I support this development (providing it is not green belt) as it would mean Warwickshire homes for Warwickshire people and not use already inadequate Coventry services. It would maintain the clear boundary between the two distinctly different communities.

The current Campion School buildings have been added to over the years as modernization and expansion have been necessary. They now compare unfavourably with the new North Leamington School buildings. The current improving trends of its results and all round education given to the pupils suggest that new buildings are now necessary for it to continue to give a high standard as new facilities will be required for the ever changing and developing curriculum. The development of the school appears likely in the near future so it would seem appropriate that land around the school be developed and the school buildings adapted to the intake.

I believe that the current plans for any large scale housing development is miss judged. An
alternative would be the development of several sites of smaller numbers with a mix of properties.
The proposal to develop properties of all (mixed) types on a single site is a mistake. Rather it should be possible to develop smaller numbers with a more coherent spread of property types.

We would have no objections to the use of this land for building more homes if the plans included the provision of additional educational facilities (namely primary schools to accommodate the additional children in the 1000 homes). The apparent absence of any such plans is alarming and incredibly short-sighted. As many parents of young children in the Warwick Gates/Whitnash/Heathcote area have recently experienced difficulties in primary school admissions, it would be ludicrous to even contemplate adding a further 1000 new homes into the mix. Any new housing development will inevitably attract young people, newly-married couples, and people wanting to start a family. This has been the story of Warwick Gates over the past ten plus years, and now many of the residents have primary school-aged children, who are expected to somehow be squashed into a few spare places within the existing local schools. This is bad enough, but to potentially increase this problem further would be disastrous to the community.

The current Campion School buildings have been added to over the years as modernization and expansion have been necessary. They now compare unfavourably with the new North Leamington School buildings. The current improving trends of its results and all round education given to the pupils suggest that new buildings are now necessary for it to continue to give a high standard as new facilities will be required for the ever changing and developing curriculum. The development of the school appears likely in the near future so it would seem appropriate that land around the school be developed and the school buildings adapted to the intake. The facilities for residents already exist in the south town area which would reduce travelling distances and therefore greener credentials.

These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.

CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.

We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on

CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.

* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport

In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.

How many houses might this site produce? This site will have Implications for a potential re-location of Campion School. There is very little surplus capacity in the local Primary School.

The Highways Agency (HA) together with Warwickshire County Council (WCC) is currently undertaking an assessment of the implications of the strategic housing and employment allocations proposed in the Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options paper for both the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and the local road network. This work is expected to be completed by June 2010 and will help determing what, if any, measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed development options on the SRN will be requred. This work should also help to inform the development of the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which will underping the Core Stretegy.

Given the uncertainty about which, if any, of the alternative sites are suitable for development, the HA has been unable to undertake any such detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of these sites at this time but would wish to do so when there is greater clarity. For the purposes of responding to this consultation, we have, therefore, undertaken a qualitative assesment of each of the sites focussing on the potential impacts of each site on the SRN and their suitabilty in terms of sustainability.

Site 2 lies immediately adjacent to the southern fringe of the Leamington Spa suburb of Sydenham. Part of the site is identified as a location suitable for housing in the District Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options document. As you know, the transport impact of this part of the site (together with the cumulative impact of the District Council's Preferred Options) is currently being assessed by the HA and WCC. However, the site included in the Alternative Sites consultation paper, compromised a much larger area of land than the Preferred Option site and we understand that the proposed development would include a replacement school in addition to housing.

The site is relatively remote from the SRN with the closest junctions (M40 Junctions 13 and 14) being some 6km to the south of the site. Therefore, we do not expect that the direct traffic impact of this site on the SRN will be significant. However, we would recommend that the site is provided with good access to public transport and other sustainable transport means to minimise the traffic impact of the site as far as possible.

All six of the proposed alternative sites are considered to have some impact upon the SRN. It is expected that Site 2 would have the least impact, due to the relative distance from the M40, and the number of local services, amenities, and employment sites within the neighbouring areas. The remaining sites would have a more noticeable impact upon the SRN. Site 6 in particular has the potential to severely impact upon some sensitive locations along the A46. As set out above, we would, of course, wish to undertake further detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of the sites on the SRN when there is greater clarity about which, if any, sites are considered to be suitable for development.

Thank you for consulting English Heritage on the suggested additional six strategic sites.
Before any commitment to any strategic site is made there is an expectation that a thorough strategic environmental assessment/sustainability appraisal will have been undertaken and that evidence would have been gathered and applied to demonstrate the relative suitability, capacity, deliverability and consistency with matters such as regional (RSS QE 1, 5 and 6) and national planning policy has been determined. At present whether or not this has occurred is unclear. In this respect we refer you to our previous correspondence of 25 September 2009, our specific comments relating to the evidence base and also to the recently published PPS5 and its associated good practice guide.

Please note that English Heritage considers that this apparent shortcoming is fundamental to the soundness of the Core Strategy.

In addition to this generic maxim please find an initial observation on each site based, unfortunately, on a rather crude desk top consideration.

Site 2, 3 and 5 - Land at Campion School, Glebe Farm and Hurst Farm South
The Historic Environment Record and County Council's Historic Landscape Characterisation project may prove to be of particular use in establishing the historic significance of these sites. Certainly due to the limited specific designations the broader historic value and the wider landscape setting should be investigated.

Whitnash Town Council (WTC) have considered the additional 'Alternative Sites' put forward by Warwick District Council (WDC), for consideration in the public consultation, but has restricted its comments to the site that would have the greatest impact on Whitnash and its community, namely Alternative Site 2 - Land at Campion School / South of Sydenham.

WTC have been actively involved in the Core Strategy process and its consultation stages, directly with Officers of WDC, other local parish councils and members of the public to ensure that the views of Whitnash residents are represented. Meetings with
WDC Planning Officers have been held. Town Councillors have attended and hosted public meetings.

On the 6th April 2010, the public were invited to discuss the alternative sites and in particular the site put forward by Redline Town Planning and Development
Consultants, on behalf of their clients A C Lloyd, for potential development on land at Campion School / South of Sydenham, at Whitnash Community Hall.

Whitnash Town Council, have considered the report submitted to WDC by Redline, and listened to the views expressed by residents attending the public meetings, we are also mindful of previous views put forward by local residents and WTC in the various stages of the Core Strategy consultation process, and would make the following comments and objections to the proposed alternative site.

Transport and Accessibility
The report confirms that the main access to the site will be accessed by relocating Campion School to the south end of the proposed site. Highway access will be from the existing roundabout at Sydenham Drive and Prospect Road and via existing development onto proposed site L10 within the original preferred options. In our view this will increase traffic congestion along these routes and within the site which effectively becomes one large cul-de-sac, with the majority of traffic then being routed along Sydenham Drive and Prospect Road.

Provision for cycle ways and pedestrian access is indicated in the report, however current usage of these facilities to the school site is low, with many parents driving children to the school, causing existing congestion at peak times, and we do not see any evidence that usage will be increased within the proposal. Indeed, if there were any additional pedestrian access via Church Lane or Golf Lane then this would lead to additional congestion by parents dropping off children near these access points. Both Prospect Road and Sydenham Drive have extensive residential and industrial areas, associated traffic such as cars, HGV's and supermarket traffic add to the existing congestion. Additional development of 1000 homes and school traffic to this site would only compound the current problems.

Drainage and Flood Risk
Areas within the proposal are identified as flood plain; the report highlights this but suggests that this does not pose any significant threat to the development of land nearby. However, within the last three years, Whitnash has seen flooding to properties along Home Farm Crescent and Fieldgate Lane. Residents have also noticed that since development of land at Sydenham, flooding of local fields particularly along Fieldgate Lane has increased.

It is our view that development of the proposed site would only increase the flooding risk to proposed new dwellings but more significantly to existing dwellings in Whitnash.

Natural Environment and Historical Character
Whitnash and the local area has a rich history, the site has many known historical and naturally beautiful features, which have been enjoyed by generations of residents and visitors. These include the Whitnash Brook, Brook Valley Nature Reserve, Roman Villa remains, and country walks to Radford Semele and beyond.

The land proposed for development also acts as a natural boundary between Whitnash and other areas such as Sydenham and Radford preventing urban sprawl and loss of community identity, something WTC are extremely vigorous in trying to prevent and protect.

We believe that the area holds much more history and environmental interest much of which is yet unknown and therefore needs extensive archaeological and environmental studies, before any agreement is given to developing the land, helping to protect and preserve it for future generations.

Sustainability and Infrastructure
The Redline report, suggests that the development of 1000 new homes and a school would be sustainable and not 'overload' the current infrastructure available in the area. WTC disagree with the assumption and would site existing issues within the community, including traffic congestion, oversubscribed admission applications to local infant and primary schools, waiting times at GP surgeries, which dispute the claims made by Redline Consultants. In our view additional development within this area or any other areas in to the South of Leamington and around Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook, would exacerbate these problems.

Redline Consultants comment on the cost of infrastructure and affordable housing, and admits that the significant cost of relocating and building a new secondary school within the site, would make affordable housing options, such as shared ownership and/or social housing limited. One of the primary purposes of the Core Strategy is to meet housing need; and current planning regulations ensure that major housing developments comprise of a mixture of housing options that meet local housing needs. Based on the comments made by Redline Consultants that affordable housing options will be limited and indicating that they would not be able to meet the quotas set by WDC Planning Authorities this is another valid reason, in our view to object to this site for development.

Developers are required to share the costs of infrastructure via a percentage or levy system. It is therefore in doubt how A C Lloyd would meet their obligations and contribute towards wider infrastructure, particularly as they are committing themselves to building a new school, a crucial element to the success of their proposal. There is no commitment or detail within the report about how infrastructure will be funded, for example additional provision for health care, local infant and primary schools, utilities, roads, sewage etc...


Conclusion
WTC understands the principle of the Core Strategy and recognises that it is a Government requirement of all Local Authorities to have strategies in place.
However over the last ten years Whitnash has seen significant housing development, along South Farm, Warwick Gates and development east of Sydenham all of which have impacted greatly on the town and its community, many of these issues have been previously cited, but include traffic congestion, flooding, environmental impact, increased demand on local schools and health care services. WTC also feel that assumption that most people living in these new homes would work in employment settings in the south of the district is fundamentally floored, and that the recommendation by WDC Planning Officers, to Members, that development should be focussed to the south of Leamington around Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook, based on this assumption is incorrect.

The south area of the district is significantly congested at peak times in both directions with traffic entering and leaving the area. This is compounded and restricted by the four river crossings that separate the north from the south of the district, additional development in the south added to existing development both employment and residential would have a detrimental and lasting effect on the community of Whitnash.

Finally WTC would remind WDC of the views expressed by WTC and the public in the previous public consultations carried out on the Core Strategy between May and
July 2008 and July and September 2009.

21.6% of respondents, the majority view in the consultation on options, preferred development to be directed South of Coventry. The second highest 15.0% of respondents preferred development along the A46 Corridor.
1,083 Respondents Objected to proposals to build housing on land South of Sydenham, and East of Whitnash
1,171 Respondents Objected to proposals to build housing on land at Lower
Heathcote Farm.
1,106 Respondents Objected to proposals to build

Development of this area would provide a welcome boost for this locality. Plus Sydenham Drive is a useful artery into town which can sustain more traffic.
The likely rebuild of Campion School will also continue to revitalize a school which has made huge leaps forward in the past few years.

Our priorities relate to the canal corridor and land and development within and immediately adjacent to the corridor. With any type of development British Waterways would require development to not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment, detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways, prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. The waterways can be used as tools in place making and place shaping, and contribute to the creation of sustainable communities. British Waterways would seek for any development to relate appropriately to the waterway and optimise the benefits such a location can generate for all parts of the community.

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation.

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Site 3 No comments

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Site 6 This site though partially developped, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed alternative sites consultation for the future growth of Warwick District. Warwickshire Wildlife Trust has reviewed the alternative options, with regards to the potential ecological and environmental implications, and would like to make the following comments:

Ecological Data Provision
The Trust would like to outline the necessity of using up-to-date ecological and environmental information, to inform strategic site selection from the outset. Whilst the purpose of this consultation paper is to aid the site selection process for the sustainable growth of Warwick District; questions are raised as to how truly sustainable growth can be delivered, when there is inadequate supporting ecological information to indicate the environmental benefits or constraints of each growth option. This is problematic in two ways:

Primarily, the presence of designated wildlife sites and/or protected species has the capacity to shape the development and influence the overall developable area of the strategic site. Identifying the ecological assets of each growth option will therefore be essential to convey confidence that the strategic site can deliver the required development during the decision making process.

Secondly: the Local Authority will need to demonstrate that decisions on strategic site selection are the most appropriate considered against the reasonable alternatives*. This cannot be achieved if the environmental constraints and opportunities of each growth option have not been available to inform which is likely to be the most appropriate alternative from the environmental perspective.

Initial survey work for the original proposed sites has been undertaken by the Habitat Biodiversity Audit (HBA) and was available for comment by the public during the Preferred Option consultation. It is therefore unclear why this information has not been forthcoming for the alternative sites and available for comment within this consultation period. The Trust subsequently advocates that, at the very least, the HBA habitat assessment is extended to include the proposed alternative sites prior to site selection. Furthermore, we contend that this initial assessment is also supported by; a data search of protected species for each site and the additional survey work that has been recommended within the Warwick District Habitat Assessment (such as potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS) criteria assessments). The Trust would be happy to comment on any data that came forward and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the constraints or opportunities of each site with yourselves or prospective developers.

Habitat Regulations Assessment
It is possible that the future growth of the district may require the need to conduct a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) in accordance with regulation 85 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations (Amended 2007). The need for this assessment is to ensure that any proposed growth strategy will not have a detrimental impact on a Natura 2000 site (i.e SAC, SPA or Ramsar site). Whist the nearest European site is situated in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough, the future growth of Warwick District may have implications on European sites stretching much further, through increases in tourism, water abstraction or through the increased production of carbon emissions. To evaluate if Warwick District needs to undertake a full HRA, the Trust advises that a HRA scoping assessment is undertaken. This will outline if any aspects of the Core Strategy are likely to impact on European sites and therefore require a full HRA. As the HRA should ideally be an essential aspect of the evidence base to inform spatial growth, it is strongly recommended that the assessment is undertaken at the first possible opportunity, encompassing all original and alterative strategic sites, to ensure that the desired growth options do not impact on a European site.

Green Infrastructure
All development parcels must take into consideration the need to have sufficient space to not only accommodate grey infrastructure, but also to allow sufficient provision for the necessary buffering of existing biodiversity assets and make a contribution towards green infrastructure (GI). Within the larger sustainable urban extensions, the Trust recommends that green infrastructure provision should make up at least 40% of the developable area in line with government best practice**, however this will largely depend on the ecological assets of each site and their connectivity to wider GI objectives.

The Trust advises Warwick District to take a strategic approach to GI provision within each of the development parcels. Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement through habitat buffering, restoration and creation, in line with LBAP objectives, should be seized wherever possible, but these should also be considered in unison with the social and economic requirements of the site. For example, biodiversity enhancements may be linked to SUDS or public open space or contribute to flood alleviation. This multifunctional use of GI will best be informed through the production of the GI strategy, which should be a key consideration in the site selection process.

Site Specific
Whist it is difficult to provide meaningful comments on the alternative sites until further ecological environmental data is available, the Trust would like to provide our initial thoughts on the some of the obvious constraints and opportunities, each development parcel presents.

Site 2 - Land at Campion School/ South of Sydenham
The site forms an extension to the original site known as South of Sydenham. Once again the bulk of the site consists of amenity grassland; however the entire eastern boundary is demarcated by Whitnash Brook. The brook is Local Nature Reserve managed by Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and is a potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS). It forms an essential wildlife corridor through a largely agricultural environment and will therefore form an important node or corridor within any GI strategy. Given its status as an LNR, it makes a contribution to the availability of public open space within the locality. Therefore, if this site is selected, an assessment will be required to assess the potential implications of increased recreational pressure on the brook corridor.

Given the biodiversity and amenity importance of the brook, it will be essential to not only to sufficiently buffer the brook, but also to ensure that adequate connectivity to the wider environment is maintained, to preserve its long-term integrity. Furthermore, as there is a strong presumption against the loss or fragmentation of a pLWS, it is likely that the railway cutting pLWS along the western boundary will also create further access issues to the west. Further information and assessment must be forthcoming for this site before it can be seen as a sustainable growth option. Until evidence can demonstrate that development can be undertaken without a significant effect on the integrity or the connectivity of the 2 pLWS, then the Trust would like to strongly advise against the use of this site as potential growth option.

The submitted site includes the site of our school and the submission from Redline Planning and Development Consultants on behalf of AC Lloyd proposes re-locating and re-building our school at the southern end of the submitted site.

We support the proposal to re-build our school. We would welcome the opportunity for the young people of the surrounding community to have the benefit of a secondary school planned and constructed to modern requirements. We see the opportunity for this to incorporate sustainable construction as well as improved educational and community facilities. We would like to see our students, many of whom are from more deprived families, having the advantages of state of the art facilities to enhance the excellent work that is being achieved by the school. There is an opportunity to provide a centre with recreational and community facilities easily accessed by foot and by bicycle from the Whitnash and Brunswick areas, as well as Sydenham and Willes, which would be an enduring community asset for established communities as well as any new residents brought by the development.

We are very keen for the school to remain close to the communities it currently serves because that is important both to support the students and their families in an area of great need, and to maintain the good work on community cohesion which has been built up. Our assessment is that the proposed new site, approximately half a mile south of the current one, remains within acceptable walking distance for the students within our preference area.

We also welcome the intention to preserve and enhance the Whitnash Brook Valley as a nature area.

We do not feel it is our place to comment on the impact the proposed development would have on the outlook of adjacent residents or on technical matters such as highway capacity.

Questionnaire response.

Are you aware that Warwickshire Wildlife Trust have recently reported the presence of Otters in the Whitnash Brook Nature Reserve which is part of Land at Campion School / south of Sydenham. As the Otter is a protected species I imagine this might have an impact.

My farm is directly next to the proposed development site which takes in Campion school but to date I have received no notification. At the moment I can just see the school and a few newly built homes on the horizon.

Where do I stand for loss of the decade's of privacy that I have enjoyed all my life.
I am probably the only one that will be directly affected as others already live on housing estates or the other side of the rail way embankments.
Are planners intending to take any of my land? what about the new road layout and the noise pollution and light pollution from street lights and cars. Will there be screening and security fencing and gates from the proposed houses, to provide security for me from a housing estate. Where is the social housing planned

I am told that my private road will be lost to me and the bridge that carries the rail road over my private road will be widened to carry traffic , I am told I will lose my drive way entrance as it is and expect to have a new entrance put beside my house.
At the moment I burn timber on my fire because I am out of the zoning area and my heating costs are nearly nil - what will happen if a housing estate is built?

Land at Campion School/south of Sydenham does not have suitable access for traffic, is a site of historical interest and known to flood.

Object to Campion School/south of Sydenham as use of Golf Lane for access is already dangerously congested with traffic for St.Margarets and Briar Hill schools. The sewers on Golf Lane are also not adopted and problems would need to be sorted out if development were to take place. Building houses south of the railway is a bad idea due to too few bridges to get into Leamington.

Support this site as suitable for development.

Object to land at Campion School/south of Sydenham. Access to the school from Fieldgate Lane is impossible, major entrance and access roads needed unless it is to become a cul-de-sac. Safety of children crossing Golf Lane to get to primary schools. No capacity in primary schools for more housing. Object to building in flood plain and sewage and drainage problems. Loss of separation between Leamington, Whitnash, Warwick and Radford Semele. Traffic in Whitnash is gridlock.

Will affect the roads around the area, as well as primary schools, traffic congestion, flooding as beghind where we live is flood plain, danger of the railway line. Do we really need more housing and spoil the little countryside we have left in Whitnash.

Development infringes the Kenilworth Gap from Coventry.

Object

With the opening of the new rail link and station this would be appropriate.

Support

The Alternative Sites Paper does not comment on the need for these new sites to be subject to a sustainability appraisal and therefore would not appear to follow the procedures set out in PPS12 and its companion documents.

Sites 1a and 1b - This site is not compatible with the Districts preferred spatial strategy for growth which focuses on Warwick / Leamington and Whitnash. In the absense of an SA it is unclear what the ecological impact would be.

Site 2 - Without an SA the full impact of developing this site is unknown. It would however, be contrary to sustainability objectives 6 (housing), 3 (natural environment) and 16 (flooding).

Site 3 - This site is contrary to the spatial strategy which directs major growth to the urban areas of Warwick / Leamington and Whitnash. All previous development proposals surrounding Cubbington have ben previously rejected by the Council.

Site 4 - This site is contrary to the spatial strategy which directs major growth to the urban areas of Warwick / Leamington and Whitnash.

Site 5 and 6 - Both are large areas of West Midlands Green Belt which maintains separation between towns and villages.

Site 1a - is in active use as an important sports facility for the town of Kenilworth. Its loss would be detrimental to the local community and contrary to national planning guidance. Development on the site would also be unacceptably prominent causing harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

1b - contains an attractive building set in substantial and well maintained grounds currently in use for training / employment . Intensifying development on the site would be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality.

2 - This would be unacceptable as it is a very large parcel of land which would inevitably be at the loss of other more preferable sites currently proposed for development. It is less sustainable than other sites proposed in the Preferred Options Draft and Alternative Sites paper. Parts of the site suffer from flooding and are prominent from a landscape perspective.

3 - Supports the development of this site as it can occur without adverse visual impact or harm to the wider openness of the Green Belt. It is a sustainable location already well served by public transport and in close proximity to a wide range of local services and facilities.
The land is currently owned jointly by the King Henry VIII Endowed Trust and Sir Thomas White's Charity who are also involved in the promotion of land at Europa Way. We are instructed to inform the Council that the allocation and development of land at Europa Way must take precedence over land at Cubbington. If the Council feels it is unnecessary to allocate the land now it shoulsd still be removed from the green belt to allow for future housing needs to be met.

Site 4 - Land beyond the Warwick By-Pass is wholly inappropriate for development to meet the needs of Warwick and Leamington. It is poorly related to the main urban area and harmful to the wider Green Belt and countryside objectives. Development would involve a major encroachment into the open countryside and significantly harm the openness of the green belt.

Site 5 - Development would be wholly inappropriate as the land is poorly related to the existing urban areas and thus would be entirely unsustainable. Development would be harmful in landscape and result in a major encroachment into the Green Belt.

Site 6 - The land is wholly inappropriate for residential development. The area identified contains a huge number of valuable existing uses which need to be retained, together with the attractive village of Baginton. Residential development on any part of the site would not meet the needs of Warwick or Leamington and would be likely to result in unacceptable levels of commuting. It would be unacceptably harmful in landscape terms and detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt.

Object