1) Land to the east of Church Lane

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Re: Local Plan - Proposal to Build Next to St Nicholas Church on Site 1
(Land on the east of Church Lane - 3.55 ha developable area and site capacity for 100 dwellings)

Thank you for inviting comments from and consulting with villagers on the above and we sincerely hope that all comments will be taken on board and hope that this is not just an auditing/tick box exercise for a decision that has already been made.

In accordance with page 56 of the Local Plan and table 57, we object to this proposal, our reasons for which are listed below:-

1. 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, as a last resort in cases of exceptional need and where there are no alternatives available. The importance of the Church setting to village identity compounds this responsibility on planners.
There are views from Southam Road across the site to the open countryside surrounding the village and the land provides a setting for the Church. From church Lane the rural surroundings of the Church are even more apparent. These views are integral to the listing. The Church cannot be judged in planning without reference to its setting which visually includes the whole of the proposed Gladman site.
The proposed housing estate will be next to the Church. Villagers will face it head on looking out from St Nicholas Church, running against Council statutory duty to protect the setting of a listed building. Current open countryside would be replaced with a housing estate, in direct contravention of Council duty to protect the setting of a listed building in planning. The wider Church Fields setting, including the Church, the Water Tower, thatched cottages and countryside, are integral to the setting of the listed buildings surrounding this proposed development. Any development would run counter to the duty of the Council to protect that setting.
The site is bordered by many listed buildings, including the Church. The Council is under a statutory duty to protect the historic setting of these listed buildings. Any development of this site will permanently alter the setting and thereby runs against its statutory duty, namely Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) and PPG16 Archaeology and Planning (1990). The historic environment is a shared resource. This site gives distinctiveness, meaning and quality to Radford Semele, providing a sense of continuity and a source of identity. It is a social and economic asset and a resource for learning and enjoyment. Heritage values represent a public interest in places, regardless of ownership. The use of law, public policy and public investment is justified to protect that fundamental public interest.
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.
The Church Fields are fundamental to the identity of who we are as a village. When people think of Radford Semele they think of the Church and its setting in countryside. Planners are required to heed heritage of this importance by statute under listed buildings legislation to ensure its preservation. The status of the Church, and its setting, is the single most important heritage asset in the Village. No possible high density modern development in this site is appropriate or possible in conformity with Council obligations to protect the listed buildings.
2. Other potential sites have not been considered sufficiently or have been discounted without comprehensive consideration. The Southam Road Taylor Wimpey sites (East of the Village) are, in light of new and recent studies, viable with simple road adjustments and a reduction to 30mph which should be expected as the new site becomes part of the Village envelope. These sites provide for properly managed expansion of the village in future years whilst protecting the Church and its setting as a balance to that development. Whilst alternative sites are available the Council is under a statutory duty to prioritise their development under the Local Plan.

3. We are being asked to consider this without proper information of how any development will look; what the traffic impact will be - and alternative options to this "preferred" site chosen by the Council.

4. It is accepted in the evidence provided by WDC for the Local Plan that this site provides no option to meet future planning need. The Village will need to expand in years to come. A decision to build on the last open space within the Village, and its historic shared hub, runs counter to the statutory duty of the Council to plan in the long-term interests of the Village. Other sites are available which would allow for Village expansion in future years.

5. 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.

6. We are being asked to consider this without proper information of how any development will look, what the traffic impact will be and alternative option.

7. 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. In addition, if chosen as a solution, Church Lane will have to be considerably widened to accommodate cars exiting to/from the development. This will involve the cutting down of ancient trees which presently adorn the lane and the widening will erode permanently the direct setting directly in front of the Church and to the side of the White Lion. The views into the Church from Southam road will be destroyed by a modern wide access road. This runs directly against Council duty to protect the setting of the Church and other listed buildings which demarcate the borders of the Church Fields setting. The alternative proposal, proffered by Gladman, to provide access opposite the White Lion is, worst case, dangerous and best case will result in diminished traffic flow, whilst equally damaging the setting of the key listed building within the Village. Highways have historically, and rightly, rejected any plans for access that require roundabouts or diminution of traffic flows through the Village because of its key role for commuters out of Leamington to the Fosse. 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 practical reality of cars and lorries travelling at 40mph plus through the blind bend is taken into account in calculations. This exit would be dangerous.

8. Assuming a housing development of 100 houses, under planning guidelines this requires an allowance for an additional 200+ cars. These vehicles will exit onto the Southam Road/School Lane/Church Lane junction or directly opposite the White Lion. This is an extremely busy stretch of Southam Road nearby to a Primary School. Traffic at this junction is already at pressure. This development will (1) increase the risk of an accident occurring as children and Villagers regularly use this stretch of road to get to/from school and Church and (2) impact negatively on traffic flows for villagers and commuters. The viability of any proposal to ameliorate traffic impact has not been proven as no plans have been submitted by developers. Detailed planning to create a new junction between School Lane, Church Lane and Southam Road has not been provided. Alternative plans by Gladman have not been submitted and have been informally rejected by highways on grounds of safety and traffic flow. Traffic Reports have not been published to analyse the impacts of traffic and junctions to allow the Council to properly make any recommendation. Gladman proposals for 130 dwellings would increase this further.

9. Public Open Space and playing areas: The village of Radford Semele already has sufficient public open spaces. You are destroying this beautiful area by building 130 extra houses on the open spaces currently enjoyed by the village. The village also already has a sufficient playing area which is well used by the children of the community. This is an appeasement offered by the developers which would not be necessary should the development plans be revoked.

10. Affordable Housing: You claim to be building "affordable housing". This is a vague statement at best! we would be grateful if you could serious consider what is meant by affordable housing? Affordable by whom? - we know that this housing will not be affordable for the young adults who wish to reside in this village.

Therefore as far as we are concerned this development is not viable or welcomed in our village. We ask you WDC to help maintaining the historic nature of the village, and promote a healthy, thriving and safe community.

The ideal scenario would be no additional housing in Radford Semele, as we cannot see how this housing would be available/affordable to the local community. However if providing additional housing is necessary then we would ask you to consider Site Nos 2 and 3 as the option for the preferred site, as recommended by Radford Semele Parish Council)

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.

Development on this site will remove forever the characteristic that makes Radford Semele a village rather than a suburb. These open fields, close to the ancient church, bring agriculture, the countryside and farming into the heart of the community and are the essence of being a proper village. Those residents walking daily to school, to the pub, to the church or to the shops are made aware of the nature of village life by the setting of the church, the homes and the pub within the context of worked, agricultural land. This must not be lost.

Whilst there is no ideal situation in the village for development the preferred site is the best choice of the sites that have made it to this part of the process.

Site 1 sits within the most obvious envelope of the village, it would not cause the village to project further into the countryside or to move towards the other housing areas in the immediate vicinity (i.e. Sydenham). Whilst the preferred site is situated almost adjacent to the church there is still a substantial field in front of the church and a strip of land along the proposed site that will allow for the views of the church to be protected from the main road.

Sites 2 and 3 do not sit within the village envelope or the proposed village envelope. Housing built on these sites would not fit in with the rest of the village, they would seem like an annexe to the village as to get to them you would need to walk up the side of the main road. Instead of walking to the village facilities there would be a preference for driving. The preferred site sits within the village and all facilities would have an easy walk from that site (assuming the requisite traffic calming measures were introduced).

I would concur with the highway agencies view that sites 2 and 3 would not provide safe access due to the restricted views along the main road. The safety of drivers and pedestrians would be at risk. This risk would particularly affect pedestrians should a combination of 2 and 3 be used. Pedestrians walking from site 2 to 3 would have to cross the roads at a point of restricted view.

Again I would concur with the evidence presented that there would be a high impact on the vistas around sites 2 and 3.

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.

Radford Semele Church at the edge of this site is a listed building which has recently been the subject of extensive renovations following a fire. This church and the surrounding land are what visitors to Radford Semele see as they arrive in the village from any direction. The fact that, unlike many churches in villages, the church in Radford Semele is set in open land makes for an unusual setting and view. Other towns and villages where councils have in the past preserved open spaces (Harrogate which I know well with The Stray, open space around the middle of the town, for example) have ensured that the local environment is enjoyed by all and remains a place where people want to live. Open spaces between built areas add rather than detract and Radford Semele currently has that benefit which would be lost if Site 1 is selected. Building on this land would permanently destroy this vista and would be unlikely to be planned to fit with the surrounding housing stock which includes a converted old water tower and thatched cottages. In addition to the Church, the White Lion Pub is also a listed building which was also substantially renovated following a fire. This pub attracts people to the village due to it's location which is greatly enhanced by the view across the field to the church and open countryside beyond. Visitors to the White Lion are visiting an old country pub in a beautiful location. This location and views around it would be destroyed by a housing estate which goes against the responsibility of the council to protect the setting of listed buildings and particularly when the line of sight between listed buildings is impacted which in this case it will be significantly.

In the past all development in this area has been sensitive to the local environment and is not clearly visible from the road (eg. the houses at the bottom of Church End). Planning applications for development on this field in the past have been rejected because of the requirements for the council to protect a listed building and it's setting. No changes have taken place to justify abandoning the need to conceal development around the setting of a listed building.

The A425 road running through Radford Semele is already an extremely busy and dangerous road. Should a large housing estate be built on this land then the volume of traffic would be significantly increased. Under planning guidelines an extra 100 houses requires an assumption of 200+ additional cars. To my knowledge no study has been undertaken to determine the impact of these extra vehicles exiting onto the Southam Road from the proposed development, although enough work has been done to exclude other sites, which is somewhat surprising and rather concerning given the requirement to provide a balanced summary for discussion.

The access to the site would need to be either directly onto Southam Road between School Lane and Offchurch Lane or indirectly via Church Lane. Both of these options are ill considered from a safety point of view and would necessitate substantial changes to the current road layout. There seems to be a great play being made of land being made available as a 'village green', however the requirement to widen Church Lane and to provide an access via a link road, would I suspect mean that little 'green' was left for people to enjoy.There is already a pedestrian crossing at this junction for children to access Radford Semele School. This crossing is currently unmanned. The safety of children going to school would be severely compromised by up to 200 more cars attempting to join Southam Road in the morning to go to work. The problems currently experienced on School Lane (narrow road, parked cars, lots of traffic in both directions and children going to and from school) are already known, and it would appear largely ignored in the planning process. The fact that the police have recently scheduled visits to speak to school parents to point out the dangers should highlight the issues. However, having many more cars join the A425 at this point will certainly exacerbate the problems on School Lane as traffic finds it even more difficult to exit and enter the road.

Currently I can up to 10 minutes for a gap in the traffic to exit my driveway in the morning and in the evening I regularly have to wait many minutes to get into my drive across heavy and often speeding traffic. Should there be an access road opposite my house this would be even more dangerous for me, my family, other road users and pedestrians. With Offchurch Lane joining Southam Road on a blind bend, cars attempting to turn out of it often accelerate very quickly to avoid accidents on this blind corner. During my 12 years in this house I am aware of the air ambulance attending 2 serious accidents on this corner, together with several less serious accidents only requiring an ambulance. If another access road was positioned on this stretch of road this could only lead to more serious accidents.

As Radford Semele School has been significantly expanded and is currently full, any additional children living on the proposed housing estate would need to be transported by car to school outside the village further increasing traffic at peak times. School Lane is regularly a bottleneck in the morning with people leaving the village to go to work at the same time as others arrive to drop off their children. Should this development take place there would need to be significant changes to the road layout at this junction and on School Lane to accommodate the increased traffic.

In recent years there have been several incidents of overflowing sewerage and other drainage problems at the bottom of School Lane and flowing down Church Lane. The junction of the A425/School Lane/Church lane has often in the past been flooded with rain water flowing down into Church Lane from both sides on the A425 and from the top of the village down School Lane and sewerage has as a consequence overflowed and been swept down Church Lane. This could only be further exacerbated by the building of a high density housing estate directly opposite with its own drainage needs and requirements that are planned to discharge to the same point

No work, it seems, has been undertaken to understand the ecological impact of building this area. A particular issue being whether that would have an impact on the bats that currently enjoy this open space and can be seen throughout the area down to the Church.

I believe that there are other potential sites (Sites 2 and 3, though specifically 2) which have been incorrectly discounted in favour of Site 1 (see Sites Review comments) which would be more fit for purpose. Even with the current 50mph limit on approaching the village from Southam the sites to the East of the village (sites 2 and 3) are more appropriate for development, as has been confirmed by two independent traffic experts and would be even more so with an extension to the 30mph limit in the village which would be a correct interpretation of Dept of Transport guidance rather than the incorrect assessment currently made (see Sites Review comments). This land is obscured from the Fosse Way by the naturally rolling countryside, and is not as is stated in the Environmental Report highly visible from the fosse Way. Residents of houses on site 2 would be able to use public footpaths to access the facilities of the village without the need to cross the busy Southam Road.

Currently the site in question is a vital soak-away for water draining off the hills to the south. Large areas of hard-standing would cause serious surface water issues and an increase in flood-risk in the surrounding area. The nearby housing in Church Lane, Offchurch Lane, The Greswoldes and Chance Fields are all detached housing. Putting in affordable housing would de-value properties in these surrounding roads. The high-ways issue is obvious to anyone observing the junction at the end of Offchurch Lane and the main road between the hours of 8-9am on a working day! The infrastructure cannot support the extra volume of traffic that would come if this development is allowed to proceed. The fact that it's also in the vicinity of the St. Nicholas' Church is also cause for concern. This is a historical listed building, dating back to the eleventh century. The fields surrounding the Church are part of it's identity. When visualising a country Church, you imagine it to be surrounded by open spaces do you not? The natural habitats of many species of wild fowl and birds of prey will be destroyed. Alternative site two on the south-east side of the village would be much more appropriate. The area is nearer the centre of the village giving greater access to the amenities that the village affords. It would also have a much lower visual impact on the surrounding housing as well. Highway access would be much simpler giving access to both the village centre and also the main road.

see attached

RE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT RADFORD SEMELE OFF THE A 425 Your ref Site 1

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS

Is the WDC going against the words as uttered by DAVID CAMERON when he said I care deeply about our countryside and our environment, the vision is to give communities much more say and much more control, villagers fear having large developments, plonked down on green field sites.At the heart of it is more local control, the neighbourhood plan, you decide rather the man in the planning committee.

Gladman Plan
This development has increased from the initial brief of 100 to 130 homes of various types,40% of which are to be affordable,this appears to be just a CON to obtain planning permission. What might be affordable to-day will not be affordable to-morrow with house prices increased by 8% or £25,000 according to the Media.

The access as shown on the latest proposal is completely and utterly mad, coming out onto the A 425 opposite the WHITE LION, the vision splay to the left is about 50 metres looking to-wards Southam and is obscured by the cottages and hedges on the White Lion side, a vehicle travelling to-wards Leamington Spa at a speed of 30 miles per hour will only have approx 4 seconds to react to vehicles exiting from the new development onto the A 425. A further objection to be taken into consideration there is the existing bus stop opposite this exit creating further congestion and safety hazard. Should SITE 1 be used for this development, with the access at Church Lane and a traffic control system, this in my opinion will create a bottle neck with traffic having difficulty entering and departing School Lane at peak periods ie parents collecting and dropping children off at school times ( they park all along School Lane from the junction of the A425 up to and beyond Hatherall Road ) Therefore I would prefer Sites 2&3 which you at W D C due to safety hazards have discarded


The sewage system from the Greswoldes and the Offchurch Lane is a private system that enters the treatment plant at the church end of this development,so where is the sewage from these new homes going to be treated, the present system has had to be emptied by tankers on a number of occasion, it just about manages to cope with its present imput. Will the new homes have a separate systems or are we going to have more problems with the existing one, I would be obliged if you address these points.

I am writing to voice my objection to the proposals for 100+ dwellings to be built on the land east of Church Lane in Radford Semele, known as Church Fields.
There are many reasons why I do not support this proposal, but I would like to highlight the following in particular.


1. The local infrastructure, amenities and services are not adequate to accommodate a housing development on this site.

The drains and sewerage systems are barely able to cope at present especially during heavy rain, and in the past sewage has been seen in School Lane. So there is already an existing problem and further demands on the systems would only exacerbate the situation.

The land in question serves as a natural drainage point for the dwellings in surrounding roads, and therefore housing on this site would interfere with this natural drainage and increase the risk of flooding to the Church and it's surroundings.

I am given to understand that nowadays a Sustainable Drainage System is required with new housing development proposals. I see no evidence of such a system being possible here, especially at the density of housing proposed. It is noted that the information supplied by the Gladman Group proposes 130 dwellings on the site.


2. Traffic and Road Safety

Heavy traffic and congestion are already a major problem in Radford Semele, particularly at peak times. Placing a large housing development in this site would only add to the problem.

A traffic survey was undertaken during the summer months when traffic flow was lighter, and this must be taken into account.

Wherever the new access road would be sited it would be a major issue.


3. The Housing Density proposed is totally unacceptable.

The density proposed is unacceptably high, higher than any on adjoining land or elsewhere in the village.

There is no scope for family growth, and very little garden space or car parking. While it is well-known that households nowadays often own several vehicles, it is difficult to see how all these vehicles will be provided with adequate parking. The whole area could easily become unsightly, cluttered, and dangerous for pedestrians.

The density of dormitory-style housing can only be seen as designed to maximise profit for the development company, who have no knowledge of the local area and the life of the community, and who have given these matters scant regard.


4. High Landscape and Habitat Impact

Any housing development on this site would have a high landscape impact and thus would be highly detrimental to the whole area surrounding the Church, which is a well-regarded local landmark.

Wherever the new road system, which would be necessary to access this site, is positioned, it would impact the landscape surrounding the Church and Parson's Field. The Council is under a statutory duty to protect the historic setting of the Church as a listed building, together with the additional listed buildings adjoining the site.

see attached

I write to Object to the preferred option of land to the east of Church Lane.
It is understood that appropriate housing provision needs to be considered and that the LPA has a responsibility in this regard. However, it is somewhat surprising that this site to the east of Church Lane has been identified as WDC's preferred option - it might be suggested both when applying common-sense and also when applying WDC's own assessment criteria to it.
1. This development area and its roadways are immediately adjacent to the setting of St Nicholas Church. The church is a listed building of architectural importance and has been the heart of the village for centuries - records in the Domesday Book are testament to its age. Building on this land, constructing the access roadways and cutting down trees would irrevocably damage the setting of the church. This applies to views from Southam Road, Church Lane, the churchyard and the church itself. As in many villages, the Church and it setting is a central part of the village, the life of the villagers and the village identity.
2. Also contributing to this setting are the Old Tower, Thatched Cottages and the (thatched) Lion Pub. This setting would be destroyed by the proposed development.
3. This area is currently outside the village envelope and provides an open outlook and 'somewhere to breathe' in the heart of Radford; for this reason it should remain outside the village envelope. Whilst the need for additional housing is understood, the concept of cramming more housing in the centre is poor development planning at best.
4. Balance of housing encourages residential balance. The report on WDC website states that; In terms of housing stock, the village has above district average percentages of semi-detached and terraced housing, and consequently lower levels of detached housing (43.5% of detached compared to district average of 30.9% and 33.9% of terraced properties compared to the district average of 21.5%). It is apparent, therefore, that more detached housing is required to address this imbalance. Importantly, Offchurch Lane, which backs onto the proposed site, arguably contains the more substantial dwellings in Radford and because of this helps support the overall quality of the housing stock. To sanction construction of 100 smaller units backing on to them will reduce the quality of the village as a whole. This is considered the wrong place.
5. 100 new houses requires allowance for 200 cars. According to WDC report, the recently discounted options are: 2) Land south of Southam Road - high landscape impact and insufficient vehicle access; 3) Land north of Southam Road - high landscape impact and insufficient vehicle access; The preferred option also has insufficient vehicle access. Not only that but vehicles would have to all feed out onto Southam Road at one place and return the same way - at the centre of the village. It would be far better planning to place housing at the periphery of Radford - not clogging its centre.
6. Flooding was an issue causing WDC to reject other option(s). 14 site options have been identified for Radford Semele. Of these initial options, 10 were discounted at an early stage in the process to a wide range of issues detailed in the Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), but include flooding in a number of locations,... The 'preferred option' is a natural soak away for water run-off from the field on the south of Offchurch Lane which discharges down a track into the field. Should not flooding issues also cause this site to be discounted?
7. The comments that; In line with many other villages there are no easy options in Radford Semele with regard to ideal housing sites. are readily understood. However, there are options as the Parish Council proposed. The land at the east of Radford; 2) Land south of Southam Road and possibly; 3) Land north of Southam Road are better choices in planning terms and would also help to far more effectively take some of the development pressure off the main settlement with its narrow road network. Developing this area off the Southam Road will allow for, say 50% of vehicles to travel away from Radford without clogging the centre. Vehicles that do travel into and through the village will have time and distance to integrate into the flow of traffic without causing continuing disruption.

I wish to register my objection to the development proposals for the above site as set out in the consultation document. Whilst I question the whole assessment process which has been used to determine the Warwick District Council's (WDC) preference in respect of the options available and whether it is correct that local recommendations as set out by the Parish Council should be ignored I raise the following objections:

1. The housing density proposed for the site is far too high. Building to such a density will only provide homes of limited facilities and be incapable of meeting the needs of initial occupiers who wish to continue residence for a growing family. Access roads will become extended parking areas and restrict access for both service and emergency vehicles. Such gross environmental abuse can only make for a poor living environment and a growing culture of neglect as such an estate ages and the occupants grow tired of the limitations it provides.

2. A development of the size suggested cannot be adsorbed by the current local services without major investment in infrastructure and environmental services. Local schooling is currently at its full capacity and a major development of its current site would have to be undertaken to improve it. The provision of health/ GP services would have to be review since nothing exists within the village and the growing impact on surrounding provision would need to be re-assessed. Drainage for the development would have to take into account the inadequate systems that would link with it from other areas of the village and provision made for that improvement. Flooding implications would need assessing in respect of run-off and the fact that a valuable area for absorbing that effect had been developed over.

3. The increase in traffic on the local Southam Road and Offchurch Lane together with their nature and topography provide an environment for all road users requiring extreme care and attention. Recent traffic accidents and fatalities only serve to reinforce concerns that anything which exacerbates the current levels of use would require that the road system be developed to adequate traffic flow and protect motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Given the change in structure of the village such development implies care needs to be taken to ensure that the road and pavement systems meet the new levels of vehicle and people movements within the system.

4. Visual and environmental impact. It will be certain that a development as proposed will have the biggest impact on Radford Semele for 400 years. The nature and geographic centre of the village will be shifted northwards and the nature of that development will be clearly seen, particularly if 3 level housing is included in the housing mix of the proposed development. The environment surrounding St. Nicholas Church would need to be protected and the green space around the church preserved for the villagers. Flood risk needs consideration as does the proposed developments proximity to the pumping station connecting to the Leamington sewerage system to ensure that a failure of that system does not give any risk to local residents directly or through the water table.

In conclusion, I feel that Site 1 as described should be reconsidered in the view of the proposals provided by the Parish Council in consultation with the village and a thorough assessments of all the options made prior to any consent for any specific application.

The frequent appearance of the Police Camera-Man beside the village bus stop attests to the high volumes of speeding traffic on the Southam Road. It therefore seems strange logic to throw up a development on the one side, whose 100+ residence then need safe access to the village amenities which are virtually all on the opposite side of this main road. Furthermore, the development will encroach views of a millennia of history in the Church and its surroundings. Ignoring these issues in favour of fulfilling a quota compels us to caution 'less haste - more speed'. Surely other development opportunities on the South side of the village retain the village balance and avoid these issues.

Warwick District Council Local Plan, Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation

1. 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, as a last resort in cases of exceptional need and where there are no alternatives available. The importance of the Church setting to village identity compounds this responsibility on planners.

There are views from Southam Road across the site to the open countryside surrounding the village and the land provides a setting for the Church. From church Lane the rural surroundings of the Church are even more apparent. These views are integral to the listing. The Church cannot be judged in planning without reference to its setting which visually includes the whole of the proposed Gladman site.

The proposed housing estate will be next to the Church. Villagers will face it head on looking out from St Nicholas Church, running against Council statutory duty to protect the setting of a listed building. Current open countryside would be replaced with a housing estate, in direct contravention of Council duty to protect the setting of a listed building in planning. The wider Church Fields setting, including the Church, the Water Tower, thatched cottages and countryside, are integral to the setting of the listed buildings surrounding this proposed development. Any development would run counter to the duty of the Council to protect that setting.

The site is bordered by many listed buildings, including the Church. The Council is under a statutory duty to protect the historic setting of these listed buildings. Any development of this site will permanently alter the setting and thereby runs against its statutory duty, namely Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) and PPG16 Archaeology and Planning (1990). The historic environment is a shared resource. This site gives distinctiveness, meaning and quality to Radford Semele, providing a sense of continuity and a source of identity. It is a social and economic asset and a resource for learning and enjoyment. Heritage values represent a public interest in places, regardless of ownership. The use of law, public policy and public investment is justified to protect that fundamental public interest.

2. 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.

3. 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 proposed Gladman site retains the same characteristics already firmly rejected by the Council as part of its own detailed planning analysis, including provision of a wholly insufficient village Green/public space. 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."

4. 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.

5. 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. In addition, if chosen as a solution, Church Lane will have to be considerably widened to accommodate cars exiting to/from the development. This will involve the cutting down of ancient trees which presently adorn the lane and the widening will erode permanently the direct setting directly in front of the Church and to the side of the White Lion. The views into the Church from Southam road will be destroyed by a modern wide access road. This runs directly against Council duty to protect the setting of the Church and other listed buildings which demarcate the borders of the Church Fields setting. The alternative proposal, proffered by Gladman, to provide access opposite the White Lion is, worst case, dangerous and best case will result in diminished traffic flow, whilst equally damaging the setting of the key listed building within the Village. Highways have historically, and rightly, rejected any plans for access that require roundabouts or diminution of traffic flows through the Village because of its key role for commuters out of Leamington to the Fosse. 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 practical reality of cars and lorries travelling at 40mph plus through the blind bend is taken into account in calculations. This exit would be dangerous.

Assuming a housing development of 100 houses, under planning guidelines this requires an allowance for an additional 200+ cars. These vehicles will exit onto the Southam Road/School Lane/Church Lane junction or directly opposite the White Lion. This is an extremely busy stretch of Southam Road nearby to a Primary School. Traffic at this junction is already at pressure. This development will (1) increase the risk of an accident occurring as children and Villagers regularly use this stretch of road to get to/from school and Church and (2) impact negatively on traffic flows for villagers and commuters. The viability of any proposal to ameliorate traffic impact has not been proven as no plans have been submitted by developers. Detailed planning to create a new junction between School Lane, Church Lane and Southam Road has not been provided. Alternative plans by Gladman have not been submitted and have been informally rejected by highways on grounds of safety and traffic flow. Traffic Reports have not been published to analyse the impacts of traffic and junctions to allow the Council to properly make any recommendation. Gladman proposals for 130 dwellings would increase this further.

Any development of Church Lane or access roads across fields adjacent to St Nicholas would damage the listed setting of the Church. Church Lane is intrinsic to the visual and secluded setting of St Nicolas and its development as an access point would undermine Council statutory responsibility to protect the setting of the Church. It currently provides only minor vehicular access to the Church and small residential development and is primarily used for pedestrian access to the Church for school children and the community.

6. The open land extending to the north of Southam Road and Offchurch Lane is only broken by the outlier of development around Radford Hall and the Church. The proposals would close and irreversibly harm this open outlook damaging the wider listed setting of the church including the Water Tower, White Lion Pub, thatched cottages and countryside setting. The damage to heritage and village identity runs against council statutory requirement to protect the setting of listed buildings and ignores the Council statutory obligation to prioritise alternative sites including that Taylor Wimpey site put forward by the Parish Council on the main Southam Road leading from the Village on the Fosse.
7. 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.
8. The Church Fields are fundamental to the identity of who we are as a village. When people think of Radford Semele they think of the Church and its setting in countryside. Planners are required to heed heritage of this importance by statute under listed buildings legislation to ensure its preservation. The status of the Church, and its setting, is the single most important heritage asset in the Village. No possible high density modern development in this site is appropriate or possible in conformity with Council obligations to protect the listed buildings.

9. 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.
10. Other potential sites have not been considered sufficiently or have been discounted without comprehensive consideration. The Southam Road Taylor Wimpey sites (East of the Village) are, in light of new and recent studies, viable with simple road adjustments and a reduction to 30mph which should be expected as the new site becomes part of the Village envelope. These sites provide for properly managed expansion of the village in future years whilst protecting the Church and its setting as a balance to that development. Whilst alternative sites are available the Council is under a statutory duty to prioritise their development under the Local Plan.
11. We are being asked to consider this without proper information of how any development will look; what the traffic impact will be - and alternative options to this "preferred" site chosen by the Council.

12. It is accepted in the evidence provided by WDC for the Local Plan that this site provides no option to meet future planning need. The Village will need to expand in years to come. A decision to build on the last open space within the Village, and its historic shared hub, runs counter to the statutory duty of the Council to plan in the long-term interests of the Village. Other sites are available which would allow for Village expansion in future years.

13. It is/has always been critical to strategic planning to protect this open setting as 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.
14. These fields have been enjoyed by the Village since medieval times because of their importance to the Village. The village is mentioned in the Domesday Book. This is a key part of the Council's duty to protect heritage under the listed setting of the Church.
15. 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.

16. We are being asked to consider this without proper information of how any development will look, what the traffic impact will be and alternative option.

17. 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 would put lives at risk and further breach guidelines. A study of carbon monoxide impacts would be required as part of any traffic study on this area. Further, increased traffic flow, and vibration pressures causes by diminution of traffic flows, would impact on the seclusion and setting of these listed buildings as well as their foundations/building security.

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 am writing to express my concerns and objection to the proposed housing development on 'Site 1' - East of Church Lane in Radford Semele.

The site is an area of natural beauty and any development will have a significantly negative impact on the rural landscape. The village is currently a beautiful jigsaw of different housing styles and ages, all of which work together to create a charming rural location for living. Adding an estate of >100 houses will totally destroy the character of the area as well as habitats for wildlife. I am currently unaware of any ecological surveys that have been carried out but there are likely to be several protected species that will have to be considered before any development could begin.

The development will increase traffic passing through the village dramatically - already a busy road, particularly at commuting and school times, any access point onto Southam Road is likely to be extremely hazardous, especially at these busy times, in particular for those on the school run. The school itself is already over-capacity and has a waiting list, there have been no plans expressed to expand the school(this itself would be nigh on impossible as the site has no room for expansion) or fund any more staff, therefore with >100 new households, many of which with children it begs the question where they are meant to go for schooling? Most probably increasing traffic on the roads as people are forced to drive out of the village to other primary schools.

see attached

see attched

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached