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.

Supports development to the east of Kenilworth in general but have submitted comments at previous consultation stages identifying Clients land as suitable and available for
development and highlighting concerns regarding the deliverability and capacity of the land at Thickthorn. These included:
- the loss of sports pitches unless land can be identified
- the high level of constraints of the site, including listed buildings, ancient woodland, noise and traffic generation; and the potential need for a new primary school.
As an alternative Southcrest Farm is deliverable and developable without having any significant adverse
Southcrest Farm can help provide
such flexibility.
The sites have not been subject to a sustainability appraisal or appraised through the SHLAA process therefore to allocate the sites without carrying out a full appraisal would render the Core Strategy unsound in accordance with PPS12. There is also concern that as site 1a is currently in use as a Cricket pitch and development would result in the loss of this that it does not pass the test of being deliverable. Site 1a also raises similar issues to those identified in our original representations regarding land at Thickthorn, namely:
- noise impacts from the A46;
- impact on established landscape and associated ecology; and
- highway access.
Neither site 1a or 1b either on their own or in combination are of sufficient size to be counted as strategic sites and do not therefore warrant being identified at this Core Strategy stage.

Site 5 is a highly sustainable location for growth to meet the Coventry overspill which the RSS panel report states should be in the vicinity of Gibbet Hill / Finham. The joint green belt study identified the site as one of the least constrained parcels of green belt around Coventry. Development of a strategic scale has the opportunity to address issues of infrastructure and security and the University of Warwick has planning permission for development on University land up to the north-eastern boundary of the site. Only part of the area has been assessed through the SHLAA so this should be updated to consider all of the site.

Object

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 attended, and spoken at various of your presentation on the core strategy last year, I wanted to thank you for coming up with the alternatives sites. These proposals go a long way towards addressing the very real concerns that so many of us raised about the prime arable land south of Harbury Lane.

The alternative sites distribute the housing around the Warwick-Kenilworth-Leamington area, integrating it into already established communities, with consequently less infrastructure impact. Nor are any of the proposed alternatives ( so far as I am aware) prone to flooding in the way that the Harbury Lane south site is.

My final request would be that wherever possible you look to develop brownfield land first. I realise that this requires more effort in terms of ground clearance and decontamination prior to use, but the social benefits are correspondingly greater. Derelict eyesore sites are improved and brought back into productive use and agricultural land can continue in its prime purpose of feeding people with trusted locally-sourced products.

I have read the 'Alternative Option' from Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council and commend it to you. I suggest you give due consideration to the ideas in it. It seems a sensible solution to meeting housing needs by using as much brown-field and low value greenbelt as possible.

I would like a senior person from W.D.Council to park himself on any part of Harbury Lane to watch and count all the traffic speeding down. I am usually doing some gardening at the entrance to Heathcote Park and I'm blown away at the amount of cars speeding down at more than 50 miles an hour and I hate to think how much more traffic it will make at this spot.

I work in Warwick and my daily trip takes me an excess of 25 minutes. I can't believe that building more houses anywhere near Warwick will make my journey any quicker!!

W.D.C have already "urbanised" us with signs, road markings, inappropriate traffic lights. We wish to remain as an English village.

No more houses in Bishops Tachbrook.

We have been wondering why there needs to see further development when so many properties stand empty or up for rent. We feel that developments are going to far and without proper for thought about the strain on resources and the environment.

Dispersel to smaller developments would be much prefered.

The Town Council welcomes the introduction of the additional sites to the equation of development within the preferred options of the Core Strategy, for if considered with the amber sites and those promulgated by the District, there is a very real opportunity for development to be allocation throughout the District, to meet local needs and provide residents with genuine options in respect of where they might choose to live.
The District Council is well aware, and hopefully will address the very strong dissatisfaction to the Core Strategy proposals revealed by the consultation, which indicated in excess of 90% opposition to the sites proposed by the District.
In particular with regard to those sites south of the river there was almost universal objection to the proposal to develop the land at Europa Way, which if developed would have the effect of creating a massed urban sprawl and the loss of the green space the distinguished and separates Royal Leamington Spa, Warwick and Whitnash.
The additional sites now give the District the opportunity to reflect the electorate's wishes and exclude the land at Europa Way from development despite identifying that site as a preferred option in the face of previously stated objections.
Further positive advantages, to development being located throughout the District, would be to minimised the effect of mass development on existing communities and reduced the major investment in infrastructure which will result from the Districts current proposals, which mass development and create a disproportionate impact on particular communities and residents.
Resulting from the previous consultation there has been nothing to indicate that the District are prepared to recognise that the proposals within the Core Strategy are not acceptable but to repeat this latest consultation regarding other sites, does not give that opportunity.
The Town Council therefore recommend that:
i. The District Council concede the Core Strategy proposals are not acceptable to the community
ii. Review the Core Strategy by giving greater priority to the earlier development of 'brown field' sites
iii. Seek to direct development across the District to provide real housing choice and avoid the creation of continuous urban sprawl, which would result from the implementation of the proposals contained in the Core Strategy. Additionally, this option would ease the problems of infrastructure requirements relating to transport, traffic and roads, schools and education and health provision.
iv. Recognise the traditional separation of the historic town's which make up much of the District, whilst not impinging on rural areas.
v. Reduce the need to take in more green field sites, by the concentrating development on 'brown field' sites.
Finally, and this remains an issue which the District fail to address, is to give details of why the District Council considers that GOWM population projections are 'unrealistic' and make a clear statement on the District Council's projected population growth for the period covered by the 'Core Strategy'.
It would therefore follow that the District Council would then be able to develop a residential strategy, which would reflect real anticipated growth, and support the wishes of the community, demonstrated in the replies to the consultation on the Core Strategy.

We bought our house here specifically to be part of a VILLAGE community NOT an extension of Leamngton Spa.

We are still opposed to the Core Strategy Preferred Option but are in full support of the Alternative Option.

25 years ago, we chose to come and live in Bishops Tachbrook for the quiet village life. We now have the inconvenience of the heavy traffic from Warwick Gates as it is; the adoltion of more housing will put intolerable pressure on our community!

The development of "brown field" sites has always got to be preferrable to eroding our beautiful countrysides. Smaller pockets of development are infinitly preferrable to another "urban sprawl" with precious few facilities!

Villages should remain villages rather than suburbs of Leamington. Consider carefully any development around Cubbington in light of the flooding issues it experiences.

Priority must be given to the infrastructure to support these new homes and not be reliant on any already in place.

As a resident of Heathcote park - Park homes, Harbury Lane. I am aware that the Residents Association have submitted their comments to you on their behalf. However I do further support this excellent response from Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council.

Development should be proportionate and gradual while amenities and infrastructure should also be upgraded.

Keep the Green Belt between Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook or the village will just become a suburb of Leamington Spa.

Don't forget your own vision - "Providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within arural landscape of open farmland and parklands". Local people don't need this many new houses. It makes most sense to use areas with sufficient transport links and infrastructure in place eg. near Warwick Univesity/Coventry. Bear in mind the importance of tourism in the local economy. Don't ruin our green spaces and destroy the identity of local communities.

Allowing smaller developments would benefit all concerned, the wildlife and green fields as well as the people. Also the strain on public services would not be as dramatic.

If we need more houses - why are there over 200 new build houses, flats still empty that noone wants on the old Pottertons site 4 have remained that way for 18 MONTHS. The only houses that are occupied are the social houses, it is a ghost town that noone wants.

Use alternative - Because we don't want loss of lives. I am still opposed to core strategy in Bishops Tachbrook, when housing estates are built we get power cuts. January 2010 bad month, very cold, night temperature -15 degrees, day temperature 5 degrees. With power cut, no services, elderly people in village will die. Build well away, Coventry can cope, we can't. In the event of power cuts as well due to isolution. Also when motorway closed we can't cope now we will not even exit village when estate built, very opposed. Stop it.

It would spoil the village if there are to be more houses built in large numbers the add one or two appropriate is ok but DEFINENTLY not on a large scale otherwise it would not be a village. It would become a housing estate like so many others where they build large amount of houses and we do NOT want our village spoilt.

There may be a conflict between the development policies and the presence of the notifiable installations. Any proposed developments should take their presence into account.
You are strongly advised to consult the listed pipeline operator, to confirm the exact location and route of their pipelines in the area covered by the plan and to ensure that your records are kept up to date.
In view of the presence of notifiable installations in the area covered by the plan, it would be helpful to potential developers if the constraints likely to be imposed by their presence were indicated in a policy statement in the plan. The paragraphs in the attached Annex could form the basis of such a statement which may avoid the submission of planning applications containing inappropriate proposals.
In addition, we suggest that the proposals maps be marked to show locations of the notifiable installations consistently with paragraph 6.21 of Department of Environment Circular PPG12. We particulary recommend marking the routes of the notifiable pipelines as, in our experience, most incidents involving damage to buried pipelines occur because third parties are not aware of their presence.

Whilst I do not wish to comment on the merits of the proposed sites, it would have been helpful to have further detail on each site, such as the number of dwellings proposed, any known constraints and site deliverability. Two of the sites (sites 1 & 6) contain existing sports facilities and Site 4 appears to include parkland. You will need to take Government Policy contained in PPG 17 and draft PPS: Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment into consideration when assessing these sites.

The Parish Council believe there is a preferable viable alternative and that the approach made by Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council alternative plan offers these viable alternative suggestions. The approach of having many smaller sites of development is much more preferable to single larger developments.