South Warwickshire Local Plan

Gwrthwynebu

Revised Development Strategy

ID sylw: 59162

Derbyniwyd: 15/07/2013

Ymatebydd: Sue Aspinall

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Objects to the RDS on the following grounds:

* It does not do enough to protect the open spaces and countryside that we currently have in the district;

* The document states it wants to avoid coalescence of settlements yet this is exactly what it is doing with almost 70% of this 12,300 homes being in the south;

* The only justification can see in the document is that there was opposition to development on green belt in the north, there is opposition to development on all green belt not just in the north;

* Lives in Whitnash which successfully opposed a plan for 250 more homes and there was major transport concerns yet this was overturned by national government who are agreeing to everything regardless of the impact;

* In addition, the RDS has 600 more homes on this site creating even more traffic, in addition to the thousands of new homes in the south;

* Does not believe that there is sufficient justification that the majority of the homes should be in such a concentrated area;

* Would like more information on the mitigation on traffic issues, information on here is very light and cannot find any maps etc;

* Cycle routes should be improved so people can safely cycle from Leamington to Kenilworth or Coventry;

* Expects that safe commuting by cycle will not be available in 2026 and once all these changes have taken place the roads will be even busier.

Alternatives:

* Does not believe that all brownfield sites have been fully explored. There doesn't seem to be anything or much at all in the local plan on brownfield sites-why is this?

Testun llawn:

I have read the 70 odd page document and I feel it does not do enough to protect the open spaces and countryside that we currently have in the district. I am shocked at the amount of housing that it is said we need and do not believe these forecasts. In addition I do not believe we should build even more homes than is required if neighbouring districts cannot build their quota, I think this is called "cooperation" in the document!

The document also says it wants to avoid coalescence of settlements yet this is exactly what it is doing with almost 70% of this 12,300 homes being in the south. The only justification I can see in the document is that there was opposition to development on green belt in the north, there is opposition to development on all green belt not just in the north. I live in whitnash and we successfully opposed a plan for 250 more homes and there was major transport concerns yet this was overturned by national government who are agreeing to everything regardless of the impact now and in addition your plan has 600 more homes on this site creating even more traffic, in addition to the thousands of new homes in the south. I do not believe that there is sufficient justification that the majority of the homes should be in such a concentrated area.

I would also like more information on the mitigation on traffic issues, information on here is very light and I cannot find any maps etc.
I think the cycle routes should be improved so people can safely cycle from leamington to Kenilworth or Coventry. Usually homes built have the minimum of everything and I expect that safe communting by cycle will not be available in 2026 and once all these changes have taken place the roads will be even busier.

In addition I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been fully explored, there just seems to be these for current planning applications like the fire station there doesn't seem to be anything or much at all in the localplan which is new development on brownfield sites, why is this, can you explain what has been done to review the sites available?

Unfortunately due to the power of national government to blindly agree to any planning application even if it has significant local opposition and a massive impact of the environment, I am not hopeful that any changes will be made as a result of consultation on the local plan, however I do hope that some of the holes in the plan will be addressed and the inbalance will be addressed