I am pleased option 1 may go ahead as this would not affect traffic flow through the heart of the village.

I object to the development of the proposed site number 1 as sites 2 & 3 would be better options. Development around site 1 would spoil the natural rural setting of the church, be in contrast to the established premium properties in the Offchurch Lane/Church Lane areas and have a significant adverse affect on traffic. The Offchurch Lane/Southam Road & School Lane/Southam road junctions are very busy and difficult to exit from at peak times. Adding houses in this area would make the traffic problems untenable and would not been in keeping with the existing housing stock in the area.

Having had family land interests in Radford Semele for well over 50 years I think that building on this particular piece of land on Offchurch Lane would further reduce the gap between Leamington and Radford Semele, and reduce the Character of the village. Not to mention that Offchurch Lane is quite a narrow road in the first place. Therefore Road Widening and junction upgrading would have to take place. I agree with David Leigh-Hunt, Parish Councillor in this respect who has already identified alternative sites.

The church at the edge of this site is a listed building which has recently been the subject of extensive renovations following a fire. This church and the surrounding land are what visitors to Radford Semele see as they arrive in the village from any direction. Building on this land would permanently destroy this vista especially if the building was of high density dwellings out of keeping with the surrounding housing stock which includes a converted old water tower and many thatched cottages. In addition, the White Lion Pub is also a listed building which was substantially renovated following a fire. This pub attracts people to the village due to its location which is greatly enhanced by the view across the field to the church and open countryside beyond. Visitors to the White Lion feel that they are visiting an old country pub in a beautiful location. This location would be destroyed by a housing estate which goes against the responsibility of the council to protect the setting of listed buildings.
In the past all development in this area has been sensitive to the local environment and is not clearly visible from the road (eg. the houses at the bottom of Church Lane). Planning applications for development on this field in the past have been rejected because of the requirements for the council to protect a listed building and it's setting. No changes have taken place to justify abandoning the need to conceal development around the setting of a listed building.
The A425 road running through Radford Semele is already an extremely busy and dangerous road. I attach a traffic survey which I carried out on a random day at rush hour to indicate this density of traffic. Furthermore, my survey was of necessity carried out while the High St end of the road is closed to traffic thus necessitating commuters to make alternative arrangements. I would suggest that if this hadn't been the case the volume of traffic recorded would have been significantly increased.
Should a large housing estate be built on this land then the volume of traffic would be significantly increased. Under planning guidelines an extra 100 houses requires an assumption of 200+ additional cars. To my knowledge no study has been undertaken to determine the impact of these extra vehicles exiting onto the Southam Road from the proposed development. The access to the site would need to be either directly onto Southam Road between School Lane and Offchurch Lane or indirectly via Church Lane. Both of these options are completely unacceptable from a safety point of view and would necessitate substantial changes to the current road layout. There is already a pedestrian crossing at this junction for children to access Radford Semele School. This crossing is currently unmanned. The safety of children going to school would be severely compromised by up to 200 more cars attempting to join Southam Road in the morning to go to work. Currently I can wait up to 10 minutes for a gap in the traffic to exit my driveway in the morning and, in the evening, I regularly have to wait many minutes to get into my drive across heavy traffic. Should there be an access road opposite my house this would be even more dangerous for me, other road users and pedestrians. With Offchurch Lane joining Southam Road on a blind bend, cars attempting to turn out of it in the morning have to get up to speed very quickly to avoid accidents on this blind corner. During my 12 years in this house I am aware of the air ambulance attending 2 serious accidents on this corner, if another access road was positioned on this stretch of road this could only lead to more serious accidents.

As Radford Semele School has been significantly expanded and is currently full, any additional children living on the proposed housing estate would need to be transported by car to school outside the village further increasing traffic at peak times. School Lane is regularly a bottleneck in the morning with people leaving the village to go to work at the same time as others arrive to drop off their children. Should this development take place there would need to be significant changes to the road layout at this junction to accommodate the increased traffic.

In recent years there have been several incidents of overflowing sewerage and other drainage problems at the bottom of School Lane and flowing down Church Lane. This could only be further exacerbated by the building of a high density housing estate directly opposite with its own drainage needs.
I believe that there are other potential sites which have been discounted in favour of this site which would be more fit for purpose. Even with the current 50mph limit on approaching the village from Southam the sites to the East of the village (sites 2 and 3) are more appropriate for development and would be even more so with an extension to the 30mph limit in the village. This land is obscured from the Fosse Way by the naturally rolling countryside and is indeed of a far greater size to allow for future development. Residents of houses on site 2 would be able to use public footpaths to access the facilities of the village without the need to cross the busy Southam Road.

The Parish Council of Radford Semele have not been consulted about the designation of the preferred site and have put forward an alternative site which Taylor Wimpey are keen to develop. The Local Planning Process has not been sufficiently followed in this case as the affected parties (the villagers and parish council) were not part of the decision to allocate this site as the preferred site for development.

Ref : Radford Semele - Site 2 (Discounted Site) - This is to register an objection to development of Site 2.
WDC Document Ref - 'Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries ' Section 12 - Radford Semele.
Radford Semele Parish Council have recently indicated that if the Preferred Site for Radford Semele (Site 1 Land to East of Church Lane ) is overturned owing to objections , then development of Sites 2, 3 or 4 would be the consequence. These sites have recently been discounted for development by Warwick Council, as detailed in the WDC document 'Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries '.
I would like, therefore to register with WDC my objection to the development of Site 2 (Land South of Southam Road and to the East of the village), a site that was stated as discounted by WDC in Nov 2013.
I have reviewed and support all of the reasons stated by WDC for discounting this site, as detailed in the Council's site appraisal.
In particular, the appraisal of all sites by WDC stated layout, access, flooding, noise, wildlife habitat and resident amenities as factors. Development of Site 2 presents detrimental effects for all of these factors.
Listed below are the reasons for my objection to the development of Site 2, I believe this objection is necessary if discounted sites are to be reconsidered.
Layout
This site is outside the village 'envelope' and extends the village boundary. The layout/visual effect would be an 'urban spread' effect and could be such that Radford Semele would appear as a 'suburb' of Leamington Spa and adjoined to Sydenham, and thus would diminish the unique and historic identity of Radford Semele. WDC's site appraisal states that Site 2 development would have a detrimental effect on the landscape 'openness' and I support this statement.
There has been a suggestion that a small number of houses either side of the Southam road and along the Fosse Way might be a preferred alternative, but this is not based on any defined proposals, which presumably would need to be prepared by developers. Responses to the development of Site 2 based on this suggestion would not be based on what might actually be developed. This suggestion also spans both Sites 2 and 3, and it would not seem viable for 2 separate landowners to sell a portion of their land, and therefore the more likely scenario is that entire sites (Site 2 and/or Site 3) are sold, leading the way to large developments to the east of the village either within the revised local plan or in the future.
WDC's appraisal states that Radford Semele has an above average number of semi-detached and terraced houses, and many of these are sited to the east of the village, which has a balanced mix of properties and tenancy types. To develop on Site 2 with the type of properties proposed, would distort this balance.
Residential /recreational amenities
The development of Site 2 would affect many people, not just those who live in this area, but joggers, horse riders, walkers and ramblers, wildlife enthusiasts , and dog walkers, both from within and outside of the village who enjoy the recreational and attractive walks that are to the East of the village. This is the most utilised area of the entire village for these activities. Many generations of families have enjoyed these fields and would want their children to continue to enjoy the quiet, safe and pleasant walks in this area to the east of the village.
Loss of wildlife/wildlife habitat
The tree lined Southam Road and the hedgerows and fields to the East of the village are habitat for a rich variety of wildlife, many of which are in decline. Owls from the trees along the Southam Road can regularly be heard, and lapwings, kestrels, skylarks, buzzards, newts, and brown hares all have their habitat on the fields, trees and hedges on this eastern part of the village.
Loss of agricultural land.
The land is prime agricultural land which if developed for housing, contradicts the government's recent announcement that the economy needs more British grown and British bought food.
Access
Access from the Southam Road would be difficult and dangerous. Even if traffic calming measures along that stretch were to be developed this could cause tailbacks onto the many bends towards Southam , which could catch drivers unawares and increase accident risk. Residents of any new housing along this stretch of the Southam Road would have no safe way of walking to the village, as the traffic is heavy and fast moving and the road has many blind bends. The recent street lighting savings would make this area particularly dark for any night workers who might live in the proposed properties or people returning home from late night events. The traffic will also increase with the proposed developments in Southam.
Flooding
Flooding would increase if this land were to be developed. The land slopes down towards a small ditch which also collects water from the opposite side of the ditch, from land which slopes up towards the south . This water then runs into the lower parts of the village. Anyone observing the fields during periods of rain would see that any reduction in the absorption of water, currently absorbed well by the fields, would greatly increase the flooding risk to the lower parts of the village.
Supporting the best homes for young people and families .
The development of new homes is a wonderful opportunity for people and families, both from within and outside the village to have their own homes, but I am not convinced that Site 2 would be the site that these residents would prefer. Development would presumably need to be close to the main Southam Road, which may make the proposed properties unsafe for children and increase exposure to traffic emissions. Elderly and young people and families with young children could find it difficult getting into the more central parts of the village and its amenities - the local stores, park, school and social areas. Leaving Site 2 undeveloped would be land for new residents to use for recreational activities as well.
I also have a few questions, which I would be grateful if WDC would respond to:- Should Site 2 be 'undiscounted' and become the preferred site, will there be an extension of the consultation period when detailed proposals for the development of Site 2 are available? It would be reasonable to allow an extension, as there are currently no detailed plans for this site. Some people might assume this site had been discounted and therefore would not feel the need to comment or they may support this site without having sight of any detailed proposals.
When will the decision on the sites be made?
When will the development of the approved site commence?

The council proposes to give planning permission for a very high density housing estate with access roads to be built on a wild flower meadow next to a medieval church referred to in the domesday book. Such development will irreversibly destroy the open outlook of radford semele with its distinctive church and listed buildings and is completely inappropriate to this setting. It contravenes the statutory duty of the council to preserve the setting of listed buildings and would ruin the visual impact of a rural and extremely attractive part of the village. Indeed it is my understanding the council has previously refused development on this site for these very reasons. Furthermore such a development would constitute a traffic hazard. It is already difficult to exit school lane, particularly at busy times of the day, because the Southam Road is a commuter route into Leamington Spa and because there is a school in School Lane! Traffic comes around a blind bend by the White lion public house at speed and pulling out onto the main road can be hazardous. Traffic calming measures such as a roundabout or a traffic lighted crossroads would (a) ruin a beautiful setting even more (!), (b) slow down and cause congestion on a busy route and (c) cause fast flowing traffic alighting from a blind bend to have to brake sharply which is dangerous.
Finally in heavy rain or following annual snow fall water pours down to the bottom of School Lane and disperses off into these fields. If they are developed then flooding is a real and unacceptable possibility.

Site 1 is a more suitable site than the recently discounted sites ( Sites 2, 3 and 4) as it is within the village boundary and is less likely to impact the village's unique identity than the 'urban spread' effect that the other (discounted) sites would have.
Being the more 'contained' site, it also offers more protection from further major development of the village in the longer term than other sites. Potential future developments of the other sites could significantly enlarge the village beyond the 100 or so houses proposed in this Local Plan and thus completely change the appearance and historic characteristics of the village in future years.
Also, it must be remembered that this development offers an opportunity for local people (young people, young families, and disabled or elderly people) to have their own homes in the village. Site 1 offers the most suitable location for these people, and may well be the site they would prefer, and a site that villagers would prefer their own children to live in, in the future. It is close to the local amenities - local shops, park, school and social areas -, really close to the bus stops, and set back a bit from the main road, which would be convenient, safer and healthier for the people who these houses are intended for.
Site 1 also has the least detrimental impact when reviewed against the criteria that WDC has used for the site assessments, as detailed in WDC's 'Site selection process and methodology' document (Table 3). Compared to other sites, it has less impact than other sites , particularly with regard to loss of landscape 'openness', access, and flooding, which would be major problems with the discounted sites.
Overall I would have been more in support of a smaller development, say similar to Lay Gardens, which is smaller and nicely integrated into the village, but if a development of the scale required is necessary, then Site 1 is the site best suited for this.

* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function
- WDC has chosen proposed site 1 as having lesser visual impact than each of 3 other village sites based on a subjective assessment in the SHLAA, not any quantifiable data. However, taking the number of surrounding dwellings as a measure of existing residents visual impact, the picture is very different:
Site 1 has the highest visual impact with 32 houses in direct view and 15 in partial view of the site, Total 47.
Site 2 has 16 houses in direct view and 10 in partial view, Total 26.
Site 3 has 5 houses in direct view and 1 partial view, Total 6
Site 4 has 32 houses in direct and 2 in partial view, Total 34.
Therefore site 1 has an 87% higher visual impact than site 3, a 64% higher impact than site 2 and a 58% higher impact than site 4. Site 1 cannot be justified as the best site.

* Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of site 1 as being of lower impact than sites 2 or 3 based on insufficient 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance due to the 50mph speed zone. But if the speed zone were 30mph then a reduced 70m 'Y' splay easily could be accommodated and the traffic impact then reduced due to sites 2 and 3 being out of the village centre.
- Traffic impact for sites 2 and 3 to the east would be lower as additional commuters from any new housing would mostly travel away from the village towards the Fosse Way and south to M40 for employment.

* Strain on Radford local infrastructure and services
- Housing population in Radford is static and of mixed age groups not needing a large 250 (13%) influx of new residents for existing services and having to travel outside the area for work.
- The primary School is already over-subscribed, meaning there is already a sustainable village population and a further large influx of younger families is not necessary for growth

* Environmental & Character Impact
- Drinking water, drainage & sewage
- The proposed site 1 is already defined as a "High risk drinking water protected area" by the Environmental Agency which means that the quantity of new houses must be reduced - This has not been taken into any account by WDC assessments.
- 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.


* Sustainable Development appraisals
- The WDC sustainability assessment has not been scored adequately and shows Radford to have a 65% higher '-' negative scoring than '+' positive based on the 16 NPPF criteria categories which should have removed the village from the Local plan or reduced the housing allocation based on Government Sustainable Development principles.
- The WDC sustainability assessment shows site 1 to be of low Ecological value and less than the other sites due to having fewer hedgerows - however, this neglects the site being high grade registered Organic farmland, including large trees and bushes higher than 1 metre thus giving it a 3 times 'Yes' score as land of Ecological value in Government Sustainable Development principles.
Option site 2 has the highest future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation.

* Site comparison using a quantative Matrix
The conclusion from the comparison matrix below, assessing the relative difference between each site taking the WDC proposed site 1)as a baseline, shows that Option 3) and 5) are the better and most positive and that Option 1) and 4) are the worst and most negative sites.


Option Site 1 Land North East of Church Lane , ref RS4
*Traffic Impact, site access;-
- There are significant traffic access issues both onto the A425 and in Church Lane to access to housing plots at the North end of the site, thus bisecting the site and contravening the open aspect required for the Church setting. Also Church Lane would have to be widened for 70 metres to meet the 'Y' visibility splay from the A425 junction thus again contravening the open aspect required for the Church.
- The additional vehicles from 100+ homes travelling during morning and evening rush hours and trying to access the A425/ Church Lane/ School Lane 4 way junction cannot be accommodated at this accident black spot, particularly at times of peak traffic flow through the village.
- A traffic assessment of the A425/Church Lane/School Lane junction was made in summer 2013 during the holiday period and whilst the road was closed in the centre of Leamington Spa. Therefore the data collected does not represent peak flows regularly seen throughout the year.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;-
- Visual impact is very high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 47 surrounding dwellings. Also it does not give sufficient space to provide the required open rural aspect setting for the Church.
- To reduce impact, the quantity of housing should be reduced and located at the North end of the site, however traffic access would still bi-sect the Church aspect.
- Site 1 is a large area of high grade Organic registered farmland which would be totally lost.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced from 100+ capacity due to high landscape, traffic and drinking water protection impacts which are of high importance weightings.
- Reduced Option 1a), locate at northern end = 1.4ha giving 36 houses, with impact to 10 dwellings.

Option Site 2 Land South of Southam Rd , ref RS1
*Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Impact is high but not of any higher importance than site 1 because the environmental assessment score is based on rural open impact from 'The Grange' Farm towards the Fosse and site 2 accounts for only ~5% of the total.
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one large development as this visually affects 26 surrounding dwellings.
--Site 2 is lesser standard grade open farmland compared to site 1 and will be only partially lost.
*Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of 2 as unacceptably high as there's not a 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance available due to a 50mph speed zone. But if the village speed zone were 30mph as required by Dept of Transport circular 1/06 then the 'Y' lower splay required of 70m can be accommodated and the site becomes viable.
Consequently a speed limit of 30 MPH should apply as the village boundary will need to be moved out along Southam Road to include any new housing estate on either side of Southam road.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced due to the rural and traffic impacts of high importance weighting.
Reduced Option 2a adjacent to A425 = 3ha giving 75 houses, impact to 11 dwellings
*Sustainability;
- This is the best option site for future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for roof solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation at each household.

Option Site 3 Land North of Southam Rd , ref RS1
* Comments for Option 2 equally apply to this site.
*Scale of Development:
- Can be expanded without further impact to 1.59ha as per the Sharba homes proposal which increases capacity to 40-50, making site more acceptable.

* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is lower than site 1) or 2) as this visually affects only 7 surrounding dwellings.
- Site 3)is of lesser quality grazing farmland than site 1.

Option Site 4 Land South West of Spring Lane , ref RS3
This site should not be discounted purely based on coalescence as it does not extend beyond the village boundary at Slade Meadow.
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- housing capacity should be reduced to 40-50 to solve traffic access from Spring lane and school lane to the A425.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 34 surrounding dwellings.
*Scale of Development:
Reduced Option 4a at northern end to 2.1ha giving 50 houses, impact to 19 dwellings

New Site Option 5 Land West of School boundary, Environmental ref RS08
This new site is highlighted in the WDC Environmental report as a potential site of lesser impact than others and as such this must be considered further in comparison:
*Scale of Development:
- site area = 1.65ha giving 42 house capacity
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- Simple site access viable from Kingshurst to existing A425 junction for lower additional traffic volume from site..
* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is Medium from the WDC environmental report. The site has a lower residential visibility ratio where 42 house capacity affects only 7 surrounding dwellings and the school.

Detailed objections by WDC Criteria Factors

* Scale of Development: Radford housing needs & Numbers proposed
- The WDC sustainability assessment has not been scored adequately and shows Radford to have a 65% higher '-' negative scoring than '+' positive, based on the 16 NPPF criteria categories which should have down-graded the village from the Local plan or reduced the housing allocation based on Gov Sustainable Development principles.
- Decisions based upon WDC's simplified subjective assessment summaries have not used quantative data or any comparison matrix of all the sites to make a valid choice.

* Needs & Wants of local urban residents.
- WDC has chosen its proposed site purely on the 'Needs' of WDC to meet its Local plan 'Wants', combined with the Developers 'Wants' to use the simplest site. This does not protect the 'Needs' of village residents or give importance to our viewpoint through its social responsibility as required by Government Sustainable Development principles.
- No account has yet been taken of the importance weighting of the impact to residents.
- WDC assessments are based on a higher importance weighting for flow of through Traffic and relative Landscape impact for the rural view seen from cars travelling East to & from the Fosse, rather than any importance of the residents viewpoint on these factors, when making a decision on the proposed option.

* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function
- WDC has chosen proposed site 1 as having lesser visual impact than each of 3 other village sites based on a subjective assessment in the SHLAA, not any quantifiable data. However, taking the number of surrounding dwellings as a measure of existing residents visual impact, the picture is very different:
Site 1 has the highest visual impact with 32 houses in direct view and 15 in partial view of the site, Total 47.
Site 2 has 16 houses in direct view and 10 in partial view, Total 26.
Site 3 has 5 houses in direct view and 1 partial view, Total 6
Site 4 has 32 houses in direct and 2 in partial view, Total 34.
Therefore site 1 has an 87% higher visual impact than site 3, a 64% higher impact than site 2 and a 58% higher impact than site 4. Site 1 cannot be justified as the best site.

* Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of site 1 as being of lower impact than sites 2 or 3 based on insufficient 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance due to the 50mph speed zone. But if the speed zone were 30mph then a reduced 70m 'Y' splay easily could be accommodated and the traffic impact then reduced due to sites 2 and 3 being out of the village centre.
- Traffic impact for sites 2 and 3 to the east would be lower as additional commuters from any new housing would mostly travel away from the village towards the Fosse Way and south to M40 for employment.

* Strain on Radford local infrastructure and services
- Housing population in Radford is static and of mixed age groups not needing a large 250 (13%) influx of new residents for existing services and having to travel outside the area for work.
- The primary School is already over-subscribed, meaning there is already a sustainable village population and a further large influx of younger families is not necessary for growth

* Environmental & Character Impact
- Drinking water, drainage & sewage
- The proposed site 1 is already defined as a "High risk drinking water protected area" by the Environmental Agency which means that the quantity of new houses must be reduced - This has not been taken into any account by WDC assessments.
- 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.


* Sustainable Development appraisals
- The WDC sustainability assessment has not been scored adequately and shows Radford to have a 65% higher '-' negative scoring than '+' positive based on the 16 NPPF criteria categories which should have removed the village from the Local plan or reduced the housing allocation based on Government Sustainable Development principles.
- The WDC sustainability assessment shows site 1 to be of low Ecological value and less than the other sites due to having fewer hedgerows - however, this neglects the site being high grade registered Organic farmland, including large trees and bushes higher than 1 metre thus giving it a 3 times 'Yes' score as land of Ecological value in Government Sustainable Development principles.
Option site 2 has the highest future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation.

* Site comparison using a quantative Matrix
The conclusion from the comparison matrix below, assessing the relative difference between each site taking the WDC proposed site 1)as a baseline, shows that Option 3) and 5) are the better and most positive and that Option 1) and 4) are the worst and most negative sites.


Option Site 1 Land North East of Church Lane , ref RS4
*Traffic Impact, site access;-
- There are significant traffic access issues both onto the A425 and in Church Lane to access to housing plots at the North end of the site, thus bisecting the site and contravening the open aspect required for the Church setting. Also Church Lane would have to be widened for 70 metres to meet the 'Y' visibility splay from the A425 junction thus again contravening the open aspect required for the Church.
- The additional vehicles from 100+ homes travelling during morning and evening rush hours and trying to access the A425/ Church Lane/ School Lane 4 way junction cannot be accommodated at this accident black spot, particularly at times of peak traffic flow through the village.
- A traffic assessment of the A425/Church Lane/School Lane junction was made in summer 2013 during the holiday period and whilst the road was closed in the centre of Leamington Spa. Therefore the data collected does not represent peak flows regularly seen throughout the year.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;-
- Visual impact is very high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 47 surrounding dwellings. Also it does not give sufficient space to provide the required open rural aspect setting for the Church.
- To reduce impact, the quantity of housing should be reduced and located at the North end of the site, however traffic access would still bi-sect the Church aspect.
- Site 1 is a large area of high grade Organic registered farmland which would be totally lost.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced from 100+ capacity due to high landscape, traffic and drinking water protection impacts which are of high importance weightings.
- Reduced Option 1a), locate at northern end = 1.4ha giving 36 houses, with impact to 10 dwellings.

Option Site 2 Land South of Southam Rd , ref RS1
*Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Impact is high but not of any higher importance than site 1 because the environmental assessment score is based on rural open impact from 'The Grange' Farm towards the Fosse and site 2 accounts for only ~5% of the total.
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one large development as this visually affects 26 surrounding dwellings.
--Site 2 is lesser standard grade open farmland compared to site 1 and will be only partially lost.
*Traffic Impact, site access
- WDC has rated its traffic assessment of 2 as unacceptably high as there's not a 160m 'Y' visibility splay distance available due to a 50mph speed zone. But if the village speed zone were 30mph as required by Dept of Transport circular 1/06 then the 'Y' lower splay required of 70m can be accommodated and the site becomes viable.
Consequently a speed limit of 30 MPH should apply as the village boundary will need to be moved out along Southam Road to include any new housing estate on either side of Southam road.
*Scale of Development:
- Should be reduced due to the rural and traffic impacts of high importance weighting.
Reduced Option 2a adjacent to A425 = 3ha giving 75 houses, impact to 11 dwellings
*Sustainability;
- This is the best option site for future Eco sustainability due to its South facing incline for roof solar heating and PV electrical generation and greater open South-West prevailing wind aspect to allow for wind turbine electric generation at each household.

Option Site 3 Land North of Southam Rd , ref RS1
* Comments for Option 2 equally apply to this site.
*Scale of Development:
- Can be expanded without further impact to 1.59ha as per the Sharba homes proposal which increases capacity to 40-50, making site more acceptable.

* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is lower than site 1) or 2) as this visually affects only 7 surrounding dwellings.
- Site 3)is of lesser quality grazing farmland than site 1.

Option Site 4 Land South West of Spring Lane , ref RS3
This site should not be discounted purely based on coalescence as it does not extend beyond the village boundary at Slade Meadow.
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- housing capacity should be reduced to 40-50 to solve traffic access from Spring lane and school lane to the A425.
* Landscape Impact, Greenfield function;
- Visual impact is high if trying to build all the 100+ houses in one development as this visually affects 34 surrounding dwellings.
*Scale of Development:
Reduced Option 4a at northern end to 2.1ha giving 50 houses, impact to 19 dwellings

New Site Option 5 Land West of School boundary, Environmental ref RS08
This new site is highlighted in the WDC Environmental report as a potential site of lesser impact than others and as such this must be considered further in comparison:
*Scale of Development:
- site area = 1.65ha giving 42 house capacity
*Traffic Impact, site access;
- Simple site access viable from Kingshurst to existing A425 junction for lower additional traffic volume from site..
* Landscape Impact
- Visual impact is Medium from the WDC environmental report. The site has a lower residential visibility ratio where 42 house capacity affects only 7 surrounding dwellings and the school.

Option 6) Combining of 2 or more reduced capacity sites;-
By combing two sites of fewer individual houses to achieve 80-100 capacity required gives a lower overall impact.
A) - Combining 2a and 5, gives 100+ capacity with lower impact to 18 dwellings, good traffic access
B) - Combining 3a and 5, gives 80+ capacity with lower impact to 12 dwellings, good traffic access
Option 1a) = 1.4ha giving 36 houses, impact to 10 dwellings
Option 2a) = 3ha giving 75 houses, impact to 11 dwellings
Option 3a) = 1.59ha giving 41 houses, impact to 5 dwellings
Option 4a) = 2.1ha giving 50 houses, impact to 19 dwellings
Option 5) = 1.65ha giving 42 houses, impact to 7 dwellings

Comparison of all Option Sites using a scoring Matrix
This is a comparison matrix of the option sites, (which WDC has not carried out in its assessments) using a business 'Pugh Matrix' method to gauge the relative difference between sites and produce a total scoring to judge the best options. The WDC proposed site is taken as a baseline and each of the other sites is scored against each criteria as being either the same 's', or better '+' or worse '-'. The importance of each criteria is also included to give better weighting.
The conclusion is that Options 3 and 5 are the better and most positive sites whilst Options 1 and 4 are the worst and most negative sites.




Indicative Boundary Plan
Representation; The Village boundary should be changed to give scope for better sustainable development towards the East and West and to protect the Church surrounding aspect the boundary should exclude the majority of Site 1) to stop encroachment of new developments.

To give scope for sustainable development towards the East, the Village boundary should be rounded outwards to include Options 2 and 3, towards the West to include Option 4 and also site RS08 highlighted in the WDC environmental assessment. To protect the Church surroundings the boundary should exclude the majority of Site 1 taking an angle North from the A425/ Offchurch Lane junction to Ice-hose spinney wood.
The final boundary should include whatever Option sites are finally chosen.
The boundary should be as small as possible to limit a large expansion of the village and further encroachment towards Leamington.

I feel that vehicular access to the site will not be possible in a manner that does not create gridlock and major congestion.

This proposed development of 100-130 houses is TOO BIG. This would be detrimental to existing housing, create too much traffic and develop the village on the wrong side of the A425 creating a village split in two by the busy main road. Traffic on the A425 is already promematic at peak times and with additional traffic from other planned developments for the Southam area any additional development here will exacerbate the situation.

The sites proposed development size and shape is unsuitable from a visual impact, infrastructure and traffic perspective. The number if houses proposed is far to high for any of the sites in Radford and are not sustainable given the current village infrastructure and facilities. However this site does provide a better option than the discounted sites 2,3&4 because;

- it utilises existing land within the village boundary and protect the longer term size and shape of Radford Village.
- it can be an effectively concealed site (see below proposed changes)
- it has less of a high visual impact (in terms of line of sight from distance compared to sites 2&3) although the draft developers outline plans are objectionable as they sprawl too far South and West on the site and impact the landscape visuals of the Church from East to West.
- it is closer to the main road network and is better suited than the majority of the village roads which are already effectively single lane carriageways due to parked cars and narrow roads.

Preferred sites 1 and 4 are the only ones that do not extend the village envelope. Previously these sites would have been referred to as infilling.
By approving any kind of development on sites 2 and 3 will inevitably lead to further applications to build in an easterly direction. There is also the real threat of exacerbating the risk of flooding in the Valley and Valley Road by building on site 2 as the natural slope of the land drains into the stream at the bottom of the site. The access to the Southam Road from sites 2 and 3 is far worse than that from site 1. I would propose that the number of dwellings proposed for site 1 is reduced by a number that could easily be contained on site 4.
The mail shot that we have received from Messrs. Gladman showing a site access opposite the White Lion is totally ill conceived.
A road re-alignment and traffic lights/roundabout at the junction of School Lane/ Southam Road and Church Lane would solve many traffic flow problems. It would also slow down the traffic that consistently persists on travelling through the village at speeds in excess of 30mph. This would also cater for extra traffic from site 4.
In reply to a letter that I sent to Chris Elliott, Chief Executive, WDC, in part he states that, "It is understood that that the Cedar, (miss-spelt Ceder) Tree Farm site, is located some distance from the main village (with no supporting services) and is not perceived to be a suitable location for supporting a sustainable approach to delivering housing". This site has, on more than one occasion, been proposed by the Parish Council as a suitable site for a new settlement. On each occasion it has been dismissed out of hand.
It is strange, therefore, that not more than a few hundred yards away is a WDC's proposed travellers site. Strange how the "supporting a sustainable approach to delivering housing" can change from one side of the A425 to the other.

In my view WDC's evaluation of Option 1), is inadequate. It fails to consider all the relevant factors, including WDC's own criteria. The options should be re-considered based on a comparison matrix as detailed in my evaluation attached.