Sites Review

I support the rejection of option 4. I consider the coalescence of Radford and Sydenham/Whitnash a real danger and the settlements already too close. The road access into the village via Lewis Road and School Lane are already both under some pressure, This is made worse by lack of off street parking on Lewis road and the pressures of school runs on School Lane. Many children walk to school on both roads, and in places both the road and pavement are very narrow bringing pedestrians and cars very close together. Turning into School Lane can be tricky and especially emerging from School Lane can be dangerous and cause gridlock.

I object to the reasons given for rejection of options 2 & 3. The main objection seems to be problems with vehicle access. I would suggest that an extension of the 30 mph on the Southam Road for a short distance would allow satisfactory access.

I support the discounting of Option 4 from the Village Housing Options. I believe this site would have resulted in increased traffic flow through School Lane and Lewis Road. This would result in an increased risk of Road Traffic Accidents in general and especially at school drop-off and pick up times when there is already congestion. Increased traffic flow along these narrow roads would also lead to emergency vehicles not being able to access the site.

I also believe that building on this site would have led to an increased flood risk along roads to the south of Option 4 which have suffered in the past with serious flooding.

I support the discounting of Options 2 and 3 from the Village Housing Options as I believe this would enlarge the village envelope.

I support the discounting of Option 4 from the Village Housing Options. It would have led to increased traffic flow along narrow congested roads (School Lane and Lewis Road) and would have resulted in more accidents along these roads (especially with the congestion outside the school at drop-off pick up times), more accidents at the junction to Radford Road and emergency vehicles would have been unable to access the site.

Building on Option 4 would have also led to an increased risk of flooding along roads to the South of Option 4 which have been flooded in recent history.

I object to the discounting of sites 2 and 3 from the Village Housing Options. The information provided by WDC in Appendix 6 states that these have been discounted after the Highways Agency indicated that a junction to these sites would be unsafe at the present road speed (50 mph) and that reducing this road speed would be unlikely. If Options 2 or 3 were to be taken forward a reduced speed limit in this region (30mph) would be essential for safe pedestrian paths to the rest of Radford Semele. Why is this speed limit reduction here so unlikely? I believe these two options are the least likely to cause increased flood risks in the village and due to the new road junction would provide the safest road access to the sites and would not increase congestion in the main village (Lewis Road and School Lane).

Re: Gladman Developments, Proposal to build in Radford Semele, next to St Nicholas Church.


I wish to object in the strongest terms to this proposal.

There are many reasons why I feel that this development is inappropriate, and none of them are because I object to development in/of Radford Semele - the village needs to move forwards, and there are many ways in which new housing could be introduced to the village which would not detract from the existing nature of the village.
The Gladman proposals appear to be very aggressive, very forceful, somewhat over-ambitious, and generally poorly communicated - the impression is that Gladman are attempting to "rail-road" their way in to the development of the village, introducing a high-density, "not in keeping with the surroundings" development, without proper consultation or appropriate consideration of future impact.
I am sure that it would be very easy to sit in a Head-Office in Cheshire and not take appropriate heed of the real impact of a development taking place a hundred miles away - however, life should not just be about meeting a politicians housing plan, there is a need for all of us to act in a professional, sympathetic and considerate manner in the implementation of such a plan.

My biggest concern with Gladman's proposal is the sheer volume of dwelling being proposed - the correspondence received from Gladman suggests that they are planning to provide approximately 130 "homes". Please compare this to the existing local population density.
By my reckoning, (using Google Maps, and Gladman's own plan), there are 42 houses immediately adjacent to the proposed development - and they appear to occupy approximately the same area as the proposed development, further, the Gladman proposal includes a significant Public Open Space which I have not removed in this comparison.
I believe that the Gladman proposal equates to a development that has more than 3 "Gladman homes" for every existing home in the area.
This cannot be considered to be comparable or sympathetic.

After the above objection to the Gladman proposal, the obvious objections rank:
* The character and feel of the village is defined by the openness created by the space surrounding the Church - Gladman's proposal would destroy this. (even if they stick to their plan for Public Open Space, which I cynically believe would miraculously metamorphose into property by the time the development were complete).
* Traffic flow is already compromised in the village - to build where Gladman propose would significantly worsen the situation.
* There are many listed properties in the immediate area, which deserve better than to be crowded out by a mass-built, densely packed, modern housing estate.
* An alternative proposal exists for (I believe) a better development; it appears to be a slightly smaller site, proposes "about 60 homes" (far more in keeping with the existing property density), has better potential for vehicle access, has less opportunity to impact upon existing rain-water drainage routes, and appears to have better potential for sustainable development in the future.

I write to object in particular to site Option 4.

Development of this site could only serve to increase traffic flow along the already congested and dangerous School Lane, past the primary school with associated risks of road traffic accidents and vehicle / pedestrian collisions. Any alternative access involving Lewis Road would be equally dangerous.

Development on site 4 would also clearly increase the risk of flooding in The Valley, an area with long history in this regard.

Finally there is no doubt that development on site four would do the most harm to the separate identity of Radford Semele as a village, severely intruding on the (already shrunken) divide between Radford and the bottom end of Leamington.

Impossible to tick a box which supports some bits and not others. I would prefer no development in a village which does not have the traffic infrastructure or any other sort of infrastructure to support another hundred houses. Any tiny problem on the Radford Road results in gridlock all the way into or out of Leamington at peak periods. The school is not big enough. The drainage is probably not up to the job.
If we have to have development I prefer site 4 which seems to have less visual impact and to 'fill in' the shape of the village. The new houses will be close to the existing facilities - the school, shops, community hall and playing field. The preferred site next to the Church destroys the heritage and beauty of a village which has already had its fair share of development over the years. It has highway problems. I don't support sites 2 and 3 as they will extend the boundary of the village out into the countryside and affect its rural surroundings. Traffic here will also be an issue. Site 4 does not lead directly onto the main road and I would think that traffic management could be more easily dealt with on this site. It will have far less visual impact than option 1 and will not affect the village boundary to such an extent.

As an owner of one of the oldest properties in Radford Semele/Leamington Spa I strongly believe that new site will affect the Village feel of the area and the foundations and buildings of the listed buildings in the area.

This listed buildings (St Nichols Church, thatched cottages and countryside) in the village should be protected by the Council which is under statutory duty - PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) and PPG 16 Archeology and Planning (1990).

The traffic (Southam Road) at the front of the listed properties is extremely heavy from 6am until 11pm, this site will only increase this issue affecting the pollution (carbon monoxide) drainage of the area and the foundation/structure of the listed properties facing the road.

The access from Hallfields to Southm Rod can take up to 15 minutes to join the road due to the heavy traffic and long ques. The new development will only increase this major problem.

Extremely concerned about thls of Care levebon Monoxide affecting the Southam Road properties.

No enough facilities (School and Doctors) in the area to support new residents.

Major impact to the wild life of the area. Deer, flocks of birds and other wildlife are seen daily across the fields (proposed building site).

I object to the proposed development at Radford Semele - site 1 East of Church Lane

The reasons I object:
1. I understand it to be the council's duty to protect listed buildings and their historic setting. The church and surrounding fields and view from the church and Southam Lane will not be protected if the proposed build goes ahead.
2. The proposed site retains the same characteristics already firmly rejected by the Council as part of its own detailed planning analysis including: an insufficient village green/public space - the green space would not replace the rural setting, the site would not relate well in scale and location to the village, or be well integrated, the development would close the open outlook and so affect the impression of the separation of Leamington Spa and Radford Semele. I chose to live in a rural village setting - the development would take that away from me.
3. The type, allocation and density of housing required is inappropriate for this setting of listed building
4. Vehicle access to the proposed setting will require either a new road or the widening of Church Lane. This will cut directly across the setting of the Grade II Listed buildings and will permanently erode the setting directly in front of the church and opposite the White Lion. The views will be destroyed. This would also impact traffic flows detrimentally through Radford Semele, which are key for commuters out of Leamington to the Fosse. As a commuter along this road, it would impact me.
5. The increased traffic from the housing development would have a detrimental impact on an already busy stretch of road and would impact villagers given the close proximity of the school. School Lane is already congested and difficult to negotiate at school times - something I have to do.
6. The proposal would close the last remaining open outlook in the village - something I enjoy on a daily basis. It would detrimentally affect the impression of separation between Leamington Spa and Radford Semele
7. Church Fields are fundamental to the identity of the village. The status of the church and its setting is the single most important heritage asset in the village - and this development would not preserve that. This high density modern site is inappropriate.
8. The potential impact on the drainage issues faced in the village
9. There are other sites available that would facilitate expansion without taking the heart out of the rural and historic church setting - along the Southam Road, east of the village
In summary, I object to the development due to the visual impact it will have on the village, the loss of the historic setting of the church and Church Fields, the negative impact on the impression of separation between Leamington Spa and Radford Semele, the impact it would have on traffic flows through the village, the impact on congested areas such as School Lane with additional vehicles in that vicinity.
1. Development on this site will take a green area out of the village and impact the rural setting enjoyed by the houses in the vicinity. I chose to live in a village with open spaces, not a built up town - had I wanted that, I would have bought a house in the middle of Leamington Spa.
2. The proposed site would not be well integrated, the development would close open spaces and give the impression of being less separated from Leamington Spa. Protection from merging with Leamington Spa is vital to preserve the future separate identity of the village. I chose to live in a rural village setting with lots of open spaces - the development would take that away from me.
3. The site would impact traffic flows detrimentally through Radford Semele, which are key for commuters out of Leamington to the Fosse, which already suffers from congestion at busy times. As a commuter along this road, it would impact me.
4. Vehicle access to the proposed site will be via School Lane, which already experiences problems with congestion. More families using the school and more traffic up and down School Lane will pose an issue for existing residents. The increased traffic from the housing development would have a detrimental impact on an already busy stretch of road and would impact villagers given the close proximity of the school. School Lane is already congested and difficult to negotiate at school times - something I have to do frequently.
5. It is currently an issue emerging from School Lane onto the Southam Road due to the traffic flows between Leamington and the Fosse. It is already highly congested here at peak times. Additional vehicles using School Lane would only add to the problem. It would necessitate additional traffic controls and introducing a roundabout or traffic light controls at this key part of the route in and out of Leamington would not be desirable due to the impact on commuters.
6. Heavy construction vehicles and then a future increased volume of traffic would pose a hazard for children in School Lane.
7. There are other sites available that would facilitate expansion without taking more green land from the heart of the village - I understand there's a suitable site east of the village, along the Southam Road.

In summary, I object to the development of the site at the top of School Lane due to the visual impact it will have on the village, the negative impact on the impression of separation between Leamington Spa and Radford Semele, the impact it would have on traffic flows through the village - particularly the impact on congested areas such as School Lane with additional vehicles in that vicinity and the currently difficulty of emerging from School Lane onto Southam Road.

I believe that the correct procedure was not followed in the process of site selection for Radford Semele. This latest Consultation sees a new site (Site 1) as the preferred option for development. This site (Site 1) had previously been removed and is referred to in the 1994 Planning Inspector's report where the Inspector states "... remaining land, including the Objection site, omitted, to be protected by countryside policies". The Radford Semele Parish Council made representation in July 2012 based on the previous Consultation which completed June 2013. They stated that their preferred location for new housing was on the east side of Radford Semele (i.e. Sites 2 & 3). As WDC did not engage with the Parish Council in deciding on site 1 as the preferred site and rejecting the other sites, it seems that correct procedure was not followed with regard to Radford Semele. The process and methodology makes it very clear that WDC should have engaged to obtain the Parish Council's view and has not done so.
Furthermore, in reviewing and rejecting sites 2 and 3 the council have stated that there would be an issue around visibility from the roads. This is because the parcel of land being considered by WDC is far greater in size than the actual proposed sites for development. Of course, this large area of land named in the environmental report as RS03 and RS04 can be viewed from the Fosse Way but Site 2 and 3 are a small part of this whole area and are not visible from the Fosse Way at all because of the naturally rolling hills and vegetation along the edge of the fields. The view of the Parish Council is that a small development on either side of the A425 at sites 2 and 3 would have least impact on the residents of Radford Semele. I agree with the view of the Parish Council on this issue.

I object to site 1 being the preferred option as this will harm the historic nature of the village. I support development on sites 2 and 3 where sensitive landscaping/planting schemes can allow gradual extension of village boundaries without detrimental visual impact. Being to the east of Offchurch Lane, Lewis Road and School Lane, these sites would create less traffic congestion than either site 1 or site 4 where traffic volumes would increase at the existing junctions. In principle any development should be spread over more than one site to minimise the impact on any particular group of residents.

Support is given for the development of the village. This is on the basis that the development of additional housing goes hand in hand with the development of the infrastructure required to accommodate the additional housing in the confines of the village.

In particular for infrastructure, traffic calming should be addressed, for example adding traffic lights to the Offchurch Lane junction with the main road.

I object to option 1 and 4 on the grounds that a proper vehicular access cannot be created for either of these two sites and that they will only make the traffic problem in the village worse. Option 2 and 3 offer the best solution for integration into the village character and the road network.

Detailed objections by WDC Criteria Factors

* Scale of Development: Radford housing needs & Numbers proposed
- The WDC sustainability assessment has not been scored adequately and shows Radford to have a 65% higher '-' negative scoring than '+' positive, based on the 16 NPPF criteria categories which should have down-graded the village from the Local plan or reduced the housing allocation based on Gov Sustainable Development principles.
- Decisions based upon WDC's simplified subjective assessment summaries have not used quantative data or any comparison matrix of all the sites to make a valid choice.

* Needs & Wants of local urban residents.
- WDC has chosen its proposed site purely on the 'Needs' of WDC to meet its Local plan 'Wants', combined with the Developers 'Wants' to use the simplest site. This does not protect the 'Needs' of village residents or give importance to our viewpoint through its social responsibility as required by Government Sustainable Development principles.
- No account has yet been taken of the importance weighting of the impact to residents.
- WDC assessments are based on a higher importance weighting for flow of through Traffic and relative Landscape impact for the rural view seen from cars travelling East to & from the Fosse, rather than any importance of the residents viewpoint on these factors, when making a decision on the proposed option.

* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function
- WDC has chosen proposed site 1 as having lesser visual impact than each of 3 other village sites based on a subjective assessment in the SHLAA, not any quantifiable data. However, taking the number of surrounding dwellings as a measure of existing residents visual impact, the picture is very different:
Site 1 has the highest visual impact with 32 houses in direct view and 15 in partial view of the site, Total 47.
Site 2 has 16 houses in direct view and 10 in partial view, Total 26.
Site 3 has 5 houses in direct view and 1 partial view, Total 6
Site 4 has 32 houses in direct and 2 in partial view, Total 34.
Therefore site 1 has an 87% higher visual impact than site 3, a 64% higher impact than site 2 and a 58% higher impact than site 4. Site 1 cannot be justified as the best site.

* Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of site 1 as being of lower impact than sites 2 or 3 based on insufficient 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance due to the 50mph speed zone. But if the speed zone were 30mph then a reduced 70m 'Y' splay easily could be accommodated and the traffic impact then reduced due to sites 2 and 3 being out of the village centre.
- Traffic impact for sites 2 and 3 to the east would be lower as additional commuters from any new housing would mostly travel away from the village towards the Fosse Way and south to M40 for employment.

* Strain on Radford local infrastructure and services
- Housing population in Radford is static and of mixed age groups not needing a large 250 (13%) influx of new residents for existing services and having to travel outside the area for work.
- The primary School is already over-subscribed, meaning there is already a sustainable village population and a further large influx of younger families is not necessary for growth

* Environmental & Character Impact
- Drinking water, drainage & sewage
- The proposed site 1 is already defined as a "High risk drinking water protected area" by the Environmental Agency which means that the quantity of new houses must be reduced - This has not been taken into any account by WDC assessments.
- Any development of the site will increase the drainage issues faced by the village. Poor drainage has led to open sewage being seen in School Lane. This land acts as a natural drainage point for the dwellings on Offchurch Lane, Chance Fields, The Greswolds, Southam Road and School Lane. Housing on this site would interfere with this natural drainage increasing the risk of flooding in the area of the Church and its environs. There are known sewage, drainage and flooding risks within this area. Any further pressure risks pollution of the natural aquifers of the canal and the River Leam.


* Sustainable Development appraisals
- The WDC sustainability assessment has not been scored adequately and shows Radford to have a 65% higher '-' negative scoring than '+' positive based on the 16 NPPF criteria categories which should have removed the village from the Local plan or reduced the housing allocation based on Government Sustainable Development principles.
- The WDC sustainability assessment shows site 1 to be of low Ecological value and less than the other sites due to having fewer hedgerows - however, this neglects the site being high grade registered Organic farmland, including large trees and bushes higher than 1 metre thus giving it a 3 times 'Yes' score as land of Ecological value in Government Sustainable Development principles.
Option site 2 has the highest future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation.

* Site comparison using a quantative Matrix
The conclusion from the comparison matrix below, assessing the relative difference between each site taking the WDC proposed site 1)as a baseline, shows that Option 3) and 5) are the better and most positive and that Option 1) and 4) are the worst and most negative sites.


Option Site 1 Land North East of Church Lane , ref RS4
*Traffic Impact, site access;-
- There are significant traffic access issues both onto the A425 and in Church Lane to access to housing plots at the North end of the site, thus bisecting the site and contravening the open aspect required for the Church setting. Also Church Lane would have to be widened for 70 metres to meet the 'Y' visibility splay from the A425 junction thus again contravening the open aspect required for the Church.
- The additional vehicles from 100+ homes travelling during morning and evening rush hours and trying to access the A425/ Church Lane/ School Lane 4 way junction cannot be accommodated at this accident black spot, particularly at times of peak traffic flow through the village.
- A traffic assessment of the A425/Church Lane/School Lane junction was made in summer 2013 during the holiday period and whilst the road was closed in the centre of Leamington Spa. Therefore the data collected does not represent peak flows regularly seen throughout the year.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;-
- Visual impact is very high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 47 surrounding dwellings. Also it does not give sufficient space to provide the required open rural aspect setting for the Church.
- To reduce impact, the quantity of housing should be reduced and located at the North end of the site, however traffic access would still bi-sect the Church aspect.
- Site 1 is a large area of high grade Organic registered farmland which would be totally lost.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced from 100+ capacity due to high landscape, traffic and drinking water protection impacts which are of high importance weightings.
- Reduced Option 1a), locate at northern end = 1.4ha giving 36 houses, with impact to 10 dwellings.

Option Site 2 Land South of Southam Rd , ref RS1
*Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Impact is high but not of any higher importance than site 1 because the environmental assessment score is based on rural open impact from 'The Grange' Farm towards the Fosse and site 2 accounts for only ~5% of the total.
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one large development as this visually affects 26 surrounding dwellings.
--Site 2 is lesser standard grade open farmland compared to site 1 and will be only partially lost.
*Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of 2 as unacceptably high as there's not a 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance available due to a 50mph speed zone. But if the village speed zone were 30mph as required by Dept of Transport circular 1/06 then the 'Y' lower splay required of 70m can be accommodated and the site becomes viable.
Consequently a speed limit of 30 MPH should apply as the village boundary will need to be moved out along Southam Road to include any new housing estate on either side of Southam road.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced due to the rural and traffic impacts of high importance weighting.
Reduced Option 2a adjacent to A425 = 3ha giving 75 houses, impact to 11 dwellings
*Sustainability;
- This is the best option site for future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for roof solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation at each household.

Option Site 3 Land North of Southam Rd , ref RS1
* Comments for Option 2 equally apply to this site.
*Scale of Development:
- Can be expanded without further impact to 1.59ha as per the Sharba homes proposal which increases capacity to 40-50, making site more acceptable.

* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is lower than site 1) or 2) as this visually affects only 7 surrounding dwellings.
- Site 3)is of lesser quality grazing farmland than site 1.

Option Site 4 Land South West of Spring Lane , ref RS3
This site should not be discounted purely based on coalescence as it does not extend beyond the village boundary at Slade Meadow.
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- housing capacity should be reduced to 40-50 to solve traffic access from Spring lane and school lane to the A425.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 34 surrounding dwellings.
*Scale of Development:
Reduced Option 4a at northern end to 2.1ha giving 50 houses, impact to 19 dwellings

New Site Option 5 Land West of School boundary, Environmental ref RS08
This new site is highlighted in the WDC Environmental report as a potential site of lesser impact than others and as such this must be considered further in comparison:
*Scale of Development:
- site area = 1.65ha giving 42 house capacity
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- Simple site access viable from Kingshurst to existing A425 junction for lower additional traffic volume from site..
* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is Medium from the WDC environmental report. The site has a lower residential visibility ratio where 42 house capacity affects only 7 surrounding dwellings and the school.

Option 6) Combining of 2 or more reduced capacity sites;-
By combining two sites of fewer individual houses to achieve 80-100 capacity required gives a lower overall impact.
A) - Combining 2a and 5, gives 100+ capacity with lower impact to 18 dwellings, good traffic access
B) - Combining 3a and 5, gives 80+ capacity with lower impact to 12 dwellings, good traffic access
Option 1a) = 1.4ha giving 36 houses, impact to 10 dwellings
Option 2a) = 3ha giving 75 houses, impact to 11 dwellings
Option 3a) = 1.59ha giving 41 houses, impact to 5 dwellings
Option 4a) = 2.1ha giving 50 houses, impact to 19 dwellings
Option 5) = 1.65ha giving 42 houses, impact to 7 dwellings

Comparison of all Option Sites using a scoring Matrix
This is a comparison matrix of the option sites, (which WDC has not carried out in its assessments) using a business 'Pugh Matrix' method to gauge the relative difference between sites and produce a total scoring to judge the best options. The WDC proposed site is taken as a baseline and each of the other sites is scored against each criteria as being either the same 's', or better '+' or worse '-'. The importance of each criteria is also included to give better weighting.
The conclusion is that Options 3 and 5 are the better and most positive sites whilst Options 1 and 4 are the worst and most negative sites.

Detailed objections by WDC Criteria Factors

* Scale of Development: Radford housing needs & Numbers proposed
- The WDC sustainability assessment has not been scored adequately and shows Radford to have a 65% higher '-' negative scoring than '+' positive, based on the 16 NPPF criteria categories which should have down-graded the village from the Local plan or reduced the housing allocation based on Gov Sustainable Development principles.
- Decisions based upon WDC's simplified subjective assessment summaries have not used quantative data or any comparison matrix of all the sites to make a valid choice.

* Needs & Wants of local urban residents.
- WDC has chosen its proposed site purely on the 'Needs' of WDC to meet its Local plan 'Wants', combined with the Developers 'Wants' to use the simplest site. This does not protect the 'Needs' of village residents or give importance to our viewpoint through its social responsibility as required by Government Sustainable Development principles.
- No account has yet been taken of the importance weighting of the impact to residents.
- WDC assessments are based on a higher importance weighting for flow of through Traffic and relative Landscape impact for the rural view seen from cars travelling East to & from the Fosse, rather than any importance of the residents viewpoint on these factors, when making a decision on the proposed option.

* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function
- WDC has chosen proposed site 1 as having lesser visual impact than each of 3 other village sites based on a subjective assessment in the SHLAA, not any quantifiable data. However, taking the number of surrounding dwellings as a measure of existing residents visual impact, the picture is very different:
Site 1 has the highest visual impact with 32 houses in direct view and 15 in partial view of the site, Total 47.
Site 2 has 16 houses in direct view and 10 in partial view, Total 26.
Site 3 has 5 houses in direct view and 1 partial view, Total 6
Site 4 has 32 houses in direct and 2 in partial view, Total 34.
Therefore site 1 has an 87% higher visual impact than site 3, a 64% higher impact than site 2 and a 58% higher impact than site 4. Site 1 cannot be justified as the best site.

* Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of site 1 as being of lower impact than sites 2 or 3 based on insufficient 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance due to the 50mph speed zone. But if the speed zone were 30mph then a reduced 70m 'Y' splay easily could be accommodated and the traffic impact then reduced due to sites 2 and 3 being out of the village centre.
- Traffic impact for sites 2 and 3 to the east would be lower as additional commuters from any new housing would mostly travel away from the village towards the Fosse Way and south to M40 for employment.

* Strain on Radford local infrastructure and services
- Housing population in Radford is static and of mixed age groups not needing a large 250 (13%) influx of new residents for existing services and having to travel outside the area for work.
- The primary School is already over-subscribed, meaning there is already a sustainable village population and a further large influx of younger families is not necessary for growth

* Environmental & Character Impact
- Drinking water, drainage & sewage
- The proposed site 1 is already defined as a "High risk drinking water protected area" by the Environmental Agency which means that the quantity of new houses must be reduced - This has not been taken into any account by WDC assessments.
- Any development of the site will increase the drainage issues faced by the village. Poor drainage has led to open sewage being seen in School Lane. This land acts as a natural drainage point for the dwellings on Offchurch Lane, Chance Fields, The Greswolds, Southam Road and School Lane. Housing on this site would interfere with this natural drainage increasing the risk of flooding in the area of the Church and its environs. There are known sewage, drainage and flooding risks within this area. Any further pressure risks pollution of the natural aquifers of the canal and the River Leam.


* Sustainable Development appraisals
- The WDC sustainability assessment has not been scored adequately and shows Radford to have a 65% higher '-' negative scoring than '+' positive based on the 16 NPPF criteria categories which should have removed the village from the Local plan or reduced the housing allocation based on Government Sustainable Development principles.
- The WDC sustainability assessment shows site 1 to be of low Ecological value and less than the other sites due to having fewer hedgerows - however, this neglects the site being high grade registered Organic farmland, including large trees and bushes higher than 1 metre thus giving it a 3 times 'Yes' score as land of Ecological value in Government Sustainable Development principles.
Option site 2 has the highest future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation.

* Site comparison using a quantative Matrix
The conclusion from the comparison matrix below, assessing the relative difference between each site taking the WDC proposed site 1)as a baseline, shows that Option 3) and 5) are the better and most positive and that Option 1) and 4) are the worst and most negative sites.


Option Site 1 Land North East of Church Lane , ref RS4
*Traffic Impact, site access;-
- There are significant traffic access issues both onto the A425 and in Church Lane to access to housing plots at the North end of the site, thus bisecting the site and contravening the open aspect required for the Church setting. Also Church Lane would have to be widened for 70 metres to meet the 'Y' visibility splay from the A425 junction thus again contravening the open aspect required for the Church.
- The additional vehicles from 100+ homes travelling during morning and evening rush hours and trying to access the A425/ Church Lane/ School Lane 4 way junction cannot be accommodated at this accident black spot, particularly at times of peak traffic flow through the village.
- A traffic assessment of the A425/Church Lane/School Lane junction was made in summer 2013 during the holiday period and whilst the road was closed in the centre of Leamington Spa. Therefore the data collected does not represent peak flows regularly seen throughout the year.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;-
- Visual impact is very high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 47 surrounding dwellings. Also it does not give sufficient space to provide the required open rural aspect setting for the Church.
- To reduce impact, the quantity of housing should be reduced and located at the North end of the site, however traffic access would still bi-sect the Church aspect.
- Site 1 is a large area of high grade Organic registered farmland which would be totally lost.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced from 100+ capacity due to high landscape, traffic and drinking water protection impacts which are of high importance weightings.
- Reduced Option 1a), locate at northern end = 1.4ha giving 36 houses, with impact to 10 dwellings.

Option Site 2 Land South of Southam Rd , ref RS1
*Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Impact is high but not of any higher importance than site 1 because the environmental assessment score is based on rural open impact from 'The Grange' Farm towards the Fosse and site 2 accounts for only ~5% of the total.
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one large development as this visually affects 26 surrounding dwellings.
--Site 2 is lesser standard grade open farmland compared to site 1 and will be only partially lost.
*Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of 2 as unacceptably high as there's not a 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance available due to a 50mph speed zone. But if the village speed zone were 30mph as required by Dept of Transport circular 1/06 then the 'Y' lower splay required of 70m can be accommodated and the site becomes viable.
Consequently a speed limit of 30 MPH should apply as the village boundary will need to be moved out along Southam Road to include any new housing estate on either side of Southam road.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced due to the rural and traffic impacts of high importance weighting.
Reduced Option 2a adjacent to A425 = 3ha giving 75 houses, impact to 11 dwellings
*Sustainability;
- This is the best option site for future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for roof solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation at each household.

Option Site 3 Land North of Southam Rd , ref RS1
* Comments for Option 2 equally apply to this site.
*Scale of Development:
- Can be expanded without further impact to 1.59ha as per the Sharba homes proposal which increases capacity to 40-50, making site more acceptable.

* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is lower than site 1) or 2) as this visually affects only 7 surrounding dwellings.
- Site 3)is of lesser quality grazing farmland than site 1.

Option Site 4 Land South West of Spring Lane , ref RS3
This site should not be discounted purely based on coalescence as it does not extend beyond the village boundary at Slade Meadow.
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- housing capacity should be reduced to 40-50 to solve traffic access from Spring lane and school lane to the A425.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 34 surrounding dwellings.
*Scale of Development:
Reduced Option 4a at northern end to 2.1ha giving 50 houses, impact to 19 dwellings

New Site Option 5 Land West of School boundary, Environmental ref RS08
This new site is highlighted in the WDC Environmental report as a potential site of lesser impact than others and as such this must be considered further in comparison:
*Scale of Development:
- site area = 1.65ha giving 42 house capacity
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- Simple site access viable from Kingshurst to existing A425 junction for lower additional traffic volume from site..
* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is Medium from the WDC environmental report. The site has a lower residential visibility ratio where 42 house capacity affects only 7 surrounding dwellings and the school.

Option 6) Combining of 2 or more reduced capacity sites;-
By combining two sites of fewer individual houses to achieve 80-100 capacity required gives a lower overall impact.
A) - Combining 2a and 5, gives 100+ capacity with lower impact to 18 dwellings, good traffic access
B) - Combining 3a and 5, gives 80+ capacity with lower impact to 12 dwellings, good traffic access
Option 1a) = 1.4ha giving 36 houses, impact to 10 dwellings
Option 2a) = 3ha giving 75 houses, impact to 11 dwellings
Option 3a) = 1.59ha giving 41 houses, impact to 5 dwellings
Option 4a) = 2.1ha giving 50 houses, impact to 19 dwellings
Option 5) = 1.65ha giving 42 houses, impact to 7 dwellings

Comparison of all Option Sites using a scoring Matrix
This is a comparison matrix of the option sites, (which WDC has not carried out in its assessments) using a business 'Pugh Matrix' method to gauge the relative difference between sites and produce a total scoring to judge the best options. The WDC proposed site is taken as a baseline and each of the other sites is scored against each criteria as being either the same 's', or better '+' or worse '-'. The importance of each criteria is also included to give better weighting.
The conclusion is that Options 3 and 5 are the better and most positive sites whilst Options 1 and 4 are the worst and most negative sites.

Correct procedure does not appear to have been followed with regard to the proposed development of Site 1 in Radford Semele. Site 1 has been selected as the preferred option without it, as I understand the situation, even being proposed initially or discussed with the Parish Council which represents all the residents that are affected by any development. The preferred site (Site 1) had previously been excluded because of its rural nature, its setting and the fact that it was separate from the main village. Radford Semele Parish Council had engaged and responded positively to the WDC consultation and had expressed their preferred solution for additional houses to be built to the East of the village along the A425 towards Southam (Sites 2 &3) and many are surprised and disappointed that local representatives, who voluntarily give up their time to represent villagers and have to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions, have been roundly ignored in this process. The decision of WDC to propose Site 1 as the preferred option was not discussed with the Parish Council and for such a significant change to previous policy and reversal of earlier decisions taken by WDC, some degree of consultation should be expected rather than it being presented as a fait accompli to both Parish Council and residents. As WDC did not engage with the Parish Council in rejecting the Parish Council proposed sites (sites 2 and 3) and in deciding on a new site heretofore not discussed in this consultation, I would argue that correct procedures have not been followed.


In reviewing the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Report (November 2013) it is apparent that the summary information provided could be seen as somewhat misleading if viewed in isolation, and indeed is incorrect on occasion in both fact and interpretation:

Green Field Function - 'Surrounded by very large Green Field or strategically important parcels which plays a major role in preserving the setting of the village....'

The key strategic important parcel, indeed the only large green field in the village which does indeed preserve the setting of the village, is Site 1, the preferred option. The fact that Site 1 is being considered for development in the light of this comment is surprising as it suggests that a decision to adopt Site 1 as the preferred option has been taken in the full knowledge that the historic setting of the village and its preservation is not a priority and is expendable.

Green Field Function - '....and also the openness of the landscape from the east of Leamington'. Landscape and Habitat Impact - 'Landscape openness a particularly strong feature towards the east of the settlement'.

These points (duplicated so as to indicate greater significance maybe?) are only relevant when well outside the village heading east and on beginning the drop down towards the Fosse Way. Until that point the landscape and vista is not truly open. The same is also true when looking back towards Radford Semele and Leamington from the Fosse Way as the village and fields close to the village are not visible from the Fosse way because of the hills and escarpment. A development close to the village as suggested with sites 2 and 3 does not therefore impact as is suggested. In reviewing the potential sites 2 and 3 and subsequently rejecting them WDC have stated that there would be a high visual impact from along the Fosse Way and surrounding areas. This is actually a statement made not with regard to sites 2 and 3 which cover relatively small amounts of land close to Radford Semele but made with regard to much larger parcels of land RS03 and RS04 in the WDC Environmental Report. These larger areas, of which sites 2 and 3 are small parts, do indeed stretch all the way from Radford Semele down to the Fosse Way and if houses were built all the way down to the Fosse Way then visually there would be a high impact. The view of the Parish Council is that a development on either side of the A425 at sites 2 and 3 would have least visual impact on the residents of Radford Semele and on people travelling through or past the village. I agree with the view of the Parish Council on this issue.

A further point is that the 'openess' of Site 1 to views from the A425 through the village and further afield from Newbold Comyn round to Cubbington, which is a much more visually intrusive and obvious issue, has been disregarded by WDC. The decision to note a visual impact issue (that doesn't exist) for sites 2 and 3 and not to note the visual impact issue at the heart of the village requires some explanation by WDC.

Site Access and Deliverability - 'Substantial restrictions on site access to the east of Radford Semele'.

This comment refers to sites 2 and 3 and would appear to be incorrect as access is achievable, and this has been confirmed by two independent traffic experts, with the both current road configuration and the current speed limit of 50mph. Should the village be extended then it would be expected that a village speed limit of 30mph would be extended, which would be a requirement under DOT advice on speed limits for villages and would thus make access even easier. This point is therefore not relevant and should be discounted as a reason for the rejection of sites 2 and 3. The report is silent on whether there will be traffic issues in relation to the preferred site 1 and whilst it is apparent that enough traffic work has been undertaken to (erroneously) reject sites 2 and 3, no work has been undertaken to understand the implications for traffic at site 1. It is unclear why the report should be so inconsistent in this respect and is again a flaw that requires to be addressed by WDC.

Options and Impact - 'Preferred option focuses upon land to the north of the village, subject to a detailed landscape appraisal'.

Given the integral nature of the proposed site to the village, and the apparent acceptance of that fact in the Green Field Function comment (above), it is concerning that the decision has been taken to adopt site 1 as the preferred site without a detailed landscape appraisal having taken place, or possibly worse, not having been shared. I trust that this is not the case. If, as is suggested, a full landscape appraisal is integral to the process then it should have been undertaken before the decision to adopt site 1 as the preferred site and before the consultation process was embarked upon. This appears to be a failure of procedure and has resulted in site 1 intentionally being selected without the full information to actually make that decision being available.

Site 1: Development here has the greatest impact on existing housing. A development here would impact adversely on traffic on A425.
Site 2: This site could usefully support a small development adjacent to the A425 (only) with a service road parallel to A425 with little visual impact or on existing housing.
Site 3: This site could usefull support a small development adjacent to the A425 (only) with a service road parallel to A425 with little visual impact or on existing housing.
Site 4: An ideal site for a development sufficiently far from Sydenhan not to pose a threat to coalescence of settlements. Adjacent to an existing modern development. Central to the exisitng village with adjascent recreational facility and community centre.

I support the decision to discount sites 2 & 3 & 4 as these would create a high visual impact (a permanent visual impact visual for/from miles all around & not only for Radford villagers). These sites would also extend the village envelope significantly and undermine the future shape and size of Radford Semele village. These sites are not fit for purpose to accommodate the number of houses and additional traffic required - no village should be required to accommodate a >3% increase in housing - large housing increases will destroy the village culture and heritage as this level of rural growth is artificial and cannot be sustained by the village infrastructure. The transport infrastructure is already overloaded and to potentially add significant traffic entering and exits this section of highway will create an unsafe highway - furthermore any traffic management measures will likely add to adding congestion and damaging the village environment.

see attached

My preferred site/s would be 2 & 3 if done with minimal damage to wildlife/existing trees and hedgerows.Local affordable housing is needed in the village and surrounds (not towards leamington).The village has been extended over past decades which has enabled most of us to be living here now.Local businesses (post office, shop, pub) would benefit.The extension of the 30mile per hour speed limit would increase road safety as the majority of motorists ignore this. I consider myself lucky to be living in the village and do not want to be a N.I.M.B.Y.

I believe that site R46 from the SHLAA should not have been completely discounted and is viable for development in a reduced size format.

I believe that site R46 from the 14 site options should not have been completely discounted and is viable for development in a smaller size which alleviates any issue of coalescence.

If this Site 1 development goes ahead it will wilfully squander a millenium of rural history, remove in one fell swoop the best rural aspect that Radford Semele village possesses and desecrate the setting of the local church, a listed building with a present panoramic view which is an integral part of the village identity. By statute any such development within the setting of a listed building can only take place if there are no alternatives. The village already has a larger percentage of affordable housing than required. Traffic congestion would be unnecessarily dangerous.

Objection - Warwick District Council New Local Plan, Site 1, Radford Semele

First, many apologies, but I am a member of the public and I am not technical, so I would be grateful if you would translate my objection into the relevant framework/matrices so that you can consider it effectively. Please treat the following as an objection for the purposes of the Draft Local Plan and one being against any development of the preferred Site 1 option.

My objection has a number of grounds, but the most important is "setting" which I list first. Many of my other objections might potentially be resolved through flood, traffic and archeology schemes, but the setting objection is irresolvable, hence its importance.

I have lived in Radford Semele for some 20 years, my family were married in the Church and I am supportive in general terms of the Local plan and its aspiration to provide housing for Radford Semele. I simply cannot convey, however, just how damaging I believe the development of Site 1 would be to our Village.

My grounds follow.

1. (a) Setting

The preferred site is inappropriate because it resides directly within the setting of a listed building that plays an extremely important, irreplaceable role in defining the village and its community.

Putting into words the cultural, emotional and health importance of this site to the Village is impossible - it is intangible and ubiquitous by definition. However, it is this importance that goes to the heart of why Councils are under a weighty responsibility to protect listed buildings and their setting both by statute, planning policy and profession. Good planners, like doctors and other professionals, carry the weight of protecting and nurturing the built environment in their DNA - the passion for this is exactly what leads many young men and women to adopt this as their profession. This site is a paradigm example of what planning exists to protect. It is not a 'nimby' site - but, rather, an historically beautiful, untouched site that is at the absolute centre of village life and identity.

This site has "non-technical" impacts in securing and building community within the Village and these have been recognized historically by planners in protecting this site as a "balance" to development elsewhere in the Village. In fact, building here, would call into question the rationale and justification for previous development in the Village and compromise historical decision making and residents within those settlements.

English Heritage guidance defines a setting as "'the surroundings in which [the listed building] is experienced" and that "setting embraces all of the surroundings (land, sea, structures, features and skyline) from which the heritage asset can be experienced or that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset." The key words here are experience - the site provides an experience for residents (and visitors) that transcends bricks and mortar. It is a site that has existed untouched since medieval times and any development within this area has only been permitted by Planners when it has been hidden. The NPPF provides clear guidelines on how Councils must protect Heritage sites, to ensure in decision-making that they "conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations."

Exceptional justification for permitting building in such sites is rarely granted - and only where there is (i) no viable alternative; and, (ii) where harm can be mitigated.

English Heritage "Conservation Principles Policies And Guidance" requires that changes which "harm the heritage values of a significant place should be unacceptable unless [...] there is no reasonably practicable alternative means of doing so without harm [and] it has been demonstrated that the predicted public benefit decisively outweighs the harm to the values of the place, considering its comparative significance, the impact on that significance, and the benefits to the place itself and/or the wider community or society as a whole.


In this case, we have three other development sites with plans either submitted or being prepared. These sites were not at their current state when the preferred status was granted and provide planners with viable alternatives. This is particularly true of Site 2. Taylor Wimpey, a highly respected developer, promoter and builder, has confirmed their development of plans for Site 2 subsequent to the issuing of the Local Plan consultation including calculations which make access possible to the site (a concern of planners originally). These changes (Taylor Wimpey, Pegasus and Lloyds confirmation of plans for Sites 2, 3 and 4 respectively) fundamentally change the framework of decision making.

Finally, this site does not have the scale to allow further development as the Village evolves. Other solutions will need to be found and the only site able to permit strategic, managed growth for the Village is Site 2. To build in Site 1 would therefor be a very short term decision, damaging the Village unnecessarily and leaving no central open space to "balance" that future development.

The issue of heritage and setting is my primary objection. It would be at odds with the heritage framework at the heart of planning, would almost certainly be overturned on that basis at appeal and would limit the necessary growth of the Village through more appropriate sites, particularly Site 2.

1. (b) Physical issues - setting:

Either Gladman's current proposal for access opposite the White Lion, or mooted access from Church Lane, would damage the foreground listed setting of the church by providing for an access road, capable of access for 200 plus vehicles, across the field to the front elevation of the Church parallel to Southam Road. This would counter Gladman's attempt, by refraining from building to a portion of the front elevation field, to allow a thin line of visibility in front of the church. Any development would require an access road that would itself damage the setting.

Whatever attempts are made to mitigate the impacts of development on this site, the view from the corner of Southam Road where it meets Offchurch Lane - a key gateway into the Village, would be damaged.

Ibid. the view from the Church itself - any development in this area would be visible from the Church - and absolutely at odds with its setting within open fields.

The site is clearly visible through the village at points on the A425 stretching from the curve adjacent to manor House/Manor Cottage through to the curve adjacent to Radford Hall, from Newbold Common, Cubbington and the Grand Union Canal. In fact the site is impacted from 360 degrees.
The "Balancing Pond" required to mitigate the impacts of flooding, is itself a grassed "crater" which would be situated visibly within the curtilage of the setting of the Church. This would be out of character and inappropriate.

The setting has provisionally been defined as the site of a shrunken village - http://timetrail.warwickshire.gov.uk/detail.aspx?monuid=WA1906. The site has not been adequately surveyed, but is likely that the site's setting currently provides protection for important archeology of the original Radford village and its environs. Extensive archeology should arguably have been required given this likely archeology prior to its being defined as a preferred site.
The site has previously been treated as an adjunct to the Village. It is completely cut off from the main village and its services by the A425. Any building here by definition would be to encroach into countryside, require changes to village boundaries - but, more importantly, would disadvantage future residents. Site 2 would allow immediate access to Village shops, community Hall, Playing Fields and Pub. This site is cut-off and deatched. By any standards it is not part of the Village proper-. To make it so would at the least require a by-pass and pedestrianizing of the A425. The A425 is has been the site of accidents as recently as January 2014 and personally I was nearly run-over in December 2013 seeking to post a card through the Gable House opposite. The risks of crossing this major A road cannot be under-estimated.

2. Timing

The development of applications by Taylor Wimpey, Pegasus and Lloyds on Sites 2, 3 and 4 render a decision to allow development on Site 1 premature. Should a planning application be received from Gladman I would ask that this site be rejected on that basis.

3. Flooding

This is an area that does flood, as well as providing a mechanism for dissipation of flood waters. My home, opposite on Southam Road, was flooded in 2003. There is an automatic assumption against building where homes are to be placed at risk. Calculations have not been released for the balancing pond, but it will itself damage the setting of a listed building. Open sewage has been recorded on School Lane, the A425 has seen frequent 'blown' drains. This whole area does not, with current infrastructure, seem prima facie a good location for 120 homes. Whilst these issues could be resolved technically, there are likely to be significant costs and the degree of work required would not be local to the site as its knock on impacts on the existing infrastructure on the village and its role as natural flood plain protecting surrounding properties would need to be addressed. Current infrastructure has proven itself unable to cope with flood.

4. Process

Site 1 was entered onto the SHLAA and stated as the preferred option against the direct recommendation of the Parish Council who after consultation proposed Sites 2 and 3. The Parish Council, not residents, were consulted about Site 1 despite awareness by Planners of Gladman's proposed application for at least one year. The lack of democratic process, in conjunction with the availability and recommendation of other sites by those directly and democratically aware of the importance of Site 1, at least raises questions of due process in product of the SHLAA and New Local Plan consultation. To mitigate this, it is incumbent on developers to level the playing field with alternative developers to catch-up and provide planners with a 'level playing field' for making a final decision, this, in conjunction to responses from the Local plan consultation.

5. Alternative Sites

Site 2 was discounted on a technical error. An independent traffic survey has now produced evidence of an effective visibility splay for access to Site 2 at 50mph. In fact the visibility splay would reduce further given the extension of the 30mph to the Site 2 development as it joined the Village. It was also discounted on the ground of its ingress into the countryside. This is equally true of sites 1, 2 and 3 - as planners accept, Radford Semele presents no easy options - however, equally, these technical mistakes have resulted in preference being given to a site that should be protected under its listed setting which must now be reversed. The previous justification of lack of alternative sites is no longer the case. Site 2 because of its proximity to local services, support by the Parish Council and Villagers - and ability to offer Planners managed and appropriate village growth in the future, with access now resolved, should be re-defined as the preferred site.

6. Scale

It is a personal view, but I believe that Radford Semele would benefit from new development at a larger scale than that proposed. The current infrastructure is already inadequate for the Village and there is a genuine requirement for increasing the complete housing mix in the Village. A larger development, which would not be possible on Site 1, but which would be possible on Site 2, would enable a much larger contribution by developers to Village infrastructure and upgrading of facilities. Our school, for example, could not cope with any further children - the school is full. It is also subject to sewage flooding and requires investment. The A425 requires, even currently, measures to increase traffic flow and protect villagers who cross the road. The village would benefit from a doctors surgery and enhanced play areas and further shops. These would come as a matter of course with a much larger development from contributions made by developers as part of a lager development. The current scale of proposals would see little benefit to the Village either in terms of housing or infrastructure.
I am personally keen on expanding the Village to the East - but in doing so, the protection of the Church and its setting are absolute conditions for balancing that development.

7. Ecology

Whilst these may be manageable concerns I have personally seen bats flying over the field and have door and field mice in my garden (not to mention hedgehogs, visits by foxes, ducks and all manner of wildlife). Given that I live opposite the site it is not without peradventure or logic to assume that they are present in the field.

8. Traffic

Whatever method is used to manage access to Site 1, the result unavoidably will push increased traffic into an area already congested as a hub for the centre of the Village. It would unavoidably reduce the quality of life of residents and, however managed, put residents at a greater degree of risk in requiring them to cross an even busier major A road. This is NOT true of Site 2 which lies to the East of the village, away from the central hub area around School Lane, the White Lion and Offchurch Lane in which traffic is already congested. Site 2 allows for a significant percentage of traffic to exit to Southam rather than through the Village.
It is to be noted that a major accident took place on the A425 in January, with at least 3 further documented accidents here in the last 4 years. I was personally close to being run over in December in which a car missed me by mm. Site 1 is NOT an ideal place for development, even if a traffic solution could be built which would moderate the impacts of development.
Further, as above, any 'solution' would still require an access road across the setting of a listed building together with the concomitant other effects of that development on the setting. These cannot be avoided.
None of these issues exist with Site 2.

9. Village Boundaries

I object to the redrawing of Village Boundaries to incorporate Site 1. Instead I recommend development of Site 2 as per the original recommendation of our Parish Council after local consultation. As above, I would personally recommend much larger, properly managed development of Site 2 than that proposed. Contrary to the draft Local Plan, traffic access to site 2 can be achieved safely and within guidelines on vision splays and the site, even on its limited current basis, could accommodate approximately 125 houses. The stated high visual impact of Site 2 was based on use of the whole swathe of land from the village boundary behind Lewis Rd down to the Fosse Way. Whilst I personally have no issue with this larger development - this is NOT being proposed currently. As it stands, the visual impact of a 125 home development on Site 2 would be significantly less than the major visual impact that would occur in any development of Site 1. Site 2 also exclusively enjoys safe and easy access to all Village facilities including shops, the Village Hall and Playing fields.

10. 1994 Planning Inspector's Report.

No changes to the physical site have occurred which would undermine the detailed consideration given by the Council in their 1993 Local Plan as quoted the 1994 Planning Inspector's Report. The relevant points from the report are paraphrased below-
* "This site and the setting it provides for the northern part of the village are one of the last remaining connections with its rural past."
* "The site is not properly part of the village, being wholly peripheral, the housing in Offchurch Lane with which the development would connect being itself a ribbon extending into the countryside."
* "[The green space left by developers] would not replace this rural setting provided by this agricultural land and would be surrounded by housing which would extend close to the Church."
* "The site would not relate well in scale and location to the village or be well integrated ... If developed, it would, rather, be detached from the village, severed by the main road."
* "Any development would close much of the open outlook (of the site) and in so doing affect the impression of the separation of Leamington and Radford Semele."

11. Visibility Splay for Site 1

The proposed access road suggested by Gladman will fail visibility splay requirements on the blind bend adjacent to Manor House/66/68 Southam Road if the reality of cars and lorries travelling at 40mph - 50mph through the blind bend is taken into account in calculations.

12. Perceived separation from Leamington Spa
The proposals would close the last remaining open outlook in the Village, in so doing affecting detrimentally the impression of the separation of Leamington Spa and Radford Semele. This has become an accepted policy guidance criterion in decisions affecting the Local Plan.

13. Carbon Monoxide impact


No carbon monoxide level studies for adjoining houses between Manor House and Manor Cottage, Holly Cottage and 64 Southam Road have been completed. These houses, because of medieval road layout, create a tunnel effect for traffic fumes and current levels are likely to risk or currently breach government guidelines on safe carbon monoxide pollutant levels. Two cases of cancer have been reported within the last 5 years by residents of these properties. Further increases in carbon monoxide cause by lowering the speed of traffic flow (required to create a safe entrance into Site 1) would further breach guidelines.
Summary

The Church and many buildings in the surrounding area are listed. Any development of this site will permanently ruin the setting for these beautiful listed buildings. Any decision to build within the setting of a listed building, in this case the church fields must be taken, by statute, only as a last resort in cases of exceptional need and where there are no alternatives available. Alternatives in fact do exist, particularly Site 2, and meet the requirements of Village growth. Objections to Site 2, traffic and visual impact, have been demonstrated to be unfounded or comparatively less impactful than alternative sites. Development of this site, as the setting for an important listed building, is against the public interest.

Historically, all development in this area has been concealed in order for the Council to meet its requirements to protect the setting and countryside seclusion of this listed building. Any development that is not concealed has been refused on these grounds historically and no changes have taken place to justify changing this policy or violating statutory responsibility.

The type, allocation and density of housing required is inappropriate for this setting of a listed building. This site cannot meet the required levels and types of housing required by the New Local Plan if the site is to also conform to planning obligations under statute to protect the setting and seclusion of a listed building.
Vehicular Access into the proposed development will require the building of a new access road. The road solution will have to cut directly across the setting of these Grade II Listed buildings and so fall foul of the requirement to protect that setting.
Highways have historically rejected plans for access that require diminution of traffic flows on the A425 because of its key role for commuters out of Leamington to the Fosse. The public interest in traffic flow has not been balanced against the interest in new development. Practical traffic flows in excess of the 30mph limit question the safety of visibility splay calculations for access on Site 1.

Any development of the site will increase the drainage issues faced by the village. Poor drainage has led to open sewage being seen in School Lane. This land acts as a natural drainage point for the dwellings on Offchurch Lane, Chance Fields, The Greswolds, Southam Road and School Lane. Housing on this site would interfere with this natural drainage increasing the risk of flooding in the area of the Church and its environs. There are known sewage, drainage and flooding risks within this area. Any further pressure risks pollution of the natural aquifers of the canal and the River Leam.

Other potential sites have not been considered sufficiently or have been discounted without comprehensive consideration. The Southam Road Taylor Wimpey site (East of the Village) is, in light of new and recent studies, now viable with simple road adjustments and a reduction to 30mph which should be expected as the new site becomes part of the Village envelope.

Site 1 is a "planning balance" to development in other parts of the village, both historic and future. If this site is permitted for development, the natural balance relied on in previous developments will have been undone, placing in question those developments.

Parish Councillors were not consulted about this site. They have democratically put forward an alternative site on the Southam Road which Taylor Wimpey are keen and able to develop. This raises significant issues about the democratic and legal process; the Local Planning process requires proper and sufficient consultation, neither of which have been met.

On all these grounds I object to Site 1 as being against the public interest and in breach of planning guidelines to protect the setting of a listed building. I believe that its development would be damaging to community cohesion and identity and exacerbate existing issues with the A425. The alternative Site 2, as democratically chosen by the Parish Councilors after consultation, has become viable with studies undertake after the publication of the draft Local Plan and intervention by Wimpey and should thus, I believe, go forward for development. As a corollary of this, I object to any changes to Village Boundaries to incorporate Site 1 within the Village Boundary.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached