Testun llawn:
I am writing to state my opposition to the new local plan which appears to completely contradict the proposals set out in the previous local plan of 2009. Land identified for development then is still available. Now there is to be wholesale development of the green belt north of Leamington Spa and Warwick when this does not seem to have any justification. What are the exceptional circumstances which are supposed to justify such a development? At the meeting I attended at the Warwick Society the only explanation put forward by the planning officer and councillor present was that it would be more profitable for developers! This seems to me to be outrageous! The land previously identified in 2009 is still available and would be easier to develop with existing infrastructure such as roads and access to the M40.
The new proposals impact on areas of Green Belt land which have a high value in preventing urban sprawl between Kenilworth and Warwick/Leamington. Once violated the Green Belt between the historic towns would be liable to repeated further incursions by planners and developers as the principle that Green Belt land should not be built on would be broken forever. The countryside would no longer be protected from encroachment. In the case of the proposed development on Loes Farm the green lung for Woodloes would be lost and the establishment of "parkland" in the remaining space would be like creating a green desert. The amenity value of Woodloes Lane would be destroyed for the runners, walkers and cyclists who now use it. The lane is part of the Millennium Way which is supposed to be a scenic path through the Heart of England! The phase 1 ecology survey of 2008 states unequivocally that this is a special area! What "exceptional circumstances" justify its destruction? The woodpeckers both green and greater spotted which breed here will be disturbed and displaced. There are at least 2 species of bat, great crested newts and a wide variety of birds, with sparrowhawks and buzzards indicating the health of the wildlife pyramid here, all of which merit protection!
Access to the Loes Farm site is proposed from Primrose Hill where it will scythe through ancient hedgerow. The new junction or roundabout will clearly lead to more traffic exiting and entering Woodloes Park onto either the A429 or the Birmingham Road when traffic is already a problem there! The police speed check is sited at exactly the place identified for access indicating police concern about traffic trough the estate at precisely this point.
The new houses at Loes Farm would be seen from the A429 on the hill overlooking the road and would hardly maintain the historic character of Warwick. It is this hiil which effectively screens existing houses from being seen from the Coventry Road. Crossing the road and walking on the footpath to Milverton would presumably lead to more new houses and a new road built on difficult, expensive terrain over the River Avon floodplain. I don't believe that £28 million is a justifiable expense for an access road. Surely any new roads required south of Leamington would not need to be built on flood plain and be much cheaper. I would support development on the former Ridgeway School site although this will again lead to more traffic entering the A429 Coventry Road as this is a "brownfield" site.
The proposals also include "out of town" retail developments threatening the survival of the central shopping areas in Leamington and Warwick. Shops, including excellent independent ones, are clearly struggling at the moment in both town centres. Would it not make better sense to help and encourage town centre shops? I intend to look carefully at the proposals for Warwick town centre because of this and comment in due course.
Finally, the number of houses proposed seems excessive. More than 11,000 new homes for Warwick and Leamington when Coventry, which is 3 times our size is only proposing 17000? Stratford district is only proposing 8000 for a similar area to our own. Why has a buffer of 1400 extra homes been included? Surely this indicates excessive development when new homes already built cannot be sold! I sincerely hope that my views will be taken into consideration and not consigned to the bin as inconvenient.