The absence of any forecast of population growth and the reasons for it is a severe weakness of the draft, and makes invalid the assertion (page 17, para4) that scenario three would 'meet forecasts ... and projections ... based on population and household growth'. Rather, it seems to base its argument for maximum development on 'supporting the economy', overlooking the circularity of the argument.

While development should be led by other policy objectives, not be an end in itself, we consider that the level of housing development should be lower than that proposed in scenario 2. It should meet local needs for more housing and, most importantly, needs for affordable housing and housing for the elderly. It should not enable population migration from other local authorities' areas which makes the condition of Warwick District worse for its existing inhabitants

Suggests that growth may not be the appropriate objective for Warwick town centre, conservation, or change, are more significant. Are very concerned that Background Paper 11 (page 104, first three paras) focuses only on retailing and leisure as town centre activities. It omits mention of residential use and office employment, which are the two largest economic activities in Warwick town centre. It prejudges work that has not yet been started on the Town Centre Plan (AAP) in considering services to play the 'anchor function'. It is essential for both sustainability and community cohesion that the centre of the county town has a broader economic base than this, and that daytime retail activity is strengthened, not the 'evening economy'. This objective must be considered further alongside the town centre plan work, and must not constrain the outcome of that.

The objectives should have been debated and agreed before any scenarios were developed and analysed failure to do this is a major weakness of the draft.

Draft objectives 1 and 2 promote balance between economic growth and housing growth, as though each justifies the other when it is actually a circular argument. The argument for housing is unsupported in terms of level, tenure, type of location therefore without evidence the objective has no meaning.

Strongly support objective 4 on the sustainable siting of development and objective 7 on their location and design improving (not just maintaining) the built and natural environments, especially historic areas and buildings. Draws attention to the importance of green space in separating and maintaining the identity of Warwick from Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Has concern over the meaning of objective 10 which as worded suggests primacy is given to the needs of the economy rather than conservation. The objectives to improve social, transport and and service infrastructure are noted however it is suggested that achieving this and correcting present deficiencies is likely to be more difficult in the higher growth scenario, as the impact of high growth on the District's infrastructure would be greater than any additional funding resulting from it could resolve.

The absence of any forecast of population growth and the reasons for it is a severe weakness of the draft, and makes invalid the assertion (page 17, para4) that scenario three would 'meet forecasts ... and projections ... based on population and household growth'. Rather, it seems to base its argument for maximum development on 'supporting the economy', overlooking the circularity of the argument.

While development should be led by other policy objectives, not be an end in itself, we consider that the level of housing development should be lower than that proposed in scenario 2. It should meet local needs for more housing and, most importantly, needs for affordable housing and housing for the elderly. It should not enable population migration from other local authorities' areas which makes the condition of Warwick District worse for its existing inhabitants

Suggests that growth may not be the appropriate objective for Warwick town centre, conservation, or change, are more significant. Are very concerned that Background Paper 11 (page 104, first three paras) focuses only on retailing and leisure as town centre activities. It omits mention of residential use and office employment, which are the two largest economic activities in Warwick town centre. It prejudges work that has not yet been started on the Town Centre Plan (AAP) in considering services to play the 'anchor function'. It is essential for both sustainability and community cohesion that the centre of the county town has a broader economic base than this, and that daytime retail activity is strengthened, not the 'evening economy'. This objective must be considered further alongside the town centre plan work, and must not constrain the outcome of that.

The objectives should have been debated and agreed before any scenarios were developed and analysed failure to do this is a major weakness of the draft.

Draft objectives 1 and 2 promote balance between economic growth and housing growth, as though each justifies the other when it is actually a circular argument. The argument for housing is unsupported in terms of level, tenure, type of location therefore without evidence the objective has no meaning.

Strongly support objective 4 on the sustainable siting of development and objective 7 on their location and design improving (not just maintaining) the built and natural environments, especially historic areas and buildings. Draws attention to the importance of green space in separating and maintaining the identity of Warwick from Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Has concern over the meaning of objective 10 which as worded suggests primacy is given to the needs of the economy rather than conservation. The objectives to improve social, transport and and service infrastructure are noted however it is suggested that achieving this and correcting present deficiencies is likely to be more difficult in the higher growth scenario, as the impact of high growth on the District's infrastructure would be greater than any additional funding resulting from it could resolve.

Considers it is very encouraging that the important issue of maintaining low levels of crime and fear of crime is included in the Warwick District Local Plan consultation.

Without prejudice to any of the three scenarios, Warwickshire Police requests that the Warwick District Local Plan include the following two principles regarding ongoing public service provision:

1. There must be a co-ordinated approach to planning public services infrastructure, including opportunities for partnership working and shared services between agencies.

2. There must be access to new infrastructure funding, particularly developer contributions via Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the new Community Infrastructure Levy

The plan needs to consider issues of sub regional importance which have potential to impact upon the future requirements and shape of the district. In particular the District's relationship with Coventry and the impact of this on the role and function of Warwick District. It is essential that the Local Plan has a meaningful strategy towards sub regional growth in line with the requirement to cooperate with other authorities through the localism bill. The strategic relationship with Coventry is not included anywhere in the key issues report.

There is a lack of recognition of the proposed Coventry Enterprise Zone at Coventry Airport which will result in a number of issues which the Local Plan will need to address. These include the need for major revisions to the green belt boundaries to facilitate the proposals and provide suitable locations for new housing to support the economic / job creation at the EZ and provide for balanced housing / economic growth.

The 3 scenarios do not represent proper scenario options and merely relate to historic completion levels. the Council should have considered a higher level of 1,000 units and a lower level of not less than 700 units per annum. Consideration should also have been given to the need to provide housing to support the EZ at Coventry Airport and the need to build more homes in order to support the provision of more affordable homes.

The Council should give serious consideration to Objectives which support the growth role and function of Coventry City and its spatial implications for Warwick District and, secondly, the significance which the EZ will provide over the next 20 years. A balance of housing and community uses should be provided to the south of Coventry, such as at Baginton, to support the employment sites in the EZ.

Retailing plays an important role in ensuring the economic vitality and viability of a town centre however this paper offers a distorted perspective by implying that intensive large scale redevelopment is required. There are two problems associated with this approach, firstly, that it destroys the historic street pattern and extinguishes evening life - this is not a recipe for enhanced diversity of use, conservation or a sense of place and community and secondly, evidence suggests that the decline of high street retailing is a long term trend. The council should plan on the basis of Leamington's identity and character rather than relating to its relationship with other non comparable centres, such as Coventry and Birmingham.

see scanned copy or attachment (tba)