BASE HEADER

The Government's Green Belt policy states that Green Belt land should be built upon only "under special circumstances" and only if the benefits of doing so outweigh the inevitable harm done to precious open spaces.

The proposed development on Green Belt land North of Leamington Spa has no such justification.

* Few dispute that new housing is needed, but alternative space for it exists in the non-Green Belt land South of Leamington identified in the 2009 Core Strategy.

* The above option was, I understand, actually adopted by the Council a couple of years ago. It is still viable, it is still available, it is still a far less harmful option.

* The Council argues that the land South of Leamington will be a less attractive option for the developers since they will make smaller profits from it than they would from the Green Belt land to the North of the town. This may constitute "Special Circumstances" for the development companies - but it certainly does not do so for the electorate of Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick.

* The land that would be encroached upon under the so-called 'Preferred Option' fulfils all five requirements set out by the NPPF for Green Belt land. The new development would, therefore - in addition to depriving thousands of local people of invaluable opportunities for peace, recreation and healthy exercise and irrevocably eroding the very different identities of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth - directly contravene NPPF guidelines.

Is there, honestly, any really good argument for going ahead with the proposed development? It will undoubtedly create more noise, more congestion, more air pollution, more urban blight and, possibly, more (and more serious) flooding. What would we get in return? Little or nothing. Certainly nothing that we can't perfectly well do without.

Please think again and take a fresh look at the South-of-Leamington option.