Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61602

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr O.H. Aries

-Evidence for discounting sites 2 and 3 are incorrect and misleading.
-Two independent access assessment have shown vehicle access to sites 2 and 3 onto the A425 is possible at the 50mph speed limit.
-The WDC Environmental Report is not representative of the parcels of land known as Sites 2, 3 and 4 thus provides insufficient evidence for selecting Site 1 as the preferred option.
-Traffic surveys were not carried out at a sufficient time.
-The landscape impact and traffic congestion in the village centre impact would be less at the discounted sites (2 and 3) than the preferred option.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61611

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Diane H Aries

-Evidence for discounting sites 2 and 3 are incorrect and misleading.
-Two independent access assessment have shown vehicle access to sites 2 and 3 onto the A425 is possible at the 50mph speed limit.
-The WDC Environmental Report is not representative of the parcels of land known as Sites 2, 3 and 4 thus provides insufficient evidence for selecting Site 1 as the preferred option.
-Traffic surveys were not carried out at a sufficient time.
-The landscape impact and traffic congestion in the village centre impact would be less at the discounted sites (2 and 3) than the preferred option.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61618

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Federal Mogul

Asiant : Pro Vision

Site 4 should be the preferred option for the following reasons:
-It provides good and safe foot access to the main village and its facilities.
-There have been no highway objections to development on the site and multiple points of potential access exist.
-Should Site 4 be developed, the landowner also owns 27 hectares adjacent to the site which they propose would be made available as open space that would be permanently managed and maintained.
-Development to the southeast of Radford Semele would not reduce the gap with Sydenham.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61711

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Jethro Lomas

Site 2 or 3 should be the preferred options for development because:
-Future development is possible.
-Development would not impact on the view from the Fosse.
-Safe vehicle and pedestrian access can be provided from Site 2 and 3 via a reducation to 30mph which would be expected as the new site becomes part of the village envelope.
-They are an attractive location as it has close access to the Fosse and M40 and would minimise the risk of new commuters through the village, where traffic congestion is already a problem.
-Site 1 would be preserved.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61717

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Nicola Lomas

Both the Parish Council and developers have identified Site 2 as feasible and acceptable. WDC should not have discounted Site 2 and should not ignore the Parish Council's local knowledge and expertise. Site 2 should be the preferred option because:
-Future development is possible.
-Development would not impact on the view from the Fosse.
-Safe vehicle and pedestrian access can be provided.
-It is an attractive location as it has close access to the Fosse and M40 and would minimise the risk of new commuters through the village, where traffic congestion is already a problem.
-Site 1 would be preserved.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61739

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lorraine Wade

Support development of Sites 2 and 3.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61799

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Desmond & Gloria Thornton

Recommend Sites 2 and 3

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61816

Derbyniwyd: 09/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs P M Duane

-It would be more appropriate to build on Site 2 or 3 off Southam Road.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61817

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr David Hoit

Sites 2 & 3 are more suitable than site 1.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61818

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Bobbie-Ann Kerton

Access to Site 2 from Southam Road is clear and the 30 mph zone could be moved to include the access. it would provide safer pedestrian access to the village and School.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61821

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Pauline Ward

My preference would be Sites 2 and 3.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61839

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Vincent Farrugia

There is no need to build more dwellings in Radford Semele. All Sites that have been proposed are high risk, due to the traffic and congestion concern is the roads cannot be widened.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61841

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Machell

Site 2 should be the preferred option because:
-It would retain the character of the village.
-It has good pedestrian access to the village, the church is accessible via existing crossing and it promotes walking via right of way.
-All housing would be on one site minimising the disruption for building.
-Most efficient in terms of infrastructure.
-Minimise traffic. Access by Southam Road can be made safe and could have two entry points. There would be no need for traffic lights or roundabout.
-Have minimal impact on existing residents as few houses are adjacent.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61842

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Steve Wood

-Recommend Sites 2 and 3.
-Think that WDC arguments for Sites 2 and 3 not go be developed are weak.
-Traffic flow and speed through the village is a major issue and access on the Southam Road should help overcome this issue.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61849

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Patricia R Rushforth

We recommend Sites 2 adn 3 as:
-They are already be on main road thus making Offchurch Corner/Lane slightly safer.
-There would be less disruption for the main village whilst building homes.
-It would slow traffic before coming into village therefore making Radford Road potentially safer- Cars still come through too fast despite the 30mph signs.
-It is Visually more acceptable.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61893

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Dianne L Saunders

Sites 2 and 3 have a smaller impact on the village and vehicular access would be much safer. These Sites would also provide the opportunity for expansion in future years and would give children more school options as the village school is unable to accept any more pupils.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61914

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr M.J. Wade

-Site 2 and 3 should be the preferred options as the increased traffic would sort itself out before entering the village. The distance from the village centre would not obstruct the current views of the church and any introduction of a roundabout or traffic lights would not be needed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61916

Derbyniwyd: 14/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Alan Gray

-Site 2 should be the preferred option as it offers much better and safer access opportunity with an easy extension to the 30mph zone.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61919

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Miss Audrey Ann Bryan

-Site 3 or 4 would result in more traffic but it will be already in traffic stream when entering village.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61948

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr James Fleuty

-I disagree with WDC's comments regarding the visual impact of Sites 2 & 3. These sites are already well screened from Southam Road and not visible from the Fosse Way. I would support a small development shared between these 2 sites. Reducing the speed limit on Southam Road is surely easier than restructuring junctions.

-Site 4 would have high visual impact from both Radford Semele and Sydenham/Whitnash and protection from merging with the major conurbation is vital to the identity of the village. Additional traffic on School Lane and past the school are major drawbacks to this site.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61952

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs S Green

Nifer y bobl: 2

-Sites 2 and 3 are better options providing the numbers of house are kept at 60 - 80.
-They provide more room to put in new access roads without disturbing what is already there.

There would need to be:
1) New footpaths to the village
2) An extension of 30mph limit
3) Road modifications to provide exists.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61957

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Richard & Brenda Worth

-The development of Sites 2 and 3 as this would have considerably less effect on the heart of our historic village.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61960

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Gary & Karen Marks

-Would go along with building on Sites 2 and 3 as recommended by the Parish Council.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61961

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Lee & Jodie Stephens

-Recommend that Site 2 or 3 are the preferred option.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61963

Derbyniwyd: 09/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Mander

-Site 3 is a more sensible option where the road can be safely widened.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61978

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs P Morrell

-Vehicles from these sites would increase the density of traffic onto the Southam Road leading to traffic congestion further into the village towards Leamington.
-There is currently difficulty in gaining access on to the Southam Road from any of the roads in the village at key times in the day. There is no safe walk way into the village from these sites.
-Loss of rural landscape.
-Building on any of the Sites would cause tremendous traffic problems. Building in Southam would also affect the amount of traffic using the Southam Road into Leamington. A by-pass is needed- muted decades ago.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61986

Derbyniwyd: 08/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Roger and Sandra Speck

-There are other more appropriate locations in and around Radford Semele many of which have not even been considered. It is important that all these sites are re-assessed properly and professionally.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61989

Derbyniwyd: 09/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Christine M Smith

-Prefer Sites 2 and 3

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61993

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr M.J. Wade

-Site 4 should not be developed on due to the entry of increased traffic onto the main A425 Southam Road at the junction of School Lane/Church Lane, which would need roundabout/traffic lights, something which would destroy the village ambience.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61994

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Brenda Woodhead

Support not developing Site 2 and 3 because:
-Development would have a high visible impact.
-Encourage village sprawl and lead to further building development in this area.
-There is no public footpath on the side of Southam Road leading to Site 3 and only a narrow footpath leading to Site 2.
-Exiting by car from the sites may be difficult and dangerous.
-Traffic lights and crossings would be required at the access roads to Site 2 and 3 and this may still prove dangerous because of bends in the road.