BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 106778

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kassie Chana

I wish to formally object to the proposed new settlement location at ‘Land South of Kingswood’ (Reference C1); I believe the site is entirely undevelopable and unsuitable. My concerns relate to a range of issues, including land ownership, the Green Belt designation, infrastructure limitations, environmental impacts, and the potential harm to heritage assets. I have summarised and expanded on these key concerns below:

.Land Ownership & Viability:
The issue of land assembly is crucial. With over 25 different landowners in the proposed settlement area and none of them currently willing to submit land for development, the feasibility of this site being developed becomes highly questionable. For the site to be considered "developable," the NPPF requires there to be a reasonable prospect that it will be available and could be viably developed. Since the land has not been made available, this would suggest the site is not suitable or developable for housing at this time.
.Green Belt Considerations:
The fact that 'Land South of Kingswood' lies within the Green Belt is a significant concern. According to the NPPF, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, which need to be fully evidenced and justified. There are other alternative sites for new settlements that are not in the Green Belt, making it difficult to justify the need to release this land for development. The Green Belt assessment further highlights the site's contribution to safeguarding the countryside, adding weight to the argument against its development.
.Infrastructure & Accessibility:
The infrastructure in the Kingswood area, especially transportation links, seems insufficient to support a large-scale new settlement. The Old Warwick Road, which is the main access route to the village, has several limitations, including narrow bridges and restricted access for high-sided vehicles. The need for extensive new infrastructure to connect the site to the broader transportation network, including the railway and canals, makes the development even more challenging. Additionally, the remote location of the site relative to the strategic road network and major employment centers would hinder its accessibility and long-term sustainability.
.Sustainability and Transport Links:
The proposed site’s limited connection to public transport options—especially with the train station in Lapworth offering infrequent services and limited parking—raises concerns about the sustainability of the development. With no nearby bus services and a reliance on private cars for commuting, this would contribute to increased traffic and environmental degradation. The site’s location, combined with a lack of infrastructure to support walking or cycling, compounds these issues.
.Visual and Environmental Impact:
The undulating topography of the site is a significant concern, as the elevation variance could cause substantial visual harm to the landscape. Additionally, the proximity of Baddesley Clinton, a Grade 1 Listed Building, and its historic grounds would result in considerable harm to the setting of this heritage asset, which is irreplaceable and protected.
.School Capacity and Local Amenities:
The local school at Lapworth is already oversubscribed, meaning there may be insufficient capacity to accommodate the children from a new settlement. The lack of capacity in schools, along with the potential need for additional educational facilities, further complicates the feasibility of the development. Moreover, the proposed settlement’s demand on local infrastructure, including roads and community services, could overwhelm the existing provision, leading to further strain on the local area.
.Traffic & Local Safety:
One of the more immediate concerns is the impact on local roads and safety. With limited public transport options, an increase in car use would likely exacerbate traffic issues. The narrow country roads, which are not designed for high volumes of traffic, would pose significant risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and children in particular.

Given all of these concerns, it seems that there are strong arguments against the viability of the 'Land South of Kingswood' site for development. The lack of land availability, infrastructure deficits, Green Belt status, environmental harm, and potential impacts on the local community and heritage assets all contribute to the case for reconsidering this location. Additionally, other non-Green Belt sites seem to offer more suitable alternatives for the housing need.