields and of high landscape value.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61766
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership
The landowner of Foreman's Cottage suggests that it should be a preferred option for development because:
-The land is already developed andoccupied by a detached residential property and associated buildings.
-It is screened by mature trees and hedging. The property has very much been part of the village life and the character of the site is enclosed rather than open thus it would be inappropriate to retain within the Green Belt.
-Foreman's Cottage is part of a cluster of buildings. The buildings and their grounds are readily recognisable which were associated with the operation of the canal.
Please find attached a letter of formal representation in response to the consultation on the Village Housing options and Settlement Boundaries consultation, submitted on behalf of our client Mr Shaun Hussey. Also attached and forming part of the submission are a plan and aerial photograph showing the proposed re-alignment to the indicative Kingswood (Lapworth) Village boundary.
For your ease of reference, a copy of the representation form submitted previously by our client in response to this consultation is attached.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61767
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
In ownership of discounted option (Site 13), which they wish to promote for development as:
-The landscape value is the same as the other preferred options.
-The land is well screened on all sides with mature trees and high hedges. Therefore it would not impact on the surrounding landscape.
-Seek to provide a low density, very high quality housing scheme which would have limited impact on the surrounding landscape.
-There is already housing either side of the field lending to a natural extension to the village.
-There is no wildlife present over and above that expected on the preferred options.
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.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 63554
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL
Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership
We would strongly recommend allocation of part of our client's land as a housing site in the current Local Plan. The site proposed as a housing allocation in this submission is the field parcel fronting Station Lane extending east to approximately the line of the current Settlement Boundary to the south of the site. The site area would include Discounted Option 9 together with land to the east up to the existing field boundary, a defensible physical boundary, boundary shown in Appendix A, figure 1 of the 'Landscape and Visual Assessment' which forms part of this submission. The site is in an extremely sustainable location being approximately 2 minutes walk to Lapworth railway station and bus stops, 6 minutes walk to the local primary school, less than 10 minutes walk to the shops in Lapworth and just over ten minutes walk to Lapworth surgery.
Our Client contends that the assessment of their site was distorted by the Council's decision, in the evidence, to ignore the existing access opposite number 145, Station Lane and assume that access would be provided towards the northern end of the road boundary, opposite 155 Station Lane. In order to secure visibility sight lines, this would necessitate the removal of exiting Tree Preservation Order (TPO) oak trees and an extensive length of road frontage hedging, one of the primary reasons for discounting the site. Our Clients also contend that the Council failed to assess in detail the landscape impact if development were confined to the field fronting Station Lane and appropriate mitigation measures taken. Instead their assessments are primarily concerned with the potential adverse impact residential development might have on the landscape if all, or a much larger section of the site promoted in the SHLAA were to be developed. For these reasons we contend that the evidence base is unsound and does not satisfy the requirements of the Framework.
see attached