Indicative Settlement Boundary

Any changes to the green belt boundary will have a detrimental effect on the character of the village. There is a real concern that the village will become part of the growing homogenous sprawl between Kenilworth and Warwick.

As residents of Leek Wootton (Tremayne, Hill Wootton Road) we make the following comments related to the new local plan proposals:-

* The insetting of the villager settlement boundary is not appropriate as it could encourage over-development or excessive 'infilling' in the future. The village should not lose its Green Belt status as surely this gives some control of future development and growth options.

* The increase of village dwellings by 22% appears too high compared with other villages.

* Preferred sites 2 and 3 are far too small to accommodate the proposed dwellings unless, of course, high density housing is being proposed.

* Developing preferred sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 will give major access problems. With a very poor bus service (one an hour) most residents will require cars. Official estimates of 6 vehicular movements per day per dwelling could amount to 380 movements down a single narrow lane to an extremely dangerous junction by the Anchor public house every single day.

* The high proportion of affordable housing in the proposal (40 %?) would suggest an additional number of children of primary school age. The school is currently full. Has any consideration been made of extra classrooms and facilities? Also car parking which is a big problem especially if proposed site 5 is developed. (There is an unofficial arrangement for the parents to use this car park to transport children 'safely' to and from school).

* The village does not have a good range of services and facilities. It does have a primary school, church, public house and a village hall. But having no shop, apart from a wool shop and massage clinic can hardly be described as a good range of facilities.

* The hourly bus service can hardly be described as good accessibility to public transport. The possible reliance on this limited service by a large number of new residents, in affordable housing, would give major problems.

We know that additional housing should be provided in the village but bearing in mind the above points, we feel that the proposed scale is far too large for the village to sustain.

I support the indicative settlement boundary which identifies the position of the village within the Green Belt and any proposed development should be within this boundary.

PART B - COMMENTING ON THE VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS

LEEK WOOTTON -Page 54 & 55

OBJECTION -1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Preferred options

* VERY BITTY PREFERRED OPTIONS -why leave the police playing field out of the option?
*
* MANY OTHER ITEMS TO CONSIDER - SEWERAGE, ROADS, PATHS, TRAFFIC, ETC.
*
* WOODCOTE & IT'S GROUNDS WOULD BE SPOILT
*
* POLICE AUTHORITY IN CHARGE OF SELLING OFF THEIR LAND HAVE CHANGED THE PLANS MANY TIMES OVER A LONG PERIOD. I'm sure the millions could be found to move the communications building.
*
It would be good to go with the planning consent and make that a retirement area.


SUPPORT

* THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD HOUSES IN LEEK WOOTTON AS ORDERED BY GOVERNMENT NATIONAL & LOCAL
SO

* I WOULD SUPPORT BUILDING ON DISCOUNTED OPTION 7 ONLY



We came to Leek Wootton 40 years ago and at that time developers had started to build about 90 properties to add to the small development of Tidmarsh Road & The Hamlet, expanding The Hamlet to include Croft Road and The Meadows.

I agree we do not want houses to join up with Kenilworth, we would lose our village status & identity.

Building houses at Discounted Option 7 would be more suitable and looking at the map appear a preferable area for construction, it would be a more balanced view.

LOCAL PLAN - LEEK WOOTTON -Page 54 & 55

PART C - COMMENTING ON THE INDICATIVE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES

I FAIL TO SEE WHY SO MANY OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED

IF DISCOUTED OPTION 7 WERE INCLUDED FOR HOUSING IT WOULD MAKE A FAR MORE BALANCED VIEW OF OUR VILLAGE.

IN ITS PRESENT FORMAT POLICE HQ STANDS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB!

I strongly object to the loosening of the village boundary and declassifying the village greenbelt status. I am concerned that the setting of this president will increase risk of loosing greenbelt protection for other adjoining areas of village at late dates.
I believe that he village does not need 70/90 houses and that a smaller number could be more suitable.
The village school cannot currently service all the children living in the village. an increase of village population will have a detrimental affect in the quality of education.

There are no grounds for removing green belt status, green belt is there for a reason and it should be respected. Any individual sites (of which there are few potential) within the village should be subject to full scrutiny of green belt legislation. Opportunistic development of 'back gardens' should not be allowed.

The boundary is no longer that of a compact community, straggling out to the Police HQ with a pocket shown as outside the boundary where there exists a playing field. This is clearly just begging to be brought into the settlement boundary on a future date and more development no doubt would be proposed. This is especially clear now that the proposal is to take the village out of the green belt.

I completely disagree with the Indicative Settlement Boundary for Leek Wootton. In particular the removal of the Woodcote House Site from the green belt is beyond comprehension. It is a listed site of both historical and natural significance. The building is listed and the entrance that is part of the site provides a character that is appropriate to the main building itself. The existing developments along Woodcote Drive are very limited and are done in a way minimise impact to the site as a whole. The proposed developments show no consideration to the historic nature of the site and would due to placing, scale and nature completely impose and damage the site. In addition to the listed building itself the gardens and grounds are identified as being of major significance and are formally identified as Gardening and Parkland. The fauna is of particular significance, not only due to its beauty, but also as it provides a habitat for a number of rare indigenous specifies such as snakes (Adders, Pond Snakes), newts, herons and bats. I have not been able to find an impact assessment that describes how the wildlife would be impacted. A nature survey as part of this proposal and would strongly insist that a survey is carried out that identifies and safeguard the habitat of our rarest species before they are lost. In addition the entire site has been identified with TPOs following the reckless and illegal felling of trees by the Police Authority.

I would need to understand your reasoning and rationale why land of such historical and natural beauty would be developed upon that has no easy access rather than farm or arable land that has no rare species or fauna and has easy access from major roadworks. The additional effect of removing the Woodcote House site from Green Belt would be the infill developments that would occur on the existing residential developments. It cannot be understated the knock on impacts of these developments once the classification on the Woodcote House site is lifted.

Another important consideration is the usage of the Police Headquarters itself. There is no clear plan for the Police to move out of this site. With the impending merger with West Mercia Police it is probable that the Woodcote House itself and the communications block will remain in its current use for the foreseeable future. This would mean that any developments would result in traffic flow that would be in addition to the existing traffic generated by the Police Headquarters. In addition to this there is total confusion and disarray regarding what the short, medium and long term plans of the Warwickshire Police are. On the 26th November a SHLAA was submitted for 90 dwelling - this included the playing fields. This is in contrast to what is being proposed in the Local Plan. Given this confusion and lack of clarity it would be strongly recommended to remove the Warwickshire Police Headquarter site - Woodcote House from the sites as preferred options.

I agree that Leek Wootton should be surrounded by a green belt. Leek Wootton will cease to be a village if the buffer zone between Hill Wootton, Warwick and Kenilworth is not maintained.

It is considered that Leek Wootton settlement boundary should inset the village within the Green Belt. Objection is raised however to the extent of the indicative new settlement boundary for Leek Wootton village. It is considered that the settlement boundary should be amended to include Site 10 land off Home Farm, Leek Wootton.

see attached

We believe that the existing Green Belt around Leek Wootton should remain.
We can only conclude that the new boundary is designed to extend development in the village and in addition to that proposed in the New Local Plan. We do not want to see our semi rural area be swallowed up by a range of new builds that destroy the character and integrity of the Village.

The village of Leek Wootton should remain classed as green belt land, ensuring planning guidelines remain stringent and in keeping with current rules.

I write in relation to the above proposals and wish to register my comments in connection with the 2 key principles of the above proposals as they relate to Leek Wootton and in particular to the existing housing in the vicinity of Woodcote Lane.

I would make the initial comment that the existing planning permission which I believe has already been granted to the Police Authority for the development of a retirement village adjacent to Woodcote and the resultant impact of this do not appear to have been considered within the proposals set out in the consultation document nor in the consideration of sites for development. Similarly the continued use of part of the Woodcote House site by the Police as a result of delayed integration with the West Mercia Force does not appear to have been considered. I would have a concern therefore that this would appear to me to be a major oversight and potentially to mar the value of the work done. This development of a retirement village by the Police, or any other development resulting from a change to the existing granted permission, and the continued use by the police would add additional numbers to the households, traffic and other factors considered by the report particularly in relation to the traffic at the junction between Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road.

Proposed Housing Development in Areas LW1 to LW4 inclusive.

* I would object to the proposed redevelopment proposals for Areas LW1 to LW54 as identified in the above based on the current level of proposed development which on its own and without any other development in the village will lead to an increase in the village size of some 23%. I note this is well above those increases proposed for similar villages elsewhere within the study area where the increase is only some 15%.
* The additional development of some 80 properties will increase the traffic flow at the junction of Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road adjacent to The Anchor which is a difficult junction at the best of times and particularly during peak traffic flows. Traffic flow at this junction has been a significant issue to prior plans to develop on LW1 to LW4 e.g. the proposal to locate the village school in areas 1 and 2. I would question what has substantially changed in the pattern of traffic flow in the village to have removed this prior critical consideration.
* The Warwick District Council plan indicates that Leek Wootton has good public transport links and I would challenge this assertion as being beneficial to any increase in housing. In reality any new residents of the proposed development will utilise private vehicles and whilst there may be existing traffic flowing from the police headquarters under its current use I would suggest to you that the pattern of residential travel will be appreciably different with an emphasis of generating traffic concentrations at the Warwick road junction at key school travel and working day peaks.
* I would not object to a substantially reduced development in the LW1 to LW4 areas which if done in sympathy with the existing character of the Village. Such a development would potentially benefit the village provided that the impact of the development adhered to the numerous recommendations made in Appendix 8 and the report on Landscape Sensitivity & Ecological and Geological Study and in comments elsewhere all of which emphasise the importance of these areas to the necessary preservation of Green Belt and the recommendation to preserve hedge and tree screening to the boundary with Woodcote Lane. This I would feel is an essential constraint on any plans to redevelop in order to preserve the character of the village and to prevent degradation of amenity to those properties on Woodcote Lane.
* I note that the Appendices to the consultation reject other areas of adjacent development. However I also note that the Critical review of the WDC recommendations only focused on the site chosen as preferred and did not comment on the sites "dismissed". Given that this Peer review report found points of disagreement with the choice of recommended site might it not also have been the case that it may also have found disagreement with the assessment to dismiss other locations around the village. As an example area 8 which has been dismissed in the current assessment had previously been Considered "potentially suitable subject to evidence of need and noise mitigations" I wonder therefore if the sites chosen at LW1 to LW4 do not have an implicit influence from the need for the Police Authority to dispose of land.

Proposal to Remove Green Belt "Wash Over" from Leek Wotton

* A number of documents presented as appendices to the WDC report comment on the significance of Leek Wootton to the Green Belt and High impact is a term often used. The proposal to remove the Green belt from Leek Wotton and replace this with a perimeter boundary would allow the potential for infill development within the Village. In addition the actual location of the boundary would be critical to the extent of this potential infill development. Assuming that the boundary remains as shown in the consultation documents then based on the average density of development used for Areas 1 to 4 there would appear to be the potential to develop a further 20 or so houses within the village boundary. This assumes that the sports ground cannot be further developed due to its status with the Waller Trust.
* The boundary clearly leaves the potential for the current area of the police headquarters sports field to be argued for development if areas 1 to 4 are developed. Again based upon the average density used in these areas then this would potentially add a further 40 properties to the village with the result that we could see a total of 80 + 20 + 40=140 properties which would constitute an increase of some 37% on the overall size of the community with the potential to give rise to concerns over the impacts of such a growth on the village and its infrastructure. In addition this further potential development adjacent to Woodcote Lane would feed additional traffic into the junction between Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road.
* I note that there appears to be limited consideration given to the need to protect wildlife that currently utilises the village and the land adjacent to Woodcote Lane. In particular the presence of Muntjac Deer in the fields between Woodcote Lane and Woodcote Drive and the clear presence of a bat population in the gardens and woods adjacent to Woodcote Avenue do not appear to have been factored into the site selection criteria.
* For these reasons I object to this proposal to remove the Green Belt "Wash Over" and suggest that if WDA is to comply with the recommendations in the reports it has commissions on impacts on Green Belt then it should retain the current Green Belt status.


Action to resolve objections

* Undertake a revised assessment of the proposed areas LW1 to LW4 taking into account the existing planning granted to the Police Authority or modifications thereto, the retention of activity by the Police at Woodcote House for the foreseeable future as a result of delays in the integration of the Warwickshire and West Mercia forces and the with due consideration given to the presence of Muntjac Deer and Bat populations adjacent to Woodcote Lane.
* Extend the scope of the Peer Review process to include previously dismissed site in order that a full equal assessment of all potential sites can be seen to have been undertaken.
* If the above result in some of LW1 to LW4 being retained as preferred options then limit the development size and density to be commensurate with the size increases proposed for other villages within the study area namely circa 16%. This to be done to accordance with recommendations relating to the retention of hedgerows and trees adjacent to Woodcote Lane.
* Retain the Village within the Green Belt.

REFERENCE: Village plans and housing options, section 11, Leek Wootton
Nature of representation: Objection

Dear Sirs
I have a number of objections to the draft local plan and have summarised them as follows, in no particular order:
1). The proposed increase in dwellings for Leek Wootton is 23% of current housing level which I feel is disproportionately high and this level of increase is heavily in excess of that proposed for similar villages
2). Access to the new development (if via Woodcote Drive) is too narrow for vehicles to safely pass and there is no pavement for pedestrians which is dangerous. If access is via the North Lodge entrance the same problems apply
3). Woodcote Lane is very narrow and difficult for passing vehicles and the pavement from Woodcote Drive to the Anchor junction is also narrow. This is dangerous for families with buggies and walking children, especially as this is the route to the village school from the proposed new development.
4). Public Transport to and from the Village is insufficient to enable flexible commuting to work and as there is little work in the village most people will be using cars for travel and there will be very busy peak periods in the morning and late afternoon. Each new residence is likely to have an additional 2 to 5 vehicles, depending on the family profile. We are a 5 person family and out of necessity we have 5 cars.
5). The road junction at the Anchor pub is notoriously dangerous and would prove more so with an increase in traffic and/or a change in the pattern of the traffic. There is an increased safety risk to pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.
6). Beer lorry deliveries to the Anchor Pub stop just inside Woodcote Lane junction and I have almost collided with a car coming in the opposite direction and on the wrong side of the road. This is an ongoing problem which will only get worse with an increase in traffic. There have also been many recorded motoring accidents in Woodcote Lane and indeed 2 deaths from road accidents.
Page 2 of 2

7). Planning permission for the village school to be on land off Woodcote Lane was refused when the new school was built in its current location. I would like to suggest that the reasons for that still exist and nothing has substantially changed to justify ignoring those reasons. Please re-visit those reasons.
8). I am strongly in favour of preservation to Green Belt, wherever in the Country it happens to be. New residences could and should be planned on brown field sites and/or near towns where employment and travel are not issues. The change of the village perimeter boundary creates additional risk to the green belt and risk of further infill.
9). The village School is far too small for the likely additional demand
10). The village sewer system is known to have capacity problems
11). I am concerned about the environmental impact on the flora and fauna of the proposed site. The area has Deer, Bats, Badgers (in the woods next to the proposed site) and other wildlife whose habitat will be adversely affected. There are also several mature hedgerows (also wildlife habitats), in particular the hedge along Woodcote Lane between North Lodge and Woodcote Drive.
Please take the above comments into account when considering the current proposal.
In summary a substantially reduced number of residences would reduce the impact of a 23% increase on the village which would harm the existing character and quality of life of Leek Wootton.

Please register this as my objection to the Draft Local Plan.
I have lived in Leek Wootton since November 1987 when my husband, I and our two children moved here from Kenilworth. Leek Wootton is a very special place to live and as I also work at the village school I know many of the families very well. The vast majority of people I have spoken to object to this plan.
I understand that more housing is needed nationally and that it is only fair that villages like Leek Wootton contribute to addressing this problem however it is the number of dwellings that Leek Wootton is expected to provide that I strongly object to. The target of 85 new dwellings which would increase the size of the village by over 22% is far too many and would be to the detriment of the current population of the village.
Several years ago members of the village community fought to retain the village school. A new school was built on the edge of the village with financial support from residents. The school has already expanded since it was built, but this proposed level of building in the village would necessitate further expansion of the school which is already at capacity. It would no longer be a small village school, something for which residents fought hard for.
We already have problems with sewage build up and flooding into the school building during heavy rain when the drainage system is at capacity. I also know that other residents have problems with the sewage system. Extra housing as proposed in the Draft Local Plan would put additional strain on the infrastructure of the village which is already struggling to cope.
Most of the preferred development areas, 1-4, would be accessed by a narrow lane, namely Woodcote Lane. This lane does not have a path running the entire length of the developed part. Anyone who walks down the lane needs to cross from one side of the lane to the other to access the path. The junction of Woodcote Lane with Warwick Road, better known to villagers as 'The Anchor Junction' is of particular concern. Exiting Woodcote Lane is particularly dangerous. There have been several accidents there, along with many 'near misses'. I understand it was because of these access problems that one of the proposed development areas, area 1, was not considered a suitable site for the new village school. These problems still exist. There has already been a huge increase in traffic along Woodcote Lane since I first moved here. Cars owned by my family and parked on Woodcote Lane have been damaged on several occasions by speeding vehicles. Many extremely large farm vehicles use the Lane too. Further increased traffic that would be generated by a proposed development of this size only has the potential for disaster.
Further to the above I would like to register my objection to any alteration of the settlement boundary.
I am extremely concerned about the uncertainty of the Police Headquarters site. Whilst area 4 covers the 'footprint' of the Police HQ, if land between area 4 and area 1 were to be built on at some point in the future this would be a massive increase in the number of dwellings which would totally alter the character of the village. If the status of the village were to change there would be the potential for more in-fill building within the village on small pockets of land which currently provide open space and homes for wildlife. Would the Recreation Ground survive?
In summary whilst I am resigned to some building in the village I firmly object to the proposed plan as it stands and to any alteration to the village boundary.
Please also register this as an objection from Wayne Baylis-Stranks for reasons given above.
being used for housing at some point in the future. If 85 dwellings are allowed to be built in the village as proposed and then the Police HQ site is also used for housing this could account for more dwelling
Increased traffic will also be detrimental to the quality of life of residents who currently live in Leek Wootton in addition to the dangers

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached