BASE HEADER

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6781

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Peter & Linda Bromley

We object to Warwick District Council's preferred option, now Plan 5, for the building of houses south of Warwick. We are very concerned that you are asking the public for their comments when you have not given us the information we need to make those comments, i.e. on the proposed infrastructure to support this development. We believe that Plan 5 will have an extremely detrimental effect on Warwick as a whole. We should like to make the following observations and request that we receive responses to the questions asked.

1. WDC had 7 options and the public consultation identified Plan 1 which has now been renumbered 6. Why did you decide against Plan 1? At which point did option 1 change to south of Harbury Lane? Two of the current identified sites were not in the original consultation. In June this year, sites you would not consider are suddenly your preferred option. Who asked you to bring those two sites forward to this review? Why were the public not consulted on these sites in the first consultation? Why did you ignore the result of the consultation and who decided on option 5 which was the most unfavoured of the public's choice? Is it because developers have an option on the land? Why are developers taking precedence over people? Has any of the land been purchased by developers?

2. In the South West, South East and East there have been successful legal challenges. Are you planning such an action to the West Midlands strategy? Please keep me informed when you decide on this.

3. Why are you not building on brown field sites before green field?

4. In the earlier consultation in 2008 we were told only 2,700 houses were to be built on greenfield sites. Why has this suddenly erupted into 5,000? Who made this decision?

5. Why are you removing an area of restraint? An area of restraint is part of a planning agreement. 1e was an area of restraint. How can the planning agreement be broken? Why is it suddenly not an area of restraint now but the first to be developed? Why would you not put an area of restraint last in order to have a chance to protect it? This area will remove the identity of Warwick Gates, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook and become one huge continuous urban sprawl and adversely affect the quality of life of residents.

6. Who will pay for an extra sewage pipe for the proposed new housing? Who will pay for the necessary extra water pipes and power lines to be laid?

7. Are you buying time until the next General Election?

8. Why was a traffic study carried out by Highways in the school holidays? Are you going to have another traffic study carried out? How are you proposing to improve the already congested traffic situation when we have pinch points at the historic bridges which cannot be enlarged? Please let me know the outcome of any further study. When are you going to carry out studies on access, schooling, utilities provision, especially sewage, policing, employment, medical provision, the impact on our hospital, community activities etc.? Can you guarantee that a new school will be built? How will the results be publicised? We should like to be kept informed on the progress of these studies and as soon as you have the results.

9. Why have you identified the areas for housing development before you have looked at the infrastructure necessary? If it is realised that this option is unable to be delivered because of lack of infrastructure, what other options will you consider?

10. How can we trust the planners and developers regarding infrastructure to be in place when we have seen promises reneged on at Warwick Gates (still no school) and Chase Meadow (sports provision for them allocated at St. Nicholas Park and still no community centre)? There are still 700 houses to be built at Chase Meadow.

11. There appears to be a difference in the projected number of affordable homes - is it 40% or 50%?

12. Why have you not allocated more housing to villages?

13. Why have you not spread the housing around the District? Housing development should be proportional across the District and not to have any impact on any particular area. Why have you put all this housing in Warwick and not around Leamington or Kenilworth or along the A46 corridor where there is employment and infrastructure in nearby Coventry?

14. Why have you ignored the Government's Cave Report which stated that 4,000 houses should not be built in one area?

15. Why have you not challenged the projected growth rate figure of 40,000? Why have you simply accepted this? Have you examined the population figures and assessed the 40,000 growth? Did you not argue that Warwick has had its fair share of housing and there has been an unusually large amount of major development over the last few years, i.e. Hatton, Pottertons, Chase Meadow, Warwick Gates, apart from in-filling in many brown field sites? Are the West Midlands Regional Office aware of this? Warwick's percentage of housing development is far higher than that in Leamington and Kenilworth.

16. How have you identified who wants these houses? Aren't you just encouraging people to migrate from other areas into Warwick? Isn't the real reason for city migration and not natural population growth? Why are you ignoring GOWN's advice to reduce migration? Are you challenging these figures?

17. Will you allow further consultation within the 6 months' deferment which you have now requested? Please keep us informed on the Panel's decision on the 6 month deferment request.

18. Why, when Kenilworth have a new rail station planned, no traffic congestion and none of the problems that Warwick has and can support the infrastructure, are they not allocated some of the housing development?

19. Why is no new housing allocated for Cllr. Doody's ward of Radford Semele?

20. Why have discussions taken place with developers before any consultation with the public?

21. Why is Warwick Fire Station proposed for closure when 4,200 more houses are proposed for development in Warwick?

22. Why did you state that there is employment at the University of Warwick when you knew that there is a major redundancy programme currently ongoing there?

23. Why are you proposing to build on flood plains? Householders will not be able to get insurance. In planning law, any flood alleviation schemes have to be approved by the Environment Agency but don't have to be implemented until the end of a development. The development could take years or not ever finish, such as Pottertons or Chase Meadow, and meanwhile residents are at an increased risk of flooding. Will you make it a condition of any development that flood alleviation measures are put in place before development begins?

24. Are you going to carry out a full and proper appraisal of Warwick District's Housing and Employment Land Requirements, for the period up to 2026?

25. Why are the Executive Committee being allowed to make the decisions on the Core Strategy? Why are our elected members not allowed to decide on these issues?