BASE HEADER
Gwrthwynebu
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
ID sylw: 56055
Derbyniwyd: 25/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Emma Williams
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
No access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.) thereby increasing car journeys.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Have an adverse impact on the visual aspect of picturesque countryside and farmland.
The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
More suitable and sustainable to identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington.
Should meet Gypsy and Traveller requirements through proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as more suitable, sustainable and integrated.
Should review Green Belt and allow sites north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth.
Testun llawn:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to register my representations regarding two aspects
* the WDC Co...
I am writing to register my representations regarding two aspects
* the WDC Co...
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to register my representations regarding two aspects
* the WDC Consultation on the Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, and
*the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan
For the Revised Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, I object to the proposals to Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 20 for the following reasons:
Site 5
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site ( see point above)
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 6
*This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park
*This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.
*This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer along this stretch of Flat Rabbit Road) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*This site is so close to Barford, that it would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 9
*This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.
*This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park.
*This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer on land next to this areas of land - Site 6) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
*This site is close to Barford, and would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 10
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 12:
*Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.
*Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.
*The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.
*This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 16
*The proposed site is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development.
*Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.
*Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.
*The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.
*This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 20
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a massive amount of heavy traffic including fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the already busy and congested roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Please see below my representations to WDC's Consultation Programme on the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan. I object to the proposals on the following grounds:
*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the local hospitals and schools.
*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the amenity services such as water and drainage.
There would be increased traffic congestion on all the roads in this area (for example: Banbury Road, Bridge End, Myton Road, Europa Way etc. and the knock on effects beyond). These roads do not cope well with current levels of traffic and any improvements to traffic flow would only improve it for that traffic and not for the vast increase in traffic flow associated with the proposed developments. All car and bus journeys in these areas would become much slower and the increase in the need for town centres car parking would be put under yet further pressure.
*The District Council has proposed the need to provide about 12,000 houses of which nearly half are to the south of Warwick and Leamington, even though the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by 2030.
The combined sites result in a large loss of agricultural land when there is a need for more and cheaper food and the local farming community losing jobs from the rural economy.
WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed sites and exploit those properly first.
*WDC should combine its requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should designate large areas of land the south of Warwick and Leamington including Warwick Castle Park and its surrounds, The Asps and proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to protect the natural beauty of this part of the county (as it is to the north of the county) and to retain the identity and boundaries of the villages by surrounding them with Greenbelt to include proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 12, 16 and 20. This will spread the pressure around the county for new developments rather than focus it to the south.
*The proposal to build 70-90 new houses in Barford (a "Secondary Service Village")would have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children. The school would not be able to accommodate more school children associated with this additional housing and is therefore not sustainable.
[dangos mwy]
I am writing to register my representations regarding two aspects
* the WDC Consultation on the Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, and
*the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan
For the Revised Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, I object to the proposals to Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 20 for the following reasons:
Site 5
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site ( see point above)
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 6
*This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park
*This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.
*This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer along this stretch of Flat Rabbit Road) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*This site is so close to Barford, that it would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 9
*This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.
*This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park.
*This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer on land next to this areas of land - Site 6) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.
*This site is close to Barford, and would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 10
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 12:
*Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.
*Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.
*The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.
*This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 16
*The proposed site is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development.
*Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.
*Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.
*The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.
*This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Site 20
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a massive amount of heavy traffic including fast travelling cars, and lorries.
*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the already busy and congested roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).
*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
*WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites) with respect to this site.
*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland
*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.
*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
Please see below my representations to WDC's Consultation Programme on the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan. I object to the proposals on the following grounds:
*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the local hospitals and schools.
*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the amenity services such as water and drainage.
There would be increased traffic congestion on all the roads in this area (for example: Banbury Road, Bridge End, Myton Road, Europa Way etc. and the knock on effects beyond). These roads do not cope well with current levels of traffic and any improvements to traffic flow would only improve it for that traffic and not for the vast increase in traffic flow associated with the proposed developments. All car and bus journeys in these areas would become much slower and the increase in the need for town centres car parking would be put under yet further pressure.
*The District Council has proposed the need to provide about 12,000 houses of which nearly half are to the south of Warwick and Leamington, even though the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by 2030.
The combined sites result in a large loss of agricultural land when there is a need for more and cheaper food and the local farming community losing jobs from the rural economy.
WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed sites and exploit those properly first.
*WDC should combine its requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
*WDC should designate large areas of land the south of Warwick and Leamington including Warwick Castle Park and its surrounds, The Asps and proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to protect the natural beauty of this part of the county (as it is to the north of the county) and to retain the identity and boundaries of the villages by surrounding them with Greenbelt to include proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 12, 16 and 20. This will spread the pressure around the county for new developments rather than focus it to the south.
*The proposal to build 70-90 new houses in Barford (a "Secondary Service Village")would have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children. The school would not be able to accommodate more school children associated with this additional housing and is therefore not sustainable.
