The total of 80 dwellings entails disproportionate development in Leek Wootton in excess of the required village average. I can think of no justification for this and none appears to be offered in the Local Plan.

Option 4 projects far outside any reasonable compact outline of the village boundary causing disproportionate damage to the much valued surrounding green belt. Option 4, in particular, is much too far from the village centre and even further (3/4 mile!) from the village school - no walking to school from there!

Taken together, the 5 options for the village are unbalanced with more than 90% of development in the same peripheral location. Also, 75 dwellings in Woodcote Drive/Lane will put too much traffic into the difficult Anchor Pub junction.

As residents of Leek Wootton (Tremayne, Hill Wootton Road) we make the following comments related to the new local plan proposals:-

* The insetting of the villager settlement boundary is not appropriate as it could encourage over-development or excessive 'infilling' in the future. The village should not lose its Green Belt status as surely this gives some control of future development and growth options.

* The increase of village dwellings by 22% appears too high compared with other villages.

* Preferred sites 2 and 3 are far too small to accommodate the proposed dwellings unless, of course, high density housing is being proposed.

* Developing preferred sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 will give major access problems. With a very poor bus service (one an hour) most residents will require cars. Official estimates of 6 vehicular movements per day per dwelling could amount to 380 movements down a single narrow lane to an extremely dangerous junction by the Anchor public house every single day.

* The high proportion of affordable housing in the proposal (40 %?) would suggest an additional number of children of primary school age. The school is currently full. Has any consideration been made of extra classrooms and facilities? Also car parking which is a big problem especially if proposed site 5 is developed. (There is an unofficial arrangement for the parents to use this car park to transport children 'safely' to and from school).

* The village does not have a good range of services and facilities. It does have a primary school, church, public house and a village hall. But having no shop, apart from a wool shop and massage clinic can hardly be described as a good range of facilities.

* The hourly bus service can hardly be described as good accessibility to public transport. The possible reliance on this limited service by a large number of new residents, in affordable housing, would give major problems.

We know that additional housing should be provided in the village but bearing in mind the above points, we feel that the proposed scale is far too large for the village to sustain.

I would support this development, but NOT with the Police retaining the telecommunications and adjacent buildings.

I also have grave reservations over the land between Woodcote House and area 1 The Paddock which at present is being held by the Police and has outline planning permission. In due course when all the other development is completed it is almost inevitable that this parcel of land will also be developed giving a possibility of a further 100/150 houses. Leek Wootton would cease to be a village and would start to resemble a small town.

PART B - COMMENTING ON THE VILLAGE HOUSING OPTIONS

LEEK WOOTTON -Page 54 & 55

OBJECTION -1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Preferred options

* VERY BITTY PREFERRED OPTIONS -why leave the police playing field out of the option?
*
* MANY OTHER ITEMS TO CONSIDER - SEWERAGE, ROADS, PATHS, TRAFFIC, ETC.
*
* WOODCOTE & IT'S GROUNDS WOULD BE SPOILT
*
* POLICE AUTHORITY IN CHARGE OF SELLING OFF THEIR LAND HAVE CHANGED THE PLANS MANY TIMES OVER A LONG PERIOD. I'm sure the millions could be found to move the communications building.
*
It would be good to go with the planning consent and make that a retirement area.


SUPPORT

* THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD HOUSES IN LEEK WOOTTON AS ORDERED BY GOVERNMENT NATIONAL & LOCAL
SO

* I WOULD SUPPORT BUILDING ON DISCOUNTED OPTION 7 ONLY



We came to Leek Wootton 40 years ago and at that time developers had started to build about 90 properties to add to the small development of Tidmarsh Road & The Hamlet, expanding The Hamlet to include Croft Road and The Meadows.

I agree we do not want houses to join up with Kenilworth, we would lose our village status & identity.

Building houses at Discounted Option 7 would be more suitable and looking at the map appear a preferable area for construction, it would be a more balanced view.

LOCAL PLAN - LEEK WOOTTON -Page 54 & 55

PART C - COMMENTING ON THE INDICATIVE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES

I FAIL TO SEE WHY SO MANY OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED

IF DISCOUTED OPTION 7 WERE INCLUDED FOR HOUSING IT WOULD MAKE A FAR MORE BALANCED VIEW OF OUR VILLAGE.

IN ITS PRESENT FORMAT POLICE HQ STANDS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB!

The Woodcote Estate is a Grade 2 Listed Manor House of significant historical importance as a Manor House, as rehabilitation centre and as a Police Headquarters.

The grounds are formally listed as Gardens and Parkland

TPO0448 is in existence across the whole site

There are a number of rare indigenous wildlife species that inhabit the Garden and Parkland

There is confusion over the short term, mid term and long term use of Woodcote House by Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police. Appropriate developments should only be considered once the usage by the Police Authorities is determines

There is NO access to the site, either through the Warwick Road / Woodcote Lane junction or into Woodcote Drive itself, either for motor vehicles, cycles, pedestrians or disables access

Further developments would endanger life and be hazardous to the environment

There is no provision for sewage, the existing sewage post Woodcote Drive is share owned by the residents and Warwickshire Police - agreement would be required to modify / adapt this existing infrastructure from the owners or completely new sewage infrastructure would need to be laid

Other discounted sites exist that do not have any of the above issues associated with them. These sites should be brought back into consideration albeit under a more restrictive housing volume regime

I agree, in the main, with the Warwick District Council Local Plan, with respect to my own village, Leek Wootton, with the following exceptions:-
1. The number of additional dwellings proposed is very substantial, in comparison with the existing number of houses in the village of Leek Wootton, and whilst this is a not unreasonable target over a ten year period, the building of more than 15 houses in a single calendar year would have a very negative effective on the 'balance'; physical and social; of the village and I would therefore recommend this limit.
2. There is a substantial need for social housing in the village and I would suggest that Warwickshire District council insist that any developer building in the village must provide the Warwick district council section 106 target of 20%.
3. The document produced to not specifically identify that the building of ANY additional housing stock in the Village of Leek Wootton will require investment in the existing infrastructure to deal with access, this is especially the case for construction taking place to the west of the Warwick road. I would respectively suggest that the access/transportation infrastructure be agree before any new build works commence and that the costs of the necessary improvement be apportioned across all the new builds. This will culminate in appropriate infrastructure being in place once the large number of additional dwellings has be constructed without the burden of cost being undertaken by the Council. Specifically:- (a) Woodcote Lane/Warwick Road Junction requires traffic Lights, with a crossing point, and a safe crossing point for pedestrians on Woodcote Lane approaching this junction and (b) A cycle path between Leek Wootton and Kenilworth is required. There is plenty of physical space to build one. This is already required for the students attending Kenilworth Schools for the Village as the road is very narrow and this would provide a safe/health/environmentally friendly way for young people to attend school.

I would seriously question the proposal to build up to 70 homes in the grounds of the old Police Headquarters. My main concern would be the poor access that is proposed, using the current main drive to the Police HQ. The access through the main gates (are these listed by the way?) is narrow and the drive itself is barely wide enough to accommodate two cars passing each other.
During development there would have to be access to the site for diggers, HGVs and other plant. With no footpath I would consider this to be a serious safety hazard. The actual exit onto Woodcote Lane is also another hazard where safety would be compromised.
With 70 dwellings (100+ cars?) using the drive on a regular basis I think the proposal is untenable.

I write in relation to the above proposals and wish to register my comments in connection with the 2 key principles of the above proposals as they relate to Leek Wootton and in particular to the existing housing in the vicinity of Woodcote Lane.

I would make the initial comment that the existing planning permission which I believe has already been granted to the Police Authority for the development of a retirement village adjacent to Woodcote and the resultant impact of this do not appear to have been considered within the proposals set out in the consultation document nor in the consideration of sites for development. Similarly the continued use of part of the Woodcote House site by the Police as a result of delayed integration with the West Mercia Force does not appear to have been considered. I would have a concern therefore that this would appear to me to be a major oversight and potentially to mar the value of the work done. This development of a retirement village by the Police, or any other development resulting from a change to the existing granted permission, and the continued use by the police would add additional numbers to the households, traffic and other factors considered by the report particularly in relation to the traffic at the junction between Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road.

Proposed Housing Development in Areas LW1 to LW4 inclusive.

* I would object to the proposed redevelopment proposals for Areas LW1 to LW54 as identified in the above based on the current level of proposed development which on its own and without any other development in the village will lead to an increase in the village size of some 23%. I note this is well above those increases proposed for similar villages elsewhere within the study area where the increase is only some 15%.
* The additional development of some 80 properties will increase the traffic flow at the junction of Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road adjacent to The Anchor which is a difficult junction at the best of times and particularly during peak traffic flows. Traffic flow at this junction has been a significant issue to prior plans to develop on LW1 to LW4 e.g. the proposal to locate the village school in areas 1 and 2. I would question what has substantially changed in the pattern of traffic flow in the village to have removed this prior critical consideration.
* The Warwick District Council plan indicates that Leek Wootton has good public transport links and I would challenge this assertion as being beneficial to any increase in housing. In reality any new residents of the proposed development will utilise private vehicles and whilst there may be existing traffic flowing from the police headquarters under its current use I would suggest to you that the pattern of residential travel will be appreciably different with an emphasis of generating traffic concentrations at the Warwick road junction at key school travel and working day peaks.
* I would not object to a substantially reduced development in the LW1 to LW4 areas which if done in sympathy with the existing character of the Village. Such a development would potentially benefit the village provided that the impact of the development adhered to the numerous recommendations made in Appendix 8 and the report on Landscape Sensitivity & Ecological and Geological Study and in comments elsewhere all of which emphasise the importance of these areas to the necessary preservation of Green Belt and the recommendation to preserve hedge and tree screening to the boundary with Woodcote Lane. This I would feel is an essential constraint on any plans to redevelop in order to preserve the character of the village and to prevent degradation of amenity to those properties on Woodcote Lane.
* I note that the Appendices to the consultation reject other areas of adjacent development. However I also note that the Critical review of the WDC recommendations only focused on the site chosen as preferred and did not comment on the sites "dismissed". Given that this Peer review report found points of disagreement with the choice of recommended site might it not also have been the case that it may also have found disagreement with the assessment to dismiss other locations around the village. As an example area 8 which has been dismissed in the current assessment had previously been Considered "potentially suitable subject to evidence of need and noise mitigations" I wonder therefore if the sites chosen at LW1 to LW4 do not have an implicit influence from the need for the Police Authority to dispose of land.

Proposal to Remove Green Belt "Wash Over" from Leek Wotton

* A number of documents presented as appendices to the WDC report comment on the significance of Leek Wootton to the Green Belt and High impact is a term often used. The proposal to remove the Green belt from Leek Wotton and replace this with a perimeter boundary would allow the potential for infill development within the Village. In addition the actual location of the boundary would be critical to the extent of this potential infill development. Assuming that the boundary remains as shown in the consultation documents then based on the average density of development used for Areas 1 to 4 there would appear to be the potential to develop a further 20 or so houses within the village boundary. This assumes that the sports ground cannot be further developed due to its status with the Waller Trust.
* The boundary clearly leaves the potential for the current area of the police headquarters sports field to be argued for development if areas 1 to 4 are developed. Again based upon the average density used in these areas then this would potentially add a further 40 properties to the village with the result that we could see a total of 80 + 20 + 40=140 properties which would constitute an increase of some 37% on the overall size of the community with the potential to give rise to concerns over the impacts of such a growth on the village and its infrastructure. In addition this further potential development adjacent to Woodcote Lane would feed additional traffic into the junction between Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road.
* I note that there appears to be limited consideration given to the need to protect wildlife that currently utilises the village and the land adjacent to Woodcote Lane. In particular the presence of Muntjac Deer in the fields between Woodcote Lane and Woodcote Drive and the clear presence of a bat population in the gardens and woods adjacent to Woodcote Avenue do not appear to have been factored into the site selection criteria.
* For these reasons I object to this proposal to remove the Green Belt "Wash Over" and suggest that if WDA is to comply with the recommendations in the reports it has commissions on impacts on Green Belt then it should retain the current Green Belt status.


Action to resolve objections

* Undertake a revised assessment of the proposed areas LW1 to LW4 taking into account the existing planning granted to the Police Authority or modifications thereto, the retention of activity by the Police at Woodcote House for the foreseeable future as a result of delays in the integration of the Warwickshire and West Mercia forces and the with due consideration given to the presence of Muntjac Deer and Bat populations adjacent to Woodcote Lane.
* Extend the scope of the Peer Review process to include previously dismissed site in order that a full equal assessment of all potential sites can be seen to have been undertaken.
* If the above result in some of LW1 to LW4 being retained as preferred options then limit the development size and density to be commensurate with the size increases proposed for other villages within the study area namely circa 16%. This to be done to accordance with recommendations relating to the retention of hedgerows and trees adjacent to Woodcote Lane.
* Retain the Village within the Green Belt.

Dear Sirs
Find below my formal comments to the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation
In summary I completely object to the development of the Woodcote House estate (Preferred Options 1,2,3,4). My key objections are:
1. The Woodcote Estate is a Grade 2 Listed Manor House of significant historical importance as a Manor House, as rehabilitation centre and as a Police Headquarters.
2. The grounds are formally listed as Gardens and Parkland
3. TPO0448 is in existence across the whole site
4. There are a number of rare indigenous wildlife species that inhabit the Garden and Parkland
5. There is confusion over the short term, mid term and long term use of Woodcote House by Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police. Appropriate developments should only be considered once the usage by the Police Authorities is determines
6. There is NO access to the site, either through the Warwick Road / Woodcote Lane junction or into Woodcote Drive itself, either for motor vehicles, cycles, pedestrians or disables access
7. Further developments would endanger life and be hazardous to the environment
8. There is no provision for sewage, the existing sewage post Woodcote Drive is share owned by the residents and Warwickshire Police - agreement would be required to modify / adapt this existing infrastructure from the owners or completely new sewage infrastructure would need to be laid
9. Other discounted sites exist (11, 8 and 9) that do not have any of the above issues associated with them. These sites should be brought back into consideration albeit under a more restrictive housing volume regime
Page 54 Chapter 11
STRONGLY OBJECT TO OPTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4

Commenting on the Village Housing Options
Primary site access is completely inappropriate for additional dwellings
* The Police HQ and associated traffic will keep at its current level - no indication that it is about to diminish given the merger with West Mercia there is a high probability that the site will continue in its current form and current traffic flow rate. Hence any additional developments will be generating traffic in addition to the current levels, introducing congestion, risk of accidents and increased greenhouse gases
* There are TPO (TPO0448) in place now around the entire site - so there is no opportunity for widening access
* The Gates are listed and cannot be widened , and do not allow for two way traffic
* There are no pavements - already my family and neighbours are frightened to let children walk along Woodcote Drive and Woodcote Lane. It is complete inappropriate and does not allow children to even walk to the village school. There is a requirement to drive children to the school as there is simply no pavement s and it is not a safe environment for anybody , let alone children to walk with the current traffic flow rates.
To gain access to Woodcote Drive requires access to Woodcote Lane - that can only be accessed via Warwick road. The Main junction by the village Anchor Pub is completely inappropriate for additional developments. The current usage by the police and the shift working pattern allows the traffic to be spread through the quieter periods. Having additional developments along Woodcote Lane will mean an additional 100 to 200 vehicles all trying to navigate these narrow junctions at peak hours causing at best traffic bedlam and at worst injuries and deaths due to motor traffic accidents. It is not even an option to walk as there are no pavements. I myself have already been involved in serious accident at that junction, and it is clearly recognised as a black spot by the council and the police. This can be evidenced by the recent traffic calming signs and the continuous presence of Police speed cameras due to raised and serious concerns about the safety of that junction.
The development would put an impossible strain on already limited sewage and drainage capacity. The current network cannot cope with the existing volumes. Additional housing would need to plumb into this network. My objection is both on health and safety grounds, but also on ownership. The residents on Woodcote Drive have ownership of the sewerage network and are not willing to allow and developments that would impact this network and cause damage that would require remedial work.
The identified site is an area of natural beauty and is identified as formally protected Garden and Parkland grounds. There are already restrictive covenants in place on existing properties to prevent any further developments. The proposed development on Woodcote house goes completely against these covenants and does not pay any regard to the significance of the land and natural habitat. These covenants will need to be adhered to or to be lifted. There are no mentions or references to the protected nature of the gardens, the plants, flora and wildlife that uses this land as habitat. Rare species such as pond snakes, adders, newts, hedgehogs and bats all inhabit this land, and are protected species that would lose natural habitat if development in Woodcote House was to be granted.
Finally the village has an atmosphere that would be completely destroyed if these developments were to go ahead due to the size nature scale and geographic concentration of the developments

Settlement 11 - Leek Wootton
STRONGLY OBJECT
Commenting on the Indicative Settlement Boundaries
I completely disagree with the Indicative Settlement Boundary for Leek Wootton. In particular the removal of the Woodcote House Site from the green belt is beyond comprehension. It is a listed site of both historical and natural significance. The building is listed and the entrance that is part of the site provides a character that is appropriate to the main building itself. The existing developments along Woodcote Drive are very limited and are done in a way minimise impact to the site as a whole. The proposed developments show no consideration to the historic nature of the site and would due to placing, scale and nature completely impose and damage the site. In addition to the listed building itself the gardens and grounds are identified as being of major significance and are formally identified as Gardening and Parkland. The fauna is of particular significance, not only due to its beauty, but also as it provides a habitat for a number of rare indigenous specifies such as snakes (Adders, Pond Snakes), newts, herons and bats. I have not been able to find an impact assessment that describes how the wildlife would be impacted. A nature survey as part of this proposal and would strongly insist that a survey is carried out that identifies and safeguard the habitat of our rarest species before they are lost. In addition the entire site has been identified with TPOs following the reckless and illegal felling of trees by the Police Authority.
I would need to understand your reasoning and rationale why land of such historical and natural beauty would be developed upon that has no easy access rather than farm or arable land that has no rare species or fauna and has easy access from major roadworks. The additional effect of removing the Woodcote House site from Green Belt would be the infill developments that would occur on the existing residential developments. It cannot be understated the knock on impacts of these developments once the classification on the Woodcote House site is lifted.
Another important consideration is the usage of the Police Headquarters itself. There is no clear plan for the Police to move out of this site. With the impending merger with West Mercia Police it is probable that the Woodcote House itself and the communications block will remain in its current use for the foreseeable future. This would mean that any developments would result in traffic flow that would be in addition to the existing traffic generated by the Police Headquarters. In addition to this there is total confusion and disarray regarding what the short, medium and long term plans of the Warwickshire Police are. On the 26th November a SHLAA was submitted for 90 dwelling - this included the playing fields. This is in contrast to what is being proposed in the Local Plan. Given this confusion and lack of clarity it would be strongly recommended to remove the Warwickshire Police Headquarter site - Woodcote House from the sites as preferred options. Other sites that have been discounted should be reconsidered such as 11, 8 and 9 - all of which are on farmland so do not impact Garden Parkland and all of which have easy access to major road networks. I would also suggest that the scale of any developments be factored down considerable to maintain the historic and special characteristics of Leek Wootton.

I wish to STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed 75 dwellings on the Woodcote Estate, formerly the Warwickshire Police Headquarters.

The Woodcote Estate and Grade 2 listed Manor House.

I understand that the Warwickshire Police have now withdrawn areas 2 and 4 and have submitted a SHLAA on 26th November 2013 for 90 dwellings on 5.24Ha which comprises area 1 and land currently used as a playing field. They also wish to still include area 3 for dwellings.

Both the local plan scheme and the subsequent SHLAA within the grounds of the Woodcote Estate will remove parkland, playing fields and encroach on the grade 2 listed building Woodcote House.

The Woodcote Estate is currently a locally listed historic park and garden. In January 2012 a tree preservation order (TPO448) was placed on the whole Woodcote estate. During correspondence with WDC in a letter dated 31st January 2012 from Chris Hastie (representing WDC tree subcommittee) he refers to "the historic landscape that forms the setting of the Grade 2 listed building" and that Broome House "is clearly connected both visually and historically with Woodcote and continue to form part of the landscape setting of Woodcote" He also confirmed that the whole estate is a locally listed Parkland and Garden.

If as recently as 2012 WDC policy was that the Woodcote Estate needed protecting why do WDC now consider 75 dwellings, or possibly 90 dwellings, on the estate acceptable? A clear decision was made and for consistency WDC should discount areas 1-4 and reject the latest SHLAA for 90 dwellings.


Existing Planning Consents on the Woodcote Estate.

Currently Warwickshire police have existing planning consents for a variety of schemes within the Woodcote Estate. The main permissions being modifications to the "Communications Building" REF W/12/0688, and the redevelopment of existing buildings, including the grade 2 listed Woodcote Manor House, to create a Care Home Village REF W/11/1166.

From the planning statement supporting W/11/1166 this scheme would potentially create a 60 bed nursing home, 65 close care apartments/cottages and 9 care ready cottages. Add to this the suggested Local Plan options 1-4 and/or the Police SHLAA the Woodcote estate would all but disappear with potentially in excess of 150 dwellings with a small open area between the SHLAA development and the Care Village. This is clearly over development, will have a major impact on the immediate area, village infrastructure and should not be allowed.

It would appear Warwickshire Police at the moment are unable to make any definite decisions on how they intend to proceed with these consented applications. Uncertainty has been ongoing from early 2011 when the intension to dispose of the Woodcote Estate was first announced by the Chief Constable. Now with the potential merger with West Mercia, and the added complications to any decision process this adds, it seems unlikely any decision will be made in the near future.

Until such time as Warwickshire Police can confirm their intentions with the whole of the Woodcote Estate it should be removed from the local plan. When they can make a decision it should be put forward to the planners for consideration by a planning application.

Access to proposed development.

The main access to Woodcote is via Woodcote Drive with a tree lined secondary single track service entrance by North Lodge. Both are part of the estate and un-adopted. The only other access, possibly via a new entrance off Woodcote Lane, is not possible as adequate visibility splays are not available (as set out in site appraisal preferred option 1 appendix 6). It would also have a high landscape impact as would the whole development.

The current preferred option sites 1-4 and the SHLAA would therefore have to be accessed via Woodcote Drive and is shown as the primary access on the page 55 of the Local Plan publication. If sites 1-4 and/or the SHLAA area are allowed, the Care Village built and the Police Communications Centre stay Woodcote Drive could potentially have in excess of 1000 traffic movements per day. With just 75 new dwellings and the existing 14 residential properties based on 7 movements per dwelling per day movements of 600+ could occur, many concentrated around rush hour.


This is clearly not possible or acceptable for reasons listed here:

* Woodcote Drive is barely wide enough for two cars to pass (4.5m wide at most) and has no footpath. Assuming new residents would have children wishing to walk to the village school a footpath would have to be provided which is not possible due to the proximity of mature trees with a TPO. This would also have a major impact on the main entrance to Woodcote and the Manor House.
* Several concealed driveways already exist.
* The existing main decorative gate on Woodcote Lane is 3.1m wide. Is in the village conservation area and probably listed being within the curtilage of a Grade 2 listed building.


Impact on surrounding area and Woodcote Lane.

The junction of Woodcote Lane and Warwick Road is considered by Leek Wootton residents as very dangerous. By some, the site of a fatal accident waiting to happen. Even with the recent introduction of improved speed restriction signage vehicles still speed through the village and near misses happen on a regular basis. Any attempt to turn in the direction of Warwick is taken in trepidation.

Any development that increases traffic at the junction will increase the possibility of accidents occurring.

Woodcote Lane narrows by the Anchor pub and it is difficult for cars to pass safely and impossible if commercial vehicles meet requiring them to mount the narrow footpath to pass. It is impossible for any widening of the road or footpaths to take place at this point due to the proximity of buildings, most of which are listed.

Woodcote Lane heading towards Rouncil Lane is in a poor state of repair and has been for many years. The narrow bridge is also a cause for concern as is again, the lack of footpaths and lighting.


Conclusion.

For these many reasons I strongly oppose the proposed development of the Woodcote Estate and suggest that sites with better access and smaller impact would be the way forward. For example, option 5 and discounted option 7, land at the Warwickshire Golf Club entrance, has excellent access, is close to the school and would have no more impact visually than the Woodcote development from Woodcote Lane. Probably a high proportion of traffic from here would not come through the village and head to the A46 Warwick bypass. This site could take a large proportion of the suggested required allocation of dwellings for Leek Wootton and I would support its inclusion in the local plan and subsequent development.

see attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attached

See attached

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

If you take an area bordering the left hand side of Hill Wootton Road, Tidmarsh Road, The Hamlet, Croft Road, The Meadows and Warwick Road within this area there are approximately 144 houses on this, the most densely populated area of Leek Wootton. This area is approximately 3 times greater then areas 1, 2 and 3 on the Police Headquarters so by this ratio the maximum number of houses which should be allowed on these sites in keeping with the ethos of L.W. should be 48, otherwise the nature of the village will be lost. The 95 houses proposed by the Police is hugely excessive and totally unreasonable.
Access to these areas is not feasible. Woodcote Lane is too narrow, has soft verges with no kerbs, there is no pedestrian footpath for walkers and the road is already over used by lorries from the abattoir which make it extremely dangerous. The junction by the Anchor Pub has experienced many accidents and is totally unsuitable for any increase in capacity. The proposed density of houses would produce 100/150 extra vehicles using this junction on a daily basis - given the Police are no longer abandoning the site.
The School would need an increase in classrooms and teachers.
At present there is no shop in the village for the elderly, or those without transport.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached