1) The Paddock, Woodcote House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Housing Development in Areas LW1 to LW4 inclusive.

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

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

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


Action to resolve objections

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

If you take an area bordering the left hand side of Hill Wootton Road, Tidmarsh Road, The Hamlet, Croft Road, The Meadows and Warwick Road within this area there are approximately 144 houses on this, the most densely populated area of Leek Wootton. This area is approximately 3 times greater then areas 1, 2 and 3 on the Police Headquarters so by this ratio the maximum number of houses which should be allowed on these sites in keeping with the ethos of L.W. should be 48, otherwise the nature of the village will be lost. The 95 houses proposed by the Police is hugely excessive and totally unreasonable.
Access to these areas is not feasible. Woodcote Lane is too narrow, has soft verges with no kerbs, there is no pedestrian footpath for walkers and the road is already over used by lorries from the abattoir which make it extremely dangerous. The junction by the Anchor Pub has experienced many accidents and is totally unsuitable for any increase in capacity. The proposed density of houses would produce 100/150 extra vehicles using this junction on a daily basis - given the Police are no longer abandoning the site.
The School would need an increase in classrooms and teachers.
At present there is no shop in the village for the elderly, or those without transport.

PART B - COMMENTING ON THE VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS

LEEK WOOTTON -Page 54 & 55

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

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


SUPPORT

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

* I WOULD SUPPORT BUILDING ON DISCOUNTED OPTION 7 ONLY



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

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

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

LOCAL PLAN - LEEK WOOTTON -Page 54 & 55

PART C - COMMENTING ON THE INDICATIVE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES

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

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

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

See attached

See attached

I wish to STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed 75 dwellings on the Woodcote Estate, formerly the Warwickshire Police Headquarters.

The Woodcote Estate and Grade 2 listed Manor House.

I understand that the Warwickshire Police have now withdrawn areas 2 and 4 and have submitted a SHLAA on 26th November 2013 for 90 dwellings on 5.24Ha which comprises area 1 and land currently used as a playing field. They also wish to still include area 3 for dwellings.

Both the local plan scheme and the subsequent SHLAA within the grounds of the Woodcote Estate will remove parkland, playing fields and encroach on the grade 2 listed building Woodcote House.

The Woodcote Estate is currently a locally listed historic park and garden. In January 2012 a tree preservation order (TPO448) was placed on the whole Woodcote estate. During correspondence with WDC in a letter dated 31st January 2012 from Chris Hastie (representing WDC tree subcommittee) he refers to "the historic landscape that forms the setting of the Grade 2 listed building" and that Broome House "is clearly connected both visually and historically with Woodcote and continue to form part of the landscape setting of Woodcote" He also confirmed that the whole estate is a locally listed Parkland and Garden.

If as recently as 2012 WDC policy was that the Woodcote Estate needed protecting why do WDC now consider 75 dwellings, or possibly 90 dwellings, on the estate acceptable? A clear decision was made and for consistency WDC should discount areas 1-4 and reject the latest SHLAA for 90 dwellings.


Existing Planning Consents on the Woodcote Estate.

Currently Warwickshire police have existing planning consents for a variety of schemes within the Woodcote Estate. The main permissions being modifications to the "Communications Building" REF W/12/0688, and the redevelopment of existing buildings, including the grade 2 listed Woodcote Manor House, to create a Care Home Village REF W/11/1166.

From the planning statement supporting W/11/1166 this scheme would potentially create a 60 bed nursing home, 65 close care apartments/cottages and 9 care ready cottages. Add to this the suggested Local Plan options 1-4 and/or the Police SHLAA the Woodcote estate would all but disappear with potentially in excess of 150 dwellings with a small open area between the SHLAA development and the Care Village. This is clearly over development, will have a major impact on the immediate area, village infrastructure and should not be allowed.

It would appear Warwickshire Police at the moment are unable to make any definite decisions on how they intend to proceed with these consented applications. Uncertainty has been ongoing from early 2011 when the intension to dispose of the Woodcote Estate was first announced by the Chief Constable. Now with the potential merger with West Mercia, and the added complications to any decision process this adds, it seems unlikely any decision will be made in the near future.

Until such time as Warwickshire Police can confirm their intentions with the whole of the Woodcote Estate it should be removed from the local plan. When they can make a decision it should be put forward to the planners for consideration by a planning application.

Access to proposed development.

The main access to Woodcote is via Woodcote Drive with a tree lined secondary single track service entrance by North Lodge. Both are part of the estate and un-adopted. The only other access, possibly via a new entrance off Woodcote Lane, is not possible as adequate visibility splays are not available (as set out in site appraisal preferred option 1 appendix 6). It would also have a high landscape impact as would the whole development.

The current preferred option sites 1-4 and the SHLAA would therefore have to be accessed via Woodcote Drive and is shown as the primary access on the page 55 of the Local Plan publication. If sites 1-4 and/or the SHLAA area are allowed, the Care Village built and the Police Communications Centre stay Woodcote Drive could potentially have in excess of 1000 traffic movements per day. With just 75 new dwellings and the existing 14 residential properties based on 7 movements per dwelling per day movements of 600+ could occur, many concentrated around rush hour.


This is clearly not possible or acceptable for reasons listed here:

* Woodcote Drive is barely wide enough for two cars to pass (4.5m wide at most) and has no footpath. Assuming new residents would have children wishing to walk to the village school a footpath would have to be provided which is not possible due to the proximity of mature trees with a TPO. This would also have a major impact on the main entrance to Woodcote and the Manor House.
* Several concealed driveways already exist.
* The existing main decorative gate on Woodcote Lane is 3.1m wide. Is in the village conservation area and probably listed being within the curtilage of a Grade 2 listed building.


Impact on surrounding area and Woodcote Lane.

The junction of Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road is considered by Leek Wootton residents as very dangerous. By some, the site of a fatal accident waiting to happen. Even with the recent introduction of improved speed restriction signage vehicles still speed through the village and near misses happen on a regular basis. Any attempt to turn in the direction of Warwick is taken in trepidation.

Any development that increases traffic at the junction will increase the possibility of accidents occurring.

Woodcote Lane narrows by the Anchor pub and it is difficult for cars to pass safely and impossible if commercial vehicles meet requiring them to mount the narrow footpath to pass. It is impossible for any widening of the road or footpaths to take place at this point due to the proximity of buildings, most of which are listed.

Woodcote Lane heading towards Rouncil Lane is in a poor state of repair and has been for many years. The narrow bridge is also a cause for concern as is again, the lack of footpaths and lighting.


Conclusion.

For these many reasons I strongly oppose the proposed development of the Woodcote Estate and suggest that sites with better access and smaller impact would be the way forward. For example, option 5 and discounted option 7, land at the Warwickshire Golf Club entrance, has excellent access, is close to the school and would have no more impact visually than the Woodcote development from Woodcote Lane. Probably a high proportion of traffic from here would not come through the village and head to the A46 Warwick bypass. This site could take a large proportion of the suggested required allocation of dwellings for Leek Wootton and I would support its inclusion in the local plan and subsequent development.

This field has never been built on, is not in the existing boundary of the village and is protected by greenbelt legislation. If this site is built on it would only be a matter of time before the adjoining recreation field of the Woodcote estate would be under pressure for "infill". This is a slippery slope to becoming a large estate.
The junction of Woodcote Lane and the Warwick road is not suitable to the increase of traffic that would come with any building in the Woodcote area of the village. The police have shown that they are unable to move out of Woodcote house and its estate and so we traffic will be increased.
Pedestrians especially children from any new builds in the Woodcote area will have to cross the road Twice due to current footpath layout on Woodcote lane.
Accidents and near misses on the junction of Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road are common. When The Anchor are taking delivery of beer the lorry parks on the Woodcote lane corner of the junction reducing visibility to nill from traffic turning onto the lane from Warwick and for traffic trying to exit Woodcote lane. This is a problem now and would be worse in the event of 70 new houses being built on the Woodcote estate as a whole.

Dear Sirs
Find below my formal comments to the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation
In summary I completely object to the development of the Woodcote House estate (Preferred Options 1,2,3,4). My key objections are:
1. The Woodcote Estate is a Grade 2 Listed Manor House of significant historical importance as a Manor House, as rehabilitation centre and as a Police Headquarters.
2. The grounds are formally listed as Gardens and Parkland
3. TPO0448 is in existence across the whole site
4. There are a number of rare indigenous wildlife species that inhabit the Garden and Parkland
5. There is confusion over the short term, mid term and long term use of Woodcote House by Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police. Appropriate developments should only be considered once the usage by the Police Authorities is determines
6. There is NO access to the site, either through the Warwick Road / Woodcote Lane junction or into Woodcote Drive itself, either for motor vehicles, cycles, pedestrians or disables access
7. Further developments would endanger life and be hazardous to the environment
8. There is no provision for sewage, the existing sewage post Woodcote Drive is share owned by the residents and Warwickshire Police - agreement would be required to modify / adapt this existing infrastructure from the owners or completely new sewage infrastructure would need to be laid
9. Other discounted sites exist (11, 8 and 9) that do not have any of the above issues associated with them. These sites should be brought back into consideration albeit under a more restrictive housing volume regime
Page 54 Chapter 11
STRONGLY OBJECT TO OPTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4

Commenting on the Village Housing Options
Primary site access is completely inappropriate for additional dwellings
* The Police HQ and associated traffic will keep at its current level - no indication that it is about to diminish given the merger with West Mercia there is a high probability that the site will continue in its current form and current traffic flow rate. Hence any additional developments will be generating traffic in addition to the current levels, introducing congestion, risk of accidents and increased greenhouse gases
* There are TPO (TPO0448) in place now around the entire site - so there is no opportunity for widening access
* The Gates are listed and cannot be widened , and do not allow for two way traffic
* There are no pavements - already my family and neighbours are frightened to let children walk along Woodcote Drive and Woodcote Lane. It is complete inappropriate and does not allow children to even walk to the village school. There is a requirement to drive children to the school as there is simply no pavement s and it is not a safe environment for anybody , let alone children to walk with the current traffic flow rates.
To gain access to Woodcote Drive requires access to Woodcote Lane - that can only be accessed via Warwick road. The Main junction by the village Anchor Pub is completely inappropriate for additional developments. The current usage by the police and the shift working pattern allows the traffic to be spread through the quieter periods. Having additional developments along Woodcote Lane will mean an additional 100 to 200 vehicles all trying to navigate these narrow junctions at peak hours causing at best traffic bedlam and at worst injuries and deaths due to motor traffic accidents. It is not even an option to walk as there are no pavements. I myself have already been involved in serious accident at that junction, and it is clearly recognised as a black spot by the council and the police. This can be evidenced by the recent traffic calming signs and the continuous presence of Police speed cameras due to raised and serious concerns about the safety of that junction.
The development would put an impossible strain on already limited sewage and drainage capacity. The current network cannot cope with the existing volumes. Additional housing would need to plumb into this network. My objection is both on health and safety grounds, but also on ownership. The residents on Woodcote Drive have ownership of the sewerage network and are not willing to allow and developments that would impact this network and cause damage that would require remedial work.
The identified site is an area of natural beauty and is identified as formally protected Garden and Parkland grounds. There are already restrictive covenants in place on existing properties to prevent any further developments. The proposed development on Woodcote house goes completely against these covenants and does not pay any regard to the significance of the land and natural habitat. These covenants will need to be adhered to or to be lifted. There are no mentions or references to the protected nature of the gardens, the plants, flora and wildlife that uses this land as habitat. Rare species such as pond snakes, adders, newts, hedgehogs and bats all inhabit this land, and are protected species that would lose natural habitat if development in Woodcote House was to be granted.
Finally the village has an atmosphere that would be completely destroyed if these developments were to go ahead due to the size nature scale and geographic concentration of the developments

Settlement 11 - Leek Wootton
STRONGLY OBJECT
Commenting on the Indicative Settlement Boundaries
I completely disagree with the Indicative Settlement Boundary for Leek Wootton. In particular the removal of the Woodcote House Site from the green belt is beyond comprehension. It is a listed site of both historical and natural significance. The building is listed and the entrance that is part of the site provides a character that is appropriate to the main building itself. The existing developments along Woodcote Drive are very limited and are done in a way minimise impact to the site as a whole. The proposed developments show no consideration to the historic nature of the site and would due to placing, scale and nature completely impose and damage the site. In addition to the listed building itself the gardens and grounds are identified as being of major significance and are formally identified as Gardening and Parkland. The fauna is of particular significance, not only due to its beauty, but also as it provides a habitat for a number of rare indigenous specifies such as snakes (Adders, Pond Snakes), newts, herons and bats. I have not been able to find an impact assessment that describes how the wildlife would be impacted. A nature survey as part of this proposal and would strongly insist that a survey is carried out that identifies and safeguard the habitat of our rarest species before they are lost. In addition the entire site has been identified with TPOs following the reckless and illegal felling of trees by the Police Authority.
I would need to understand your reasoning and rationale why land of such historical and natural beauty would be developed upon that has no easy access rather than farm or arable land that has no rare species or fauna and has easy access from major roadworks. The additional effect of removing the Woodcote House site from Green Belt would be the infill developments that would occur on the existing residential developments. It cannot be understated the knock on impacts of these developments once the classification on the Woodcote House site is lifted.
Another important consideration is the usage of the Police Headquarters itself. There is no clear plan for the Police to move out of this site. With the impending merger with West Mercia Police it is probable that the Woodcote House itself and the communications block will remain in its current use for the foreseeable future. This would mean that any developments would result in traffic flow that would be in addition to the existing traffic generated by the Police Headquarters. In addition to this there is total confusion and disarray regarding what the short, medium and long term plans of the Warwickshire Police are. On the 26th November a SHLAA was submitted for 90 dwelling - this included the playing fields. This is in contrast to what is being proposed in the Local Plan. Given this confusion and lack of clarity it would be strongly recommended to remove the Warwickshire Police Headquarter site - Woodcote House from the sites as preferred options. Other sites that have been discounted should be reconsidered such as 11, 8 and 9 - all of which are on farmland so do not impact Garden Parkland and all of which have easy access to major road networks. I would also suggest that the scale of any developments be factored down considerable to maintain the historic and special characteristics of Leek Wootton.

The Woodcote Estate is a Grade 2 Listed Manor House of significant historical importance as a Manor House, as rehabilitation centre and as a Police Headquarters.

The grounds are formally listed as Gardens and Parkland

TPO0448 is in existence across the whole site

There are a number of rare indigenous wildlife species that inhabit the Garden and Parkland

There is confusion over the short term, mid term and long term use of Woodcote House by Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police. Appropriate developments should only be considered once the usage by the Police Authorities is determines

There is NO access to the site, either through the Warwick Road / Woodcote Lane junction or into Woodcote Drive itself, either for motor vehicles, cycles, pedestrians or disables access

Further developments would endanger life and be hazardous to the environment

There is no provision for sewage, the existing sewage post Woodcote Drive is share owned by the residents and Warwickshire Police - agreement would be required to modify / adapt this existing infrastructure from the owners or completely new sewage infrastructure would need to be laid

Other discounted sites exist that do not have any of the above issues associated with them. These sites should be brought back into consideration albeit under a more restrictive housing volume regime

I agree, in the main, with the Warwick District Council Local Plan, with respect to my own village, Leek Wootton, with the following exceptions:-
1. The number of additional dwellings proposed is very substantial, in comparison with the existing number of houses in the village of Leek Wootton, and whilst this is a not unreasonable target over a ten year period, the building of more than 15 houses in a single calendar year would have a very negative effective on the 'balance'; physical and social; of the village and I would therefore recommend this limit.
2. There is a substantial need for social housing in the village and I would suggest that Warwickshire District council insist that any developer building in the village must provide the Warwick district council section 106 target of 20%.
3. The document produced to not specifically identify that the building of ANY additional housing stock in the Village of Leek Wootton will require investment in the existing infrastructure to deal with access, this is especially the case for construction taking place to the west of the Warwick road. I would respectively suggest that the access/transportation infrastructure be agree before any new build works commence and that the costs of the necessary improvement be apportioned across all the new builds. This will culminate in appropriate infrastructure being in place once the large number of additional dwellings has be constructed without the burden of cost being undertaken by the Council. Specifically:- (a) Woodcote Lane/Warwick Road Junction requires traffic Lights, with a crossing point, and a safe crossing point for pedestrians on Woodcote Lane approaching this junction and (b) A cycle path between Leek Wootton and Kenilworth is required. There is plenty of physical space to build one. This is already required for the students attending Kenilworth Schools for the Village as the road is very narrow and this would provide a safe/health/environmentally friendly way for young people to attend school.

- The location of the houses proposed on this site would have a huge visual impact on Leek Wootton as you drive into the village from Rouncil Lane, detracting from the unspoilt, leafy look of Leek Wootton.

- The density of houses proposed in this area is certainly not in keeping with the rest of the village.

- Houses built in the density being proposed would not allow much provision for 2nd car provision or drives, resulting in cars being abondoned on current access roads and the new streets.

see attached

Warwick District's Rural Areas

Warwick District, while in population terms mainly urban, has attractive rural areas. The quality of the District's countryside, and the conservation value of many of its villages, are major assets. They play a major part in making the District attractive to live and work in.

The size of the District and the short distances between the villages and the main towns mean that the District does not have a 'rural economy'. Links between the villages and the towns are close and social distinctions are few. There is no justification for development in any of the District's villages for economic or social purposes, except for some limited social (rented) housing to meet local needs. And because of the short distances, that need may be met in a different village from where it arises without adverse effects.

It is important to stress that there has been tight control on development in Warwick District's villages for 40-50 years. The designation of Conservation Areas in a number of the District's villages took place in 1967-75, mostly prior to the creation of Warwick District Council (April 1974). From 1974 the policies of the District Council have successfully maintained a strict control on development in most villages, especially those within the Green Belt. Limited new housing has been permitted, with one major development on an old hospital complex - Hatton Park.

It would be damaging and regrettable if the New Local Plan were to undermine this success because of a controversial estimate of the requirement for new housing. The balance of urban and rural areas has been firmly established over the last 40 years and very strong justification would be needed to disturb it.




The Green Belt

Warwick District's rural areas are mostly designated Green Belt. This Green Belt status dates from the 1960s with the Green Belt being formally confirmed in 1975. It is thus 50 years old and has played a large role in conserving the character of the District.

The villages within the Green Belt have been 'washed over' and have not been inset (omitted from the Green Belt). It is important to stress this. Successive Structure and Local Plans have been adopted with the Green Belt being continuous. Gaps in the Green Belt, notably the 'white island' of 'white land' or non-Green Belt land at Lapworth (Kingswood), were replaced by as 'washed-over' status for the whole villages.

When Hampton Magna, and more recently Hatton Park, were developed, the Green Belt status was kept. They were not excluded and 'inset'. This enabled consistent planning policy to be applied over the whole area west of Warwick.

The effectiveness of the District's Green Belt is shown by the fact that the rural areas of Warwick District have remained unchanged, or little changed, in the last 40 years. The strict control of development that the Green Belt has provided has been on major benefit.

No harmful or adverse effects on the District's economic performance have been identified as resulting from the Green Belt. The attractive countryside and villages that it has facilitated are more likely to have assisted it by providing an attractive living environment.

The fundamental feature of the Green Belt is that it provides openness. The low density development of most villages, with areas of open land within them, is protected by Green Belt designation. New houses (infill) or house extensions can be strictly controlled and refused if they would harm openness of the Green Belt. This principle has been effective in application where large house extensions or rebuilds, or new buildings such as stables, would be harmful to the character of a village.


CPRE's view of the proposal to remove Green Belt status from several villages


In our view it is not necessary to remove Green Belt status from a village in order to permit some new development within existing villages or in some cases on their edge. Some development within the Green Belt is permitted, subject to all relevant factors including sustainability and the impact on the environment and openness of the area. Conditions can be imposed to avoid unnecessary impacts.

Removal of green belt status from the land within a village boundary will remove the Green Belt controls restrictions set out in the NPPF. This would make possible applications for development which would increase housing density, and the bulk and height of houses; which would be refused were Green Belt status to remain. Removal of Green Belt protection creates the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity, and openness will be lost.

CPRE would prefer to see some villages designated as suitable for "limited infill" without removing Green Belt status. As the title suggests this allows very limited infill with detailed limitations on such matters as the amount and type and design of any infilling. Blanket removal of green belt protection has the danger that development and redevelopment will take place with little regard to the impact on the village as an entity.

We are also concerned that a number of Neighbourhood Plans are under development and more are likely in the future. Decisions about green belt status should not be used to undermine the possible wishes of residents and other interested parties.

We urge that a more careful approach is taken to the development of each village with appropriate conditions on such matters as the amount, type, style and design of development in the village. Each village should receive individual consideration.

There should therefore be a strong presumption against changing the Green Belt in Warwick District. The Draft Local Plan proposals for removing several villages from the Green Belt and 'insetting' them would revive the 'white islands' that were eliminated in the 1970s. To create areas in the middle of the Green Belt which are not covered by Green Belt policy risks allowing overdevelopment and an undermining of the character of villages.

Affordable housing - generally rented Housing Association housing - can be permitted in villages while they remain 'washed over by the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at para 86 that

"If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt."

In Warwick District the majority of villages contribute to the openness of the Green Belt and should therefore remain washed over by the Green Belt.

A particular type of settlement in the Green Belt in Warwick District where removal from that status would be harmful to openness is the elongated settlement, generally a single road, where housing was developed in the interwar era and in some cases up to the 1960s. CPRE considered that in these cases openness is retained by use of strict Green Belt controls; those would be lost if the Local Plan were to crease 'white islands', contrary to all past Council and Government practice.


CPRE's response on the proposals for individual villages

The following settlements (mostly villages) now 'washed over' by Green Belt are proposed for removal from it:
Baginton, Burton Green, Hampton Magna, Hatton Park, Kingswood (Lapworth), Leek Wootton, Hill Wootton, Hatton Station, and Shrewley.

Outside the Green Belt the following settlements are proposed to have significant new housing:

Barford, Bishop's Tachbrook, Radford Semele.


Baginton: Baginton is an elongated village close to Coventry. It makes a contribution to openness as it is. Its closeness to Coventry makes Baginton very sensitive to new development. It should be retained as it is now with washed-over status.

Barford: Not in the Green Belt. Any development on the land around Barford House is strongly opposed. This has been refused twice now on clear conservation grounds. Locations 1, 2 and 3 will probably be suitable over time, but have problems of access.

Bishops Tachbook: CPRE would wish to see the location for any new housing determined by local opinion and the Parish Council.

Burton Green: Burton Green is mainly a long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove Burton Green from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Burton Green should stay with 'washed-over; status.

Cubbington: The village is not in the Green Belt. The proposed site should be reduced in size to Location no 1 only, eliminating the projection northwards into countryside that site 2 would result in.

Hampton Magna: the historic village (Hampton-on-the-Hill) is within the Green Belt. The new (1960s/70s) settlement was tightly drawn to the area of the former barracks. The site is prominent on the hill west of the A46. Retaining Green Belt status is justified. If this were to be lost, there could be intensification of development at Hampton Magna resulting in more intrusion and a loss of openness.

Hatton Park (former Hatton Hospital site): This was retained in the Green Belt when the extensive new housing was permitted. It is accepted that this location could be taken out of the Green Belt without major harm.

Hatton Station: this is a set of houses built south of the station in around 1970 on former railway land. This is not a village as Hatton Village (church, school) is some way to the east. There is no justification for removing this loose grouping of houses from the Green Belt. The present level of development does retain openness, but intensification would harm openness.

Hill Wootton: This is an attractive small village, which helps create openness of the Green Belt. The proposal for up to 5 dwellings in the village (if achievable) does not justify the removal of the village from the Green Belt.

Kingswood (Lapworth): This is another long (1 mile) strip of single-house frontage development. To remove the Kingswood part of Lapworth from the Green Belt would risk intensification of development in a long linear corridor. It is essential to avoid larger or bulkier houses along the single road. To avoid harm to openness Kingswood should retain 'washed-over; status. (It is this area which was 'white land' within the Green Belt until a Local Plan Inquiry in the late 1970s.)

Leek Wootton: This village is attractive and makes a contribution to the Green Belt by its openness. It should remain 'washed over'. We oppose the suggested new housing sites 1-3.. The conversion to residential units of Woodcote House (on departure of Warwickshire |Police) is reasonable. But this does not justify removing the whole of Leek Wootton from the Green Belt, and as a conversion can be undertaken while the site remains Green Belt.

Radford Semele: Not in the Green Belt. CPRE would support the option (if any) which is preferred by the local residents and Parish Council.

Shrewley: The two small housing sites at the south end of the village against the railway cutting are capable of being fitted in to the village with the right design. The scale of this development is small and does not justify taking the whole village out of the Green Belt. The village should stay 'washed-over'.

Aylesbury House Hotel near Hockley Heath: there is no justification for permitting new housing in the Green Belt around the existing building. Conversion to residential (flats) of the old building (the Hotel) can be undertaken without changing the Green Belt status.

Oak Lee, Finham: this is a location which could be developed - it is trapped land between Warwick Lane and the A46 Kenilworth Bypass.

see attached

I object to sites 9, 8 and 11 on grounds of noise coming from the A46 and the proximity of these sites to this major dual carriageway.Although houses on the east of The Hamlet were double glazed years ago before traffic increased to current levels noise pollution in the houses is very obvious.
I object to sites 8 and 9 because access to either site would have to be off Hill Wootton Road just before it goes under the A46 bridge.There is a significant dip in the road under the bridge and it is already difficult to see traffic "hidden" there when exiting from the The Hamlet. Also the road under the bridge is frequently flooded and impassable.
I object to site 8 because the sewerage system in Leek Wootton is inadequate for the present number of dwellings. Site 8 is used as the overflow area for raw sewage.
I object to the scale of develpoments 1-4 on grounds of scale.
I am concerned that Warwickshire Police have plans for developing different areas of their Headquarters that are not mentioned in the document.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached