Testun llawn:
I am writing with reference to the Revised Development Strategy for Warwick District, and specifically to raise concerns that I have with the number of new homes to be built in Warwick (South) between now and 2029.
* The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is predominantly rural, and further development upon this land, merging these areas into a single suburban sprawl, would be of significant detriment to the feel of the town(s). The rural space is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly. Warwick is a beautiful, historic town, and turning the surrounding area into sprawling suburbia would seriously detract from the town's allure - negatively impacting upon tourist numbers, and the quality of life for Warwick residents.
* The projected housing requirment of 12,300 new homes to be built seems much too high, with less than half that number needed to meet local needs (as outlined at a recent local meeting at Warwick School that Warwick District Council representatives "were unable to attend"). Without having sufficient employment opportunities for an increased population, it seems highly inappropriate to allocate greenfield land now for housing that is not required by the local population. There are sufficient brownfield sites in Warwick (and immediate environs) to meet the projected local housing need.
* The roads to/through Warwick are already congested at peak times, and Warwick District's proposed transport strategy is further automobile-based, squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network. The roads, and in particular bridges, cannot support further traffic; walking and cycling would be less attractive; and air quality would become far worse.
* Pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington, is already worse than is legally permitted. For example, levels of nitrogen dioxide, a direct product of traffic pollution, is already consistently exceeded in many areas of Warwick, by up to 154% (Warwick District Council Progress Report, April 2011). Further through-traffic, as a result of the population increases associated with the scale of development proposed, would clearly increase pollution levels, to the detriment of the health of local residents. Such pollution has been causally linked to conditions such as COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder), as well as further suggested links to conditions including lung cancer and asthma. The District Council is legally required to improve air quality, but the present plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. And as well as the long-term health impact upon residents, businesses and tourism would be negatively impacted upon.
* Furthermore, I am concerned that the proposed development would require significant infrastructural development, specifically relating to education and healthcare facilities. I also have concerns about potential risks to water supply, sewage and drainage. Significantly, I am told that Warwick hospital is already "stretched", and would require significant expansion to cope with the increased population numbers proposed.
There are far better alternatives. Primarily, lower housing numbers are required to meet local needs, rather than encouraging in-migration. Any such in-migration certainly should not be encouraged without the provision of local employment opportunities: there is no point building further, unnecessary homes here, only for people to commute elsewhere to work. Brownfield development must be absolutely prioritised over greenfield land, and all such brownfield land exploited fully before the green spaces around our town(s) are encroached upon any further.
The presently proposed Warwick District plan is not at all balanced, and comes across as a "charter for developers" rather than a balanced plan aimed at meeting the needs of local residents.
Thank you for taking these points into consideration, and I hope for a sensible resolution to be made regarding the issues mentioned.