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

Serious concerns about existing flooding problems in this part of Kingswood. Concerns also about the effect of additional cars coming out onto the Old Warwick Road from Sites 2,1 and 6 just after the canal bridge

, 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.

To whom it may concern. In principle, I concur with the proposals for the suggested sites for development and for the discounted areas, but would like to comment in general about the decisions so far made in the enquiry. Lapworth is a rural area offering the features and lifestyle expected in such a locality: green belt, rural landscape, hedge and tree frontages (many trees with preservation orders), poor drainage and flooding issues, an inadequate sewage system and narrow and hazardous roads. In most of the preferred sites I can sense the danger of entrance and exit to and from well used busy roads. Certainly the preferred sites of Kingswood Farm and behind Kingswood Cottages are situated opposite and beside a busy garage and shops where cars are parked on the main road restricting the view and traffic flow. Vehicle parking should be addressed before these sites are considered for development. It is a sensible decision to discount the sites along Station Lane. It is a working agricultural site, fronted by hedgerow and many preserved trees and on a narrow and busy lane. Entrance and exit from these sites by more vehicles would only add to the hazards causing extra danger to pedestrians, especially the children, using the road. The very wet conditions of the fields add only to the poor drainage in the area overburdening the inadequate sewage system and to the flooding in wet weather which seems to be more prevalent in recent times. Any development in such an area as Lapworth can only harm the rural atmosphere of the village, so any decision must be taken sympathetically, with the understanding of the needs of the Community, the safety of the residents and of the suitability of the roads and infra-structure.

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

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

Local Plan Consultation on Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation - Kingswood

I refer to the Local Plan Consultation on Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation, in particular relating to Kingswood and wish to object to the sites 1, 2 and 6 identified in the above consultation. The previous consultation focused on Lapworth as a primary service village and indeed many meetings were held with residents from Lapworth, but no such opportunity was granted to the residents of Rowington as no development was envisaged due to Rowington being classed in the small village/hamlet category.

I wish to object as a resident of Rowington parish, to where it was indicated that your Council are looking for land from green belt within Lapworth (Kingswood) and that there would be very limited, if any, development in Rowington. This was a misleading consultation.

You are now looking at identifying sites within Rowington, without any proper consultation taking place with the residents of Rowington and who no doubt are of the opinion that there will be no development.

It is noted that some of the sites in Kingswood have been discounted due to flooding issues. I understand from the Environment Agency that they have not been consulted over any proposals for development at the Kingswood sites.
They advise that given that the area experiences flooding, and the sites are to be included as part of the Local Plan, they would request that a flood model is undertaken as part of that process to inform those involved in the decision making process.

Some of the Kingswood sites referred to in the Consultation, have been discounted due to flooding, but others included as preferred options, notwithstanding flooding being experienced. How has this judgement been made if the Environment Agency have not been consulted?

The Consultation Document is incorrect. It states that option sites have been discussed with Rowington residents. What was the basis of discussion of proposed option sites. It was not with the Parish Council and there was no notice of any public meetings. Please clarify.
Lapworth and Rowington are completely separate villages in their own right. Local people do not make particular reference to living in Kingswood, they live in either Lapworth or Rowington and are proud to do so.

Preferred option sites 1 and 6 suffer from and have the potential to suffer from flooding, a point of concern raised previously by the Environment Agency when an application for development in the area of site 1 was submitted in the past. There is a proposal in preferred option site 1 to erect a gabion wall if development takes place. This is an acknowledgement of flooding potential and by erecting such a gabion wall where will any flood waters go, or is this not a matter of concern for the Council.

The sites identified at Kingswood are bounded by either Kingswood Brook and or canals, and local residents have had many years' experience of flooding where the Kingswood Brook passes under the Old Warwick Road by a restricted culvert and similarly by a restricted culvert under the feeder canal between the Grand Union Canal and the Stratford Canal. This has led to the flooding of local houses, shops and a garage and at times, leaving the Old Warwick Road impassable.

Further development can only aggravate the situation and from contact which has been made with the Environment Agency, it has not been consulted on the specific plans for these sites under the Draft Local Plan. Since this is the statutory body with the expertise into flooding at the present time, I find it alarming that your Council has not been in touch with them to determine that these sites are suitable before arriving at decisions with regard to preferred options. Good governance would say this is wrong.

The grouping of sites 1, 2 and 6 is far too over intensive having regard to the limited size of the local settlements. The locations are all backfill sites not infill sites which is generally regarded as an inappropriate means of justifying development taking place.

If any development is required, then surely this should be restricted to infill and spread throughout the settlement to avoid overcrowding and other problems associated with services and infrastructure for the area.

The Old Warwick Road is now a busy thoroughfare and access to the proposed sites in on a bend at the foot of a hill, and adjoining a busy garage which itself generates of lot of parked vehicles. The speed of traffic is often far in excess of the 30mph speed limit and with such potentially large developments creating in effect, a cross roads, this will be a traffic hazard. Have the police been consulted for their views?

The sites all have canal boundaries and which Kingswood Brook runs under. Have the Canal & Waterways Trust been consulted prior to a decision being taken over the preferred options? If not, why not?

There is poor public transport serving the area and emergency vehicles have at least a 10/15 minute journey before they can arrive in the vicinity. Have the Police and Fire Service been consulted?

The former Kingswood Nursery site is not only within green belt at present, it is also a Special Landscape Area which your Council determined and which it should be seeking to conserve and protect. Over development will have a detrimental impact on the rural landscape.

The character of the surrounding area, the local street scene including listed buildings, watercourses, would make any development detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining residents as well as detrimental to the character of the area.

There is an abundance of wildlife in the area and I question whether or not the Council has undertaken a survey to establish whether there are protected species on the sites in question, in particular, bats and slow worms etc all of which have been seen locally.

In the initial consultation undertaken by your Council, 57 respondents were against
Development and only 5 in favour. Those in favour being either developers or landowners wanting to develop their land.

Your Council is being challenged by a number of parish councils with the support of many other parish and town councils. Should you not defer any decisions until the outcome of this challenge is known. If your Council is wrong, then it has unnecessarily incurred a great deal of expenditure in a flawed consultation process.

Why for the sake of a few months, until a decision is made about the validity of your housing needs figures has been determined, should you be continuing with this exercise.

If you determine sites now and it is found they are unnecessary then surely, you will set yourself up to challenges by developers and landowners.

see attached