BASE HEADER

I object to the proposals for the housing south of Warwick and Leamington because they rely heavily on car use. The draft plan will increase traffic congestion, increase pollution causing increased respiratory disease and a reduced quality of life. The pollution will spread across the rest of the District. WDC say its investment in mitigation will improve the traffic flows but how more vehicles will cross the river to reach either Warwick or Leamington town centres or reach employment centres around Coventry is not clear. The mitigation measures will cause disruption to implement them and once Europa Way becomes dual-carriageway, it will become a barrier between the communities either side of it and the Europa Way roundabout will be a bottleneck, particularly during the peak travel hours.
If WDC believe that employment will be in Warwick or Leamington then this underlines the importance of the railways and building settlements along the rail corridors. This is very different from the concentration of dwellings to the south of Warwick and Leamington.
The number 68 bus which is the main service connecting the Local Plan's development area suffers poor reliability, most likely because of traffic congestion. This will only worsen with the added traffic that the development would bring. Furthermore the service is expensive to users which presumably together with its poor reliability causes its poor loading. Poor performance of public transport will cause more of the new residents to use cars for travel which will set up a vicious circle.
I object to the Local Plan because of the investment needed to try to mitigate the congestion. The lack of clarity about the river crossings makes it hard to believe in the viability of the infrastructure proposals.
The County proposals for a park and ride scheme by the Europa Way roundabout demands a lot of infrastructure. Furthermore, the intensity of services quoted in page 95 of the Strategic Transport Assessment looks high, surprisingly high. The financial viability of this level of service looks suspect and might well need an ongoing subsidy. In short, to satisfy the transport needs of the large scale of the proposed development needs disproportionate infrastructure spending to offset the effects of a badly sited development.
I object to the Local Plan because I believe that such a large number of dwellings should be distributed around the District. That such a high proportion of dwellings should be built in one place shows that the 'greenbelt' framework is not fit for purpose and should be reformed. WDC should look to reform the 'greenbelt' legislation if it is to take so many houses.
Placing so much development away from rail corridors is very short-sighted, especially with the planned railway electrification with its possibilities for using renewable energy. WDC should pursue a policy of one or two small eco-towns of 2,500 to 3,000 houses centred on a new railway station. Development would be around 1km across depending on housing density. As the railways run through greenbelt for the great majority of their mileage in the District, the policy would be undermined straight away. The choice is to build settlements on greenfields that will increase pollution but it is outside greenbelt or build in a sustainable transport way on greenbelt. Building settlements on rail corridors would be truly sustainable.
I object to the Local Plan because it will extend a market town and spa town in one direction, creating sprawl and being out of character with the towns.
I object to the Local Plan because it takes the number of houses, assigns some to a few token areas and leaves the majority for a single area. This is reacting not planning