1) Land to the east of Church Lane

Support

Representation ID: 61599

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Lester

-This seems to be the site that would have the least impact on the village.

Object

Representation ID: 61600

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Linda Simons

-The annihilation of what has been considered for many years as the 'village green' and it is the last open space in the village.
-Cause irreversible harm to open outlook and listen setting of the church and its surroundings.
-High visibility impact of over 100 similarly styled properties ruining the heritage and village identity (i.e. White Lion, thatched cottages)
-Outpouring of significant numbers of vehicles from the proposed development on to the Southam Road. Area is already pressurised and any increase to the 'standing traffic' could heighten the risk of accidents, particularly on the blind bend at Manor House.

Support

Representation ID: 61601

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Coop

-Will cause the least long term disruption to the village.
-Majority of functional, rather than aesthetic, objections will apply to the other potential sites and particularly surface water drainage which is already grossly inadequate for sites 2, 3 and 4.
-The new residents will have considerably safer vehicular and pedestrian access from Site 1.
-The aesthetic objections will apply to all sites for different reasons but will apply to fewer dwellings in site 1, than to other sites.
-The scenic views enjoyed at the moment will be enjoyed by a great number of new villagers, which ever site is chosen.

Object

Representation ID: 61612

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Diane H Aries

-Developing Site 1 would negatively impact the village's identity, heritage, landscape and setting of the church and other listed buildings.
-The A425 cannot accommodate additional traffic and many junctions have limited visibility creating danger for pedestrians and drivers.
-Site 1 provides flood relief and is an important habitat for bats and birds.
-The site has archaeological importance.
-Insufficient infrastructure exists in the village to support new housing.
-The A425 separates the site from the village and its services causing risk to pedestrians crossing and encouraging residents to travel to supermarkets.
-1994 Planning Inspectors Report rejected development of the site.

Support

Representation ID: 61622

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Woodhead

-The church would still be able to be seen over the green field from the main Leamington/Southam Road.
-The church would be integrated into the main village.
-There would be no linkage with Leamington.
-The development would only be seen as you enter the village from Leamington and would be partially hidden by the existing houses in Offchurch Lane.
-Traffic lights at the existing pedestrian crossing at Southam Road would work well ensuring pedestrian safety for school children.
-Proposed car park in Church Lane is an excellent idea.
-Development would all be contained within present village boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 61628

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Sutton

-This is the completely the wrong site chosen as it will inject over 200 added vehicles to be routed through the village confines.

Object

Representation ID: 61629

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Cathrine Clark

-If permission is given for the preferred site, it will be an accident waiting to happen as the Offchurch Lane/White Lion junction is already a hazard with one accident already in 2014.

Support

Representation ID: 61632

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Andrew Bishop

-It is important to try and limit development to within the village and the site meets this requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 61634

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Norton

-Need to protect the identity of the village as a district from Leamington Spa, the setting and countryside seclusion of the church, which is listed and the village's heritage of open fields.
-If future development to the village is necessary this site cannot be expanded.
-An additional road joining the A425 in this localised area will be a severe safety hazard.
-There are known sewage, drainage and flooding issues.
-Pollution and noise will impact on those of use living adjacent to the A425.

Object

Representation ID: 61635

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Norman Hyde

-Residents and tourists enjoy our history. Once it is gone, it is forever.
-Potential archaeological medieval remains are on the site.
-Loss of setting as summed in the 1994 Planning Inspector's report.
-Access and traffic. At peak times traffic on the Southam Road will be worsened. Access from Offchurch Lane will be most difficult leading to even more accidents at this dangerous junction.

Object

Representation ID: 61636

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Peter Stocker

-Road widening of Church Lane with removal of matured trees, without being a problem to WDC is in contradiction of a 65 year old Walnut Tree in the front garden of this address has a preservation order on it.
-Ruination of the open views across to the countryside, ruining the area close to the church, which according to established guidelines should be safeguarded.
-Traffic problems will be made worse wherever the access points are.
-Area is a natural rainwater holding area.
-The area should be a public open space, suitably landscaped.

Object

Representation ID: 61637

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Alwyn Jones

-The increase traffic would cause a great deal of congestion.
-The safety aspect in an already very dangerous junction would be greatly increased.
-The tail backs at busy times go right back to Leamington and the Fosse Way in the other directing. Standing traffic would cause a great deal more pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 61646

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs S. J Harvey

-Development will permanently ruin the setting of the church and other surrounding listed buildings. The area contributes to the identity of the village. Planners have a duty and responsibility to protect this.
-The site is of medieval interest.
-The proposed access is dangerous. Exiting from Offchurch Lane is already difficult and dangerous due to the blind junction for traffic approaching. More development and commuters would add to this congestion.
-The sited pedestrian crossing near Church Lane will add to congestion.
-The mix of types and density of the proposed housing is inappropriate to a rural site adjacent to listed buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 61654

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Watson

-St Nicholas Church and the listed building nearby, together with Church Fields, represent the historic, medieval heart of the village. It is a source of solitude and tranquillity for residents, walkers and church goes.
-The view of the church is crucial to the village's identity. High density housing would be inappropriate for such an ancient and lovely spot.
-The traffic produced by the proposed dwellings would impact heavily on Southam Road.
-The Offchurch Lane junction can be dangerous and accidents have occurred. The White Lion pub is on a blind bend and has its dangers at peak times.

Object

Representation ID: 61668

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Miss Helen Aries

-The setting of the church should be protected and not spoilt by an inappropriate housing estate.
-The area gives Radford Semele its character as a village.
-The views from Offchurch Lane will be spoilt.
-The bus runs very infrequently and when it does run it is often full. The service cannot cope with more people.
-The traffic is already very dangerous and the roads make it difficult for me to see properly.
-Putting in a new junction opposite the pub or changing the layout of School Lane/Church Lane junction will make children's journey to the school very hazardous.

Object

Representation ID: 61676

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Arthur Deeming

-Lewis Road is now too overcrowded with parked and moving cars, it is an accident waiting to happen.
-The Southam Road is also very busy; any extra pressure from new home owners would increase this pressure greatly.
-The views across the church and countryside will be just another blot on the landscape.
-The local school is at capacity and there is no doctor's surgery. The local pub is too expensive that very few villagers use it.

Support

Representation ID: 61684

Received: 27/01/2014

Respondent: Khai Tran

-Support the 100 houses proposed on Land east of Church Lane to the rear of Offchurch Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 61687

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Michael Barry Trinder

Site 2 should not be developed on because:
-The site is outside of the village envelope and extends the village boundary.
-The layout/visual effect would be an urban spread.
-Development would cause habitat loss, an increase in flooding, loss of agricultural land, affect recreational users of the area and would impact the openness of the landscape.
-Developing Site 2 with the properties proposed would distort Radford Semele's housing mix balance.
-Access would be difficult and dangerous.
-Flooding would increase.
-The location is not suitable for families due to its proximity to the dangerous Southam Road.

Object

Representation ID: 61694

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs A Wilson

Object to Site 1 due to its negative impact on village life:
-Traffic congestion.
-Negative impact on views of St Nicholas Church from the A425 and properties in this area.
-Increase flood potential as land acts as a natural drainage point.
-Accidents due to increased traffic at a critical point on the A425.
-

Object

Representation ID: 61699

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Matthew Iredale

Object to the preferred option for housing due to:
-Heritage and setting
-Highways
-1994 Planning Inspectors Planning Report

Object

Representation ID: 61700

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Yvonne Iredale

Objec to the preferred option due to:
-Heritage and Setting
-Visual Amenity
-Flooding
-Highways
-Access to Amenities
-1994 Planning Inspectors Report
-Traffic
-Heritage
-Destroy the Village

Object

Representation ID: 61702

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr J C Clark

-Current open countryside would be replaced by a housing estate, in direct contravention of Council duty to protect the setting of a listed building in planning and against the PPG15 and PPG16.
-The type, allocation and density required are inappropriate for this setting. The site cannot meet the required levels and types of housing required.
-The extra traffic created by the new housing exiting onto the South Road/School Lane/Church Lane junction or opposite the White Lion on an already busy stretch of road would be dangerous, increasing accident risks to motorists and pedestrians using this stretch to get to/from school.

Object

Representation ID: 61704

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Owen David

-The development would damage the heritage of Radford by harming the outlook around the village.
-WDC has a statutory obligation to priorities other less harmful sites.
-Any new access road will cut across the setting of the Grade II Listed Buildings and this is against the duty of the council to protect the setting.
-The church fields are fundamental to the identity of the village and planners have a duty to heed this heritage. Building homes goes against this.

Support

Representation ID: 61721

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Val Gatfield

-Do not consider any of the sites as suitable for further development but where additional housing is compulsory, Site 1 would appear the most suitable.
-All sites will lead to traffic congestion in the village but there is already a pedestrian access across the Southam Road by controlled lights to allow school children to cross and other village amenities to be reached. There is no suitable crossing place for sites 2 or 3 and even widening the pavement would not be possible at the point between Hill Cottage and Apple Tree Cottage.
-Being a regular pedestrian on this stretch, I can vouch for the speed and volume of traffic, even within the 30mph limit.
-Site 1 is also an infill to the village without breaching current boundaries extending unnecessarily into the Green Belt. No further large development of the village is satisfactory in traffic safety terms.

Support

Representation ID: 61722

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs V Yardley

-Site 1 is the only site that has a plus side because it already has an absolute necessary controlled school crossing and easy walking access to the bus stops.

Support

Representation ID: 61734

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Val Gatfield

-Site 1 is also an infill to the village without breaching current boundaries extending unnecessarily into Green Belt. No further large development of the village is satisfactory in traffic safety terms.
-All Sites will lead to traffic congestion in the village but there is already pedestrian access across the Southam Road by controlled lights to allow school children from Site 1 to cross and allow village amenities to be reached. There is no suitable crossing place on Sites 2 and 3. There is also a lot of traffic that travels very fast.

Object

Representation ID: 61744

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Alan Jones

-The site is an iconic marker for the village and the open space on entrance/exit to the village is vital to maintain the village's identity.
-The church has been cherished since Anglo Saxon times.
-Congestion on to/from the Southam Road from Offchurch Lane, School Lane and Kingshurst creates delays. It is difficult to join these roads and frustration has caused errors of judgement and potential for accidents. Any access from the site would worsen these problems and impact the lives of existing villagers.
-There is not a worse place for development in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 61746

Received: 10/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Richard Buckingham

-The proposal is aggressive, forceful, over ambitious and poorly communicated.
-Gladman are being bullish with their proposal.
-The volume of housing is too much compared to the existing local population density
-The Gladman proposal equates to a development that has more than 3 'Gladman -Homes' for every existing home in the area, this is not comparable or sympathetic.
-The proposal would destroy the character of the village.
-The proposal would worsen traffic in the village.
-There are many listed properties in the immediate area, which deserve better than to be crowded out by a mass-built densely packed, modern housing estate.

Support

Representation ID: 61747

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Roy Gatfield

-I support Site 1, it is an infill to the village within walking distance of the church, school, shops etc without extending further into greenbelt.
-I also feel the alterations to the road system required would have a calming effect on the traffic passing through the village as the existing 30mph limit is not adhered to.

Object

Representation ID: 61751

Received: 19/02/2014

Respondent: Mr Peter Clarke

-No agreement with the Highways department regarding access to the site. This cannot be considered the preferred site without access having been considered.
-Accessing Southam Road is already difficult, any plan to put another junction onto the road or change the Offchurch Lane junction will great total gridlock within the village.
-130 dwellings on the site would be a total eyesore on the village.