This seems a sensible settlement boundary even though it crosses the boundary between two Parishes.

It is difficult to see the boundary very clearly but it appears to be drawn very tightly around the settlement. This is very important because I understand that any areas left within the envelope could easily get planning permission at some point in the period covered. The whole exercise would seem to be irrelevant if the settlement boundary leaves open areas inside the settlement envelope. It needs to be as tight as possible.

See attached.

This proposed change to "insetting" seems like a thinly veiled attempt to facilitate future developments. The present arrangement, though not perfect, has helped protect Lapworth and Kingswood from the worst excesses of development. It seems like a bad idea to weaken that protection.

Lapworth Parish Council is pleased to see that several of its representations have been accepted as reasonable and incorporated into the latest version of the Local Plan. In particular:

1. that an increase of 62 dwellings is close to the 15% increase which is reasonable and proportionate for the settlement, as opposed to the previous near 40% increase possibility
2. that some of the sites, particularly the fields to the east of Station Lane, are of particular importance not just to local residents but also to visitors walking the canal and Baddesley Clinton driveway, as well as being of significant ecological, environmental and aesthetic value
3. that flooding concerns need to be recognised and addressed as appropriate, as in the Rising Lane sites

For these reasons the 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 following concerns have also been satisfied:

1. that the density of new dwellings remains at or below the envisaged level, i.e. the land made available has tight restrictions on the number of dwellings that would be given planning permission in each area
2. that all flooding concerns are tackled fully. This needs to start from understanding and resolving the existing causes of flooding in the Lapworth/Rowington boundary areas where existing properties and businesses are already flooded in severe storms. This needs to be done before embarking on any new builds which can only make the situation worse. It is of particular concern that Site 6 is adjacent to the high risk area according to the Environment Agency website; Site 1 is 50% within the high risk zone; and although Site 2 is outside it, it feeds into Site 1. The whole area requires serious hydrology mapping before any further development is permitted, as is acknowledged in the Local Plan.
3. that attention is given to protecting the view from the canal if the Meadow House and Kingswood Farm sites are developed
4. that construction is phased over the full period so that there is no sudden change to the village which would cause excessive stress on the existing infrastructure and facilities
5. that Affordable Housing should be suitable for the needs of locals primarily, either young people unable to afford starter housing in the area or older residents wishing to downsize. The Parish Council does not believe that Kingswood is generally suitable for affordable housing because there are few jobs here, the transport links to possible employment opportunities are poor, and the local facilities are expensive. We do not however object in principle to appropriate sorts of Affordable Housing
6.that the red/brown line drawn around the settlement is maintained as a very tight line so that the potential for further development within it is very limited
7.that confirmation is received that the land outside the red/brown line will remain unavailable for development for the duration of the Local Plan
8. that concerns are addressed about the effect on traffic and parking. The development of Sites 1 and 2 opposite Site 6 will lead to a crossroads, close to a blind canal bridge. Assurance is needed that all safety aspects have been considered carefully, and any implications for traffic-calming measures discussed with the residents before any Planning Permissions are granted.

Should Lapworth Parish Council receive satisfactory assurances about these points it would be pleased to welcome the Local Plan.

It needs to be noted that many of the new dwellings are set to be within the Rowington Parish Council's part of Kingswood, and Lapworth PC cannot comment on how they might view the Local Plan. Both Parishes are affected by the decisions however.

I urge WDC to confirm and formalise this ettlement boundary. At the same time I suggest that WDC removes the ambiguity of having 2 Kingswood Farms shown on the map, one within a development area close to the Old Warwick Road and one in a protected area off Station Lane. The former has not been known by this name for a long time.

The "line" appears to have been drawn tightly so that there should be little further development within it which is good for the character of the village.

The proposed indicative settlement boundary appears to have been drawn tightly which should ensure limited future development within it so that it should be possible to preserve the character of the village.

The village clearly has considerable facilities and should maintain its sustainability.
The village envelope should include all the option sites and it should be up to developers to satisfy planners that their concerns are met.
It should be possible to include a further 100 houses here.

I am pleased to note the revision by WDC of the plan for the 'Kingswood Settlement'. I am generally supportive of these proposals. However I would like to raise the following points :

1. Phasing of the Development.
Presumably this will embrace the full duration of the Plan. If built in the early years this would cause problems re adaptation of infrastructure and create pressure from outside interests to build more (?).

2. Priority to affordable housing should be given to people with local connections.

3. The boundaries defining ' Kingswood Settlement ' are sensibly defined. Pressure to build outside this boundary should be strongly resisted as this would lead to the destruction of the character of the settlement and put impossible pressures on basic elements of the infrastructure notably sewage and general drainage.

My Husband & I support the Settlement Boundary on the understanding that the red/brown line around the settlement is maintained so that further development within is limited and the land outside will remain unavailable for further development for the duration of the Local Plan

I refer to the above consultation on the draft Local Plan which commenced in 2011. Sites are now being considered as preferred options in a high risk flood plain, at which a number of properties have been flooded, when other sites at risk of flooding have been dropped. The Planning Department have previously been provided with photographs of flooding and the impact of flooding at these sites.

In the initial consultation undertaken by your Council, 57 respondents were against
Development and only 5 in favour. Those in favour being either developers or landowners wanting to develop their land. How can you call this process consultation, when the outcome of such consultation is totally disregarded?

Any proposals for affordable housing should meet the statutory criteria for affordable housing and should be pursued through the Rural Housing Trust and not under the control of developers, landowners and/or local charities.

Why have decisions been made to include sites as preferred options in a high risk flood plain, without the Environment Agency being consulted?

The restricted culvert under the canal at site 1 and also the restricted culvert under the Old Warwick Road, create bottlenecks and have resulted in flooding. Will the Highway Authority accept responsibility for flooding if development is permitted, but the culvert under the Old Warwick Road is left as it is at present.

The proposed development is over intensive and will affect the character of the surrounding area, including watercourses and listed buildings, and will clearly impact on such buildings and the local street scene as well as being detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents.

The proposed access/egress points of sites 1, 2 and 6 on the Old Warwick Road, are at the foot of a hill, on a bend and at a point where traffic does speed, and also adjoin, or are opposite listed buildings.

Allowing a development of this magnitude in the area does not take into account the lack of available public transport. Any younger people taking up residence in the area will need to rely on cars to travel to work, bearing in mind, there is very little chance of local employment.

The time for emergency services to reach the area is a minimum of 10/15 minutes and is probably in reality, a lot longer. This will impact on the elderly requiring emergency hospital treatment.

There is a legal challenge by a number of parish and town councils over the housing quota put forward by Warwick District Council. If this challenge is successful, it would bring into serious question, the whole of the Local Plan put forward by Warwick District Council. By not awaiting the outcome of this challenge, I think Warwick District Council could be seen as negligent in trying to steam roller through what could turn out to be a flawed Local Plan.

If there is any development proposed in the local plan for the parish of Rowington, other identified sites which are not in a high risk flood plain and which would equally serve the local community should also be considered for development.

Any proposed development should be infill and not backfill.

It is felt that there is insufficient local infrastructure, in particular, the sewage system which in a number of areas, still combines both storm water and foul water.

Settlement Boundaries Consultation

It is sad that you feel it necessary to alter the village settlement boundaries. A few years ago, Rowington Parish Council undertook a poll of local residents in Rowington (Kingswood) who by a substantial majority voted for no changes to be made to parish boundaries, since they all had ties and attachments to Rowington and not Lapworth, and more recently by local residents responding to the Boundary Consultation process undertaken by your Council. Please leave Rowington out of the village settlement boundary.

I am pleased to see that the revised Plan more clearly reflects the feelings and wishes of the village. The reduced number of dwellings is far more reasonable for Kingswood. The preferred sites are of a smaller size and therefore also more suitable for a rural village location.


However, there are some concerns which I feel need to be addressed before the Plan is finalised.

The increase of 62 dwellings should be phased over the full period of the Plan, i.e. to 2029, to avoid any sudden large increase in the number of residents, which would cause problems with the existing limited infrastructure. This has been requested before,but so far we have had no reassurance from the council on this.

Over the period of the Plan, any "windfall sites" should be included in the number of 62 new dwellings permitted. We have also sought clarification on this point before, and had no response from the Council.

The preferred sites are all central in the village, and consequently the increased traffic could pose a problem in an area that already suffers from congestion due to parking around the Village Shop, the garage, and the school, and problems at the junction of Brome Hall Lane, and the entrances to the surgery and village hall. Particular attention should be paid to ways of mitigating the impact of extra traffic in these areas.

There are flooding issues in many parts of Kingswood, and an increase in the number of dwellings must have some effect on these areas. Therefore it is important to have a thorough investigation of the sites before any new building is permitted, to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent flooding being increased in either these areas, or those adjacent.

The brown line of the settlement boundary, as shown in your proposed Plan, should remain the defining boundary for all development for the duration of the plan, with no land outside it being made available for development, and any sites within it being allowed only at the density level of existing housing.. No large scale developments should be allowed which are inappropriate for the area.

There is a shortage of housing in the area for both first-time buyers, and young families. Therefore any Affordable Housing should first and foremost be made available to those with local connections.

I would hope that the Council would take all these points in to account, and consider the wishes of all the local residents, before finalising the details of the proposed Local Plan.

I am writing in response to the above local plan, and in particular that relating to Kingswood and the preferred sites 1, 2 and 6.

Firstly, I wish to raise objections regarding the lack of information or consultation provided to me from either Warwick DC, Lapworth or Rowington Parish Councils regarding these proposed changes to the boundary. As I understand it, previous proposals made reference to Lapworth and Rowington as separate village sites, with Rowington council more recently stating that no developments were envisaged due to it being classed in the small village/hamlet category. However these new proposals now refer to Kingswood which is essentially Lapworth with the inclusion of a small number of Rowington properties, conveniently, within which 3 of the preferred sites are now being proposed. Therefore to me it seems that the use and definition of Kingswood has merely been designed with the aim to move proposed developments into an area which is deemed by both Lapworth and Rowington councils as being the least controversial of locations from a political standpoint, and to which the least objections from local residents will be raised. It feels very much like a scape-goating exercise. Furthermore I have received no information from either Lapworth or Rowington council about this proposed re-definition and the fact that these preferred sites now fall within Rowington rather than Lapworth. If it were not for information provided to me from my neighbours, I would be none the wiser about any of the above consultation...so how can it therefore be called a consultation when I am likely to be one of the most affected by the proposals?!

I would also like to object to the preferred sites 1, 2 and 6. The Old Warwick Road is already a busy main road and the proposed access to these preferred sites would be on a bend, at the foot of the hill, close to a blind canal bridge and next to a busy garage and other shops. I have witnessed many near misses just outside my property with vehicles speeding over the canal bridge. I have two young children and the thought of increased traffic and more ridiculously the proposed crossroad which would result from these developments alarms me. There are also already issues with parking on the roads and pavements and these developments would only exacerbate this.

The risk of flooding has also been identified by the environment agency as 'high risk' at these locations. I have only lived in my property for just over 4 years but within that time I have witnessed flooding of local houses and roads. Any proposed developments can again only exacerbate this risk and as a local resident to the proposed developments, I am alarmed that significant investigation has not been carried out in relation to the flood risks.

I am also concerned that local amenities will not be able to accommodate the proposed increase to the population. I am a member of the local pre-school committee and have a child at the primary school and another at the pre-school and am aware of the current intake and the spaces available. I am not aware that the pre-school have been consulted in any way about the proposed increases and whether they could facilitate an increase to the population. I can advise you that already for this year the pre-school group is up to maximum capacity.

Emergency services should also be consulted with. My husband is a paramedic for West Midlands Ambulance Service and I have also unfortunately had to call out an ambulance in the past for my son, so I know already the difficulties with response times to this area. Increased traffic can only adversely affect this.

From a personal view I am also very concerned about how the proposed developments will affect the character of the surrounding area and indeed the value of my property as a result.
I am already upset about how the land behind me was cleared without any respect for local neighbours and wildlife. Hearing about these proposed preferred sites and the lack of consultation or communication to me from any council as one of the most affected has only alienated me further. I wish these objections to be raised and I hope that as a result proper investigation, consultation and communication around any proposed developments will begin.

Please find attached a letter of formal representation in response to the consultation on the Village Housing options and Settlement Boundaries consultation, submitted on behalf of our client Mr Shaun Hussey. Also attached and forming part of the submission are a plan and aerial photograph showing the proposed re-alignment to the indicative Kingswood (Lapworth) Village boundary.

For your ease of reference, a copy of the representation form submitted previously by our client in response to this consultation is attached.

see attached

Please find attached a completed Village Housing Option Response Form submitted on behalf of Business Flats Ltd, the owners of land (Site No 6) at Kingswood, Warwickshire.

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached

see attached