BASE HEADER

Other

ID sylw: 105832

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kathlyn Craig

I have the following comments on a specific site proposal and Housing Land
Availability Assessment (HELAA) results:
Ref 169 - Land east of Station Lane

My personal interest in this specific development site proposal is
I live in Station Lane and overlook this site.
The grounds for objection are as follows:
The objections to the development of a settlement at site C1 apply similarly to site reference
169, as any large number of new houses built in the village has the same impact on the whole
area. But site 169 has extra problems. The access to the site is from a narrow country lane,
wherever you choose to place it. The extra number of cars trying to enter or leave the site,
particularly at rush hour and school time, would cause serious congestion. That is without
considering the delivery vehicles, oil delivery tankers, tradesmen's lorries, bin collecting vehicles
etc, all using the same access point. The land running alongside the canal is a flood plain, and
the land beside that floods when it rains. In addition, this site is the last remaining piece of the
medieval Kingswood Common, which itself was part of the ancient historic Forest of Arden... the
Kings Wood. The boundary of the site bordering Station Lane is lined with century old oak trees,
protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The surrounding area includes a Canal Conservation
area, two National Trust medieval properties, a Conservation Area around the 1200-year old
church, other listed buildings, and an ancient woodland. This site is also Green Belt land. It is
home to a diverse number of species, including Muntjac deer, Fallow deer, Foxes, Buzzards,
Tawny owls, Barn owls, the occasional Hare, Pheasants, Woodpeckers, and numerous
squirrels and small birds. Otters are now living on the canal. With so many of our native species
endangered, the loss of yet another habitat is to be avoided, surely.

In conclusion, I believe these objections are important because:
Lapworth is unable to sustain such a large number of new residents, possibly 6 or 7 times more
that the existing population of the village. Such a level of investment would be needed to
improve road, transport, education, retail, and utilities, as to make the scheme unviable. The
character of the village would be irrevocably changed, and the Green Belt compromised, to the
detriment of all.