I support this application as a preferred site to build new houses in as much that it is/was a brown field site being a former nursery and garden centre. There is already a good access to the site and it is close to the local bus stop, shops and not too far from the train station and GP practise. To build here would be an asset to the village as it would utilise an area that has in the past been built on so is not encroaching on actual Green Belt land which I consider must be preserved.

At a time when new housing needs to be built in nearly every village in the land I would encourage building on the Meadow House, Kingswood site for the following reasons:-

a) It is a small area which is close to the rail station and other local services.
b) It is a site that has previously been developed - in the recent past as a nursery/landscaping business and before that a riding school.
c) It is an area which does not flood.

I therefore ask you to permit building on this area of land.

Please refer to my letter to the Development Policy Manager dated 30 December 2013

Serious concerns about existing flooding problems in the area, plus the impact on road safety and parking facilities. If development is to go ahead here the existing and potential problems must to be fully resolved first

1. The site is on the edge of an existing settlement.
I Understand that the settlement envelope is to be extended up to the Grand Union canal.
The site was formerly the used as a nursery and before that a riding school. The land is tantamount to brownfield land and therefore is in line with the sequential test.
The fact that the site is bounded by the canal provides clear delineation of the settlement edge and avoids any risk of encroachment into the green belt beyond.
2. The site Is ideal by virtue of the fact that it is close to existing facilities and infrastructure in Kingswood. This includes access to the post office, village shop, hairdressers and off licence, the doctors surgery, the school, the Navigation Inn and Restaurant and particularly public transport in the form of Lapworth railway station. This will reduce car borne journeys and is therefore sustainable.
3. The site is low lying and would therefore allow any development to be relatively un-obtrusive.
4. There is a need for more smaller houses for younger members of the community and in addition there is a need for more opportunities for the older generation to down size. I believe that this site could achieve this and I speak for a number of other residents of Rowington parish who hold the same view.
Although the site is bounded by Kingswood brook I am told that this site has no history of flooding. Reference to on-line Environment Agency flood maps confirms this. I note that it is intended that there needs to be a hydrology report and no doubt a flood risk assessment. I am confident that development will be possible within any flooding restraints.
5. I also think that the site has excellent amenity value because of its proximity to the canal network which provides excellent walking facilities. This is in addition to other public footpaths in the vicinity.

Current good design complies with the 12 way test of "Build for Life 12" produced by the Design Council in association with CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) and is designed to fit with the national planning policy framework (NPPF) this site already fulfils many of those 12 tests

I therefore commend this site to be allocated for future housing development.

I write to fully support the proposal to build on this site. There is an urgent need for smaller housing, not only for young people but also to allow older people, who have outgrown their larger properties, to remain within their communities. This would have the advantage that, in addition to remaining with friends and neighbours, they could be cared for within the community, and not become a burden on the state!

This appears to be an ideal plot - local facilities are good, it is not in anyones sight lines, and so would not cause offence to neighbours; additionally it has been previously developed as a site, and is known not to have a flooding problem.

I do hope very much that this development goes ahead, as it will provide much needed amenities for the area.

I support the proposed allocation of The Meadow House in the Village Options.

There is definitely a need for bungalows/houses for people to downsize to in this area. I have seen friends who have had
to move out of the area because of the lack of suitable housing and this problem is getting worse as the Rowington population ages.

If villages do not provide such accommodation, then they will lose their community spirit.

The Meadow House is my preferred option as it is close to facilities such as doctor's, post office, shops and railway station and, as it is so well screened, is an ideal spot.

I write on behalf of my Wife and myself to express our interest and indeed our wholehearted support for the proposals in the development of the former Kingswood Nursery and Garden Centre. We are local residents, living in Rowington and as such we know the site well and have taken a keen interest in the situation thus far. This interest is partly of a selfish nature, in that we are of an age when downsizing and in particular to a small/single storey dwelling become more of a necessity than just desirable.The possibility if staying in the Rowington/Lapworth area is of added interest. We also recognise the need to provide affordable housing to encourage younger people to stay in the area.

We know the site and it seems to us that it sits well into the locality, has defined boundaries and is particularly well screened. It is, of course a previously developed site, having been a riding stable, a garden centre and a nursery/landscape depot. More importantly, as a potential home for younger families early on to the property ladder and to the more elderly who will no doubt also be interested, it is near to local services and facilities and a short walk from a very good rail service.

The Plan clearly recognises these benefits as well as recognising that housing should be provided in this situation, surely one of the more sustainable villages in the District, to ensure that it thrives and does not lose its existing services and facilities.

We feel strongly that this proposal should be the 'preferred option' in your deliberations, as it a suitable site to meet the needs of the two Parishes of Rowington and Lapworth.

We understand that we are in a 'Consultation Period' and are therefore anxious that our views are made known, before its' expiry on 20th January next.

We write in support of the above site to be considered for the provision of smaller housing in the area to allow younger people and the older generation the option of staying in the locality. The site has many advantages, being near to local services and facilities, yet being off the main road and in a location which would not impact unduly on the surroundings - in fact, if sensitively developed and landscaped, it would be an attractive addition.
We ourselves are in the situation of a number of people who have lived in the community for many years and are unable to find anything suitable to move to now that we can no longer manage large gardens, stairs, etc., and could face the situation of no longer driving. The only option is council provided sheltered housing (Beech Close) for which we would not be eligible - the same applies to St. Lawrence Close. A relatively small development, such as the above, could mean that we would be able to look after ourselves without needing to resort to carers, etc., for some time and also remain in contact with the friends, organisations and groups which are such an important part of our lives.
We hope that you will take these views into consideration when options are being decided upon.

I am in full support of the proposed devlopement at kingswood house ref above for the following reasons.

1. It is one of the prefered site options on the local parish plan of "rowington and lapworth" to help maintain a strong local community, by providing new smaller housing to allow the younger people of the parish, homes which they can afford.

2. The site has definable boundries, does not flood, is well screened, and therefor will have little impact on the area visually.

3. It is close to local services and facilities.

See attached.

The Rowington Almshouse Charity supports the inclusion of the Meadow House site as a location for the development of affordable housing. The Charity has been in discussions with the landowner as a potential Provider of 1-2 bedroom affordable housing under a Section 106 agreement.
The Rowington Almshouse Charity has been a provider of social housing for more than 100 years and we believe that the development of affordable housing on this site would support the policy context outlined in section 2.2 to 2.10 by providing housing suitable for younger people and families. This would in turn support sustainability of local schools, shops and transport infrastructure to the benefit of the local area as a whole.

see attached

see attached

Following the recent planning meeting at Rowington Village Hall, we are writing to confirm our support for the proposed development. We believe it is important to ensure the growth of the village communities of Lapwort h and Rowington and is in line with the current policies of Central Government to build more houses and support rural and semi rural areas.

We suggest the following points should be taken into consideration:
It is central to the village.
It is close to all the key services and facilities.
It is not in an area likely to flood.
It is not overlooked.
It has it's own existing landscaping and defined boundary.

We have lived in and around Rowington for the past 45 years and have seen the villages grow and particularly the proposed site which has contributed to the community both as a riding stable and latterly a successful Garden Centre and Nursery.
We believe the proposed development is vital if we are to ensure the growth of the community and to encourage the younger generation to be to stay in the locality with the addition of smaller housing.

We look forward to following the progress of the development.

, We have been thinking about the options regarding development in the local area and have studied the Warwick District Council Local Plan document that is open for consultation. We are residents of Rowington and as a result the pages dealing with Kingswood are of particular interest.

We understand that some development in the area has to take place to deal with housing needs and hence some of the Green Belt may have to be released for this purpose. Based on that supposition, we support development at Meadow House and Kingswood Farm.

I understand that some 30 houses are being considered for the 2 sites.

The advantage of these 2 sites over any others are that they are immediately adjacent to the heart of what we know as Lapworth but you call Kingswood. Lapworth has many facilities including a school, a railway station, an active village hall, a village store, an off licence, a garage, 2 hair dressers. If development takes place anywhere else in Lapworth or Rowington such facilities are likely to be accessed by car. There are already serious issues with cars around the school in the morning and afternoon, the station car park is very limited and is already full most days and the area around the garage, hairdressers and off licence is already potentially dangerous because of lack of parking. Whilst the new residents of a development as proposed would undoubtedly have cars one would hope that their use of local services would not require them to be used.

With an aging population in the area particularly Rowington, there are very few options for downsizing without moving to Henley or Dorridge and this involves moving further from friends and neighbours. Such people need good quality accommodation requiring less maintenance including bungalows, close to facilities and these 2 sites seem to fit the bill.

A lot of the Meadow House site has been used as a business before and because of its location only extends the village boundary by a small amount. It is land that is enclosed by canals, existing building and the railway and seems to us to be a natural place to extend the village boundary. without risk of further spread.

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 accept this email as confirmation of our objection to three proposed development sites (listed below) and as outlined in your document 'Appendix 6 - Site Matrix - Part A' of the New Local Plan for Warwick District.

Objection to:
* Settlement Site - Kingswood, Option 1 Site Ref: KW1*O/R82, Site name; Meadow House, Kingswood
* Settlement Site - Kingswood, Option 2 Site Ref: KW2*O/R38, Site name; Kingswood Farm, Old Warwick Road
* Settlement Site - Kingswood, Option 6 Site Ref: KW12*, Site name; Land to the rear of Kingswood Cottages
The above sites are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:

1. Option 1 Site Ref: KW1*O/R82 & Option 6 Site Ref: KW12* are both high potential flood risk areas as registered with the Environment Agency. Any engineered flood elevation scheme proposed by a developer for these areas has the potential to be unsympathetic to the surrounding area and detract from the rural setting of the Parish of Rowington. The area of land known as Kingwood is widely known as a flood risk area and many local properties are flooded on a regular basis (at least 1 once a year).
2. Old Warwick Road serves all three sites listed above. However, the existing 30mph speed limit is regularly exceeded by 'through traffic'. Even if the visibility site lines could be achieved in order to meet current Highway Specifications the proposed access points to each site would put motorist and pedestrians at risk. The section of footway along Old Warwick Road between the Canal Bridge and the Junction of Station Lane is used regularly by 10 or more households who walk children to the local school. The footway is not currently wide enough to safely walk along with pushchairs/small children and pedestrians are often forced to walk in the carriageway in order to pass oncoming pedestrians or parked cars. The existing boundary constraints would not allow a new section of footway to be accommodated in any proposed plans for development without extensive highway works being needed. This type of work would significantly change the historic character of the surrounding area.
3. The land to the rear of Kingswood Cottages Option 6 Site Ref: KW12* has in the past been used as an abattoir and as such the land must be treated as posing a risk to human health due to contamination of the land until proper testing of the land has been carried out to determine its suitability for building homes on and confirmation that it does not pose a risk to local residents. The buildings used for this activity have only being demolished within the last 30 years.
4. Some of the information contained within document 'Appendix 6 - Site Matrix - Part A' - Option 1 Site Ref: KW1*O/R82 & Option 2 Site Ref: KW2*O/R38 is incorrect. On this basis alone the document can not legitimately be used in order to base an informed decision on the future of the local community. As such, a full review of the information contained within the document should be carried out in order to identify other areas of factually incorrect information that has used and to prevent any decisions made based on this information being unlawful.
It must be noted that Rowington Parish Council have behaved appallingly towards the residents of Rowington. No consultation about the Local Plan has taken place with local residents at any time during this process. Local residents (unlike other Parish Councils) have not even been made aware of the proposed development sites at all. The location of these sites has only come to our attention by word of mouth between residents. There is actually no planned development for Rowington Parish and the term 'Kingswood' can not be used to define areas that are in fact in Rowington. Rowington Parish Council have been made aware of this fact but have chosen not to listen to the objections raised by local residents either at PC meetings or in writing regarding this fact and have acted in an underhand and deceitful manner. It brings in to question the morality of some of the members of Rowington Parish Council. Do they have an agenda between themselves and an interest to see these sites put forward for development over more suitable sites which have been rejected yet those rejected sites are not affected by issues of flooding, listed buildings, highway constraints and land contamination as identified in the three sites listed above. Do the members of Rowington Parish Council not have a legal duty to serve their Parishioners in an honest and fair manner? A formal complaint will be raised against Rowington Parish Council with regards to how this issue has been executed. It has all the hallmarks of 'cronyism' existing within the Parish Council.

See attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

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.

see attached