Testun llawn:
We object to the development of the land to the north of Leamington, and disagree that it is suitable for development for the following reasons that we believe to be 'Good Planning Evidence':
1. It is valuable amenity land for the residents of North Leamington for exercise and recreation in an area where there is very little open space. Green spaces and access to the countryside are a priority of the Council and are hugely important to the people of Leamington.
2.The proposed area is currently designated as green belt land, and this should not be developed if there is other land that is suitable for development. This has been identified east of the A452 and south of Heathcote. I am not persuaded that the Council have demonstrated the 'exceptional circumstances' required for Green Belt development.
3. There appears to be an over-provision of housing resulting from the Council relying on population projections from a past period of exceptional growth.
4. This development will lead to Leamington, Old Milverton and Kenilworth merging into one another creating 'coalescence of urban areas'. This would lead to a loss of the individual town's identities.
5. The current infrastructure of North Leamington cannot support the new development, and any attempt to rectify this problem would result in more investment and additional development, taking up even more green belt land, and causing furthre destruction of the countryside. It would seem to me that development to the south of the town is a much more sensible option, with the travel infrastructure of the M40, and the railway station in closer proximity.
We believe that the development plans are seriously flawed and we strongly object. We have two children aged 8 and 6. We walk in the countryside of North Leamington almost every day. If this development goes ahead then access to the countryside will be ruined for them and for future generations. And once green belt land is built on, it is destroyed forever. When the concept of Green Belt land was first conceived, it was to prevent exactly the sort of urban sprawl that has been suggested in the development plan. We cannot simply go on forever expanding our towns into the countryside. We have to think smarter.