1) Land to the east of Church Lane

Object

Representation ID: 61871

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Bradshaw

Site 1 would create total traffic chaos within the village as well as ruining the views for those travelling through.

Object

Representation ID: 61872

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr T D Hickey

-The church setting will permanently be disfigured by the new development.
-The density of housing proposed is out of proportion with the facilities available in the village (i.e. transport, school and social facilities).

Object

Representation ID: 61876

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Janet Revell

I object because:
-It will be harder to join the main Southam Road due to extra traffic at School Lane/Church Lane junction.
-There will be different style homes next to the origonal village homes as you drive into the village and the view of the church will be effected from the main road.

Object

Representation ID: 61878

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Mavis Williams

-Site 2 and 3 should be the preferred option as recommended by the Parish Council

Support

Representation ID: 61879

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Thomas

The preferred option is reasonable as:

-Any option which impacts on the traffic on School Lane/Lewis Road should be avoided.
-The roads and paths are not designed for increased traffic flow in the heart of the village.
-No houses should be built which brings the village closer to Leamington/Sydenham/Whitnash.

Object

Representation ID: 61880

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Clifton

Recommend Site 2 as Site 1 will impact the historic centre of the village and listed buildings of the Church and Pubs.

Object

Representation ID: 61884

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr David Chater

-I believe that the central part of the village around The White Lion/Southam Road should be protected from development.
-This area represents the best of Radford Semele in terms of views, history, character and must be protected so that future generations can enjoy this space as we all do today.
-The separate identity of Radford Semele is important otherwise it will become a residential suburb of Leamington Spa.
-I recognise that it is Government Policy which is delivering the housing policy not a local need. Traffic density at key times in the day is a problem for working people.

Object

Representation ID: 61885

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Margherita K Dove

-Access to site 1 would be a problem, there have been 2 accidents around the site that I know of.
-In heavy rain, storm waters run down School Lane and Church Lane and into the field- the drains cannot cope.
-There would need to be a mixture of housing whichever Site is chosen.

Support

Representation ID: 61886

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Taylor

The main reason I support option 1 is because it will not generate more traffic through the centre of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 61888

Received: 14/01/2014

Respondent: Robin Robertson

-Development on this Site will spoil the centre of Radford Semele, close to two important Grade II listed buildings.
-Concerned about developer activities. Would like to think that they are not trying to influence the planning process to persuit their own objectives.

Support

Representation ID: 61889

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr W Weald

Supports the proposed development next to the church.

Object

Representation ID: 61891

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Jean Daphne Loveridge

-Object to the building of houses as it would spoil the only beautiful view left in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 61895

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Thomas & Samantha Maby

We object to Site 1 as wel feel it will destroy the feel of the village as you drive though.
We are also concerned about the volume of traffic on Church Lane and access to the Site.

Object

Representation ID: 61896

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Leslie Ann Tatham

The village is divided by a very busy main road, The A425. There have been numerous accidents mainly near to the pub. Only last week a woman on a motorbike was seriously injured and is still in hospital.

Pedestrians take their lives in their hands to cross the A425. To create a large new estate on the North East side of the road would unnecessarily expose a lot more pedestrians to a very real danger. The same goes to cyclists.

Object

Representation ID: 61897

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael Smedley

-It is the duty of the council to protect the church setting.
-The type, allocation and density of housing is inappropriate for this setting of a listed building.
-The proposed site retains the same characteristics already rejected by the council as part of its own planning analysis.
-Vehicular access suggestions are quite unsuitable in every way. With provision of 200 cars, it will need an access road from a new round-about sited on the junction of Offchurch Road and Southam Road, with appropriate pedestrian facilities.
-Any development of the site will increase the drainage issues already faced by the village.

Support

Representation ID: 61898

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Paul Else

-Would have the least visual and traffic effect on the village.
-It affects the least number of people in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 61899

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Lee & Jodie Stephens

-Object to Site 1 as concerned by the traffic that will be created at the bottom of School Lane.
-Recommend that Site 2 or 3 are the preferred option.

Support

Representation ID: 61900

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Ms Linda Sullivan

I support building on Site 1.

Object

Representation ID: 61901

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Kelvin & Christine Sparrowhawk & Davison

-I object to all the sites Church Lane or Offchurch Lane should not be the Route onto the site.
-The roads systems, schools and doctors could not cope with 100 new dwellings.

Support

Representation ID: 61904

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Trevor Betts

-The village is in need of additional housing as, if left, it will be full of elderly residents. This development would give an opportunity for younger people to stay in the village, therefore priority should be given to younger people in the village.

Support

Representation ID: 61905

Received: 17/01/2014

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

-Should Radford Semele have to have a new development of houses, Site 1 is the best site for the village, as a whole.
-Less impact on the main village.
-Understand there is a need for new housing and affordable housing for younger people starting out needs to be addressed.

Object

Representation ID: 61906

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Maurice Tatham

-The protected and listed buildings are part of the village's heritage. The proposed access would cut across the ancient integrity and appearance of the listed buildings and the site is restricted to one access. A road junction would be treacherous and very ill advised.
-Listed buildings are close to the road and received vibrations and pollution which could impact medieval foundations.
-Development would ruin the ambience of the setting and be described as a planning blight.
-David Cameron on CountryFiles item (12.01.14) said that villages will be expected to provide what houses they need.

Object

Representation ID: 61907

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Prof Donovan Kelly

The principle reasons for my objection to Site 1 are:
Road congestion and consequent environmental degradation and hazard. Southam Road is already a bottleneck and to add 200 vehicles will create rush hour gridlock, more noise and higher likelihood of an accident.
-Loss of Rural Character including useful farmland. Views of the church would also be lost, making the church effectively an anomaly in a dormitory housing estate. This whole area has national heritage value.
-Local amenities are already limited or at capacity and the village has no local medical practise.
-The proposed site needs archaeological assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 61909

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr James Fleuty

Warwick District Councils preferred option 1 would cause 'high visual impact' in Radford Semele. Significant restructuring of the junctions with Southam Road of Offchurch Lane, School Lane and Church End would be required and would be out of keeping in a village setting.

Object

Representation ID: 61954

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Desmond & Gloria Thornton

Object to Site 1 as recommend Sites 2 and 3.

Object

Representation ID: 61958

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Ian Machell

-It is not appropriate for mixed housing.
-The character of the village would be lost.

Object

Representation ID: 61959

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Gary & Karen Marks

-Sites 2 and 3 should be built on as recommended by the Parish Council.

Object

Representation ID: 61984

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Galliford

-The setting of the church and surrounding listed buildings will be damaged.

-The site is open countryside and defines the village ensuring its separation from Leamington Spa.

-Traffic on the A425 is dangerous and children/residents would be put in danger by having to cross from the site to the village amenities. Any traffic mitigation methods would cause further congestion on the A425.

-100 houses in the middle of a village would add to the traffic in the village.

-Stansgate is planning a balancing pool by church. This could be dangerous for children.

-Development will worsen the existing flooding issues.

Object

Representation ID: 62012

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Dyson

-Site will have the maximum visual impact on the village.
-Significant traffic impact.
-Agricultural land that is currently being farmed. It gives Radford Semele its feel as a village.

Object

Representation ID: 62072

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Philip Cobourne

-The proposed development site adjacent to the church is tragic for what is in effect the last remaining picturesque part of the village and should not be exploited either for housing that could be located elsewhere or to fall prey to unscrupulous housing developers who will undoubtedly not invest in the necessary levels of infrastructure at whichever site is eventually chosen.