Testun llawn:
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
1. There is far too much development in Warwick. 40% of the proposed development is within or on the boundaries of Warwick town. This is disproportionate, and calling the developments 'garden suburbs' does not make it any more acceptable.
2. Warwick has already had two large developments; Chase Meadow and Warwick Gates. Why is it selected to take the bulk of the next phase of development? Other areas, Kenilworth for example, have been left relatively free of development, yet is hoped that many of the new employment opportunities will be created in Coventry, which is much nearer to Kenilworth.
3. Warwick is a very congested town because of its old streets and the necessity to cross the river by bridge. There is little that can be done to relieve that. Wider roads in the areas imediately surrounding the town may move traffic more quickly over a short distance , but the fact remains that Warwich snarls up on a daily basis already and short of demolishing old, existing buildings to accommmodate increased traffic, Warwick will become a traffic nightmare.
4. I have recently become aware of the term 'green wedges' It means, I assume, that the green belt has had chunks taken out of it. I accept that not all green belt land can be kept sacrosanct, but I object to green belt land being used before brown belt land has been exhausted. It is disingenuous to say that all the land is potentially available to developers and they can decide which bit to develop. Which would you choose? It is the green belt that will be gobbled up first. If the current plans go ahead there will be no visible break in development between Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash.....not even a green wedge.
5. The planning document admits that there is already a problem of air quality in Warwick. In some places pollution levels are dangerous to health. The planning document also says that there is little possibility of reducing the problem because of the road layouts and the old buildings. Why make it worse?
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC DETAILS
6. I have already mentioned air quality. My particular area of concern is round ST John's where it is accepted there is a serious problem. In that imediate area there is a Children' Centre and housing for old people, both of whom are particulary vulnerable to air pollution. You state in your document that little can be done to improve the situatio, yet you propose to build at Loes Farm and Guy's Cliffe. It is likely that traffic from these two areas, plus the increased traffic from other developments around Warwick, will only add to congestion on the Coventry Road junction further endangering the health of the very young and the old.
7. Loes farm has been suggested for development before. It has been surveyed and found to be rich in biodiversity and to have ancient ridge and furrow markings. It is a site of botanical and historical interest, and as such should not be considered for development.
8. Guys Cliffe is another site of historical interest surrounded by woodland and in an elevated position. Development here would impact adversly on a site which is rich in local legend and history. Because of the elevation of the land and the proposed new road it would also be highly visible and add to the traffic problems and air pollution mentioned previously.
9. Warwick's crown jewel is the Castle. Warwick's most iconic view is of the castle from the bridge over the Avon; an old bridge, built to accommodate the traffic of a small market town over a hundred years ago. Will it withstand the onslaught of all the cars that will come into Warwick from its vasly increased size? The beauty of Warwick is that it has a river in its heart. That is a geographical feature which no planner can alter. But planners can ignore it, and this local Plan seems to have done just that.
And finally I appreciate that Warwick district is obliged to come up with a plan that Central Government will accept as sustainable, but just look at the map of preferred sites on pages 5 and 6 of your booklet. Warwick town is being asked to accept too much of the proposed development.