Sites Review

Showing comments and forms 1 to 22 of 22

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60656

Received: 05/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Peter Robins

Representation Summary:

Support for1,2 and4. Object to3 Return3 to original use as tennis court for village. Propose development of land between 1 and4 as originally proposed by the police. Could build 40 dwellings there. Traffic lights or mini roundabout at Warwick Road

Full text:

I broadly support the proposals but have other suggestions. I support 1 ,2 and 4. I object to 3. 3 is really a tennis court and should be returned to that use for the benefit of the village. The land between 1 and 4 should be included for development,as propsed by the Police some time ago. This area could accomodate 40 dwellings. This is a natural site with 1. There is then no need for 5 or 3. I am sure that arguments will arise about the junction between Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road. This is easily answered by traffic lights or a mini roundabout . This would have the added bonus of slowing traffic down. If the police object to traffic lights it cannot be beyond the wit of man to create a discreet hand held remote control for the police in an emergency. I hope this helps inform decision making.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60707

Received: 10/01/2014

Respondent: MR EDWARD SETON BINNS

Representation Summary:

Object to the discounting of Site 7 and 9. They should become preferred options because:

-Site 7 could accommodate approximately 12 houses and is on a lower plain than the main hill.

-Site 9 could achieve access either through the field adjacent to the school, or from Hill Wootton Road which would allow building of a considerable number of houses.

Full text:

Area 7 - land abutting Warwick Road and Hays Drive could accommodate approximately 12 houses and is on a lower plain than the main hill.

Area 9 - access available either through the field adjacent to the school, or from Hill Wootton Road which would allow building of a considerable number of houses.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60739

Received: 12/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bayliss

Representation Summary:

-Support the discounting of Sites 8,9 and 11 because of noise from the A46 and dangerous access.

-Support the discounting Sites 8 and 9 as access would need to be just before Hill Wootton Road goes under the A46 bridge. There is a significant dip in the road under the bridge and it is already difficult to see traffic 'hidden'. The road is also frequently flooded and impassable.

-Support the discounting Site 8 as the sewage system in Leek Wootton is inadequate and the site is used as the overflow area for raw sewage.

Full text:

I object to sites 9, 8 and 11 on grounds of noise coming from the A46 and the proximity of these sites to this major dual carriageway.Although houses on the east of The Hamlet were double glazed years ago before traffic increased to current levels noise pollution in the houses is very obvious.
I object to sites 8 and 9 because access to either site would have to be off Hill Wootton Road just before it goes under the A46 bridge.There is a significant dip in the road under the bridge and it is already difficult to see traffic "hidden" there when exiting from the The Hamlet. Also the road under the bridge is frequently flooded and impassable.
I object to site 8 because the sewerage system in Leek Wootton is inadequate for the present number of dwellings. Site 8 is used as the overflow area for raw sewage.
I object to the scale of develpoments 1-4 on grounds of scale.
I am concerned that Warwickshire Police have plans for developing different areas of their Headquarters that are not mentioned in the document.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 60973

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Keith Knott

Representation Summary:

The already discounted sites must not be built on if the village is to maintain its integrity and character. In particular no building towards Kenilworth (areas 11-13) and no building toward Warwick otherwise the village will become contiguous with the towns and lose its identity.

Area 7 and Area 10 must also not be allowed to build on - these have a very high visual and environmental impact that would inevitably create a suburban feel and remove the open aspects to the golf course.

Full text:

The already discounted sites must not be built on if the village is to maintain its integrity and character. In particular no building towards Kenilworth (areas 11-13) and no building toward Warwick otherwise the village will become contiguous with the towns and lose its identity.

Area 7 and Area 10 must also not be allowed to build on - these have a very high visual and environmental impact that would inevitably create a suburban feel and remove the open aspects to the golf course.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61111

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Crampton

Representation Summary:

As above

Full text:

As above

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61196

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Marlow

Representation Summary:

We are passionate about keeping the integrity and individuality of our village. In short, we ask that the number of new builds is reduced and that they be phased in over the 15 year period. Also crucial is that the infrastructure needs are given the required priority and the concerns of Leek Wootton residents are respected and given due consideration.



Full text:

Over 17 years ago we moved into our home on The Hamlet. We were attracted by the semi rural location of this quaint village and to the position of our house, with a quiet road to the front and open aspect (field) to the rear.
Having raised a family here and as a member of the community we feel strongly about the latest proposals concerning housing development in the New Local Plan.
1) Whilst it is inevitable that Leek Wootton has to accept its' share of new builds we are particularly concerned about the scale of the proposed development. A target of over 22% - 85 new dwellings seems excessive and unfair particularly when larger villages nearby have a much lower target. It is imperative that the village keeps its' identity and character and that any development is fair and proportionate.
We would ask that a more realistic target be set that allows for reasonable development.
2) It has also been brought to our attention that the phasing in of any development is more likely to be over 5 years and not 15 years as initially mentioned in your original publication of 25/11/13. This gives us additional cause for concern as there is potential for the village to become an enormous building site with the current infrastructure unable to cope. The locals will be inconvenienced whilst works are ongoing, however too much too soon could not only make matters generally unbearable but potentially dangerous.
3) It is understood that there is uncertainty over the release of the Police site (Area 4). Including this the bigger site will account for some 88% of new builds which is too high particularly over a short time span. The Police site provides huge potential for development but the number of houses granted should not be based on the size of the plot alone. Development should be on a smaller scale, incorporating Area 5 and phased in over 15 years to allow for imbedding of infrastructure and services.
4) Whilst the Police site is the preferred option we must comment on the sites discounted. These are on pockets of land to the north, south and east of the village. We are aware that a local landowner is actively seeking your agreement to develop on land, in particular Area 8, to the rear of our home. Whist we are thankful for the current decision, we have stated before and will continue to be opposed in the strongest terms to any development. Our move here was greatly influenced by the open aspect and outlook at the rear of our property, to lose this would be visually damaging, intrusive and a loss of open space. We are situated on what we believe is the natural boundary to the east and we do not feel this should be extended. This land is a natural buffer to the very busy and noisy A46 three lane carriageway.
5) The village is used as a cut through by many commuters. Roads off the main Warwick Road are generally narrow and were not built with the current high usage in mind. Commuters drive too quickly, often dangerously particularly along the built up Hill Wootton Road. The junction by the Anchor Pub/Woodcote Drive is a particular hazard and the scene of road accidents over the years. The narrowness of the road and restricted vision is a worry as the majority of the new development will be accessed at this point. It is our opinion that traffic management needs to be adequately addressed beforehand.
6) There will undoubtedly be an impact on existing infrastructure a)The local school is oversubscribed and would need substantial additional building to accommodate the inevitability of more children. Also a larger car park, as it is already too small. b)We have personally suffered due to inadequacies in the sewerage system. In 2001 a holding sump was built in the field (Area 8) to stop flooding of the foul drains into our garden and that of our neighbours. The additional development proposed raises further concerns over the capacity of the system. c) Footpaths are in short supply and necessary to keep pedestrians, particularly the elderly and those children walking to school safe.
We are passionate about keeping the integrity and individuality of our village. In short, we ask that the number of new builds is reduced and that they be phased in over the 15 year period. Also crucial is that the infrastructure needs are given the required priority and the concerns of Leek Wootton residents are respected and given due consideration.

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61443

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: John and Caroline Roberts

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61604

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

Preferred sites are located within an area of wood pasture and parkland, which is a Priority Habitat. Sites 3 and 4 are brownfield sites, sites 1 and 2 are not, and development here has the potential in losses of Priority Habitat. Sites 1 and 4 are adjacent to The Lunch local site.
The local authority should take the potential ecological implications of these site allocations into account, considering paragraphs of the NPPF and the biodiversity duty established under the NERC Act 2006. We recommend requiring site master planning and specifying the need to design-in habitat retention and enhancement.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 61715

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Cooke

Representation Summary:

-My objection to the current plan is the total number of new dwellings proposed for Leek Wootton. 80+ new properties in a village of approx. 300 is a massive increase- far larger than is proposed for other villages in the plan. This will have an adverse effect on the unique community spirit that is Leek Wootton.
-Other objections would be 1- the roads cannot cope with a large increase in traffic and 2- the numbers attending the school would lead to overcrowding again affecting the excellent teaching conditions.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62051

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Audrey Gillitt

Representation Summary:

-Support the discounting of Site 10 as should it be built on, access through the small padlock onto Home Farm (part of which I own) would be undesirable and possible dangerous.


Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62057

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: John and Caroline Roberts

Representation Summary:

-Object to discounting development on Site 7 and 12. They should not have been discounted as they are more accessible and less controversial than the preferred option sites.

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62205

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Belinda Simmons

Representation Summary:

Support the discounting of Site 7 and 10 as:
-These sites should not be built on as they would have a massively detrimental effect on the landscape.
-Many people walk the perimeter of the gold course and enjoy the stunning views around this area.
-Developing these sites would ruin the conservation area.
-A local farmer grazes his Dexter herd on Site 10. It would be a great pity to lose this unique agricultural land. The wildlife in this area is a great asset to the village and it must be protected.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62222

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr James Murdoch

Representation Summary:

-Option 7 and 12 have been discounted on visual impact but should be reconsidered.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62257

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Clive-Smith

Representation Summary:

Support the discounting of Site 10 as:
-Housing would impact on this protected view within The Conservation Area.
-The footpath is enjoyed by walkers and ramblers who come from far.
-It is good agricultural land.
-The land is currently in the Green Belt.
-It would have no vehicle access. The WDC Conservation Area Report 2002, Home Farm and other parts of Warwick Road, Church Lane, Woodcote Lane, Hill Wootton Road and Tink a Tank are within the Leek Wootton Conservation Area.
-There are surrounding listed buildings (Old Post office and Holly Cottage).
-Tink a Tank is an ancient footpath.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62258

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Clive-Smith

Representation Summary:

Support the discounting of Site 7 as:
-It is unsuitable for housing as it would have a disastrous impact on the beautiful view from the field footpath.
-There are not many places where you can stand and see a large impressive view looking over miles of countryside. Looking onto a housing estate here would not spoil the view completely.
-The field is high and any housing here would be far too visible in what is a small village surrounded by Green Belt.
-Building here is also unacceptable because it is in the Green Belt and Conservation Area.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62266

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Clive-Smith

Representation Summary:

-Site 8 has been discounted for development however it is agricultural land and would be a smaller area to 'lose' in terms of food production and so might be more suitable than some of the other alternative village sites. There would be some sense in joining it to the 'The Hamlet'.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62267

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Clive-Smith

Representation Summary:

-Site 9 has been discounted but it could support a few houses being built behind The Elms in a small rectangle where the housing footprint came out into the field no further than the existing school. Should houses be built here, their style and design must reflect the existing houses nearby.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62269

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Clive-Smith

Representation Summary:

-Site 13 has been discounted but it could support some housing as it is agricultural land that is a smaller area to lose in terms of food production and so might be more suitable than some of the other alternative village sites. Houses here would be less visible from the road than some other sites.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62270

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Clive-Smith

Representation Summary:

-Support that Site 12 should not be developed on as it is a large area of agricultural land and is used for food production. It is not a suitable place for housing. Housing would be very visible and would start to encroach onto Kenilworth.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 62279

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Dean Smith

Representation Summary:

Support the discounting of Sites 7 - 13.
-There are already problems with drainage/sewage along 'the hamlet' which requires serious consideration regarding Sites 8,11 and 13.
-Developing on Sites 7 - 13 would destroy the essence of the village and be disproportionately large for the road infrastructure as it stands.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 63155

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Judith Ward

Representation Summary:

-I don't object to some further housing in Leek Wootton but 80 more on top of 381 is an increase of over 20% which is too much.
-The Local Plan runs until 2029 and we want these housing developments to be spread out over time. My main concern is the poor quality of development that volume house builders deliver. The Parish needs a big say over what is built and the layout. Some bungalows would be useful for people who have mobility problems and wish to stay in the village.
-The village school is full.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Representation ID: 63242

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Leek Wootton & Guy's Cliffe Parish Council

Representation Summary:

-The Parish Council continue to oppose any development on Sites 7 - 13 following the criteria and arguments expressed in the Appendix to the Consultation and therefore support the site review of these sites.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments: