Sites Review

Object

Representation ID: 62218

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr P Morrell

All 4 Sites have major issues and without considerable upgrading of infrastructure (sewers etc), development on this scale would be detrimental to the quality of life of villagers and village life in general, especially during the construction phase.

Object

Representation ID: 62220

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Thomas

Sites 2 and 3 are reasonable and I would support their use.

Object

Representation ID: 62242

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Bradshaw

Recommends Site 2 and 3
Site 1 and 4 would create total traffic chaos within the village as well as ruining the views travelling through.

Object

Representation ID: 62243

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr J C Clark

-Other potential sites have not been considered sufficiently or have been discounted without comprehensive consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 62248

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Edgar & Elaine Draper

Sites 2 and 3, south east of the village off Southam Road, has less impact on residents. Although the new property designs would not readily interface with existing properties, there are a variety of designs throughout the village so we do not consider this to be a major problem.

Support

Representation ID: 62256

Received: 24/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Dominic & Rachel Rudge

We support the Sites review as we object to Site 2. There is poor access and it would be very out of character with the surrounding area. It is also at the very edge of Burton Green meaning it would be poorly connected with the village. This Site also suffers from flooding and the pond regularly over flows. The pond and land around the point is home to a plethora of wildlife including news, ducks, dragon flies, bats, pheasants and deer. This option is adjacent to a public footpath which is enjoyed by bird watchers, dog walkers, and scout groups.

Object

Representation ID: 62275

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Jean Blackwell

My preference for these new houses is at Sites 2 and 3. That location would keep the development away from the village hub and would go some way to preserve the rural ambience of the area. The present 50mph limit on that part of the A425 should be reduced to 30mph in what would have then become a ''built up area''.

Object

Representation ID: 62276

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr JWG Blackwell

My preference for these new houses is at Sites 2 and 3. That location would keep the development away from the village hub and would go some way to preserve the rural ambience of the area. The present 50mph limit on that part of the A425 should be reduced to 30mph in what would have then become a ''built up area''.

Object

Representation ID: 62283

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Matthew Iredale

Exclude Site 1 as preferred option and use Site 2.

Object

Representation ID: 62285

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Yvonne Iredale

Exclude Site 1 as preferred option and use Site 2.

Object

Representation ID: 62293

Received: 14/01/2014

Respondent: J & I Critchley

Agent: Godfrey-Payton

The landowners of discounted Site 2 object to its exclusion for future development and consider the site to have potential as:
-It has direct main road frontage.
-Existing interlinking with the existing settlement.
-It is situation to the south of the main road meaning that pedestrians do not need to cross the road to access village services and school.
-The development would involve highway improvements which could include further traffic calming measures to the benefit of the village.
-It would not impose upon the visual amenity of the canal or impinge upon the areas of flood risk.

Support

Representation ID: 62300

Received: 21/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Valerie Leigh-Hunt

Number of people: 2

Support discounting Site 4 as:
-Protection from merging with Leamington Spa is vital to preserving the separate identity of the village. Leamington Spa has already extended eastward to its brook boundary limit. Agricultural land to the south and west with its wildlife must be protected.
-Access to the school in School Lane is already a congestion point, requiring police intervention. Congestion would increase in the future with the resulting population growth.
-Residents from The Gardens/School Lane/Hamilton Road avoid using the exit through School Lane.
-Heavy construction traffic initially and then increased traffic in School Lane would be a perpetual hazards.

Object

Representation ID: 62301

Received: 21/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Valerie Leigh-Hunt

Number of people: 2

Site 3 (promoted by Pegasus) should not have been discounted as it has many points in favour of development:

-Road access would be in part of the village where the road can be modified without impacting traffic the village.
-The impact on neighbouring properties is reduced.
-Access to the village facilities is nearer.
-Retention of trees bordering Southam Road would integrate the site quickly.
-The 30mph speed restrict would need to be extended and possibly an additional crossing point.
-Land has not been cultivated.
-The site has received support from surveys of residents' opinions.
-Could provide 60 houses.

Object

Representation ID: 62302

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Miss F Coogan

The discounting of the other locations seems flawed. Sites 2 and 3 were ruled out because of 'high landscape impact and insufficient vehicle access'. This is ludicrous. Site 1 has higher landscape impact and also has less potential for safe access. The Report used to discount these sites does not appear to truly reflect sites 2 and 3. Site 4 was apparently rejected for 'impact on the main village centre and potential to encourage coalescence of settlements'. This is also incorrect. It would add too many cars to the Southam Road, but that seems to have been ignored.

Support

Representation ID: 62304

Received: 21/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Valerie Leigh-Hunt

Number of people: 2

-Site 2 is high quality agricultural land which will be lost to the agricultural economy. It supports extensive vistas to the south and west and an ancient footpath traverses this large field. A significant number of properties back onto these open vistas and residents are concerned.

Object

Representation ID: 62305

Received: 21/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Valerie Leigh-Hunt

Number of people: 2

Site 2 should not have been discounted as:

-40 houses could be provided, should 60 be delivered on Site 3, as proposed by Pegasus. The location of the properties should be adjacent to Southam Road, as a ribbon development, corresponding to those in Pegasus Plan.
-With the 30mph speed restriction extended, a roadside footpath to Lewis Road improved and possibly an additional crossing point, development could go ahead.
-Access to the village facilities is nearer than from Site and equidistant from the school.
-Road modifications would be needed but the site could be linked to Site 3 development.

Object

Representation ID: 62312

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Philip Coogan

-Sites 2 and 3 were ruled out on the basis of 'high landscape impact and insufficient vehicle access'. But Site 1 is far worse on both of these points.
-Site 4 was ruled out for 'impact on the main village centre and potential to encourage coalescence of settlements', but it is not the centre of the village and would not merge the village with Sydenham. There is no logic at all to these divisions and they cannot be allowed to stand.

Support

Representation ID: 63185

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Support the discounting of Site 4 as:
-Protection from merging with Leamington Spa is vital to preserving the future separate identity of the village and protecting valuable agricultural land and wildlife to the south and west.
-School Lane is narrow and has no possibility of being widened.
-School Lane/Southam Road would need traffic lights resulting in tail backs, adding further to the congestion at school pickup/drop off. Residents from The Gardens/School Lane/Hamilton Road make every effort to avoid exiting though School Lane.
-Heavy construction traffic and future increased traffic in School Lane would be a perpetual hazard for school children.

Object

Representation ID: 63186

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Site 3 has the following points in its favour:
-Access to/from Southam Road is in part of the village where the road can be modified without traffic impact.
-The impact on neighbouring properties is reduced to a small number of residents.
-Access to village facilities is near than from Site 1 and equidistant from school.
-Retention of trees bordering Southam Road would quickly integrate the site.
-Land is not cultivated or considered suitable for cultivation.
-Objection raised regarding insufficient vehicles access are less compelling that the problems accepted by WDC as soluble for Site 1.

Object

Representation ID: 63202

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-A housing allocation on Site 1 is completely counter-intuitive when there are much less sensitive and achievable alternative supported by the Parish. For example, Site 3 is suggested to be ruled out of highway concerns, yet the required visibility splays here are actually achievable - the evidence base of this option document is simply crude, inaccurate, incomplete, and incorrectly leads to manifestly unsound decisions on site allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 63550

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Various Residents of Radford Semele

Agent: Martyn Bramich Associates

Site 2 is easily accessed. The site has adequate vehicular visibility in both directions. Street lighting is also available and traffic generated would be easily accommodated. Eastbound traffic would not have to pass through the village. Site 2 is a sustainable and accessible location that links in with the main village. Site 2. Warwick District Council has discounted Site (2) as a preferred option. It is believed that the reasons for rejection are not valid. The rejection was made on two grounds:-
Site Access- WDC said that access to the site could not be achieved however, a report from a traffic specialist is attached in an appendix and it shows that safe vehicular access can be achieved. and
High Visual Impact- Building on Site (2) was said to be undesirable because of high visual impact. However, the assessment of visual impact was made by WDC by reference to a very large area of land extending from the village boundary all the way down to the Fosse Way. In reality, Site (2), comprises a small part of the field adjoining the village. Therefore, the visual impact on Site (2) would be small compared to the permanent damage to a heritage site (Site 1) which has important listed buildings adjacent to it.