Testun llawn:
As a resident in the District, I would like to register my fundamental concerns to the proposed Revised Local Plan. There are a number of features that will prove to be serious retrograde steps to the area:
1. The density and volume of new houses - the number of houses appears to be significantly overstated and concentrated to the south of Warwick along Gallows Hill area rather than being spread ore evenly (even if the number of houses required is a correct projection). Projections are estimates and surely it is better to make smaller incremental changes rather than sweeping over-reaching change, which may not be needed or desirable. The Ray Bullen paper in 2012 stated that ONLY 5400 would be required (not all at once) , which is more than 50% less than the now increased number that WDC are suggesting of 12300.
2. Why are brownfield sites not being utilised before new greenfield developments - is it "easier" for developers to go for greenfield sites?
3. It is not a given that all new residents will work in the same area as they live, therefore congestion is inevitable because of the concentration of new houses to the south Warwick
4. Likewise the proposed new employment area close to Gallows Hill is likely not needed, there are numerous empty office blocks available for new businesses already existing on various technology parks or other areas around the district. Many that have not been fully occupied since they were built.
5. The density of development means that the very features that attract people to live in Warwickshire will be lost and the developments will just become co-joined and akin to Milton Keynes or similar, with no distinction between the different sub areas and villages. The attraction of Warwickshire is farmland between and surrounding the town and villages adjacent to Warwick and Leamington, providing space and definition to the residential areas. People who live in Warwick District do not want to live in a housing/pseudo town sprawl. Towns and villages evolve they are not dropped into some Greenfields, The "country park" that is proposed on the edge of the new Gallows Hill development is a poor substitute for open fields and becomes a semi urban "park" given its location not open countryside. Prior studies that WDC commissioned (Planning Inspector 2006) )stated that the Woodside Farm area should not be built on.
6. The farmland that is now being earmarked for development is medium to high grade and should be retained for its ability to produce multiple crops and be part of the UK agricultural economy rather than requiring yet more food to be ultimately imported
In addition, Bishops Tachbrook, seems to have been "chosen" as a Primary Village for expansion, presumably because of the volume of housing due to be created as a result of the Local Plan. This is based on a poor premise (see 1 - 3 above) and seeks to alter the dynamic of a successful village. A village has a distinct identity and the boundaries shouldn't be needlessly expanded. The views from the village are of rolling countryside, which would be slowly eroded and the distinct spacing that allows the village to function as a village (rather than as an add on to a new development or Warwick Gates or Whitnash) will be lost. There is real history to the village which would be lost forever. Likewise extra housing and increased attendance at the school will cause more congestion and be dangerous to pedestrians and drivers. The size of the existing roads fits with the size of the village and to expand or widen the road network would again destroy the soul and history of the village, which should be retained for future appreciation by others. Adding on an extra 100-150 houses is also unnecessary, and again a very high volume where the need is not supported or proven.
Gypsy Sites
There are significant concerns regarding the location and number of pitches proposed. Firstly, it should be noted that it is not a given that gypsies would use such sites, in other areas (Shipston) there are sites which were set up but not used. Land that is used by the gypsies tends not to be managed well and so becomes an eyesore to other surrounding residents. The write ups suggest that they will pay council tax but given that many of the gypsies will probably be unemployed there is no motivation to take pride in the surroundings. If the council does not manage these, then there is limited re-course by those potentially affected in the direct vicinity.
The proposed sites, such as those at No's 3, 4, 5,9, 10 and are all located adjacent to busy roads, which would be dangerous to all parties including the gypsies. They are not close to secondary schools.
There is no information on the maximum number of people that would be allowed to stay on the site. The public information states 20-30 number of caravans but that does not give any idea of possible density of inhabitants, which will put a strain on local services.
I sincerely hope you will listen to the feedback the WDC receives and revise the location and volume of development to a less intrusive and a more sensitive number.