Sites Review

Object

Representation ID: 61602

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr O.H. Aries

-Evidence for discounting sites 2 and 3 are incorrect and misleading.
-Two independent access assessment have shown vehicle access to sites 2 and 3 onto the A425 is possible at the 50mph speed limit.
-The WDC Environmental Report is not representative of the parcels of land known as Sites 2, 3 and 4 thus provides insufficient evidence for selecting Site 1 as the preferred option.
-Traffic surveys were not carried out at a sufficient time.
-The landscape impact and traffic congestion in the village centre impact would be less at the discounted sites (2 and 3) than the preferred option.

Object

Representation ID: 61611

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Diane H Aries

-Evidence for discounting sites 2 and 3 are incorrect and misleading.
-Two independent access assessment have shown vehicle access to sites 2 and 3 onto the A425 is possible at the 50mph speed limit.
-The WDC Environmental Report is not representative of the parcels of land known as Sites 2, 3 and 4 thus provides insufficient evidence for selecting Site 1 as the preferred option.
-Traffic surveys were not carried out at a sufficient time.
-The landscape impact and traffic congestion in the village centre impact would be less at the discounted sites (2 and 3) than the preferred option.

Object

Representation ID: 61618

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Federal Mogul

Agent: Pro Vision

Site 4 should be the preferred option for the following reasons:
-It provides good and safe foot access to the main village and its facilities.
-There have been no highway objections to development on the site and multiple points of potential access exist.
-Should Site 4 be developed, the landowner also owns 27 hectares adjacent to the site which they propose would be made available as open space that would be permanently managed and maintained.
-Development to the southeast of Radford Semele would not reduce the gap with Sydenham.

Object

Representation ID: 61711

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Jethro Lomas

Site 2 or 3 should be the preferred options for development because:
-Future development is possible.
-Development would not impact on the view from the Fosse.
-Safe vehicle and pedestrian access can be provided from Site 2 and 3 via a reducation to 30mph which would be expected as the new site becomes part of the village envelope.
-They are an attractive location as it has close access to the Fosse and M40 and would minimise the risk of new commuters through the village, where traffic congestion is already a problem.
-Site 1 would be preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 61717

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Lomas

Both the Parish Council and developers have identified Site 2 as feasible and acceptable. WDC should not have discounted Site 2 and should not ignore the Parish Council's local knowledge and expertise. Site 2 should be the preferred option because:
-Future development is possible.
-Development would not impact on the view from the Fosse.
-Safe vehicle and pedestrian access can be provided.
-It is an attractive location as it has close access to the Fosse and M40 and would minimise the risk of new commuters through the village, where traffic congestion is already a problem.
-Site 1 would be preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 61739

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Wade

Support development of Sites 2 and 3.

Object

Representation ID: 61799

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Desmond & Gloria Thornton

Recommend Sites 2 and 3

Object

Representation ID: 61816

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs P M Duane

-It would be more appropriate to build on Site 2 or 3 off Southam Road.

Object

Representation ID: 61817

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr David Hoit

Sites 2 & 3 are more suitable than site 1.

Object

Representation ID: 61818

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Bobbie-Ann Kerton

Access to Site 2 from Southam Road is clear and the 30 mph zone could be moved to include the access. it would provide safer pedestrian access to the village and School.

Object

Representation ID: 61821

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Ward

My preference would be Sites 2 and 3.

Object

Representation ID: 61839

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Vincent Farrugia

There is no need to build more dwellings in Radford Semele. All Sites that have been proposed are high risk, due to the traffic and congestion concern is the roads cannot be widened.

Object

Representation ID: 61841

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Ian Machell

Site 2 should be the preferred option because:
-It would retain the character of the village.
-It has good pedestrian access to the village, the church is accessible via existing crossing and it promotes walking via right of way.
-All housing would be on one site minimising the disruption for building.
-Most efficient in terms of infrastructure.
-Minimise traffic. Access by Southam Road can be made safe and could have two entry points. There would be no need for traffic lights or roundabout.
-Have minimal impact on existing residents as few houses are adjacent.

Object

Representation ID: 61842

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Steve Wood

-Recommend Sites 2 and 3.
-Think that WDC arguments for Sites 2 and 3 not go be developed are weak.
-Traffic flow and speed through the village is a major issue and access on the Southam Road should help overcome this issue.

Object

Representation ID: 61849

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Patricia R Rushforth

We recommend Sites 2 adn 3 as:
-They are already be on main road thus making Offchurch Corner/Lane slightly safer.
-There would be less disruption for the main village whilst building homes.
-It would slow traffic before coming into village therefore making Radford Road potentially safer- Cars still come through too fast despite the 30mph signs.
-It is Visually more acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 61893

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Dianne L Saunders

Sites 2 and 3 have a smaller impact on the village and vehicular access would be much safer. These Sites would also provide the opportunity for expansion in future years and would give children more school options as the village school is unable to accept any more pupils.

Object

Representation ID: 61914

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr M.J. Wade

-Site 2 and 3 should be the preferred options as the increased traffic would sort itself out before entering the village. The distance from the village centre would not obstruct the current views of the church and any introduction of a roundabout or traffic lights would not be needed.

Object

Representation ID: 61916

Received: 14/01/2014

Respondent: Alan Gray

-Site 2 should be the preferred option as it offers much better and safer access opportunity with an easy extension to the 30mph zone.

Object

Representation ID: 61919

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Miss Audrey Ann Bryan

-Site 3 or 4 would result in more traffic but it will be already in traffic stream when entering village.

Object

Representation ID: 61948

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr James Fleuty

-I disagree with WDC's comments regarding the visual impact of Sites 2 & 3. These sites are already well screened from Southam Road and not visible from the Fosse Way. I would support a small development shared between these 2 sites. Reducing the speed limit on Southam Road is surely easier than restructuring junctions.

-Site 4 would have high visual impact from both Radford Semele and Sydenham/Whitnash and protection from merging with the major conurbation is vital to the identity of the village. Additional traffic on School Lane and past the school are major drawbacks to this site.

Object

Representation ID: 61952

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S Green

Number of people: 2

-Sites 2 and 3 are better options providing the numbers of house are kept at 60 - 80.
-They provide more room to put in new access roads without disturbing what is already there.

There would need to be:
1) New footpaths to the village
2) An extension of 30mph limit
3) Road modifications to provide exists.

Object

Representation ID: 61957

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Richard & Brenda Worth

-The development of Sites 2 and 3 as this would have considerably less effect on the heart of our historic village.

Object

Representation ID: 61960

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Gary & Karen Marks

-Would go along with building on Sites 2 and 3 as recommended by the Parish Council.

Object

Representation ID: 61961

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Lee & Jodie Stephens

-Recommend that Site 2 or 3 are the preferred option.

Object

Representation ID: 61963

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Peter Mander

-Site 3 is a more sensible option where the road can be safely widened.

Object

Representation ID: 61978

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs P Morrell

-Vehicles from these sites would increase the density of traffic onto the Southam Road leading to traffic congestion further into the village towards Leamington.
-There is currently difficulty in gaining access on to the Southam Road from any of the roads in the village at key times in the day. There is no safe walk way into the village from these sites.
-Loss of rural landscape.
-Building on any of the Sites would cause tremendous traffic problems. Building in Southam would also affect the amount of traffic using the Southam Road into Leamington. A by-pass is needed- muted decades ago.

Object

Representation ID: 61986

Received: 08/01/2014

Respondent: Roger and Sandra Speck

-There are other more appropriate locations in and around Radford Semele many of which have not even been considered. It is important that all these sites are re-assessed properly and professionally.

Object

Representation ID: 61989

Received: 09/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Christine M Smith

-Prefer Sites 2 and 3

Support

Representation ID: 61993

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr M.J. Wade

-Site 4 should not be developed on due to the entry of increased traffic onto the main A425 Southam Road at the junction of School Lane/Church Lane, which would need roundabout/traffic lights, something which would destroy the village ambience.

Support

Representation ID: 61994

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Woodhead

Support not developing Site 2 and 3 because:
-Development would have a high visible impact.
-Encourage village sprawl and lead to further building development in this area.
-There is no public footpath on the side of Southam Road leading to Site 3 and only a narrow footpath leading to Site 2.
-Exiting by car from the sites may be difficult and dangerous.
-Traffic lights and crossings would be required at the access roads to Site 2 and 3 and this may still prove dangerous because of bends in the road.