BASE HEADER

The case for enabling green belt land to be used for housing development north of Royal Leamington Spa is flawed for the following reasons:
1) If there is no local plan agreed, such development would not be allowed under the new National Planning Policy Framework.
2) The concept of green belt was established to maintain sufficient space between urban areas to contain them within specific boundaries and prevent smaller villages, hamlets, and local communities from being overwhelmed by urban spread. The current proposals significantly weaken this approach. They narrow further the space between Leamington and Kenilworth and would set a precedent for further relaxation of the boundaries in the future. The other factors given below do not provide a strong enough case for this policy to change.
3) This northern area is used for recreational purposes by a significant proportion of people and is one of the key 'lungs' for urban residents in this area. Whilst it is also a farmed area, there is more potential to develop this area for greater recreational use than for other areas around the conurbation of Warwick and Leamington.
4) The specific blocks identified for development in the north are not high in biodiversity value at present, but it is one of the wider areas identified for improvement. It can be argued that there is an opportunity to achieve some improvements within a well planned housing development, but there is no evidence that this will be made mandatory in any planning consents and in the present economic climate (now predicted to continue for many years) this will be difficult to enforce. Warwickshire is already a highly fragmented county in terms of biodiversity, with only around 2% of high quality assets. This is well short of the Nagoya Commitment of a 17% national aspiration for 2020 - it requires a further 38,200 ha of high quality habitat in the county along with greater connectivity, rather than the further fragmentation that this plan would indicate.
5) This is particularly relevant where the plan also includes provision for new roads in the area, one of which will have an impact on the Avon valley. The route identified at present appears to threaten valuable wildlife areas; and, along with the proposed housing will cause yet further fragmentation, rather than improved connectivity.
6) The services needed to support new housing have been developed far more extensively south of the conurbation. New retail sites are already in development. The road and rail network is better developed and, as has already been shown, attracts far greater housing demand for those commuting to the Birmingham and London areas. It is also the area where light, high tech businesses wish to locate for the same reason.
7) The need for more retail services north of the river Leam is now becoming even more debatable. For instance, the data and evidence used to argue the case for the 'Clarendon Arcade' used poor estimates of 'Desired Sales Density' even when prepared in 2009. Current evidence shows that retail patterns are changing rapidly. There is little evidence for a demand for more retail space - no sign of shop rentals increasing or even for vacant promises to be taken up. In fact more are becoming available and the foreseeable trend is for this to continue - e.g. the impact of internet shopping.
8) The argument that housing should not be concentrated in bigger blocks to the south because of possible difficulty in selling larger numbers at any one time is pure conjecture and not evidence based. As stated above, the existing services in that area have been attractive to a wide range of potential house buyers in the past. If there is a demand, houses will sell. If not, then the rate of building should be set to match. The figure for 1100 houses per year is an economic calculation and not a scientific one. Housing is probably over-priced for current economic factors and will need to fall further to enable sales to take place in any numbers. The only correcting factor to this is if there is a policy to compel more 'affordable' housing to be built to meet social needs - but this will require public finance, which we are told will be in short supply.
So green belt should not be sacrificed to make life easier and more profitable for developers. There really must be a proper balance from now on between economic, social and environmental considerations. 31% of UK citizens carbon emissions arise from their housing; the UN estimates that $4.5tn will be the economic loss annually resulting from environmental degradation in the world - all planners must re-read our Government's Natural Environment White Paper of 2012 and the National Ecosystem Assessment report before setting out further housing proposals. Our natural resources must be conserved in ways that were never prioritised in the past if we are to prevent mankind being overtaken by a global eco-disaster. The land to the north of Leamington must be considered in that context.
9) A final thought - I wonder whether there is a developer who wants to develop a certain type of property in the north area that appeals to a certain sector of society, rather than having mixed development in the south. That would certainly not be a valid reason for altering the green belt - there should be a clear statement in the plan to ensure this doesn't happen.