Mod PM15 - Policies Map 15 Radford Semele

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 68487

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Melanie Dickenson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The increase to the Village Envelope and the increase in houses on the site South of School Lane will result in more traffic down the already narrow and dangerous School Lane which will result in more road traffic accidents. It will also increase the risk of flooding to the land South of School Lane due to the lack of containment of surface water run-off. It will also add unwarranted pressures to the local Primary School which will not be able to cope with the increased local Village population.

Full text:

The growth of the Radford Semele Village boundary to the land South of School will cause the following:
1. Increase the already dangerous access onto the main road at the end of School Lane
2. Increase the risk of accidents outside the Primary School both during and after construction.
3. Cause a large risk of flooding to the land to the South of School Lane - The Valley and Valley Road - due to the lack of containment of surface water run-off on this land.
4. Increased burden on the local Primary School which won't be able to cope with the spiraling number of houses being built within the Village.
5. Push the Village boundary very close to the new Sydenham housing estate currently being built which will visually merge the Village to Sydenham.

The narrow and restricted School Lane is already aa dangerous road around school times and any further development at the end of this road is dangerous and will result in more Road Traffic Accidents.

The Local Plan submitted by Warwick District Council mentions that the development is to be capped on the site South of School Lane due to pressures on the Primary School. If this change to the village envelope is made this pressure will have been deliberately ignored by Warwwick District Council.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 68782

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Damien Talue

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Overdevelopment of site
Plan does not distribute development across the District fairly
School capacity insufficient to cope with increased residents
Access and road safety concerns
Surface water flooding affects site
Only 50 houses should be allowed
Problem of school places

Full text:

se attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 68826

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Thomas

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

object to allocation: -
- coalescence with Sydenham
- flood risk exacerbated by additional housing
- lack of capacity in local schools
- additional cars generated by development will adversely affect access to / from School Lane

Full text:

See attached
Section 7 Additional Sheet
H52 forms an expansion of a parcel of land which failed to get planning permission with Warwick District Council and then went to the Inspectorate and gained outline planning permission. We are in agreement with WDC on their original objections. In addition the following form a list of objections to this site:
a) Coalescence with Sydenham. Consideration should not only be given to the shortest distance from Sydenham to Radford Semele but also to the average distance between closest line of houses and most importantly the area of land between the two. Each time a parcel of land is allocated to housing on the west of Radford Semele, that "area" of separation gets eroded.
b) In the past few years there has been severe flooding on The Valley, Valley Road and the bottom of Williams Road. The reduction of open land to the West of Williams Road is likely to worsen that, especially the area towards the bottom of the site which is also the bottom of a hill.
c) With approx. 120 new houses on this joint development there are likely to be around 34 primary age children, none of which will ever be likely to find a place at Radford Semele School. The School by 2017 is likely to be substantially full, especially since there will be an extra 17 or so children to try to accommodate from the new development at W/14/0322. Once children are accepted into the Reception class they usually remain in the school for 7 years. That means that for at least the first 7 years the only children from the new joint development who have a chance to join the local school will be in the Reception class.
d) I have spoken to the Manager of the Pre-School on the site of Radford Semele School who informs me that there are currently no spaces at the Pre-School to accommodate children from these new developments, a situation which is likely to worsen with the government extending nursery education grant from 15 hours to 30, in September 2017. Therefore all new families requiring nursery care will also have to find it outside the village making the traffic problems worse.
e) Access can only be gained through School Lane. This will worsen an already extremely difficult situation at School start/end times which is already due to get worse once the land houses are built on the parcel which already holds planning permission (W/14/0433). As explained in points 3 & 4 above, this means that approx. 34 extra cars journeys will be using school lane at exactly the busiest times of the day to exit/enter to take their children to a school outside of the village, in addition to nursery school journeys. As the Inspector pointed out (Appeal Ref: APP/T3725/A/14/2221858), the situation is already bad and this information should be sufficient to indicate that it will significantly worsen at precisely the worse times of day. I doubt that the School Lane/Southam Road junction can be widened to incorporate a 2 lane exit from School Lane. Without this the situation will be hopeless.
In conclusion, the separation between Radford Semele and Sydenham is being constantly eroded to such a point that with the new proposals there will be only one field protecting the integrity of the village from losing its identity. WDC have sited the Primary School and Pre-School at Radford Semele to be an important reason for identifying the village as a prime location for new housing. It should be understood that almost all of the primary school and Pre-School aged children who move into this new development (and any subsequent developments) will not gain a place at the school and will need to travel outside the village for primary schooling making a very poor situation on School Lane a lot worse or untenable. This situation would take at least 7 years to rectify for each new development and that assumes that the school has enough capacity to displace children outside the village in favour of ones inside the village over the next 10 years. It is unlikely that WDC have consulted with the Primary School to ascertain how many new children could be accommodated in the short/medium/long term.

Attachments:

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69910

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Representation Summary:

support policy map allocation site H52 and change to village envelope boundary

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70034

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Alison Talue

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to allocation: -
- overdevelopment - requirement for 50 units in settlement. Permission granted for 60
- Local Plan meant to distribute development across district
- amended village boundary adversely affects integrity of village
- insufficient school capacity
- expansion of existing Spring Lane site - note that development capped because of school capacity issues
- unsafe access onto highway
- issues with surface water flooding that will be worsened with additional runoff

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70090

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Jennifer Instone

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The level of development proposed in this area is too much. More brownfield sites should be developed and utilised for flats.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70244

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Andrew Instone

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Do not like development on green belt

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: