BASE HEADER

Having seen your draft local plan I want register my strong objection both to the concept and the detail of the plan.
From my perspective as a resident of over thirty years this is how I see the plan:

* The residents of South Leamington/Whitnash have endured a process of more or less constant upheaval over the last few years. Traffic has become ridiculous at times and despite previous promises of how traffic would be redirected by signage ( pious hope) the net result for me is a massive increase in traffic, inconvenience and noise pollution. Further development on the lines proposed cannot help but make this much worse.

* I can see no good reason why there is a need for so much new residential development. Local resources are already overstretched, and I feel most residents (ie those who pay your wages) do not want this massive extension of residential development. Why is bigger better?

* Your previous record of development is at best dubious e.g. Warwick Gates. When it was proposed it was quite clear that more local resources/facilities were needed but nothing except one so called multi-purpose hall/ church. It is also quite noticeable how the infrastructure is already deteriorating. The social housing is badly maintained (as a simple example just walk down a road with social housing on one side and see how the cheap, shoddy, poorly specified, barely painted window frames are in a terrible state on that side). Footpaths and in particular cycle paths are badly cracked and on occasion near impassable due to totally unsuitable (ie cheap for developers) planting. They appear to have been poorly constructed and clearly the bill for ongoing maintenance (if they are maintained) will be massive.

* As for the proposed traveller site - well words fail me. I used to regularly walk over the Harbury Lane and Golf Course area ; no more. If I treated the area the way travellers, and some associates, have done I'm sure I wouldn't be treated so charitably by authority. Apart from forced entry onto the playing fields their dogs are a menace, they have left the area in a disgusting state with things like soiled nappies all over the place, not to mention the joyriding over the playing fields and cricket square

* I pay council tax for services provide by local councils and in general terms for the tax paid I expect in return some enhancement in quality of life. Whilst I appreciate that my singular needs may not always be in line with the councils idea of the communal good, from my perspective this plan as drafted does nothing except reduce quality of life for existing local residents. This seems to be almost taxation without representation.

* More greenfield development is, in general, ridiculous. Clearly in real strategic terms we need less people not more houses. Last year for the first time in many years the country had to import large quantities of wheat to keep up bread supply. With increase in population and more importantly buying power of countries like China/India and the possibility of more erratic weather patterns this situation will gradually get worse and in a relatively few years could be serious. Food security really is important as evidenced by recent changes in DEFRA strategy. If every local council proposed similar plans where might we be. Strategic planning for future food security should ensure no greenfield development except in very particular circumstances - this is clearly not one. But perhaps it is too much to expect a local council to think in really strategic terms.

I can think of more reasons why I object to the draft plan but the above points give the flavour of my rationale for objecting in detail and in general. Any councillor or local MP who voiced support for this plan, rest assured would never get my vote again.