Sites Review

Support

Representation ID: 61995

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Woodhead

Support not developing on Site 4 because:
-Need to preserve the identity of the village by protecting it from merging with Leamington Spa.
-Protection of the landscape to the south is equally important.
-School Lane cannot be widened which would be the access route to the site.
-School access on School Lane is already dangerous during busy pickup and drop off points.
-There would be hazardous conditions for school children should there be construction traffic.
-Proposed development would have a very high impact on the village centre.
-Cannot walk down School Lane as parents park on the pavement/grass verges.

Object

Representation ID: 61996

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Linda Simons

Sites 2 and 3 are more appropriate for development.
-Should neither Site 2 nor 3 be large enough for the proposed 130 properties and its financial restrictive to share the development between both sites, reduce the scale of the development to suit the village's current social and utility infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 62000

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Brian W Follett

-Support the discounting of Site 4 as access to the development would have to be via School Lane, a narrow road, heavily congested at times with School Traffic. This would have a major impact on the village centre. Also, any development on the western side of the village towards Sydenham could result in the village losing its separate identity and in the long term merging with Leamington.

Object

Representation ID: 62002

Received: 23/01/2014

Respondent: June Simpson

-Support the alternative site on the Southam Road, which Taylor Wimpey are keen to develop.

Object

Representation ID: 62008

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Jill Gray

-Site 2 offers a much better and safer access opportunity with an easy extension to the 30MPH zone.

Object

Representation ID: 62010

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Dyson

Site 2 or 3 would be better for development because:
-Access to the main road could be provided to Sites 2 and 3 using a roundabout.
-Some of the traffic from Sites 2 and 3 would be to Fosse Way so traffic impact on village would be less than for Site 1.

-Housing should be split across two sites to reduce the visual impact and spread the general impact.

Object

Representation ID: 62013

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Fairbrother

I also object to the development of site 4 due to the impact of heavy construction traffic along School Lane. This would be very dangerous for the pupils of the Primary School and their parents who drop-off and collect them.

Object

Representation ID: 62014

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Dororthy Hoit

I object to Site 4 completely

Object

Representation ID: 62068

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Dennis Witt

Object to the site review as Site 2 and 3 should not have been discounted but instead should be preferred options as:
-Development on Site 2 or 3 would provide scope for further development.
-A roundabout or traffic lights at Site 2 and 3 would help to calm traffic speed through the village.

Support

Representation ID: 62069

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Glyn & Sandra Williams

Number of people: 2

Support the discounting of Site 4 because:

-The village is more densely populated at this area and it already suffers from traffic congestion, particularly on School Lane at peak times.
-There is a problem of surface water and drainage on School Lane. Additional housing on this part of the village would worsen the problem.
-It is important to protect the village from merging with Leamington Spa, and taking this into account, Site 4 should definitely not be built on. It would have the most negative impact at Site 4.

Object

Representation ID: 62081

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jones

The discounted Site 2 should become the preferred option as:
-It has been discounted for invalid reasons.
-Much of the traffic would not have to enter the village as it would exit by going towards Fosse Way and M40.
-It is not peripheral to the village and houses on it would have pedestrian access to the village centre and all of its facilities. Such access would not involve crossing the busy A425 Southam Road.

Object

Representation ID: 62085

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Norman Hyde

Sites 2 and 3 should not have been discounted. They should become the preferred options as:
-The historical centre would not be destroyed.
-It would enhance road safety. Earlier start to 30mph limit will slow cars from Southam.
-Some new estate cars will exit via Fosse Way.

Support

Representation ID: 62090

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr David Chater

Support the discounting of development on Site 4 for traffic reasons and joining Leamington Spa and attractive open countryside should be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 62103

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Martin Spendley

-Radford Semele's other appeal is that it is physically separate from Leamington and therefore Site 4 is not suitable for additional housing.
-Site 2 and 3 are the least objectionable of the proposed sites. I see no reason for all the new development to be lumped together on one site- two or more sites would be more acceptable.
-Furthermore, developments towards Southam would allow the installation of new services (water, sewerage, gas and electricity) which could support further growth of the area in later years and solve potential traffic problems.

Support

Representation ID: 62125

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Wade

Object to development of Site 4, so support the discounting of it.

Support

Representation ID: 62161

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Stan Sabin

Support the discounting of Site 2 and 3 for the following reasons:

-Any development on Sites 2 or 3 will inevitably lead to further applications to build in an easterly direction. There is also the threat of exacerbating the risk of flooding in the Valley and Valley Road by building on Site 2 as the natural slope of the land drains into the stream at the bottom of the site.
-The proposed access to the Southam Road from Site 2 and 3 is far worse than that of Site 1.

Support

Representation ID: 62168

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Follett

-I object to the proposed Site 4 as the only access is School Lane/Spring Lane. These are narrow roads which are already congested and dangerous at drop off time for school. The addition of 200 more cars using it at commuter time will make it very unsafe.
-Site 4 would serve to join Radford Semele to Sydenham and Leamington Spa. Thus losing the village identity.

Object

Representation ID: 62169

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Follett

-Houses on Sites 2 and 3 could feel part of the village by footpaths to the centre for children to walk safely to school and for village amenities.

Object

Representation ID: 62172

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Helen Machell

Recommends Site number 2 because:

-There is pedestrian access to the village and school.
-Retains character of the village.
-Most appropriate site for mixed housing.
-Minimise traffic along busy village roads e.g. school lane.
-Will cause the least disruption to existing residents as there are very few houses adjacent.

Object

Representation ID: 62173

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Edward Parsons

My preferred options are Sites 2 and 3. In my opinion any landscape impact is of lesser importance and vehicular access problems (which would be much less than option 1) could be resolved.

Support

Representation ID: 62178

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr W Weald

Do not support the alternatives

Object

Representation ID: 62180

Received: 14/01/2014

Respondent: Robin Robertson

-I recommend Sites 2 and 3 as this was the original proposal from our parish council and considerable effort went into this selection and the local Parish Council and residents surely must have the best depth in local knowledge.

Support

Representation ID: 62185

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Paul & Debbie Gulliver & S Betts

-Support discounting Site 4 as this site would causes concern due to the narrow road of School Lane and to the local children coming in and out of school.

Object

Representation ID: 62186

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Miss F Coogan

The discounting of the other possible development locations seems severely flawed:
-Sites 2 and 3 were ruled out on the basis of 'high landscape and insufficient vehicle access'. This is ludicrous. Site 1 has a much higher landscape impact in that the landscape would be utterly destroyed and also has far less potential for safe vehicle access.

Object

Representation ID: 62201

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Prof Donovan Kelly

Objects as recommends Sites 2 and 3.

Object

Representation ID: 62202

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Kelvin & Christine Sparrowhawk & Davison

I object to all of the sites.

Object

Representation ID: 62208

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael Smedley

-We recommend Sites 2 and 3.
-No1 site leaves no provision for future planning needs, as accepted in WDC's Local Plan. Sites 2 and 3 (Taylor Woodrow) would provide this.

Support

Representation ID: 62210

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs V Yardley

Support discounting Site 2 and 3 as:
-They have no safe crossing area and totally inadequate footpaths leading down from the village towards them. As a regular user of this particular stretch of the highway, I speak from experience regarding the fast flowing traffic even at off peak times. The speed limit is supposedly in force and is not adhered to.
-It would be chaotic to introduce any further traffic on to this overburdened road through the village.

Object

Representation ID: 62213

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Clifton

Recommend Site 2 which would satisfy the long term housing need for Radford Semele without impacting the historic centre of the village and listed buildings of the Church and Pubs.

Object

Representation ID: 62215

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jones

-Site 2 has a footpath which links the site to the centre of the village; residents could therefore access the village facilities without encountering the dangers of the main Southam Road.

-Some houses could be built on Site 4. It has been discounted on the ground that it would create a connection with Leamington Spa but actually it merely 'rounds off' that part of the village and leaves a substantial green wedge of land to separate Radford Semele from Leamington Spa.