BASE HEADER

Objection - Warwick District Council New Local Plan, Site 1, Radford Semele

First, many apologies, but I am a member of the public and I am not technical, so I would be grateful if you would translate my objection into the relevant framework/matrices so that you can consider it effectively. Please treat the following as an objection for the purposes of the Draft Local Plan and one being against any development of the preferred Site 1 option.

My objection has a number of grounds, but the most important is "setting" which I list first. Many of my other objections might potentially be resolved through flood, traffic and archeology schemes, but the setting objection is irresolvable, hence its importance.

I have lived in Radford Semele for some 20 years, my family were married in the Church and I am supportive in general terms of the Local plan and its aspiration to provide housing for Radford Semele. I simply cannot convey, however, just how damaging I believe the development of Site 1 would be to our Village.

My grounds follow.

1. (a) Setting

The preferred site is inappropriate because it resides directly within the setting of a listed building that plays an extremely important, irreplaceable role in defining the village and its community.

Putting into words the cultural, emotional and health importance of this site to the Village is impossible - it is intangible and ubiquitous by definition. However, it is this importance that goes to the heart of why Councils are under a weighty responsibility to protect listed buildings and their setting both by statute, planning policy and profession. Good planners, like doctors and other professionals, carry the weight of protecting and nurturing the built environment in their DNA - the passion for this is exactly what leads many young men and women to adopt this as their profession. This site is a paradigm example of what planning exists to protect. It is not a 'nimby' site - but, rather, an historically beautiful, untouched site that is at the absolute centre of village life and identity.

This site has "non-technical" impacts in securing and building community within the Village and these have been recognized historically by planners in protecting this site as a "balance" to development elsewhere in the Village. In fact, building here, would call into question the rationale and justification for previous development in the Village and compromise historical decision making and residents within those settlements.

English Heritage guidance defines a setting as "'the surroundings in which [the listed building] is experienced" and that "setting embraces all of the surroundings (land, sea, structures, features and skyline) from which the heritage asset can be experienced or that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset." The key words here are experience - the site provides an experience for residents (and visitors) that transcends bricks and mortar. It is a site that has existed untouched since medieval times and any development within this area has only been permitted by Planners when it has been hidden. The NPPF provides clear guidelines on how Councils must protect Heritage sites, to ensure in decision-making that they "conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations."

Exceptional justification for permitting building in such sites is rarely granted - and only where there is (i) no viable alternative; and, (ii) where harm can be mitigated.

English Heritage "Conservation Principles Policies And Guidance" requires that changes which "harm the heritage values of a significant place should be unacceptable unless [...] there is no reasonably practicable alternative means of doing so without harm [and] it has been demonstrated that the predicted public benefit decisively outweighs the harm to the values of the place, considering its comparative significance, the impact on that significance, and the benefits to the place itself and/or the wider community or society as a whole.


In this case, we have three other development sites with plans either submitted or being prepared. These sites were not at their current state when the preferred status was granted and provide planners with viable alternatives. This is particularly true of Site 2. Taylor Wimpey, a highly respected developer, promoter and builder, has confirmed their development of plans for Site 2 subsequent to the issuing of the Local Plan consultation including calculations which make access possible to the site (a concern of planners originally). These changes (Taylor Wimpey, Pegasus and Lloyds confirmation of plans for Sites 2, 3 and 4 respectively) fundamentally change the framework of decision making.

Finally, this site does not have the scale to allow further development as the Village evolves. Other solutions will need to be found and the only site able to permit strategic, managed growth for the Village is Site 2. To build in Site 1 would therefor be a very short term decision, damaging the Village unnecessarily and leaving no central open space to "balance" that future development.

The issue of heritage and setting is my primary objection. It would be at odds with the heritage framework at the heart of planning, would almost certainly be overturned on that basis at appeal and would limit the necessary growth of the Village through more appropriate sites, particularly Site 2.

1. (b) Physical issues - setting:

Either Gladman's current proposal for access opposite the White Lion, or mooted access from Church Lane, would damage the foreground listed setting of the church by providing for an access road, capable of access for 200 plus vehicles, across the field to the front elevation of the Church parallel to Southam Road. This would counter Gladman's attempt, by refraining from building to a portion of the front elevation field, to allow a thin line of visibility in front of the church. Any development would require an access road that would itself damage the setting.

Whatever attempts are made to mitigate the impacts of development on this site, the view from the corner of Southam Road where it meets Offchurch Lane - a key gateway into the Village, would be damaged.

Ibid. the view from the Church itself - any development in this area would be visible from the Church - and absolutely at odds with its setting within open fields.

The site is clearly visible through the village at points on the A425 stretching from the curve adjacent to manor House/Manor Cottage through to the curve adjacent to Radford Hall, from Newbold Common, Cubbington and the Grand Union Canal. In fact the site is impacted from 360 degrees.
The "Balancing Pond" required to mitigate the impacts of flooding, is itself a grassed "crater" which would be situated visibly within the curtilage of the setting of the Church. This would be out of character and inappropriate.

The setting has provisionally been defined as the site of a shrunken village - http://timetrail.warwickshire.gov.uk/detail.aspx?monuid=WA1906. The site has not been adequately surveyed, but is likely that the site's setting currently provides protection for important archeology of the original Radford village and its environs. Extensive archeology should arguably have been required given this likely archeology prior to its being defined as a preferred site.
The site has previously been treated as an adjunct to the Village. It is completely cut off from the main village and its services by the A425. Any building here by definition would be to encroach into countryside, require changes to village boundaries - but, more importantly, would disadvantage future residents. Site 2 would allow immediate access to Village shops, community Hall, Playing Fields and Pub. This site is cut-off and deatched. By any standards it is not part of the Village proper-. To make it so would at the least require a by-pass and pedestrianizing of the A425. The A425 is has been the site of accidents as recently as January 2014 and personally I was nearly run-over in December 2013 seeking to post a card through the Gable House opposite. The risks of crossing this major A road cannot be under-estimated.

2. Timing

The development of applications by Taylor Wimpey, Pegasus and Lloyds on Sites 2, 3 and 4 render a decision to allow development on Site 1 premature. Should a planning application be received from Gladman I would ask that this site be rejected on that basis.

3. Flooding

This is an area that does flood, as well as providing a mechanism for dissipation of flood waters. My home, opposite on Southam Road, was flooded in 2003. There is an automatic assumption against building where homes are to be placed at risk. Calculations have not been released for the balancing pond, but it will itself damage the setting of a listed building. Open sewage has been recorded on School Lane, the A425 has seen frequent 'blown' drains. This whole area does not, with current infrastructure, seem prima facie a good location for 120 homes. Whilst these issues could be resolved technically, there are likely to be significant costs and the degree of work required would not be local to the site as its knock on impacts on the existing infrastructure on the village and its role as natural flood plain protecting surrounding properties would need to be addressed. Current infrastructure has proven itself unable to cope with flood.

4. Process

Site 1 was entered onto the SHLAA and stated as the preferred option against the direct recommendation of the Parish Council who after consultation proposed Sites 2 and 3. The Parish Council, not residents, were consulted about Site 1 despite awareness by Planners of Gladman's proposed application for at least one year. The lack of democratic process, in conjunction with the availability and recommendation of other sites by those directly and democratically aware of the importance of Site 1, at least raises questions of due process in product of the SHLAA and New Local Plan consultation. To mitigate this, it is incumbent on developers to level the playing field with alternative developers to catch-up and provide planners with a 'level playing field' for making a final decision, this, in conjunction to responses from the Local plan consultation.

5. Alternative Sites

Site 2 was discounted on a technical error. An independent traffic survey has now produced evidence of an effective visibility splay for access to Site 2 at 50mph. In fact the visibility splay would reduce further given the extension of the 30mph to the Site 2 development as it joined the Village. It was also discounted on the ground of its ingress into the countryside. This is equally true of sites 1, 2 and 3 - as planners accept, Radford Semele presents no easy options - however, equally, these technical mistakes have resulted in preference being given to a site that should be protected under its listed setting which must now be reversed. The previous justification of lack of alternative sites is no longer the case. Site 2 because of its proximity to local services, support by the Parish Council and Villagers - and ability to offer Planners managed and appropriate village growth in the future, with access now resolved, should be re-defined as the preferred site.

6. Scale

It is a personal view, but I believe that Radford Semele would benefit from new development at a larger scale than that proposed. The current infrastructure is already inadequate for the Village and there is a genuine requirement for increasing the complete housing mix in the Village. A larger development, which would not be possible on Site 1, but which would be possible on Site 2, would enable a much larger contribution by developers to Village infrastructure and upgrading of facilities. Our school, for example, could not cope with any further children - the school is full. It is also subject to sewage flooding and requires investment. The A425 requires, even currently, measures to increase traffic flow and protect villagers who cross the road. The village would benefit from a doctors surgery and enhanced play areas and further shops. These would come as a matter of course with a much larger development from contributions made by developers as part of a lager development. The current scale of proposals would see little benefit to the Village either in terms of housing or infrastructure.
I am personally keen on expanding the Village to the East - but in doing so, the protection of the Church and its setting are absolute conditions for balancing that development.

7. Ecology

Whilst these may be manageable concerns I have personally seen bats flying over the field and have door and field mice in my garden (not to mention hedgehogs, visits by foxes, ducks and all manner of wildlife). Given that I live opposite the site it is not without peradventure or logic to assume that they are present in the field.

8. Traffic

Whatever method is used to manage access to Site 1, the result unavoidably will push increased traffic into an area already congested as a hub for the centre of the Village. It would unavoidably reduce the quality of life of residents and, however managed, put residents at a greater degree of risk in requiring them to cross an even busier major A road. This is NOT true of Site 2 which lies to the East of the village, away from the central hub area around School Lane, the White Lion and Offchurch Lane in which traffic is already congested. Site 2 allows for a significant percentage of traffic to exit to Southam rather than through the Village.
It is to be noted that a major accident took place on the A425 in January, with at least 3 further documented accidents here in the last 4 years. I was personally close to being run over in December in which a car missed me by mm. Site 1 is NOT an ideal place for development, even if a traffic solution could be built which would moderate the impacts of development.
Further, as above, any 'solution' would still require an access road across the setting of a listed building together with the concomitant other effects of that development on the setting. These cannot be avoided.
None of these issues exist with Site 2.

9. Village Boundaries

I object to the redrawing of Village Boundaries to incorporate Site 1. Instead I recommend development of Site 2 as per the original recommendation of our Parish Council after local consultation. As above, I would personally recommend much larger, properly managed development of Site 2 than that proposed. Contrary to the draft Local Plan, traffic access to site 2 can be achieved safely and within guidelines on vision splays and the site, even on its limited current basis, could accommodate approximately 125 houses. The stated high visual impact of Site 2 was based on use of the whole swathe of land from the village boundary behind Lewis Rd down to the Fosse Way. Whilst I personally have no issue with this larger development - this is NOT being proposed currently. As it stands, the visual impact of a 125 home development on Site 2 would be significantly less than the major visual impact that would occur in any development of Site 1. Site 2 also exclusively enjoys safe and easy access to all Village facilities including shops, the Village Hall and Playing fields.

10. 1994 Planning Inspector's Report.

No changes to the physical site have occurred which would undermine the detailed consideration given by the Council in their 1993 Local Plan as quoted the 1994 Planning Inspector's Report. The relevant points from the report are paraphrased below-
* "This site and the setting it provides for the northern part of the village are one of the last remaining connections with its rural past."
* "The site is not properly part of the village, being wholly peripheral, the housing in Offchurch Lane with which the development would connect being itself a ribbon extending into the countryside."
* "[The green space left by developers] would not replace this rural setting provided by this agricultural land and would be surrounded by housing which would extend close to the Church."
* "The site would not relate well in scale and location to the village or be well integrated ... If developed, it would, rather, be detached from the village, severed by the main road."
* "Any development would close much of the open outlook (of the site) and in so doing affect the impression of the separation of Leamington and Radford Semele."

11. Visibility Splay for Site 1

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 reality of cars and lorries travelling at 40mph - 50mph through the blind bend is taken into account in calculations.

12. Perceived separation from Leamington Spa
The proposals would close the last remaining open outlook in the Village, in so doing affecting detrimentally the impression of the separation of Leamington Spa and Radford Semele. This has become an accepted policy guidance criterion in decisions affecting the Local Plan.

13. Carbon Monoxide impact


No carbon monoxide level studies for adjoining houses between Manor House and Manor Cottage, Holly Cottage and 64 Southam Road have been completed. These houses, because of medieval road layout, create a tunnel effect for traffic fumes and current levels are likely to risk or currently breach government guidelines on safe carbon monoxide pollutant levels. Two cases of cancer have been reported within the last 5 years by residents of these properties. Further increases in carbon monoxide cause by lowering the speed of traffic flow (required to create a safe entrance into Site 1) would further breach guidelines.
Summary

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, only as a last resort in cases of exceptional need and where there are no alternatives available. Alternatives in fact do exist, particularly Site 2, and meet the requirements of Village growth. Objections to Site 2, traffic and visual impact, have been demonstrated to be unfounded or comparatively less impactful than alternative sites. Development of this site, as the setting for an important listed building, is against the public interest.

Historically, all development in this area has been concealed in order for the Council to meet its requirements to protect the setting and countryside seclusion of this listed building. Any development that is not concealed has been refused on these grounds historically and no changes have taken place to justify changing this policy or violating statutory responsibility.

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.
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 and so fall foul of the requirement to protect that setting.
Highways have historically rejected plans for access that require diminution of traffic flows on the A425 because of its key role for commuters out of Leamington to the Fosse. The public interest in traffic flow has not been balanced against the interest in new development. Practical traffic flows in excess of the 30mph limit question the safety of visibility splay calculations for access on Site 1.

Any development of the site will increase the drainage issues faced by the village. Poor drainage has led to open sewage being seen in School Lane. This land acts as a natural drainage point for the dwellings on Offchurch Lane, Chance Fields, The Greswolds, Southam Road and School Lane. Housing on this site would interfere with this natural drainage increasing the risk of flooding in the area of the Church and its environs. There are known sewage, drainage and flooding risks within this area. Any further pressure risks pollution of the natural aquifers of the canal and the River Leam.

Other potential sites have not been considered sufficiently or have been discounted without comprehensive consideration. The Southam Road Taylor Wimpey site (East of the Village) is, in light of new and recent studies, now viable with simple road adjustments and a reduction to 30mph which should be expected as the new site becomes part of the Village envelope.

Site 1 is a "planning balance" to development in other parts of the village, both historic and future. If this site is permitted for development, the natural balance relied on in previous developments will have been undone, placing in question those developments.

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.

On all these grounds I object to Site 1 as being against the public interest and in breach of planning guidelines to protect the setting of a listed building. I believe that its development would be damaging to community cohesion and identity and exacerbate existing issues with the A425. The alternative Site 2, as democratically chosen by the Parish Councilors after consultation, has become viable with studies undertake after the publication of the draft Local Plan and intervention by Wimpey and should thus, I believe, go forward for development. As a corollary of this, I object to any changes to Village Boundaries to incorporate Site 1 within the Village Boundary.