15. Radford Semele

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.

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.

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.

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.

see attached

See attached

See attached