BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 108151

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: David Edwards

I object to the proposed new settlement location at ‘Land south of
Kingswood’ (reference C1), and consider it entirely undevelopable and
unsuitable for the following reasons:
1. None of the land comprising the proposed new settlement at ‘Land
south of Kingswood’ (ref C1) has been submitted to the Council by a
willing landowner and made available for development. Also, there are
at least 25 different landowners within the proposed settlement area.
This means that land assembly would be lengthy, difficult, and
collaboration of most landowners would be required to facilitate this as
a viable and feasible location for growth. The National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), at paragraph 72 requires planning policies to
“identify a supply of… b) specific, developable sites or broad locations
for growth, for the subsequent years 6-10 and, where possible, for years
11-15 of the remaining plan period”. The NPPF states that “To be
considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for
housing development with a reasonable prospect that they will be
available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.” Since
none of the land comprising ‘Land south of Kingswood’ has been made
available the settlement option has no real prospects of delivery, is not
developable, and should not form any part of the Council’s housing land
supply.
2. Land south of Kingswood is in the Green Belt. The NPPF is clear, at
paragraph 145 that “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should
only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced
and justified through the preparation or updating of plans.” Whilst I
appreciate that the Plan needs to meet a high housing requirement and
a new settlement could contribute substantially to this need, there are
seven other ‘new settlement’ locations proposed outside of the Green
Belt. Thus, there are a range of none-Green Belt alternatives available to
assist the Councils in meeting their identified need for homes which do
not require the release of Green Belt land. For this reason, there are no
exceptional circumstances to justify the release of ‘Land south of
Kingswood’ from the Green Belt.
3. The Council’s Green Belt assessment concludes that the site is
contributing ‘strongly’ to safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment. The proposed new settlement location at Kingswood
does not appear to include any permanent boundaries that would
prevent further encroachment in the long term.
4. Kingswood/Lapworth does not have the necessary infrastructure to
support a new settlement. Old Warwick Road is a single carriageway
providing the only means of highway access into and out of the village
from the strategic road network. This road navigates a canal and railway
line with a narrow bridge across the canal and an equally low bridge
over the railway, which is unsuitable for high sided vehicles. A new
settlement in Kingswood could not function properly with sole reliance
on this road. The ‘Land south of Kingswood’ location would require
extensive new infrastructure across said railway line and two canals.
5. The ‘Land south of Kingswood’ location is rural and remote from the
strategic road network and major employment opportunities. The
nearest motorway junction to Kingswood on the M40 provides
northbound access only. Southbound access onto the M40 is some 10
miles away whilst the nearest all-ways junction onto the M42 is some 5
miles away. Whilst a new settlement could incorporate some new,
small scale, local employment opportunities, its location and
relationship with the strategic road network and existing employment
cannot be overcome.
6. Whilst Lapworth benefits from a train station, the services are
infrequent, and the car parking is severely limited to circa 16 car parking
spaces. There does not appear to be any available land for expansion of
the car park to support increased use of the station. In addition, the
proposed settlement at ‘Land south of Kingswood’ does not relate well
to the train station and sustainable travel to this via walking and cycling
is considered unlikely. Thus, in the main, travel to work would rely on
the private car. This is compounded by the lack of bus services in
Lapworth / Kingswood.
7. The site is undulating, and levels vary between c.95m and c.125m AOD.
A variance of 30m is likely to give rise to substantial visual landscape
harm.
8. Baddesley Clinton comprises a Grade 1 Listed Building, a range of Grade
II Listed Buildings and its grounds are registered as a historic park and
garden. A new settlement of significant scale adjacent to Baddesley
Clinton would cause substantial harm to the setting of this important
and irreplaceable heritage asset.
9. I note that the site assessment refers to capacity at Lapworth school,
however the school was oversubscribed at the latest reception intake
and therefore future capacity is unlikely to be available.