Object

Object

Comment

Object - traffic congestion between Warwick and Leamington Spa is already an issue.

More should be done to incorporate brown field or previously developed land before building on greenfield. Development should be dispersed through the district rather than burdening the infrastructure in one place.
Supports development at Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre as this is a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously developed land.

Objects to development south of sydenham but considers that development north of the bridleway to to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
Objects to development at Glebe Farm, Cubbington but considers that development of the north western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
Objects to the development of Loes Farm but considers that a small development next to the Saxon Mill.
Objects to the development of Hurst Farm, Burton Green but a small extension to the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
Objects to development of the land around Baginton airport but considers that development of the large brown field site south of the airport would be acceptable.

Having read the information currently available with regard to the alternative options, I can only object to the consideration of using land for future development in and around the Guys Cliffe area of Warwick.
The alternative site 4, namely Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe, Warwick is a protected green belt area, with part of the land already Grade II listed for the protection, and conservation of this part of Guys Cliffe. Having read the Core Strategy document it appears that a great deal of consideration has been done to draw up the list of preferred options without the need for you to consider using protected land that is Grade II listed by English Heritage.
Further development of this area of the outskirts of Warwick would eventually link up with Leek Wootton then Kenilworth which is not far away. I think it is so important to try and protect our Greenfield sites in and around our already over-crowded roads in this area.
Guys Cliffe is the last natural wildlife area on the north side of Warwick. So finally I wish to object most strongly to the development of land around this historic area of Guys Cliffe.

Representations from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council including responses to the alternative sites and in addition a revised alternative option in response to the Warwick District Preferred Options. Full details of the Parish Council's Revised Alternative Option can be read in the paper version that WDC Planning hold at Council Offices. It may also be found on Bishop's Tachbrook's website:
http://www.bishopstachbrook.com/PDF's/100408_BishTachPC_CSPrefOpt_AltOpt[1].pdf

Analysis of the site submissions indicates that there could be deposits of sand and gravel under three of the sites put forward for potential housing development:

Site 2
Site 3
Site 6

Part of site 4 lies within a sand and gravel Minerals Safeguarding Area as it is directly adjacent to an area of sand and gravel resource. There may therefore be an opportunity for the adjacent sand and gravel resource to be worked in the future. Plans of the above site showing sand and gravel resource areas ( and subsequent Minerals Safeguarding Areas) are also attached for your information.

It must also be noted that part of the area identified under Site 6 has been submitted as a potential sand and gravel site for possible allocation in the Minerals Core Strategy. The site submission (Site 20 - Land South of Baginton) can be viewed on pages 142 - 144 of the Minerals Core Strategy Revised Spatial Options consultation document ( www.warwickshire.gov.uk/mineralscorestrategy ). We are still in the process of assessing the sites and the information submitted and no decisions have been made at this stage. However, if any of the above sites, particularly Site 6, are taken forward as a preferred option for housing within the Warwick District Council Core Strategy, we would request that we are notified and consulted at all stages as the Local Development Framework progresses.

In order to prevent the sterilisation of proven resources of sand and gravel by non mineral development, we would request that all sites that appear to lie on deposits of sand and gravel area examined further in order to indentify the amount of deposit under the land. If it is apparent that there are large deposits, the area should be safeguarded, and as much mineral extracted as economically viable prior to any development taking place. Minerals safeguarding is not a method whereby development can be stopped, but simply a way of ensuring that resources are used sensibly and sustainably, as set out in the objectives of Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1). It may be necessary to engage with the minerals industry at an early stage to examine whether mineral operations are required prior to development.

We have undertaken a Minerals Safeguarding exercise with the British Geological Survey which identified minerals resources in the county. The safeguarding maps define where we would need to be consulted i.e. in Mineral Safeguarded Areas (MSAs)/Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) (MSAs and MCAs share the same boundaries) and these areas have been included on the site plans. The study is available to download at www.warwickshire.gov.uk/mineralscorestrategy and we will be supplying you with this information in GIS format shortly. When the Minerals LDF is adopted we expect that these MSA/MCA areas will be covered in a safeguarding policy. We would like to see a policy reference in the Warwick District Core Strategy to minerals safeguarding to draw attention to developers of the need to take this issue into account when submitting planning applications.

We have not yet determined all of the thresholds whereby sites need to be flagged up but it should include most of the larger sites such as strategic housing (and employment) sites. Where there are large scale allocations or planning applications within MSAs/MCAs (over a threshold of possibly 1ha) a mineral resource survey would need to be undertaken and if this reveals that economic deposits exist then the material should be extracted prior to the development and used on site during construction. This can help to reduce carbon emissions substantially if sand and gravel does not have to be transported long distances. In addition if resources are sterilised by non-mineral development it means that more sand and gravel is required from new and existing quarries. We note that sand and gravel extraction was undertaken prior to housing development on the land to the south west of Warwick, which was identified as a Preferred Area for sand and gravel extraction in our 1995 Minerals Local Plan.

It may be that you have considered this issue in dealings with potential developers. However, as the Core Strategy progresses, I would request that the issue of Mineral Safeguarding is incorporated into a policy within the Core Strategy in line with our previous consultation responses, to prevent it from being dealt with on an ad hoc 'site-by-site' basis.

Site 1 and 1b

Part of the site is Green Belt and potential grade 3 farmland whilst the other part is an existing mixed use development comprising business and recreational use. The site falls within the Arden Parklands and there is strong mature tree corridor to Glasshouse Lane with internal hedgerows visible which currently defines the urban edge. The eastern site is bounded by the A46 so there will need to be a substantial landscape buffer between the development and the road. The development will remove a local amenity - i.e. the sports.

Site 2

Part of the site is located on grade 2 and 3 farmland. The development would fall within Dunsmore Plateau Fringe. There is a strong vegetation corridor along the railway line, which currently defines the urban edge. There is good vegetation cover to the eastern boundary and good internal hedged field boundaries. A landscape buffer will be necessary between the proposed development and the railway and wetland corridors and farmland to the east and south.

Site 3

This site is on Green Belt and Grade 3 farmland with a small fragment of Grade 2 farmland affected on the southern boundary. The development would fall within Dunsmore Plateau Farmlands and Plateau Fringe. Although Lillington and Cubbington are already physically connected the proposed site is on higher ground that the surrounding area so there will be visual impact issues, particularly with the scale of development proposed. A landscape buffer would be needed to both break up the scale and screen the development from the school and its playing fields and from the adjacent farm and its associated buildings.

Site 4

Green Belt, Grade 3 farmland. The development would fall within the Arden Parklands. At present the village of Leek Wootton has a separate identity, this is reinforced by the 'green wedge' of farmland mature trees between the village and the built edge of Warwick. Development of this land will have an adverse impact upon this identity and the village will become a continuation of the urban edge of Warwick. There will be high adverse visual impact from main roads, neighbouring properties and public footpaths. Some of the development is proposed on higher ground, this will widen the potential visual envelope.

Site 5

Hurst Farm is within the Green Belt and Arden Parklands. The proposed site abuts farmland on the majority of its boundaries. This development would take out Grade 2 farmland, some with field ponds. There may be potential ussues regarding the proximity to the flood zone. Roughknowles Wood is on higher ground so there will be potential visual issues on land adjacent to the woodland. the site is is close proximity to Kenilworth and Gibbet Hill.

Site 6

Green Belt and potential flood zone issues. Dunsmore Parklands. Development on this scale would destroy the identity of the village of Baginton. The village would merge with Finham, the urban edge of Coventry. The development area appears to take in the Conservation Area, Lunt Roman Fort, the golf course, garden nurseries, sewage works and landfill?

Background
This paper provides views from the County Council's Transport Planning Group and Development Group on the transport implications of Warwick District Council's Core Strategy Development Plan Document Alternative Sites Consultation.
The advice provided in this submission gives an indication of:
(i) The immediate issues relating to the provision of a suitable access (or accesses) to the highway network to serve the proposed sites;
(ii) The broad impacts that the development of these sites would have on the immediate and wider transport network; and
(iii) The types of transport measures which would be required to come forward to support the development of these sites and mitigate their impact on the transport network.
Due to the status of the consultation and the isolated nature of the sites, we have not undertaken any specific traffic modelling to evaluate their individual or combined impact on the transport network. As such, the observations provided below are necessarily strategic. at this stage .

Alternative Sites 1a and 1b: Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club and
Woodside Training Centre, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth

Highway Access
Area incorporating the Woodside Management Training Centre - Access would need to be provided towards the northern boundary of the site away from the apex of the bend of Glasshouse Lane. Notwithstanding this comment, the ability to attain suitable visibility would still need to be fully assessed.
Area incorporating The Wardens Cricket Club and Sports Ground - Again access would need to be to the away from the bend on Glasshouse Lane by locating it towards the southern boundary of the site. Visibility would again need to be checked to ensure that the required standards can be attained.
As these areas abut one another it would be recommended that if they were developed independently, a form of emergency access would need to be provided between the two sites by way of a pedestrian/cycle link.


Broad Transport Impacts
The sites would generate additional traffic on Glasshouse Lane/Birches Lane and Crew Lane, with resulting impacts at the junctions of Birches Lane/St Johns Gyratory, Glasshouse Lane/Crew Lane, Crew Lane/B4i15 Stoneleigh Road and Knowle Hill/Dalehouse Lane. These currently experience varying degrees of congestion at peak times of the day. The sites are poorly related to the existing public transport network, both in terms of the town services within Kenilworth, and longer distance services to Coventry, Leamington Spa and Warwick. The nearest bus services of any significant frequency are currently located on Leyes Lane in terms of the regular X 17 Coventry to Warwick route, however this would require a walk of between % -% mile depending on where you were located within the site. Similar walking distances would be required to access the nearest shops on Leyes Lane. The distance of the sites to/from Kenilworth town centre may also limit the role of walking and cycling.
Mitigation Measures
Modelling of the site would need to be undertaken to identify the scale of any highway improvements which would be required at the junctions described above. This may include modifications such as signalisation and/or safety improvements.
The spatial position of the sites mean that they would be difficult to serve by public transport. Stagecoach would be unlikely to divert the existing X17 service, therefore the only option would be to revise the route and hours of operation of one of the town services. This on its own would be unlikely to result in a high modal share for bus frotyl the site, given that demand from the site would primarily be towards Coventry, Leamington Spa and Warwick.
Good pedestrian and cycle routes will need to be provided towards Leyes Lane and the two nearest education facilities (Park Hill Junior School and Kenilworth Secondary School), including appropriate crossing facilities on Glasshouse Lane. This may necessitate a change to the speed limit on the section of the road between Dencer Drive and Edwards Grove.

Alternative Site 2: Land at Campion School/South of Sydenham
Highway Access

Potential accesses to serve the proposed development may be achievable from Sydenham Drive, Withy Bank, Hastings Fields and Moncrieff Drive. If a preferred access were to be identified from these options, the alternatives could be used to provide emergency access to the site. There is also potential for pedestrian/cycle links to be provided into the site from Church Lane and
Fieldgate Lane.

Broad Transport Impacts
The scale of this site goes well beyond that proposed within the District Council's LDF Core Strategy Preferred Option. As such, its impact will be far more significant in transport terms. The barrier formed by the Leamington Spa to Banbury rail line to the west of the site and the limited crossings thereof mean that the highway impacts of the site will all be channelled towards the residential areas off Chesterton Drive, Sydenham Drive, Prospect Road/Grosvenor Road and Calder Walk/Gainsborough Drive. Wider impacts will also be experienced at the junction of Sydenham Drive and the A425 Radford Road. Despite proximity to the Service 67 bus service, a large proportion of the site is remote from the public transport network. The site is also some way from the town centre, which may limit the role of walking and cycling.

Mitigation Measures
If this site were to go forward with the scale of development proposed, it would clearly need to be well served by public transport. This would necessitate a further extension of Service 67 into the site via 8t Fremund Way, including an increase in frequenQY from every 15 minutes to every 10-12 minutes (as per Service G1 'Gold line'). Good pedestrian and cycle routes within and to/from the site would also need to be provided, particularly to the relocated school and any local shopping facilities. The links over and under the railway line at Church Lane and Fieldgate Lane respectively will need to be maximised for pedestrian and cycle access. The existing bridleway from Church Lane towards Barn Farm and Radford Semele would need to be improved in order to make it appropriat~ for use by bicycles.
Modelling of the site would need to be undertaken to identify the scale of any highway improvements which would be required on the roads to the north of the site (as described above). This would need to -include an assessment of the modifications that would be required to the junction of Prospect Road/Sydenham Drive/Chesterton Drive, as well as area-wide traffic management safety improvements.

Alternative Site 3: Glebe Farm, Cubbington

Highway Access

Any potential for development on this site would be limited by the number of potential access points to the existing highway network in this area, these being Cheviot Rise and Oakridge Close. There are potential issues with visibility in relation to any access from the site onto Offchurch Road / Windmill Hill. Realistically therefore, even with an option to secure third party land, it is unlikely that satisfactory access(es) could be attained to serve the development of the entire site. As such, the nature of the surrounding highway network is likely to constrain the scale of development which can be achieved on the site, particularly given the need for multiple access points.

Broad Transport Impacts
Subject t6 achieving a satisfactory access onto Offchurch Road/Windmill Hill, the development would result in a very concentrated impact of traffic on this corridor with resulting impacts at the junctions of Windmill Hill/B4453 Rugby Road/ Cubbington Road/Kenilworth Road, 84453 Cubbington Road/A445 Lillington Road, Kenilworth Road/A445 Leicester LanelWesthill Road, Westhill Road/B4113 Stoneleigh Road/Bericote Road, and Bericote Road/A452 Kenilworth Road.
The site has reasonably good proximity to existing bus services in the area, including Services 67 and 68 along the Cubbington Road and Parklands Avenue (Service 68 only). Parts of the site are also in reasonable walking and cycling distance to the neighbourhood centres at Cubbington and Lillington, although these would be somewhat remote from the south eastern edge of the development.

Mitigation Measures
Modelling of the site would need to be undertaken to identify the scale of any highway improvements which would be required to the roads within the vicinity of the site. This may identifY the need for significant improvements to a number of the junctions described above, along with area-wide traffic management and/or safety improvements.
In order to improve public transport connectivity, it will be necessary to consider rerouting either Service 67 and/or Service 68 to serve the site, including improvements to frequency and hours of operation. Good pedestrian permeability from the west of the site through the existing residential area to the north east of Lillington should be provided to allow access on foot to bus services on Parklands Avenue. These links should also be available for cyclists to use, in order to ensure that a more direct, convenient route to and from the town centre is available.

Alternative Site 4: Loes Farm, Guy's Cliffe, Warwick

Highway Access
From the plan contained in the consultation document, there would appear to be five separate. areas that make up this site. Comments on each of these in relation to highway access are provided below. Area immediately to the south of Hintons Nursery - This would be suitable for a small scale development. There is potential for an access to be provided from the A429 Coventry Road to serve this site.
Larger area to the north of Hintons Nursery - There is potential to provide an access from the A429 Coventry Road to serve this site. An emergency access would need to be considered which could potentially come from Primrose Hill in the form of a footlcycleway. Alternatively the private access road along the southern boundary of the site (Woodloes Lane) could be utilised as an emergency access. To the north of the site, there appear to be a number of recorded accidents on the A429 Coventry Road. Any supporting information regarding this site would need to consider the nature of these accidents, and demonstrate that any intensification of traffic would not exacerbate the situation.
Triangular area to the south of the A46 Roundabout - It may be possible to provide a potential access to serve this site from the A429 Coventry Road along the section of the route prior to the dual carriageway. There could however be some issues with visibility due to the embankment to the north of the site.

Area to the south of Gaveston Wood Cottages - Without third party land, there are limited opportunities to provide a suitable access to serve this site. Notwithstanding, the current access road from Warwick Road does not meet an adoptable standard, and there is little scope for this to be improved in order to achieve the appropriate standard. There is also little scope for an emergency access to be provided to serve the site.

Area to the north-east of the A46 Warwick Bypass - There is no scope to achieve an acceptable access onto the public highway to serve this site.

Broad Transport Impacts
Certain areas of this site (particularly those located to the south of theA46) have already been considered as part of previous work undertaken by the County Council on behalf on the District '90uncil. The main implications of development on these parts of the site would be experienced on the A429 Coventry Road, with resultant impacts on the A429/A46 (southbound access), A429/A46/B4115 and A429/Primrose Hill/Spinney Hill junctions. The development would need to be modelled in order to quantify the scale of this impact.
In terms of the areas of the site to the north of the A46, their principal impact would be on the Warwick Road (south of Leek Wootton) and the A429/B4115 junction. Once again, modelling would be required to quantify the scale of this impact.
The areas of land to the south .of the A46 have reasonable proximity to bus services in the form of Service 16 (Coventry - Stratford-upon-Avon) and, to a lesser extent, Service G1 'Goldline'. Access to Service 16 is also available from the site to the north of the A46 nearest Warwick Road. There is also good access from certain elements of the site to the existing pedestrian/cycling facilities on Coventry Road between the Woodloes Roundabout and Leek Wootton. .

Mitigation Measures
Improvements to the junctions in the vicinity of the site (as described above) may be required, not least at the intersection of.the A429 Coventry Road with the A46 and at the Woodloes Roundabout. Good pedestrian and cycle access to the east and south will be particularly important in order to provide convenient access to the town centre, the cycling facilities on Coventry Road/Warwick Road and existing bus services. A contribution to meet the costs of increasing the frequency and hours of operation of Service 16 will be required, along with the provision of appropriate bus stop facilities on Coventry Road.

Alternative Site 5: Hurst Farm South, Burton Green
Highway Access
The location of the site limits the opportunity for access onto the strategic road
network, particularly in view of the proposed scale of development. With the possibility of securing third party land, this may enable a small area of land to be opened up for development. The alignment of Crackley Lane however reduces any potential points of access, and there are concerns regarding the potential impact that development would have on the nature and use of this road. Overall therefore there is little or no scope for development on this land. The remote location of this site and the lack of appropriate access to the highway network mean that the main impact of any development in this area would be experienced on what are essentially rural country lanes (i.e. Cryfield Grange Road, Crackley Lane and 80ckendon Road). This would have a resultant impact on the junctions of A429 Kenilworth Road/Cryfield GrangeRoad, A429 Coventry Road/Crackley Lane, A452 Beehive Hill/Hollis Lane and Westwood Heath Road/Brockendon Road. Development in this area would also place additional pressure on the already congested corridor between Warwick University, the A46, the 84115 and Stoneleigh village.
Despite its proximity to Warwick University, the site has a poor relationship to
the public transport network. The nearest services can be found on Red Lane/Cromwell Lane (Service 540) and Cromwell Lane/Tile Hill Station (Service 19), which provide links between Kenilworth - Burton Green and Coventry - Solihull respectively. There are also a number of services which either terminate or call at Warwick University. Apart from the existing rights of way which cross the site, there are no facilities for either pedestrians or cyclists in this area.
Mitigation Measures
Any increased use of Cryfield Grange Road, Crackley Lane and Bockendon Road would require these roads to be substantially upgraded in order to cope with the likely levels of traffic that would arise from development on this site.

Improvements to the various junctions identified above may also be required (including those in the Warwick University to A46 corridor), along with area wide traffic management and safety measures. Consideration would also need to be given to the rerouting of existing bus services in the area and/or provision of bespoke new services. These would need to link the site with Coventry, Kenilworth and Warwick. Good public transport, walking and cycling links would also need to be provided from the site to Tile Hill railway station. A contribution towards the cost of enhancing the parking facilities at the station may also be appropriate.

Alternative Site 6 - Land at Baginton
Highway Access
This proposed site would impact significantly on the local and strategic highway network, with limited scope for suitable access provision or improvement. There is also likely to be a significant impact on the villages of Baginton and Stoneleigh where there is little scope for the improvement of the network to mitigate against the impact of large scale development.

Broad Transport Impacts
The potential scale of development on this site and its limited connections to the local and strategic highway network would ultimately lead to the main impacts being experienced on Rowley Road, at the A45/A4114 Stivichall and A45/A46 Tollbar End Roundabouts, and on the rural roads in the area (Le. through Baginton village, Stoneleigh Road and Bubbenhall Road). Comments will need to be sought from the Highways Agency regarding the impact of this scale of development on the Stivichall and Tollbar End interchanges, particularly in the context of the proposed improvements which are planned to take place at these locations over the coming years.
As well as the impact on Baginton village itself, the development will impact on the A445 Leicester Lane/Coventry Road and A445IWeston Lane (near Bubbenhall) junctrons, along within Stoneleigh village (including Stoneleigh Bridge and the B4115/Birmingham Road junction) and Stareton.

Public transport facilities in the area are limited to the infrequent Service 539 (Kenilworth - Coventry). The proximity of the A46, A45, Finham Sewerage Works and Coventry Airport also mean that existing and future pedestrian/cycle penetration of the site will be challenging.

Mitigation Measures
Subject to achieving suitable arrangements for highway access to serve the site, the level of necessary mitigation will be considerable. A new public transport network will need to be established, linking the site with Coventry, Kenilworth; Leamington Spa and Warwick. Significant improvements to the local road 'network would be required in order to cope with the likely levels of traffic that would arise from development on this site. Excellent pedestrian and cycle facilities would also be required to ensure that the development is well linked to surrounding trip attractors, including the existing employment facilities at Middlemarch Business Park (Siskin Drive), Stonebridge Trading Estate (Rowley Road) and Coventry Airport, as well as towards Coventry city centre.

Conclusions
Apart from the three areas of land to the south of the A46 which form part of Site 4, all of the alternative sites included within the consultation document have transport issues which to varying degrees will either be difficult or impossible to overcome. Based on the assessment provided above, we recommend that Sites 3, 5, 6 and the areas of land to the north of the A46 in Site 4 are not considered any further within the LDF process.

It is our considered view that Sites 5 and 6 have substantially inferior existing or potential transport links when compared to the proposed site at King's Hill near Finham/Gibbet Hill.

Although they do not offer any improvement over the sites which have been included within the LDF Core StrategyPreferred Option, Sites 1 and the areas of land to the south of the A46 in Site 4 may be worth further consideration, although our concerns in relation to each of these should be noted. We remain of the view that the scale of growth on Site 2 as proposed within the current LDF Core Strategy Preferred Option (i.e. ,200 dwellings) is considered appropriate.

As to the new Alternative Sites proposed by developers, I am still concerned about the size of these developments because many of the problems I outlined in my previous letter will only be transferred to other areas, i.e. under pressure on the infrastructure and on emergency and educational services, the destruction of green field sites and villages losing their identities. However, I do believe development should be spread throughout the District in order to prevent the overloading of the infrastructure in any one place. Therefore, I would support some development on the new alternative sites. I also think more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields.
Regarding these alternative sites:
1. I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre so long as it does not extend further onto farmland.
2. I do not support the large development proposal for south of Sydenham but would support a smaller scale development. I would also like to comment that if the larger development was to go ahead the provision of a new secondary school must be guaranteed.
3. I do not support the development proposal for Glebe Farm, Cubbington as this would mean Cubbington losing its identity as a village and put pressure on a drainage system which already has problems. A limited development might be acceptable.
4. I do not support the development proposal for Loes Farm, North of Warwick, but would support a smaller development south of Loes Farm.
5. I do not support the development of ALL the land around Baginton Airport but would support the development of the large brown field site south of the airport
6. I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but would support an extension of the University of Warwick to include student accommodation as this would free other student housing in surrounding towns for general use.
I have seen and support the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council and recommend it to you for studying before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'.

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

The Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council Alternative option provides a sensible solution to meeting new housing needs. Instead of the wholesale development of these new sites which has the major drawback of needless use of greenbelt and prime farm land, the BTPC proposal recommends using as much brownfield and low value greenbelt as possible.
- We support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- We do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would comment that the development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- We do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- We do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- We do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- We do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
In addition, the Alternative Option would spread the impact on infrastructure rather than overload our community and create an urban sprawl.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'.

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would comment that the development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham,
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I consider that there are immense benefits to incremental expansion. With this in mind it will be effective to consider the following alternative options.
- The proposal to develop the Kenilworth Thickthorn area, in a modest way appears to be a logical extension to existing development.
- I do not support the blanked development proposal for the South of Sydenham, but I submit that development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington. However, development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I oppose the proposal to develop at Loes Farm (north Warwick). However, I believe that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be appropriate.
- The envisaged development at Hurst Farm, Burton Green, would, I believe, be detrimental to the overall area, but I do accept that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be appropriate.
- Regarding the land around Baginton Airport, I oppose, but I do accept that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
My comments take into account the necessity to preserve first-class farmland.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'
I am of an age when the implementation of these planned development will have little effect on my personal situation. However, the sustenance of established communities is very close to my heart.

I am of the opinion that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. More though needs to be given as to how the proposed development could be spread through the district so that the burden on existing infrastructure and the impact on existing communities is minimised. I would therefore like to state that:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would consider development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington. However, development to the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but would suggest that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be most appropriate.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I have noted that Alternative Sites have been proposed by developers but they still do not address the problem of building on greenfield sites. More should be done to take into account the many brown-field or previously developed sites which are available in the District, before greenfield land is even considered.
All of the Alternative sites are too large and for whose benefit? I argue that it is cheaper for developers to build on very large plots and therefore they make more profit. I also argue that people do not benefit from such large anonymous developments. Therefore the developers' needs come before the people who have to live on the developments.
I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place.
For those reasons, I would like your department to consider the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would comment that the development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington. Cubbington and Lillington would lose their individual identities. I propose that a small development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington be considered.
- I certainly do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm which would have the effect of almost merging with Leek Wooton - another village's identity lost. Instead I would suggest a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be considered.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'.

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would comment that the development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would comment that the development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would comment that the development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

I think that more should be done to incorporate brown-field or previously developed land before building on green fields. I also think that more should be done to disperse the development through the District rather than burdening the infrastructure in just one place. For those reasons, I express the following:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

Development of brown-field sites or previously developed land should be utilized before sprawling into green-field areas. Furthermore, development should be dispersed throughout the District rather than concentrated on one area with resulting pressure on the infrastructure.
With regard to specific Alternative Sites I comment as follows:
- I support the development proposal for Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre, Kenilworth. This seems a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously-developed land.
- I do not support the development proposal for South of Sydenham, but I would comment that the development north of the bridleway to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Glebe Farm, Cubbington, but I would comment that development of the north-western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm (north Warwick), but I would comment that a small development close to the Saxon Mill would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green, but I would comment that a small extension of the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
- I do not support the development of all the land around Baginton Airport, but I would comment that development of the large brown-field site south of the airport would be acceptable.
I believe that dispersal of development will more closely meet the WDC vision that "the District should be a mix of historic towns and villages, set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities."
Concentrating development between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook will destroy the individual identities of these three historic parishes. Furthermore, development on prime farm land and greenbelt constitute destruction of valuable sources of food and our Warwickshire landscape.
I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council. I commend it to you for study before you publish your final 'Core Strategy'

It seems to me that the new proposals suffer from some of the same disadvantages as the preferred options, though perhaps to a lesser degree. In particular, I still feel strongly that maximum use of brownfield land should be a paramount criterion and that development should be spread more widely across the district. I have reservations about the overall number of houses being allegedly necessary.
I have had the opportunity to study the Alternative Option developed by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council which I understand is supported by Whitnash, Barford and Budbrook. I believe this to be a well thought through alternative which deals with a number of the issues which concern myself and other local residents. I fully support it and would hope that you study it in detail as part of the current consultation.
In summary therefore:
I object to the alternative proposals in the form put forward by the developers, except for the proposal for Kenilworth Gardens and Woodside Training Centre which use previously developed land.
I fully support the Alternative Option proposed by Bishop Tachbrook Parish Council.

I still do not believe that you have even attempted to make a valid case for the scale of the development you propose, a scale which appears to be based on figures plucked out of the air rather than on reasoned calculations on what the area needs and can comfortably sustain. Furthermore, no account seems to have been taken of properties in the district that are standing empty or derelict, even though the refurbishment of such countrywide, has been urged by the Audit Office. Also, and most puzzlingly, you are persisting in ignoring the results of your own 'Options for Growth' consultation exercise of May 2008.
It is very bad that nearly all of these alternatives are greenfield sites; I strongly believe that brownfield sites, of which there are over 23 hectares within towns and villages, should not only figure, more in the proposals but should take precedence. Besides the contributions that greenfield sites can, as Hilary Benn has pointed out, make to the Nations future food security, they are also of immense amenity value, and surely these very important considerations mean that every possible effort should be made to conserve them. I also believe that a few large developments will overburden the physical infrastructure in those places where they are made, but more, smaller areas spread around the district would not have that effect.
These considerations lead me to support the development proposed on previously developed land at Thickthorn Kenilworth. However, I cannot support the large developments proposed South of Sydenham; at Glebe Farm, Cubbington; at Loes Farm, North Warwick; at Hurst Farm, Burton Green; or at Baginton Airport, though smaller developments at these sites would be acceptable. The Sydenham and Cubbington developments threaten the village statuses of Radford Semele and Cubbington respectively, and would lead to those villages being absorbed into the Warwick/ Leamington conurbation. If the one at Burton Green includes Halls of Residence for the University then housing in the local towns would be freed for families. If, Heaven forbid, the large development at Sydenham goes ahead, and the school is rebuilt, guarantees should be obtained from the developer that the school buildings should be of the highest quality in design, materials and construction, to meet the needs of education in the 21st Century, and steps should be taken to ensure that the developer honours this commitment.
These smaller developments are more in line with Option 5 from your 'Options for Growth' public consultation exercise, and are described in more detail in Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council's 'Alternative Option'. I believe it is essential that you read that document to inform your deliberations before you consider your final 'Core Strategy'. You should also acknowledge that by virtue of the fact Option 5 had by car the most public support it should be given due respect and weight, rather being dismissed out of hand.

The advent of 6 additional sites is helpful as it should enable greater dispersal of new housing across the District, but not in several big lumps, rather developments of 150/200 dwellings maximum. This restrained approach could work well at the sites at South of Sydenham; Glebe Farm, Cubbington; and Loes Farm, North of Warwick.
The potential at Bagington is greater; 1400 houses could be located here and fast tracked to take pressure off all greenfield sites elsewhere in the District in Phase 1.
AS5 in the area of Burton Green should not be developed for housing, but should be used to increase substantially student accommodation located conveniently to the university. This will in time release back into the market residential properties in Leamington, particularly which currently are housing students. This shift should be a specific objective of the Core Strategy.
On the theme of dispersal, I would support a change of use from commercial/ employment to housing for the Gallaghers site located between Heathcote Lane and Harbury Lane. This has lain empty for over 10 years and should be developed in Phase 1. A mixed development of 200/250 houses with S106 provision for retirement homes and a primary school to serve the whole Warwick Gates Community.

More should be done to incorporate brown field or previously developed land before building on greenfield. Development should be dispersed through the district rather than burdening the infrastructure in one place.
Supports development at Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside Training Centre as this is a sensible extension to the site at Thickthorn upon previously developed land.

Objects to development south of sydenham but considers that development north of the bridleway to to Radford Semele would be acceptable.
Objects to development at Glebe Farm, Cubbington but considers that development of the north western corner adjacent to Cubbington would be acceptable.
Objects to the development of Loes Farm but considers that a small development next to the Saxon Mill.
Objects to the development of Hurst Farm, Burton Green but a small extension to the University of Warwick would be acceptable.
Objects to development of the land around Baginton airport but considers that development of the large brown field site south of the airport would be acceptable.