BASE HEADER

I write to formally object to proposals contained in the Local Plan, specifically the Preferred Option as detailed in the proposals published in May 2012.
I have attended two of the public meetings held with representatives of local groups and Council officials; the most recent being the joint Blackdown and Old Milverton Parish Council's meeting held in Old Milverton Parish Church on 16th July 2012.
My first point is that two Council officials made threats against the public at this last meeting on 16th July ; I felt extremely upset that public servants could stand up in a public meeting and do this. Councillor Doody, who appeared erratic and unable to speak coherently, eventually threatened the audience by saying "Don't any of you bother involving / writing to your MP's - it's a waste of time". You will note that I have copied this response to both MP's for the local area and am expecting them to respond on this point.
Further, both Councillors Doody and Hunt continually threatened that if the local residents continued with their opposition to the Preferred Option, and stopped it happening, then Warwick would be left without a Local Plan and the consequence would be "that developers would be building in our back gardens, and everyone would be powerless to stop such development".
What poppycock! I do not take kindly to threats. How dare these people make statements such as these which are clearly incorrect and designed to frighten people. Do they assume we are all idiots? How very sad if so.
Personally, I would rather take my chances and forge ahead without a Local Plan, if this ill thought out Preferred Option is the best that Warwick and their planners can come up with.
I hope that Warwick Councils can justify their "preferred option" proposal. How can they call this democracy? There is no alternative. I expect the justification will be that they had "consulted previously" and "publicised the consultation". Again I say - poppycock! The document on the website entitled "Report of Public Consultation December 2011" contains a wealth of so-called "publications".
I have looked at where these proposals were publicised:
 A press release - I read nothing, I don't use radio much and heard nothing;
 I have seen nothing on either BBC or ITV local news programmes which I watch regularly;
 A public notice in the Courier - I only get the Courier about once a month, and again I saw nothing;
 An article in the Focus magazine which it is stated is delivered to all households in the Spring of 2011 - I have never received a copy of this magazine;
 An advertisement in the Leamington Observer - I have never seen or received a copy of this newspaper;
 An article in "Word on Warwickshire" - aimed at the local business community - I am not in business so have never seen this article;
 Flyers were produced and distributed by the Community Partnership Team at Community Forum events - I have never seen one of these events in Blackdown and therefore never received a flyer.
I contend therefore that this so-called "publicity" did not reach everyone in the district as evidenced above. Further, I have been surveying my own workmates, acquaintances and people working in the local shops and business I use, and 88% of people I have spoken to have no idea about what the Council are planning to do to the area.
Having considered carefully the so-called "Preferred Option" I declare it to be a travesty against the residents of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth. When I examined the map outlining the proposed development it all becomes clear. For whatever reason, although I cannot fathom what this reason may be, there is a move to delineate and remove the boundaries between the three towns. I can only assume that this is some ambitious plan by the Council to achieve city status for some sort of conurbation - maybe they feel it would raise the status of the Council in some way. No consideration as to what this will do to this beautiful, historic area!
My second point is that the District Council do not show that they have any proper planning knowledge as they consistently fail to demonstrate how a plan should be implemented. Have they just used a cheap planning consultant? Or bought a toolkit not fit for purpose off the shelf?
Surely, the order of events should be:
 Put infrastructure in place i.e. Fill all currently available commercial / industrial land. Gallaghers in Harbury Lane; IBM (already partly turned into a Premier inn); Warwick Technology Park; The Shires; the Ford site; ensure all fully occupied and that employment requirements are known and taken into consideration before building houses on green belt land!
 Employment - who will come into North Leamington to employ people? Get employers on site first.
 Ensure that proper plans are in place and that funding is available to service the requirements of the new housing you want to build, i.e. that doctors, schools, hospitals, security and emergency services will be available to service the demand before building commences (whilst being mindful that residents of South Leamington were promised schools and other services which have never materialised);
 Ensure that other infrastructure requirements can be delivered - i.e. water supply, sewerage, broadband, telephone, cable services taking into account that North Leamington is very poorly served at the moment (and whilst being mindful that residents of South Leamington who were promised services many years ago still do not have all services promised)
 Avoid costly "white elephant" development such as the Northern Relief Road. Where will the money be coming from to build this? Are developers asking for it to be built and offering to pay for it? If so they must have a reason to do so. Is this because they see enormous profit being dangled in front of them from expensive development of prime green belt land perhaps? And are the Council receiving monies too? I hope that under the Freedom of Information requirements that all of this will be publicised and to more people than this so-called Public Consultation has been.
I would also like the Council to explain why Leamington is being offered as a preferred housing site for workers at the Gateway? Surely there is much more established and needed housing opportunity in Coventry? There appears to be no reason why Leamington should be looking to offer to house more people who will use the amenities provided but will work and shop in Coventry!
I have considered the National Planning Policy Framework Have the Council really studied what the Government are saying in this document? From the meetings I have attended and the Preferred Option document published I find little evidence that this Framework has been interpreted properly.
For example, I cite part of the Framework here, in red, points 79-83 which specifically refer to the protection of the Green Belt, with my comments linking the Framework to the new Local Plan:
Protecting Green Belt land
79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Local Plan fundamentally opposes this requirement. The keywords are "permanent". What is the point of the permanence if Local Authorities can ride roughshod through the Green Belt when they feel it suits them?
80. Green Belt serves five purposes:
●● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ok, let's join up Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick and have a lovely big urban conurbation then. I have already lost sight of the boundaries between Warwick and Leamington!
●● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; ok, let's join up Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick and have a lovely big urban conurbation then.
The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington/Warwick and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these three towns and their loss of independent identities.
●● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; No need for countryside around here - we'll just build our "garden town" on top of the countryside to fool the residents into thinking we have their best interests at heart;
●● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; fundamentally in this case trying to take away the special character. Let's make the town in Leamington a replica of Slough, Swindon or Smethwick - none of the residents will notice!
●● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelictand other urban land.No Warwick DC know better; we've changed our minds again, let's put commercial properties on green belt alongside all of this housing we're going to build. Oh - have we thought through whether existing residents, potential new residents and potential users will want this type of development? Or is it the developers that the Local Authority are trying to please?
81. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should planpositively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. Again, the Local Authority want to put dual carriageway roads where playing fields currently exist. Nice for the children to have to play football yards away from a dual carriageway.
82. The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should:
●● demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; with other land readily available outside of the Green Belt, this is a major failing in the Local Plan;
●● set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; nothing major has changed in Warwick - even the data the Local Authority are using to base their plans on has been proved to be flawed; there is no proven requirement for the additional housing we allegedly need;
●● show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; this Local Plan does not show the consequences in an adequate manner;
●● demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with Local Plans for adjoining areas; all this demonstrates is that the Local Plan for Warwick wilfully ignores Government guidlelines as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework;
●● show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the Framework. Unfortunately the Local Plan for Warwick does not demonstrate this adequately and largely appears to have been ignored.
83. Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established,
Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances - The Green Belt is already established in Warwick, and I contend that there are no exceptional circumstances to change these boundaries now.
The National Planning Policy Framework also requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. According to Warwick District Council the special circumstances are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. Again, I contend that there are no exceptional circumstances to change these boundaries now.
I also find that the Core Strategy plan adopted by Warwick District Council in 2009, just three years ago, identified land to the south of Leamington which is not in Green Belt and is still available, for development. The assessment performed, just three years ago, by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure (roads etc) to support the development, and the new residents who would live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities in the commercial areas; there are commercial development areas already in place to the south of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres.
Therefore, the previous 2009 Core Strategy plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "exceptional and special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are flawed and substantially wrong.
Warwick District Council argues that the land to the south of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.
In addition, The Local Plan proposals ignore Warwick District Council's own earlier study of the Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value. Again, I ask why the Local Authority are permitted to choose their own path when it suits them to do so, and to change their minds every couple of years, without any firm foundation to do so.
I am incensed at the way Warwick DC are behaving.
Following the (albeit limited) responses to the poorly publicised public consultation held last year, I read that:
"Many respondents considered that there is a need to retain green belt land by using brownfield sites within the existing built-up areas of towns for new development and greenfield sites adjacent to the District's villages. Increasing the sprawl around the existing built-up areas would damage the rural setting of the towns to the detriment of both their economies and their environment. New developments can damage the natural environment and destroy tracts of countryside with consequential loss of habitat for wildlife which cannot be replaced and results in fragmentation. Additionally those green field spaces that have special landscape qualities should be retained. It is important to retain the balance between important towns and beautiful countryside."
It is clear that by adopting the Preferred Option now, no account has been taken of feedback from residents of the area.
I would now raise some additional specific points:
The approach to Leamington from the North takes the traveller through beautiful green countryside, past the historic beauty of Kenilworth Castle, through the town of Kenilworth and along the A452, bordered by beautiful greenery until the town of Leamington appears along the verge of Kenilworth Road. This introduction to the town ensures that visitors and residents alike know that they are approaching and when they have now arrived in a very special place.
Some 15 years ago, a plan was mooted to widen this A452 road into a dual carriageway. Planning professionals of the day threw the plan out of the window. This was because they recognised that traffic flowing along this dual carriageway would, at either end of it, spill out into a town centre. It is blindingly obvious that nothing has changed! All that will happen is that both heavy slow moving and lighter fast moving traffic will end up queuing to navigate either Kenilworth or Leamington town centres, neither of which will be able to cope with any additional traffic. So, all that will happen is that both town centres will snarl up; the current brief rush hour delays on the A452 will be recognised as a minor inconvenience, and commuters and shoppers alike will clog up the towns - that is, until those not forced to go into town decide that the town centres are just not worth the hassle and it is time to shop in Coventry, Solihull or Birmingham in preference to the local traffic jams. Hardly a solution!
I live on the A452. Traffic observance tells me that the majority of traffic flows from North to South, i.e. shoppers and workers wishing to get to Leamington Town centre. A dual carriageway here would therefore serve no purpose until the new residents move in, and then they might use it to avoid the inevitable town centre congestion, and depending upon where they are employed they may wish to access the A46 to travel to employment and shopping trips away from Leamington. It is also fair to say that widening of this road is certainly not required at the moment as there is only very temporary congestion during peak hours, and certainly when compared to congestion in city centres is merely a slight inconvenience.
In addition, a Northern Relief Road will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
The Local Authority appear to have ignored the fact that there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost than the £28m allocated to construct a "Northern Relief Road". To my mind this constitutes unassailable proof that Developers are dictating the path the Local Authority will be taking. Leamington thrives as a shopping centre for the very reason that it contains a goodly number of small independent retailers. When the consumer visits Leamington, it appears pretty, and very different to the vast majority of conurbation towns which have "standardised" high streets. If the shopper wants to see identical shops they will either travel to other neighbouring towns which house all of the run-of-the-mill shops. Should the vision for Leamington be to create yet another "Slough, Swindon or Smethwick" I for one will shop elsewhere. And, let's face it, there are plenty of character filled towns within fairly easy reach. We are at the gateway to the Cotswolds for example.
The next point is that this road improvement scheme is really being extolled to try to justify the arrival of heavy lorries delivering heavy loads into huge shops in the centre of Leamington.
 The lorries will travel a mile or so down a dual carriageway and will then be bottlenecked into narrow road approaches to the Town Centre;
 Parking will be restricted and to ease these problems it is proposed to introduce a "Park & Ride scheme" - I suggest that a visit is paid to the scheme now operating in Stratford to see how successful (or not) that is!
 The large shops are not going to be profitable in the town here, people shop in Leamington for different reasons. Why go to a Town centre, with difficulty, when you can visit an out of town mall with relative ease, park for free, eat and shop at one location. A "no-brainer"
 New Housing in Kenilworth would have direct access to the A46. Unless travelling into Leamington Town Centre, they have alternative access to South Leamington, already in place.
 Heavy vehicles making deliveries currently use the A46 and/or M40 routes to easily place themselves into South Leamington. This infrastructure is already in place.
 The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area an attractive place to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns. Would the charming small shops in Leamington survive if huge retailers were encouraged to set up shop in Leamington Town Centre? Look at the empty high streets across Britain for your answer.
 Pedestrian and car accidents will increase. This is a given with the increase in traffic, increase in speed and increase in housing. Is the A&E provision including ambulance response teams available to cope with the additional demand for services?
Regarding the Northern Relief Road, (at a cost, I understand of £28m)- I understand that Britain, its' Government, Councils and, not least, the great British Public are all undergoing a period of austerity. Be accountable - tell us where the money is being found to build this potential white elephant? Or is it being built to keep HS2 company perhaps?
It appears and not for the first time, that Warwick Councils, both District and County, believe themselves to be above the law, outside or above the Government regulations, guidelines and recommendations. Spend what they like! Is this money going to magically appear from developers? Or are developers just bribing Council officials by promising infrastructure which is never delivered? Where are the schools promised for Warwick Gates? Oddly enough, just like the road improvements in Balsall Common promised more than 8 years ago - nothing has materialised! Just how far do the Council think that residents' patience can be stretched? I would suggest we are at breaking point now.
Planners must recognise that widening the A452 and cutting a swathe through prime agricultural land to build the Northern Relief Road will not achieve improvement. There was a reason not to widen the A452 some years ago, and nothing has changed.
No referral to the Local Transport Plan is made. I specifically quote from the Final LTP: "There is a well established Green Belt surrounding the urban areas, which is protected by its definition within the Warwick District Local Plan. The Local Plan is currently being reviewed, but it is anticipated that similar levels of protection will continue to be applied. " I reiterate - what has changed?
If it were allowed to proceed, the proposed Local Plan would deprive residents and tourists of recreational facilities. Currently, many walkers, runners, riders, cyclists, ramblers and dog walkers enjoy the countryside. The beautiful countryside is used by residents of all three towns as it is so
accessible to their residents. This would therefore have a major impact on residents, which can never be replaced by green wedges or town parks. This could under no circumstances enhance its value to the community.
Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation. If the proposals go ahead it is only a matter of time before it is also absorbed by Leamington and Kenilworth. I act as Treasurer of the Old Milverton Show, which is now in it's 115th year. The continued success of the Show is based upon the fact that this is staged in a village, by villagers, for the residents of the village and extended beyond. There is value in retaining tradition, and it is obvious that residents of Warwick want this to continue.
There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Blackdown and Old Milverton - just at the time when the Government are promising to retain good agricultural land as a priority. Why not in Warwick? Are planners unaware of the Government promises?
At the meeting, residents were informed when questioning the LA calculations, that an additional 1,400 homes have been included in the plans as a contingency. If this contingency were removed from the Local Plan, then it is obvious that the Green Belt could be maintained as it is. Why is this fact not recognised? The other point that has been made on several occasions by the Councillors is that "we want to spread the pain". What sort of answer is that to give to a community? Why should residents any where have to have any pain? Is this what we are to expect if we want to stay in the land of our birth? Or should we just all move overseas and leave it to newcomers to infill and ruin Britain as they see fit?
 The Green Belt policy aims to check unrestricted sprawl. This proposed development does exactly the opposite of this. This area is already in danger of what I understand is known as "creeping development" and a step back to look at the bigger picture is necessary as this particular area has, I believe, suffered enough.
 A further aim is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment and to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. This proposed development does exactly the opposite.
 The policy aims to assist in urban regeneration. This is not an urban landscape here and does not need to be regenerated.
On the basis of the above, I would ask that you reconsider your Preferred Option and remove the parts of it which sacrifices Old Milverton and Blackdown to cash rich developers. If the Plan continues in its' current form, you will have perpetuated a great disservice to the residents of our local area and you will blight properties in the district for all time. Remember that once you do this, it can never be reversed, and residents of the new Warton, or Leamwick (or whatever the new, grey city is called) will remember you, their public servants, for all time, for all of the wrong reasons.