BASE HEADER

When I first heard about the above plan, I had concerns and reservations concerning its viability but wanted to find out more about the plan before I drew conclusions and made a formal objection.
Initially, my concerns behind the local plan were behind the rational and reasoning for building on the greenbelt land. I didn't fully understand what "exceptional circumstances" existed that meant there was no other option but to build on the greenbelt land. As a result I attended the recent parish council meeting in OId Milverton, also attended by Bill Hunt (Deputy CEO Warwick District Council) and Councillors Doody, Hammon and Pratt.

I went to the parish council meeting seeking clarification, however I was horrified (and almost a little embarrassed) to hear the explanations behind the plan to build on the greenbelt.

Mr Hunt repeatedly said that the green belt had to be used, not for the availability of other land, but effectively to 'spread the burden.' Mr Hunt sighted other cases where developments had been in one area and hadn't operated well. However it seems no other considerations have been given and I still do not understand the "special circumstances" that apparently exist.

More embarrassingly Mr Doody seemed to argue a different point and asked us to tell him "where the houses should go then." As a result, several participants at the meeting highlighted land in the south of Leamington, to which Mr Doody seemed to have no comment but this is simply not the point. Firstly this is a ridiculous question, how can you pose such a question to the layman without presenting any other options. There are simply no other options proposed in the "preferred plan" and I must question whether this is really a consultation period or a presentation of something the councillors have already concluded on. Secondly, other sites were identified in the 2009 plan which seems to have been completely ignored.

In conclusion my concerns are:
* The greenbelt provides excellent farm land and recreation land.
* No justification for the "exceptional circumstances" seem to have been given.
* Why have no other options been given?
* Why have the options identified in the 2009 plan been subsequently
ignored? What has changed?
* Has any consideration been given to costs of the "preferred plan"?

Would you be able to provide further information or explanation behind these points?