15. Radford Semele
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64540
Received: 27/05/2014
Respondent: Mrs Daphne Jean Loveridge
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
There appears to be an error on the local plan for Radford Semele. The village envelope encompasses all the properties in The Valley,Leigh Fosse and Tinkers Close. We were informed at a public meeting if this area were not to be developed then the envelope would revert to its original state. I should be grateful if this could be carried out forthwith.
I might point out that I live in The Valley and will be affected by this but have had no official notification whatsoever.
There appears to be an error on the local plan for Radford Semele. The village envelope encompasses all the properties in The Valley,Leigh Fosse and Tinkers Close. We were informed at a public meeting if this area were not to be developed then the envelope would revert to its original state. I should be grateful if this could be carried out forthwith.
I might point out that I live in The Valley and will be affected by this but have had no official notification whatsoever.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64876
Received: 14/06/2014
Respondent: Mrs Tracy Pullen
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The village envelope should be reverted to its original position at Tinkers Close.
I am Objecting to the moving of the village envelope in the Valley in Radford Semele. Stephen Hey from Warwick district councils planning office assured me at a public meeting attended by Radford Semele Parish council and attended by some 120 or more residents that the boundary had been moved temporarily to allow for an application from Mr S wood of Tinkers close to submit his land and land adjacent to Leigh Fosse for housing. As his proposal was rejected on the grounds of flooding and other reasons Mr Hey assured me and a packed village hall that the boundary would be reinstated as it is now. I was assured no one need to do anything or to complain formally. It would seem however that the boundary reinstatement has been overlooked.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64877
Received: 15/06/2014
Respondent: James Hodder
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Draft Local Plan is unsound as it does not meet The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) criteria by leaving the boundary in its new position. Failing to reinstate the boundary also renders the Plan unsound as it does not adhere to Policy DS4 in relation to Spatial Strategies; section 2. - the need for new development to be near amenities, and section 6. - High Landscape Value, nor Policy DS11 in relation to Flood Risk and Habitat Assessment.
My representation concerns the recent extension of the Village Boundary along the entire length of The Valley, and including the property "Tinker's Close". Previously, the Southern edge of the boundary used to skirt the back gardens of St. Nicholas Road to meet The Valley adjacent to house No. 3, whereupon it continued in a Westerly direction back towards Lewis Road.
At the event on 7th January, residents were advised that this extension was a "Minor Modification" to the village boundary, necessary to support an application for housing development on a small piece of land adjacent to "Tinker's Close", that had been submitted as a potential development site within the new Local Plan. Residents were further advised that, as this development site had been discounted at an early stage, there was no further need for the extension to the boundary. Indeed, when asked at the event, a WDC employee stated that the fact that it remained on the plan, was a "mistake". My conversation with Ms. O'Connor seemed (to me) to broadly confirm this statement.
In Summary, my representation is that the Draft Local Plan is unsound as it does not meet The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) criteria by leaving the boundary in its new position. Failing to return the boundary to its original position also renders the Plan unsound as it does not adhere to Policy DS4 in relation to Spatial Strategies; section 2. - the need for new development to be near amenities, and section 6. - High Landscape Value, nor Policy DS11 in relation to Floor Risk and Habitat Assessment.
Leaving the boundary in its new position will, if not now, then at some future date, encourage inappropriate development, contrary to NPPF and WDC policies that recognise the importance of boundaries, in " ..helping to channel development .. to the most appropriate areas ... ". The NPPF goes on to advise against "unrestricted sprawl", and the need to "safeguard the countryside", stating that boundaries "should only be altered in exceptional circumstances".
The Valley is a known Flood Risk Area, identified as such in the Local Plan "Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation", where several houses were flooded in 2007, and a subsequent planning application was refused for this reason. Earlier planning applications have also been refused by WDC Planners as they represented ribbon development into the countryside, with detrimental impact on wildlife habitat.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65295
Received: 25/06/2014
Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd
Agent: Delta Planning
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
A C Lloyd Homes object to the Policy Map for Radford Semele. As set out in the objection to Policy DS11, the Map should include the A C Lloyd site at Spring Lane and the settlement boundary should be adjusted accordingly.
A C Lloyd Homes object to the Policy Map for Radford Semele. As set out in the objection to Policy DS11, the Map should include the A C Lloyd site at Spring Lane and the settlement boundary should be adjusted accordingly.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65691
Received: 20/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Brian Loveridge
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The respondent is dismayed to discover that his property at The Valley , Radford Semele is now within the Growth Village envelope as defined by policy H10 as this has implications for future planning decisions. The objector does not consider that the residents of this locality were consulted on this matter.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66492
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Gladman Developments
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Envelope for Radford Semele is not supported since it does not include the land to the east of Church Lane for development
See attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66532
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Barton Willmore
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Seeking agreement to add land to provide residential capacity in Radford Semele in next Plan period or safeguarded to meet longer term. if the Council considers that this additional area is not required or appropriate for future residential development then this land could be used to provide: a landscape buffer and open space; a community use in agreement with the Parish Council; or a combination of these elements.
See attached