BASE HEADER

I wish to raise objection to the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan for Warwick.

1. The number of homes proposed far exceeds the number required to meet local need. Taking account of births and deaths, a statistical analysis shows a projected figure of 5,400 homes. (ref.The Warwick Society) These could be dispersed throughout the area without the need for a concentration to the south of Warwick. Rather than encouraging in-migration, housing numbers should focus on meeting local need, giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools , shops and railway stations as well as building homes close to jobs to ensure that traffic is kept to a minimum. This could be done in co-operation with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development.

2. At present unemployment in the area is just under1,400. Any further influx of incomers would drastically increase this, making the proposed increase in population, an unsustainable development.

3. While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' to meet an established housing need, planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District alreadt has the five year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market.

4. The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural .It has so far been respected as a buffer zone being an area of restraint. Building on it would create a single suburban sprawl effectively joining Warwick and Leamington and destroying the unique character of each. This green land is as important to both towns as the Green Belt to the North of Leamington and Warwick and it should be safeguarded just as strongly.

5. Suburban sprawl is inevitably car-dependant. Transport strategy is car-based, just squeezing more traffic on to an already congested road network. A recent survey indicates that over 70% of traffic in Warwick is through traffic. Widening Europa Way and various traffic islands including the Myton Road/Banbury Road Junction would not solve the problem as traffic would still need to cross the narrow bridge over the River Avon,and proceed through the narrow historic streets of Warwick town including The Butts, in order to complete its journey through the town. Stopping on road parking in order to facilitate two-way traffic (as has been suggested for Smith Street) will only succeed in killing our beautiful historic town. This is not what visitors come to see. They don't come to sit in a traffic jam as they pass slowly through a congested polluted town devoid of atmosphere and charm. This is not sustainable development!

6. Regarding air quality, pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington already exceeds legal limits. The District Council is required to improve air quality to meet its legal obligations but this plan would actually exacerbate the situation damaging the long- term health of residents. Recent research indicates that pollution from traffic fumes is closely linked with increased incidence of asthma and is implicated in some forms of cancer. Children walking to and from school and visitors to the town will all have their health threatened by this deterioration in air quality as well as those who live and work in the towns. The District council is legally obliged to ensure that is does not happen and that pollution is decreased rather than being increased.


7. While in theory development would be conditional on it funding schools and healthcare facilities, the Councils predicted funding is insufficient. Additional teachers and Healthcare workers will need to be paid in the future as well as the long term costs of maintaining and heating the buildings. There is also the question of whether the water supply , sewage and drainage could cope with additional demand as well as the very real concerns regarding potential flooding.

For the reasons outlined above, the Revised Development Strategy is unacceptable. It is not 'sustainable development'.

The people of Warwick deserve better.