It is clear that based upon analysis of the evidence base regarding household formation, housing need and the economic demand for new housing, that the level of development needed is at least at the upper end of the Options set out in the Local Plan consultation, if not higher when affordable housing need is factored in.

In this respect, delivery of housing at Option 1 and 2 levels would be significantly
below the level of household formation set out within the 2008 ONS statistics and even the Option 3 figure would be below the long term local needs for the Borough.

Importantly however, it is clear from the SHLAA that the district has the capacity to deliver higher levels of housing growth.

For this reason, WCC consider that it is the higher figure that should be planned for by WDC when assessing the appropriate level of housing to be provided within the district for the next 15 years and beyond.

WCC therefore support the adoption of the higher growth option (i.e. Scenario 3) set out in the Local Plan consultation.

The WCC owned site at Europa Way has significant potential to contribute towards meeting both the identified demand for housing and the acute housing need in the District.

Regrettably, scenario 3 totally ignores previous objections to the huge number of houses needed to accommodate such an unrealistic population increase. Indeed, when applied to the period of the Core Strategy, the figure would equate to over 16,000 new homes and well in excess of the proposals in the Core Strategy.

A tenet of the local plan, is a sustainable development strategy, with new development built so as not to threaten the existing high quality built and natural environments. 12,000 new houses will impact negatively on the natural environment because of the need to build on green field sites and the loss of the green space areas, which distinguish the towns of Kenilworth, Royal Leamington Spa, Warwick, Whitnash and other areas of the District, would be the consequence. Such large scale development would result in the bulk of new housing being located in close proximity to existing housing and create continuous urban sprawl.

The Town Council would therefore wish to support Scenario 1, with an expectation that the District Council would direct growth to brown field land, until such time as the District Council:
* Clearly identifies realistic population growth
* Provides an appraisal of housing and employment level requirements
* Identifies the infrastructure necessary to support growth
* Allocates development to sites which have the necessary infrastructure to support development and which have local support.

In every circumstance Scenario 3 should be rejected because it is based upon unrealistic population growth and Scenario 2 should not be contemplated, less the District Council demonstrate that the above requirements are met.

Within Scenario 1, the Council should explore all means to bring forward new homes which are affordable to Warwick residents rather than migrants from the West Midlands. The whole direction of the Local Plan should be to meet local needs.

The Council should aim to satisfy its high growth option.

The Town Council's preferred scenario for development of Leamington Spa is scenario two, namely average levels of new development and investment with the potential to deal with the important issues in relation to providing more jobs, homes and investment.

The future provision for affordable housing should be no less than that provided for in the current District Local Plan.

1. Warwick District has already asked for the views of the Warwick. Warwick did not approve the level of new building proposd in the old plan nor where it was proposed to build. Views have not changed.
2.If green field sites are included as well as brown field sites then there must be an assurance that brown field sites will be used first. There is an obvious reluctance to allow building on greenfield sites when other land is available.
3. Everyone acknowledges the need for affordable homes and welcomes the new blood it brings into the community. There is also a financial incentive to build such homes. Yet planners build 'unaffordable' homes in greater numbers to maximise profit. Is there a case, while there is a financial bonus on cheaper housing, to build a higher proportion of affordable homes than the current percentage?
4. Warwick district has suggested where homes might be built. Warwick seems to be subject to the highest level of development. It must not become the dumping ground for new houses. Might I suggest Kenilworth takes a bigger share.
5. Warwick has a unique character, so too do all the other surrounding towns and villages. With the scale of development in the third option each of these separate communities would begin to merge into an area of genteel urban sprawl. Green lungs round each community need to be preserved.
6. We were clearly told at the meeting that the government has an sgenda for growth. We were also told it would be unlikely that data could be produced that would support either option one or two. Where does that leave bottom up planning? It would seem that the only choice you have is to agree with the agenda for maximum growth. I was going to include the word 'sustainable' as well, but that does not seem to be appropriate judging by the level of growth Warwick District seems bent on pursuing.

We accept the need for growth but not at the expense of destroying or altering beyond recognition the town we all love. Listen to us and work with us.

1. Warwick District has already asked for the views of the Warwick. Warwick did not approve the level of new building proposd in the old plan nor where it was proposed to build. Views have not changed.
2.If green field sites are included as well as brown field sites then there must be an assurance that brown field sites will be used first. There is an obvious reluctance to allow building on greenfield sites when other land is available.
3. Everyone acknowledges the need for affordable homes and welcomes the new blood it brings into the community. There is also a financial incentive to build such homes. Yet planners build 'unaffordable' homes in greater numbers to maximise profit. Is there a case, while there is a financial bonus on cheaper housing, to build a higher proportion of affordable homes than the current percentage?
4. Warwick district has suggested where homes might be built. Warwick seems to be subject to the highest level of development. It must not become the dumping ground for new houses. Might I suggest Kenilworth takes a bigger share.
5. Warwick has a unique character, so too do all the other surrounding towns and villages. With the scale of development in the third option each of these separate communities would begin to merge into an area of genteel urban sprawl. Green lungs round each community need to be preserved.
6. We were clearly told at the meeting that the government has an sgenda for growth. We were also told it would be unlikely that data could be produced that would support either option one or two. Where does that leave bottom up planning? It would seem that the only choice you have is to agree with the agenda for maximum growth. I was going to include the word 'sustainable' as well, but that does not seem to be appropriate judging by the level of growth Warwick District seems bent on pursuing.

We accept the need for growth but not at the expense of destroying or altering beyond recognition the town we all love. Listen to us and work with us.

As the three scenarios are not yet attributed evidence-based target figures for matters such as housing delivery we consider it appropriate to comment that any future targets should be based on a full, robust evidence base. Ambitious targets for growth should be derived from this evidence base, taking into account historic undersupply of affordable housing and consideration of the viability of development throughout the district. We recommend that the highest possible housing target be set, enabling higher volumes of affordable housing to be brought forward, with the aim of delivering sufficient high quality housing to meet need. As the 2007 SHMA indicates need for 1,019 affordable dwellings per annum, the suggested figure given at Option 3 for 800dpa is considered too low to meet even affordable housing need. The evidence should be brought up to date before any single option is taken forward, taking into account the backlog of housing need and projected growth across the Plan period.

Suggests the following points are included in future drafts of the Core Strategy:
1. Affordable housing should be given sufficient weight and status within the core strategy.
2. Links should be made between the core strategy and housing strategy.
3. There should be strong links between the core strategy and other local authority strategies, such as the community strategy community care plan, economic development strategy and transport plans, ensuring that affordable housing is given due prominence within a corporate approach.
4. Credible district wide and sub-district wide affordable housing targets should be set over the plan period.
5. Ensuring that site size thresholds for negotiating affordable housing from private developers are properly derived in the light of the local housing and land markets including viability issues. We would anticipate that the Council will consider and articulate the circumstances across the District which justify proposed site size thresholds as per relevant government guidance.
6. A local definition of affordable housing should be set encompassing intermediate, affordable rent and social rented housing, taking full account of local relationships between house prices and incomes.
7. A realistic approach towards brownfield sites to ensure that a sequential approach is not so rigidly applied so as to impede the delivery of affordable housing.
8. There should be proper targeting of individual sites for affordable housing, including identifying sites for 100% affordable housing sites throughout the district.
9. There should be a reasonable amount of flexibility regarding design and development control standards, densities etc. to assist in achieving affordable housing.
10. The provision of affordable housing is recognised per se as both a positive material planning consideration and a planning benefit.
11. A rural exceptions policy should genuinely enable schemes to be developed in the correct locations both within and on the edge of rural settlements and make allowance for cross-subsidy where viability
is challenging.
12. The provision of affordable housing should be viewed within the context of achieving balanced communities and within the wider social exclusion and housing plus agendas.
13. Recognition should be given to the advantages of working with HARPs and a suitably flexible approach should be adopted towards S106 agreements.
14. Indication of the Council's intention to adopt CIL alongside planning obligations contributions and the exemption of affordable housing developments from this, in line with Government advice.
15. Policies should be included that maximise the reuse of empty properties for affordable housing.
16. Housing demand factors should be taken into account. There is likely to be a continuing demand for family housing and this should be considered.
17. Regular monitoring of the progress in meeting affordable housing needs should take place. PPS3 discusses the requirements of Annual Monitoring Reports and sets out what the LPA should carry out on an annual basis. By referring to such indicators, the success or otherwise of the policies can be measurable against clearly defined targets, allowing measurements to be taken on an annual basis.

As the three scenarios are not yet attributed evidence-based target figures for matters such as housing delivery we consider it appropriate to comment that any future targets should be based on a full, robust evidence base. Ambitious targets for growth should be derived from this evidence base, taking into account historic undersupply of affordable housing and consideration of the viability of development throughout the district. We recommend that the highest possible housing target be set, enabling higher volumes of affordable housing to be brought forward, with the aim of delivering sufficient high quality housing to meet need. As the 2007 SHMA indicates need for 1,019 affordable dwellings per annum, the suggested figure given at Option 3 for 800dpa is considered too low to meet even affordable housing need. The evidence should be brought up to date before any single option is taken forward, taking into account the backlog of housing need and projected growth across the Plan period.

Suggests the following points are included in future drafts of the Core Strategy:
1. Affordable housing should be given sufficient weight and status within the core strategy.
2. Links should be made between the core strategy and housing strategy.
3. There should be strong links between the core strategy and other local authority strategies, such as the community strategy community care plan, economic development strategy and transport plans, ensuring that affordable housing is given due prominence within a corporate approach.
4. Credible district wide and sub-district wide affordable housing targets should be set over the plan period.
5. Ensuring that site size thresholds for negotiating affordable housing from private developers are properly derived in the light of the local housing and land markets including viability issues. We would anticipate that the Council will consider and articulate the circumstances across the District which justify proposed site size thresholds as per relevant government guidance.
6. A local definition of affordable housing should be set encompassing intermediate, affordable rent and social rented housing, taking full account of local relationships between house prices and incomes.
7. A realistic approach towards brownfield sites to ensure that a sequential approach is not so rigidly applied so as to impede the delivery of affordable housing.
8. There should be proper targeting of individual sites for affordable housing, including identifying sites for 100% affordable housing sites throughout the district.
9. There should be a reasonable amount of flexibility regarding design and development control standards, densities etc. to assist in achieving affordable housing.
10. The provision of affordable housing is recognised per se as both a positive material planning consideration and a planning benefit.
11. A rural exceptions policy should genuinely enable schemes to be developed in the correct locations both within and on the edge of rural settlements and make allowance for cross-subsidy where viability
is challenging.
12. The provision of affordable housing should be viewed within the context of achieving balanced communities and within the wider social exclusion and housing plus agendas.
13. Recognition should be given to the advantages of working with HARPs and a suitably flexible approach should be adopted towards S106 agreements.
14. Indication of the Council's intention to adopt CIL alongside planning obligations contributions and the exemption of affordable housing developments from this, in line with Government advice.
15. Policies should be included that maximise the reuse of empty properties for affordable housing.
16. Housing demand factors should be taken into account. There is likely to be a continuing demand for family housing and this should be considered.
17. Regular monitoring of the progress in meeting affordable housing needs should take place. PPS3 discusses the requirements of Annual Monitoring Reports and sets out what the LPA should carry out on an annual basis. By referring to such indicators, the success or otherwise of the policies can be measurable against clearly defined targets, allowing measurements to be taken on an annual basis.

As the three scenarios are not yet attributed evidence-based target figures for matters such as housing delivery we consider it appropriate to comment that any future targets should be based on a full, robust evidence base. Ambitious targets for growth should be derived from this evidence base, taking into account historic undersupply of affordable housing and consideration of the viability of development throughout the district. We recommend that the highest possible housing target be set, enabling higher volumes of affordable housing to be brought forward, with the aim of delivering sufficient high quality housing to meet need. As the 2007 SHMA indicates need for 1,019 affordable dwellings per annum, the suggested figure given at Option 3 for 800dpa is considered too low to meet even affordable housing need. The evidence should be brought up to date before any single option is taken forward, taking into account the backlog of housing need and projected growth across the Plan period.

Suggests the following points are included in future drafts of the Core Strategy:
1. Affordable housing should be given sufficient weight and status within the core strategy.
2. Links should be made between the core strategy and housing strategy.
3. There should be strong links between the core strategy and other local authority strategies, such as the community strategy community care plan, economic development strategy and transport plans, ensuring that affordable housing is given due prominence within a corporate approach.
4. Credible district wide and sub-district wide affordable housing targets should be set over the plan period.
5. Ensuring that site size thresholds for negotiating affordable housing from private developers are properly derived in the light of the local housing and land markets including viability issues. We would anticipate that the Council will consider and articulate the circumstances across the District which justify proposed site size thresholds as per relevant government guidance.
6. A local definition of affordable housing should be set encompassing intermediate, affordable rent and social rented housing, taking full account of local relationships between house prices and incomes.
7. A realistic approach towards brownfield sites to ensure that a sequential approach is not so rigidly applied so as to impede the delivery of affordable housing.
8. There should be proper targeting of individual sites for affordable housing, including identifying sites for 100% affordable housing sites throughout the district.
9. There should be a reasonable amount of flexibility regarding design and development control standards, densities etc. to assist in achieving affordable housing.
10. The provision of affordable housing is recognised per se as both a positive material planning consideration and a planning benefit.
11. A rural exceptions policy should genuinely enable schemes to be developed in the correct locations both within and on the edge of rural settlements and make allowance for cross-subsidy where viability
is challenging.
12. The provision of affordable housing should be viewed within the context of achieving balanced communities and within the wider social exclusion and housing plus agendas.
13. Recognition should be given to the advantages of working with HARPs and a suitably flexible approach should be adopted towards S106 agreements.
14. Indication of the Council's intention to adopt CIL alongside planning obligations contributions and the exemption of affordable housing developments from this, in line with Government advice.
15. Policies should be included that maximise the reuse of empty properties for affordable housing.
16. Housing demand factors should be taken into account. There is likely to be a continuing demand for family housing and this should be considered.
17. Regular monitoring of the progress in meeting affordable housing needs should take place. PPS3 discusses the requirements of Annual Monitoring Reports and sets out what the LPA should carry out on an annual basis. By referring to such indicators, the success or otherwise of the policies can be measurable against clearly defined targets, allowing measurements to be taken on an annual basis.

The Town Council's preferred scenario for development of Leamington Spa during the period of the New District Plan is Scenario Two, namely average levels of new development and investment with the potential to deal with the important issues in relation to providing more jobs, homes and investment in town centres.

The allocation of future development should respect and preserve the area of Green Belt to the north of Leamington which provides an important barrier to the coalescence of Leamington with Kenilworth, Warwick and the parish of Old Milverton.

The future provision for affordable housing should be no less than that provided for in the current Local Plan.

The Local Plan should aim to encourage future investment in a diverse range of employment opportunities.

The sites around Hatton Park are not in a suitable location for housing development due to traffic issues and loss of green belt land between Hatton Park and Warwick.

Any new housing development should not be directed towards the Whitnash area which is already full to bursting.

5. Health & Wellbeing

From the Parish Plan survey: Residents regard health & wellbeing as important, with a third of leisure journeys involving walking or cycling; footpaths are rated as important by two thirds, cycleways by nearly hald and bridleways a third. Greatest demand for activities in the village was various forms of keeping fit (1 in 5 respondents). Two thirds of respondents would like a doctor's surgery in Hatton Park.

6. Road Congestion & Air Pollution

An important issue for the parish which relies almost exlusively on the busy A4177. Just over hald of respondents consider the volume of traffic or the dangerous junctions on this road to be a problem.

Most households depend on cars, three quarters for work and half for school, shopping and leisure. A third use buses for school, but less than a tenth for shopping trips and 5% for work and leisure journeys. Half of the journeys made by bus are to Warwick and a third to Leamington. Overall this travel pattern is not conducive to sustainable development nor helpful in combating climate change.

Hatton has very few public facilities. the Ferncumbe School at Hatton Green is thriving and very popular, but probably has limited scope for expansion. There are village halls at Hatton and Hatton Park, a very small shop at Hatton Park and all weather sports area and children's playground at Hatton Park. the shop has almost closed on at least one occasion and the Hatton Park Village Hall has struggled to find volunteers to run it.

Scenario 1 with its low levels of growth would most closely match the views of Hatton residents and be most appropriate for this Parish.

The uncertain future of the economy is an issue of concern to everyone in the Parish.

Residents would wish to see economically strong, vibrant and attractive town centres given that they rely on them for many of their needs and services.

The main concerns of residents are that the green belt should be retained, particularly between Coventry and kenilworth; only limited infill housing should be allowed to meet the needs of first time buyers and people wishing to downsize; public transport links to Kenilworth should not be reduced and a sensible level of funding for small rural schools should be maintained.

HS2 has blighted housing values and the construction process will affect village life, a site for a new village hall may have to be found as a consequence. Some houses in the Burton Green locality may have to be demolished and there should be consideration of a means to re-house them in the immediate locality.

Priorities in Warwick District should be preserving the green belt, preventing urban areas joining up and the maintenance and of the character of the historic towns of Warwick, Leamington and kenilworth.

The green belt between Coventry and Kenilworth should be retained.

Development will spoil the ambience and green character of Kenilworth and put a strain on local transport and facilities. The need for affordable housing can be satisfied in Coventry.

New housing should be located in South Leamington, or even Ryton.

The Offchurch Plan data showed that the village is divided between those who would support low housing growth (Scenario 1) and those who would like some new housing to respond to a need for both the young and the elderly to be able to stay in the village.

The Council must consider and make provision for the needs of the community for housing and employment. Any plans or proposals should be sustainable and include provision for infrastructure and clear proposals for how any new development will connect with, and complement, the existing community.

Green Belt land should not be released before the development of any land with permission or available for development.. Further, any land allocations in the Green belt should be should be developed in the final phases of the Plan.

The Town Council is opposed to any development of land at Thickthorn for reasons related to loss of Green belt; pressures on existing infrastructure; the past high levels of development in the town over the last 60 years and the loss of the rugby club and, potentially, the cricket club.

If land in adjacent to Kenilworth is allocated, it should not be developed prior to approved or available land outside the Green Belt and the development should include a full range of infrastructure requirements appropriate to its size.