Testun llawn:
Re: Local Plan - Proposal to Build Next to St Nicholas Church on Site 1
(Land on the east of Church Lane - 3.55 ha developable area and site capacity for 100 dwellings)
Thank you for inviting comments from and consulting with villagers on the above and we sincerely hope that all comments will be taken on board and hope that this is not just an auditing/tick box exercise for a decision that has already been made.
In accordance with page 56 of the Local Plan and table 57, we object to this proposal, our reasons for which are listed below:-
1. The Church and many buildings in the surrounding area are listed. Any development of this site will permanently ruin the setting for these beautiful listed buildings. Any decision to build within the setting of a listed building, in this case the church fields must be taken, by statute, as a last resort in cases of exceptional need and where there are no alternatives available. The importance of the Church setting to village identity compounds this responsibility on planners.
There are views from Southam Road across the site to the open countryside surrounding the village and the land provides a setting for the Church. From church Lane the rural surroundings of the Church are even more apparent. These views are integral to the listing. The Church cannot be judged in planning without reference to its setting which visually includes the whole of the proposed Gladman site.
The proposed housing estate will be next to the Church. Villagers will face it head on looking out from St Nicholas Church, running against Council statutory duty to protect the setting of a listed building. Current open countryside would be replaced with a housing estate, in direct contravention of Council duty to protect the setting of a listed building in planning. The wider Church Fields setting, including the Church, the Water Tower, thatched cottages and countryside, are integral to the setting of the listed buildings surrounding this proposed development. Any development would run counter to the duty of the Council to protect that setting.
The site is bordered by many listed buildings, including the Church. The Council is under a statutory duty to protect the historic setting of these listed buildings. Any development of this site will permanently alter the setting and thereby runs against its statutory duty, namely Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) and PPG16 Archaeology and Planning (1990). The historic environment is a shared resource. This site gives distinctiveness, meaning and quality to Radford Semele, providing a sense of continuity and a source of identity. It is a social and economic asset and a resource for learning and enjoyment. Heritage values represent a public interest in places, regardless of ownership. The use of law, public policy and public investment is justified to protect that fundamental public interest.
The type, allocation and density of housing required is inappropriate for this setting of a listed building. This site cannot meet the required levels and types of housing required by the New Local Plan if the site is to also conform to planning obligations under statute to protect the setting and seclusion of a listed building.
The Church Fields are fundamental to the identity of who we are as a village. When people think of Radford Semele they think of the Church and its setting in countryside. Planners are required to heed heritage of this importance by statute under listed buildings legislation to ensure its preservation. The status of the Church, and its setting, is the single most important heritage asset in the Village. No possible high density modern development in this site is appropriate or possible in conformity with Council obligations to protect the listed buildings.
2. Other potential sites have not been considered sufficiently or have been discounted without comprehensive consideration. The Southam Road Taylor Wimpey sites (East of the Village) are, in light of new and recent studies, viable with simple road adjustments and a reduction to 30mph which should be expected as the new site becomes part of the Village envelope. These sites provide for properly managed expansion of the village in future years whilst protecting the Church and its setting as a balance to that development. Whilst alternative sites are available the Council is under a statutory duty to prioritise their development under the Local Plan.
3. We are being asked to consider this without proper information of how any development will look; what the traffic impact will be - and alternative options to this "preferred" site chosen by the Council.
4. It is accepted in the evidence provided by WDC for the Local Plan that this site provides no option to meet future planning need. The Village will need to expand in years to come. A decision to build on the last open space within the Village, and its historic shared hub, runs counter to the statutory duty of the Council to plan in the long-term interests of the Village. Other sites are available which would allow for Village expansion in future years.
5. Parish Councillors were not consulted about this site. They have democratically put forward an alternative site on the Southam Road which Taylor Wimpey are keen and able to develop. This raises significant issues about the democratic and legal process; the Local Planning process requires proper and sufficient consultation, neither of which have been met.
6. We are being asked to consider this without proper information of how any development will look, what the traffic impact will be and alternative option.
7. Vehicular Access into the proposed development will require the building of a new access road. The road solution will have to cut directly across the setting of these Grade II Listed buildings. In addition, if chosen as a solution, Church Lane will have to be considerably widened to accommodate cars exiting to/from the development. This will involve the cutting down of ancient trees which presently adorn the lane and the widening will erode permanently the direct setting directly in front of the Church and to the side of the White Lion. The views into the Church from Southam road will be destroyed by a modern wide access road. This runs directly against Council duty to protect the setting of the Church and other listed buildings which demarcate the borders of the Church Fields setting. The alternative proposal, proffered by Gladman, to provide access opposite the White Lion is, worst case, dangerous and best case will result in diminished traffic flow, whilst equally damaging the setting of the key listed building within the Village. Highways have historically, and rightly, rejected any plans for access that require roundabouts or diminution of traffic flows through the Village because of its key role for commuters out of Leamington to the Fosse. The proposed access road suggested by Gladman will fail visibility splay requirements on the blind bend adjacent to Manor House/66/68 Southam Road if the practical reality of cars and lorries travelling at 40mph plus through the blind bend is taken into account in calculations. This exit would be dangerous.
8. Assuming a housing development of 100 houses, under planning guidelines this requires an allowance for an additional 200+ cars. These vehicles will exit onto the Southam Road/School Lane/Church Lane junction or directly opposite the White Lion. This is an extremely busy stretch of Southam Road nearby to a Primary School. Traffic at this junction is already at pressure. This development will (1) increase the risk of an accident occurring as children and Villagers regularly use this stretch of road to get to/from school and Church and (2) impact negatively on traffic flows for villagers and commuters. The viability of any proposal to ameliorate traffic impact has not been proven as no plans have been submitted by developers. Detailed planning to create a new junction between School Lane, Church Lane and Southam Road has not been provided. Alternative plans by Gladman have not been submitted and have been informally rejected by highways on grounds of safety and traffic flow. Traffic Reports have not been published to analyse the impacts of traffic and junctions to allow the Council to properly make any recommendation. Gladman proposals for 130 dwellings would increase this further.
9. Public Open Space and playing areas: The village of Radford Semele already has sufficient public open spaces. You are destroying this beautiful area by building 130 extra houses on the open spaces currently enjoyed by the village. The village also already has a sufficient playing area which is well used by the children of the community. This is an appeasement offered by the developers which would not be necessary should the development plans be revoked.
10. Affordable Housing: You claim to be building "affordable housing". This is a vague statement at best! we would be grateful if you could serious consider what is meant by affordable housing? Affordable by whom? - we know that this housing will not be affordable for the young adults who wish to reside in this village.
Therefore as far as we are concerned this development is not viable or welcomed in our village. We ask you WDC to help maintaining the historic nature of the village, and promote a healthy, thriving and safe community.
The ideal scenario would be no additional housing in Radford Semele, as we cannot see how this housing would be available/affordable to the local community. However if providing additional housing is necessary then we would ask you to consider Site Nos 2 and 3 as the option for the preferred site, as recommended by Radford Semele Parish Council)