I broadly support the proposals but have other suggestions. I support 1 ,2 and 4. I object to 3. 3 is really a tennis court and should be returned to that use for the benefit of the village. The land between 1 and 4 should be included for development,as propsed by the Police some time ago. This area could accomodate 40 dwellings. This is a natural site with 1. There is then no need for 5 or 3. I am sure that arguments will arise about the junction between Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road. This is easily answered by traffic lights or a mini roundabout . This would have the added bonus of slowing traffic down. If the police object to traffic lights it cannot be beyond the wit of man to create a discreet hand held remote control for the police in an emergency. I hope this helps inform decision making.

Area 7 - land abutting Warwick Road and Hays Drive could accommodate approximately 12 houses and is on a lower plain than the main hill.

Area 9 - access available either through the field adjacent to the school, or from Hill Wootton Road which would allow building of a considerable number of houses.

I object to sites 9, 8 and 11 on grounds of noise coming from the A46 and the proximity of these sites to this major dual carriageway.Although houses on the east of The Hamlet were double glazed years ago before traffic increased to current levels noise pollution in the houses is very obvious.
I object to sites 8 and 9 because access to either site would have to be off Hill Wootton Road just before it goes under the A46 bridge.There is a significant dip in the road under the bridge and it is already difficult to see traffic "hidden" there when exiting from the The Hamlet. Also the road under the bridge is frequently flooded and impassable.
I object to site 8 because the sewerage system in Leek Wootton is inadequate for the present number of dwellings. Site 8 is used as the overflow area for raw sewage.
I object to the scale of develpoments 1-4 on grounds of scale.
I am concerned that Warwickshire Police have plans for developing different areas of their Headquarters that are not mentioned in the document.

The already discounted sites must not be built on if the village is to maintain its integrity and character. In particular no building towards Kenilworth (areas 11-13) and no building toward Warwick otherwise the village will become contiguous with the towns and lose its identity.

Area 7 and Area 10 must also not be allowed to build on - these have a very high visual and environmental impact that would inevitably create a suburban feel and remove the open aspects to the golf course.

As above

Over 17 years ago we moved into our home on The Hamlet. We were attracted by the semi rural location of this quaint village and to the position of our house, with a quiet road to the front and open aspect (field) to the rear.
Having raised a family here and as a member of the community we feel strongly about the latest proposals concerning housing development in the New Local Plan.
1) Whilst it is inevitable that Leek Wootton has to accept its' share of new builds we are particularly concerned about the scale of the proposed development. A target of over 22% - 85 new dwellings seems excessive and unfair particularly when larger villages nearby have a much lower target. It is imperative that the village keeps its' identity and character and that any development is fair and proportionate.
We would ask that a more realistic target be set that allows for reasonable development.
2) It has also been brought to our attention that the phasing in of any development is more likely to be over 5 years and not 15 years as initially mentioned in your original publication of 25/11/13. This gives us additional cause for concern as there is potential for the village to become an enormous building site with the current infrastructure unable to cope. The locals will be inconvenienced whilst works are ongoing, however too much too soon could not only make matters generally unbearable but potentially dangerous.
3) It is understood that there is uncertainty over the release of the Police site (Area 4). Including this the bigger site will account for some 88% of new builds which is too high particularly over a short time span. The Police site provides huge potential for development but the number of houses granted should not be based on the size of the plot alone. Development should be on a smaller scale, incorporating Area 5 and phased in over 15 years to allow for imbedding of infrastructure and services.
4) Whilst the Police site is the preferred option we must comment on the sites discounted. These are on pockets of land to the north, south and east of the village. We are aware that a local landowner is actively seeking your agreement to develop on land, in particular Area 8, to the rear of our home. Whist we are thankful for the current decision, we have stated before and will continue to be opposed in the strongest terms to any development. Our move here was greatly influenced by the open aspect and outlook at the rear of our property, to lose this would be visually damaging, intrusive and a loss of open space. We are situated on what we believe is the natural boundary to the east and we do not feel this should be extended. This land is a natural buffer to the very busy and noisy A46 three lane carriageway.
5) The village is used as a cut through by many commuters. Roads off the main Warwick Road are generally narrow and were not built with the current high usage in mind. Commuters drive too quickly, often dangerously particularly along the built up Hill Wootton Road. The junction by the Anchor Pub/Woodcote Drive is a particular hazard and the scene of road accidents over the years. The narrowness of the road and restricted vision is a worry as the majority of the new development will be accessed at this point. It is our opinion that traffic management needs to be adequately addressed beforehand.
6) There will undoubtedly be an impact on existing infrastructure a)The local school is oversubscribed and would need substantial additional building to accommodate the inevitability of more children. Also a larger car park, as it is already too small. b)We have personally suffered due to inadequacies in the sewerage system. In 2001 a holding sump was built in the field (Area 8) to stop flooding of the foul drains into our garden and that of our neighbours. The additional development proposed raises further concerns over the capacity of the system. c) Footpaths are in short supply and necessary to keep pedestrians, particularly the elderly and those children walking to school safe.
We are passionate about keeping the integrity and individuality of our village. In short, we ask that the number of new builds is reduced and that they be phased in over the 15 year period. Also crucial is that the infrastructure needs are given the required priority and the concerns of Leek Wootton residents are respected and given due consideration.

Dear Sirs, having attended a very busy Parish Council Meeting the other evening, we thought we would put our thoughts to you if we may.

To be as brief as we possibly can, it would appear that the whole of the 'Local Plan' proposal for Leek Wootton and Parish is now being controlled by what Warwickshire Constabulary want, and they in turn just cannot make up their minds!

However, our comments below are still largely based on the "Local Plan" proposals, even though we now really cannot ignore the changes we were informed of the other evening, and that the Local Plan Booklet may already be out of date with a prospect of 90 houses now being proposed, all in the Police Headquarters, and NONE at the Manor House site within Police grounds by the way!

If we are to accept there has to be some development in Leek Wooton, and a portion of this is likely to be in the Police Headquarters, then we would probably have agreed to the development at 'Area 4 Woodcote House' on the Local Plan, and at this area only, for the 20 houses mentioned. It is an interesting observation however why 35 dwellings can be squeezed into Area 1 (the Paddock) with a developable area of 1.51 ha and only 20 dwellings are destined for Area 4 with a 1.76 ha development area. It was mentioned at our meeting that 11 'dwellings worth' of flats could actually be fitted into the Manor House itself .... could this be a relevant point?

It is quite strange that there seems to be no commercial interest in the the original Retirement Village option, with a rapidly ageing population etc, and even the Local Plan booklet mentions about Leek Wootton "there are particular local challenges around older residents looking to downsize and stay locally".

We will now explain why, in our opinion, the Local Plan booklet stating "Site access acceptable for a cluster of sites on the Woodcote House Estate" is totally wrong. Indeed, the booklet also mentions that "detailed site assessment work including vehicle access requirements and physical site contraints and impact" has been carried out. "Traffic impact & congestion" is mentioned etc etc. In our opinion, we feel that a proper survey would have revealed the Anchor 'T' junction to be a real problem for ANY moderate increase in traffic flows, not to mention the rumoured increase of 90 houses now that would in effect double the 90 or so houses that already exist in Woodcote Lane/Drive, Waller Close and Quarry Fields.

1) Traffic lights or a roundabout would somehow have to be provided at the end of Woodcote Lane (Anchor 'T' junction), and there are listed buildings surrounding this already very tight junction with extremely poor visibility.

2) There is an argument that traffic flows would be similar to that of the present Constabulary traffic, however, if the Police stay, we will be talking about an EXTRA 540 movements a day (90 houses x 6 daily movements) now also including weekends of course.

3) More importantly perhaps is that present traffic movements in and out for police patrol cars and staff are staggered through flexi-time etc. We can tell you that Woodcote Drive itself is not busy at all at say 8.30am (presumably because of flexi-time), so can one really imagine the 'bedlam' at the Anchor 'T' junction with up to 90 extra cars all to going in the same direction all at this time, PLUS scores of children walking to school as well!

4) The pollution aspect of stationary cars with their engines running in this banked area, re point 3)

5) The pedestrian safety aspect re point 3). The present pavement situation is dangerous for any pedestrian, let alone children, with VERY LITTLE prospect of adequate improvement!

6) The gates at the Headquarters main entrance are very narrow, and listed?

7) It has been mentioned that Woodcote Lane could be made 'one way', resulting in all residence actually having to drive to Kenilworth to travel to Warwick and the south, or vice versa. This really would be plain nonsense - not to mention the narrowness of Woodcote Lane Bridge (is that listed?) the awkward junction into Rouncil Lane, increasing congestion at the Kenilworth 6th form school, and at the Warwick Road junction, and then back south .... probably through Leek Wootton again!

8) All the above problems would still exist if access to the Discounted Option 10 on the Local Plan became available (even though this is agricultural land?) via the Tinka-tank area into Woodcote Lane.

9) All the above problems would still exist if a completely fresh entrance into the Headquarters site is created in Woodcote Lane.

One last point is that we suspect the Police Authority will continue to dismiss any development at the Manor House site for they still will not have made their minds up if they are going or staying. However, we have now heard that the amalgamation between the Warwickshire Police and their near neighbours is DEFINITELY going to happen by 2015/16. Presumably then, the Manor House site could well become available for development again, even if their costly Communication facility remains, so why can't we all procrastinate just a little longer so we don't end up with a situation of the Police Grounds full of houses and the actual Manor House site vacant and empty, OR the apocalyptic prospect it also being eventually developed, adding the original 20 dwelling allocation (or retirement village) to the 90, resulting in the possibility of say an extra 110 dwellings in Leek Wootton, ALL in the Police Grounds!!

'Woodcote' can take it's share, but how about the far more accessible and less controversial areas for the remainder - such as Discounted Areas 7 and 12 on the Local Plan which in our view would meet with very little objection.

see attached

see attached

see attached

Dear Sirs, having attended a very busy Parish Council Meeting the other evening, we thought we would put our thoughts to you if we may.

To be as brief as we possibly can, it would appear that the whole of the 'Local Plan' proposal for Leek Wootton and Parish is now being controlled by what Warwickshire Constabulary want, and they in turn just cannot make up their minds!

However, our comments below are still largely based on the "Local Plan" proposals, even though we now really cannot ignore the changes we were informed of the other evening, and that the Local Plan Booklet may already be out of date with a prospect of 90 houses now being proposed, all in the Police Headquarters, and NONE at the Manor House site within Police grounds by the way!

If we are to accept there has to be some development in Leek Wooton, and a portion of this is likely to be in the Police Headquarters, then we would probably have agreed to the development at 'Area 4 Woodcote House' on the Local Plan, and at this area only, for the 20 houses mentioned. It is an interesting observation however why 35 dwellings can be squeezed into Area 1 (the Paddock) with a developable area of 1.51 ha and only 20 dwellings are destined for Area 4 with a 1.76 ha development area. It was mentioned at our meeting that 11 'dwellings worth' of flats could actually be fitted into the Manor House itself .... could this be a relevant point?

It is quite strange that there seems to be no commercial interest in the the original Retirement Village option, with a rapidly ageing population etc, and even the Local Plan booklet mentions about Leek Wootton "there are particular local challenges around older residents looking to downsize and stay locally".

We will now explain why, in our opinion, the Local Plan booklet stating "Site access acceptable for a cluster of sites on the Woodcote House Estate" is totally wrong. Indeed, the booklet also mentions that "detailed site assessment work including vehicle access requirements and physical site contraints and impact" has been carried out. "Traffic impact & congestion" is mentioned etc etc. In our opinion, we feel that a proper survey would have revealed the Anchor 'T' junction to be a real problem for ANY moderate increase in traffic flows, not to mention the rumoured increase of 90 houses now that would in effect double the 90 or so houses that already exist in Woodcote Lane/Drive, Waller Close and Quarry Fields.

1) Traffic lights or a roundabout would somehow have to be provided at the end of Woodcote Lane (Anchor 'T' junction), and there are listed buildings surrounding this already very tight junction with extremely poor visibility.

2) There is an argument that traffic flows would be similar to that of the present Constabulary traffic, however, if the Police stay, we will be talking about an EXTRA 540 movements a day (90 houses x 6 daily movements) now also including weekends of course.

3) More importantly perhaps is that present traffic movements in and out for police patrol cars and staff are staggered through flexi-time etc. We can tell you that Woodcote Drive itself is not busy at all at say 8.30am (presumably because of flexi-time), so can one really imagine the 'bedlam' at the Anchor 'T' junction with up to 90 extra cars all to going in the same direction all at this time, PLUS scores of children walking to school as well!

4) The pollution aspect of stationary cars with their engines running in this banked area, re point 3)

5) The pedestrian safety aspect re point 3). The present pavement situation is dangerous for any pedestrian, let alone children, with VERY LITTLE prospect of adequate improvement!

6) The gates at the Headquarters main entrance are very narrow, and listed?

7) It has been mentioned that Woodcote Lane could be made 'one way', resulting in all residence actually having to drive to Kenilworth to travel to Warwick and the south, or vice versa. This really would be plain nonsense - not to mention the narrowness of Woodcote Lane Bridge (is that listed?) the awkward junction into Rouncil Lane, increasing congestion at the Kenilworth 6th form school, and at the Warwick Road junction, and then back south .... probably through Leek Wootton again!

8) All the above problems would still exist if access to the Discounted Option 10 on the Local Plan became available (even though this is agricultural land?) via the Tinka-tank area into Woodcote Lane.

9) All the above problems would still exist if a completely fresh entrance into the Headquarters site is created in Woodcote Lane.

One last point is that we suspect the Police Authority will continue to dismiss any development at the Manor House site for they still will not have made their minds up if they are going or staying. However, we have now heard that the amalgamation between the Warwickshire Police and their near neighbours is DEFINITELY going to happen by 2015/16. Presumably then, the Manor House site could well become available for development again, even if their costly Communication facility remains, so why can't we all procrastinate just a little longer so we don't end up with a situation of the Police Grounds full of houses and the actual Manor House site vacant and empty, OR the apocalyptic prospect it also being eventually developed, adding the original 20 dwelling allocation (or retirement village) to the 90, resulting in the possibility of say an extra 110 dwellings in Leek Wootton, ALL in the Police Grounds!!

'Woodcote' can take it's share, but how about the far more accessible and less controversial areas for the remainder - such as Discounted Areas 7 and 12 on the Local Plan which in our view would meet with very little objection.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached