BASE HEADER

Further to the preferred options published for the above, I have the following observations:
- Most of the preferred options are available without recourse to compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase should always be a last resort, both on principle (given it should be a landowners right to retain ownership of their land), and for practical reasons - any compulsory purchase will inevitably be more costly to deliver, take longer, and has significant delivery risks given the high likelihood of legal challenge by affected landowners. It seems some of the alternative sites are also available without compulsory purchase, and indeed one which is actively being encouraged by the landowner. This should be given significant weight in the decision making, ahead of any theoretical better planning status
- It is suggested that the first consultation will now not be considered any further. I find this inappropriate and patronising to those who made the effort to respond to the specific sites where comment was requested in the first consultation. The first consultation provided a strong response against some sites (specifically GT 02) which is dismissed in the report to the Executive on the consultation as the result of a campaign by the landowner. Those responses should stand - they were from people motivated to respond to the first consultation. It is offensive to be dismissive of those responses based on who the planning officers arbitrarily determine ot have prompted the repsonses.

As to the sites, I would like to raise concerns over GT 02 specifically:
- this site would require CPO - it is therefore in principle not appropriate as above
- the site lies adjacent to a Roman road, with a high probability of archaeological interest from this and the toll house that stood here
- it would be difficult or impossible to mitigate the visual impact of the site given it lies at the bottom of a valley visible from above from 3 directions - this seems to be an important part of the assessment for other sites, but not this one
- there is no sustainable public transport connection - the bus stops cited in the report are not used, as they are not accessible from public footpaths and not safely accessible at all
- there are no amenities accessible without access to public transport
- WCC cite the Fosse Way as a Red Risk route with high likelihood of road accident. Any addition of housing, based on an assessment of the accessibility of the site by public transport, would need mitigating measures to calm this traffic if it was to be delivered safely, so that the public transport can be accessed
- moving the area of search away from the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre does not mitigate the impact on this business, which is a successful, growing local employer which draws people and external spend to the district. With Stoneleigh Exhibition Centre to be affected by HS2, the demand for this site is likely to increase. The existence of a G&T site across the road from the WEC would inevitably impact on the trade of that business, given the perception of the security of the site from its customers. To adopt this site would be to wilfully jeopardise a business which need not be jeopardised.
- WDC has made no assessment, or attempt to assess, the impact of the proposed development on local employment or employers. This is inappropriate.

Thank you for reading