Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60596

Derbyniwyd: 12/12/2013

Ymatebydd: Mr Gerald Tanner

I agree with all the concerns raised about the development potential of these sites. It is right that they should be discounted

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 60627

Derbyniwyd: 15/12/2013

Ymatebydd: Kingswood Homes

Objecting to the exclusion of site 13 (Land of Brome Hall Lane) as a preferred option site.
- believes the reasons for exclusion are not justified as is as close to the settlement as other preferred options, has no higher landscape value than other sites, and will have no greater impact on wildlife.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60650

Derbyniwyd: 04/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Haydn Rees

Sites 8 & 9: these fields are of the greatest importance to the remaining rural feel of Kingswood. The tree frontage on Station Lane, the views from the canal towpath and from Baddesley Clinton driveway, plus the abundance of wildlife in the fields, are all of great value. For these reasons it is to be highly commended that the possibility of building on these fields has been rejected

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60651

Derbyniwyd: 04/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Haydn Rees

Sites 10 & 12: both these sites are subject to frequent flooding. It seems to be extremely sensible to remove these from consideration for possible development

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60658

Derbyniwyd: 06/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Vivienne Binns

I support the development of the land to the rear of the meadow house

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 60772

Derbyniwyd: 15/12/2013

Ymatebydd: Kingswood Homes

Site 13 and Foremans Cottage should be developed because:

Site 13:
-It is located no further from the village than preferred option Site 4.
-It has no additional landscape or ecological value above the other preferred options. The site has a road and service networks to support development.
-Adjacent residential development makes it a natural position for development.

Foremans Cottage:
-Offers a natural expansion with the provision of a historic tree line as a natural boundary.
-Foremans Cottage has been extended increasing the building density.
-A natural break between Foremans Cottage and the properties further down Brome Hall Lane exists.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60830

Derbyniwyd: 14/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Emma Lange

I fully support the removal of site 9 from the Kingswood development. The reason we bought our house was to be able to enjoy the beautiful views across the fields. This is a rural village which needs pockets of unspoilt farm land in order to retain its character. The impact of building on this site would be vast, and there are clearly more suitable sites.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 60858

Derbyniwyd: 14/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Liz Beaver

Resident of Station Lane supports the discounting of Site 9 as:
-It is farming land and a valuable wildlife habitat.
-The landscape of the area would have been damaged and TPO's in the road would have little value if other neighbouring trees were to be removed / affected so substantially.

Locally it is being said that the owners of Site 9 may appeal against its removal as a preferred option. This would be somewhat disingenuous given that none of them live in the area and as such cannot be said to have the best interest of the community at heart.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60867

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Cousins

I commend the planning committee for it's decision to exclude these sites. The impact on the village would have been out of proportion. I urge WDC to make these exclusion permanent and save us from the endless speculation on the future of these sites.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60874

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Jonathan Hull

I also fully support discounting the site to the south of Kingswood close. As a new resident in the street, the views across the fields were one of the main reasons for purchasing the property. It is clear that any development on this site would have impacted far too greatly on the landscape of both the fields and the frontage to Station Lane and as mentioned there are clearly more suitable sites.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60875

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Jonathan Hull

I also fully support discounting the site to the south of Kingswood close. As a new resident in the street, the views across the fields were one of the main reasons for purchasing the property. It is clear that any development on this site would have impacted far too greatly on the landscape of both the fields and the frontage to Station Lane and as mentioned there are clearly more suitable sites.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 60900

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Rowington Parish Council

-Object to the Site Review as Area R133, R133 and R152 should be considered for providing some of the housing allocation.
-Consideration should be made for other small scale developments.
-Parish Councillors have become aware that Rowington Almshouse Charity is interested in developing further almshouses, allowing elderly and less affluent residents to remain in the parish and creating a homogenous mix of residents.
-Development of Area R133, adjacent to land owned by Almshouse Charity should be looked upon favourably by parishioners and the Parish Council.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 60954

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Helen Clark

I am pleased that WDC has taken note of the concerns expressed locally regarding the importance of some of these sites in term of aesthetics and environment, and of the serious flooding risks which would be associated with developing the sites.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61035

Derbyniwyd: 18/01/2014

Ymatebydd: mr leslie flavell

Some degree of common sense has prevailed in the District Councils latest proposed Local Plan now that sites 8-13 have been discounted as unsuitable for development.Certain parties with a vested interest will no doubt attempt a reversal. .I would like to reiterate my strong ongoing objection to the development of this land.Such over development would destroy the rural/village environment that is Lapworth - These sites are GREEN BELT and sites 8-9 are productive farm land with oaktree lined frontages with preservationorders. The introduction of concrete covered ground can only increase the risk of flooding to which the area is prone.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61053

Derbyniwyd: 19/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Les Clark

Development on sites 8,9 and 10 would have had significant detrimental ecological and environmental impacts on the area. In addition there would have been a significant detrimental visual impact for users of the canal, and significant detrimental visual and well-being impacts for existing local residents. Consequently I support fully the discounting of these sites in the site review.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61058

Derbyniwyd: 19/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Lapworth Parish Council

Lapworth Parish Council welcomes the new version of the Local Plan as being a much improved reflection of the overwhelming view of parishioners about development, as described in the Parish Plan. It cannot do so wholeheartedly however, unless/until the attached concerns have also been satisfied

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61107

Derbyniwyd: 19/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jacqueline Crampton

support this proposal

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61180

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Miss Claire Brown

I support the removal of sites 8 and 10 from the list of preferred options. Any development of sites 8 and 9 would obstruct views across the green belt for those living on station lane and kingswood close. I would also have some concerns around the infrastructure being able to support new housing in these areas - and in fact around the whole of Lapworth.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61209

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Susan Richards

Providing sensible consideration is given to phasing & character of developments my Husband & I Support the latest version of the Local Plan, which reduces down the no. of dwellings to 62. Particularly as it realises the importance of keeping the fields to the East of Station Lane, thereby preserving the trees & green belt and recognising the significant ecological & environmental value.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61542

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: The Bateman Settled Trust and Mr A Rajkowski

Asiant : Savills

-In support of Site 8 as the preferred option.
-A Masterplan, consisting of three potential proposals for Site 8 has been provided and demonstrates indicative layout options for small scale development.
-The site assessment for Site 8 has been undertaken on the basis of SHLAA Site R110 and does not take account of adjoining land at Kingswood Farm. Since the respondent's original representation of this land, their proposed masterplan now incorporates additional land at Kingswood Farm which would provide access to Site 8.
-Respondent is willing to consider how a proportion of dwellings could be reserved for local people.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61695

Derbyniwyd: 21/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Pauline Green

Support Discounting Site 9 for development:
-Respondent is pleased that Site 9 on Station Lane has been built on as they have lived there for many years and accept that limited development is desirable.
-Site 9 should remain green field as it contains lots of nature.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61713

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Samuel Lange

Support not building on Site 9 as:
-It is a lovely piece of land where I can walk my dog and building would be an eyesore.
-The land currently is one of the few open areas on Station Lane that relieves use from the sight of housing. Building on it would make Lapworth lose its open feel, which I feel is vital to the village.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61720

Derbyniwyd: 10/01/2014

Ymatebydd: John Lange

-Site 8 and 9 should not be a preferred option.
-Site 9 is beautiful and productive Green Belt land. Without these pockets of Green Belt land etching into a predominately linear village you would destroy the rural setting. There is a tremendous amount of wildlife in these fields. Looking towards or from the village these Green Belt areas are crucial to the visual impact.
-Site 9 is bordered by mature oak trees that have a TPO. There is already flooding in these fields.
-Please do not develop homes near the road as the problem in the adjacent area will worsen.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61729

Derbyniwyd: 18/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr David Pickering

Asiant : Mr Richard Cobb

The proximity of Kingswood and Rowington means that release of our site at -Rowington Green would take the place of at least one of the Kingswood sites to fulfil the number of dwellings required.

-62 dwellings have been designated in Kingswood leaving a balance of around 85, sites for which still need to be found. Otherwise our site could contribute additional housing to the total provision being sought by in rural areas.

-The Lyons Farm site could meet the local aspirations and dwellings compatible with the character and appearance of the area and will ideally meet the documented local need.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61733

Derbyniwyd: 10/01/2014

Ymatebydd: John Lange

Fully support the decision to remove Sites 8 and 9 from the list of preferred options as Site 9 is a beautiful bit of Green Belt land with a tremendous amount of wildlife on and these Green Belt areas are crucial to the visual impact of the village. Site 9 has a tree preservation oder and flooding issues.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61740

Derbyniwyd: 22/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Phil Tanner

Support the removal of Sites 8 and 9 from the housing options. These sites are Green Belt fields and of high landscape value.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61766

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Kingswood Homes

Asiant : Tyler-Parkes Partnership

The landowner of Foreman's Cottage suggests that it should be a preferred option for development because:
-The land is already developed andoccupied by a detached residential property and associated buildings.
-It is screened by mature trees and hedging. The property has very much been part of the village life and the character of the site is enclosed rather than open thus it would be inappropriate to retain within the Green Belt.
-Foreman's Cottage is part of a cluster of buildings. The buildings and their grounds are readily recognisable which were associated with the operation of the canal.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61767

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Kingswood Homes

In ownership of discounted option (Site 13), which they wish to promote for development as:
-The landscape value is the same as the other preferred options.
-The land is well screened on all sides with mature trees and high hedges. Therefore it would not impact on the surrounding landscape.
-Seek to provide a low density, very high quality housing scheme which would have limited impact on the surrounding landscape.
-There is already housing either side of the field lending to a natural extension to the village.
-There is no wildlife present over and above that expected on the preferred options.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 63554

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL

Asiant : Tyler-Parkes Partnership

We would strongly recommend allocation of part of our client's land as a housing site in the current Local Plan. The site proposed as a housing allocation in this submission is the field parcel fronting Station Lane extending east to approximately the line of the current Settlement Boundary to the south of the site. The site area would include Discounted Option 9 together with land to the east up to the existing field boundary, a defensible physical boundary, boundary shown in Appendix A, figure 1 of the 'Landscape and Visual Assessment' which forms part of this submission. The site is in an extremely sustainable location being approximately 2 minutes walk to Lapworth railway station and bus stops, 6 minutes walk to the local primary school, less than 10 minutes walk to the shops in Lapworth and just over ten minutes walk to Lapworth surgery.
Our Client contends that the assessment of their site was distorted by the Council's decision, in the evidence, to ignore the existing access opposite number 145, Station Lane and assume that access would be provided towards the northern end of the road boundary, opposite 155 Station Lane. In order to secure visibility sight lines, this would necessitate the removal of exiting Tree Preservation Order (TPO) oak trees and an extensive length of road frontage hedging, one of the primary reasons for discounting the site. Our Clients also contend that the Council failed to assess in detail the landscape impact if development were confined to the field fronting Station Lane and appropriate mitigation measures taken. Instead their assessments are primarily concerned with the potential adverse impact residential development might have on the landscape if all, or a much larger section of the site promoted in the SHLAA were to be developed. For these reasons we contend that the evidence base is unsound and does not satisfy the requirements of the Framework.