Dispersal through the villages, combined with some estate development on a human scale (100 houses max) on the edge of the larger settlements is the best option from a design legacy standpoint. Vast bolt-on housing estates have not worked in the past and more enlightened LPAs such as neighbouring Stratford District have begun to recognise this, adopting a wider dispersal strategy. The NPPF recognises the importance of cross-border consistancy, so WDC should consider adopting a similar policy, widening the remit of the SHLAA to include many of the smalller villages, where existing services are under threat. Built up area boundaries should be abolished or significantly re-drawn, as past infill policies have already filled them to capacity.

Regarding the argument that development should be curtailed in villages because this will somehow increase the use of the car? - this argument lost credence the day Sir Tim Bernars-Lee invented the internet. The advent of high-speed broadband, the increasing tendancy to work from home, the fact that most people bank online, download entertainment online, shop online and indeed respond to this consultation online, mean that village development going forward is a viable and forward-thinking alternative. Small scale development in villages also provides a source of land supply for small local builders, currently excluded from the land supply market by a combination of volume housebuilder cartels and the myopic introduction of "garden grabbing" legislation, notably prevalent in this preferred options document. Local builders produce a significantly higher quality product and will bring forward high quality affordable rural housing, assuming the LPA do not impose unrealistic thresholds (no more than 30%). This sort of development provides long term benefit to the local economy (not the sort term boost associated with large estate development) and encourages the development of small local businesses, which coallesce around this type of development.

I support this sensible strategic approach. It makes sense to avoid contiguous conurbation and to distribute pressure across the District.

Under 43% use of Green Belt land is not good enough.

Housing should be devloped north of Leamington and kenilworth towards Coventry where growth in jobs predicted to happen. High level of dvelopment propsed for leamington and Warwick will make both towns far less desirable to live in.

The Council identified a preferred option for locating new housing for the Core Strategy comprising the 'Green Sites'. There are no planning justifications why the Council should now change its position.

Distributing growth accross the district is a good idea. It would afford the opportunity to re-introduce some lost elements of rural areas such as regular bus services, small shops and local small businesses and revitalise the health or rural warwickshire. Warwicksire is charecterised by lively small villages rather than the urban sprawl of some of it's neighbours.

I am pleased to see that landlord proposed sites to the South of Westwood Heath rd. are not considered as preferred options. Westwood Heath Rd. forms a natural and defensible boundry to green belt and any building south of it would represent clear encroachment into green belt and would lead to coalescence of Coventry and Kenilworth. It would also add considerable traffic to already congested roads in the South of Coventry and Westwood Heath.

In villages such as Hampton Magna, the existing infrastructure cannot properly support the current population, and certainly cannot cope with any expansion. It is far better to concentrate expansion in large new developments, which can be provided with their own infrastructure.

Under the plan as it stands, the majority of development will involve land currently within the Green Belt. It seems to be thought acceptable simply to re-draw the Green Belt boundaries so as to re-designate land as being outside - so that it can be built on. This makes a mockery of the whole process! Green Belt land should only be developed in very exceptional circumstances - none of which have been demonstrated by this Plan. If the growth plan is scaled back to a realistic level, very little Green Belt land will need to be developed.

What does 'avoid development in locations which could potentially lead to the coalescence of settlements' mean? It seems clear from other comments that people who live in a rural village like precisely that - living in a rural village! Why do you want to ruin these locations and communities by building a load of houses round them! the resulting additional infrastructure that will be required rubs salt in the wounds. How does increasing the size of rural development tie in with the objective to reduce the need for people using their cars?

Significant growth in villages will cause strain to infrastructure such as employment, transport and schools which will vary from village to village. An arbitrary distinction of category 1 and category 2 is too simplistic a measure and growth in the villages should be assessed individually.

I generally support the proposed broad location of growth.

I am particularly pleased to see the emphasis on avoiding coalescence.

I would like to see the Council give more consideration to the creation of new villages.

The green belt between Kenilworth & Leamington is particularly significant and of high quality in giving both towns access to open countryside. The proposals both in S Kenilworth and N Leamington erode the natural separation created by the Avon valley.

The original allocation of 6986 dwellings in Table 7.1 has been increased to 8360 in Table 7.2 to cater for likely shortfalls and the possibility of the Gateway development occurring.
Significant additional housing in villages will cause transport requirements and costly multiple infrastructure improvements.

The Gateway development should be considered as an additional requirement and planned as a separate project requiring housing in the locality rather than throughout the District.

Development in the villages should be reduced to maintain the specific individual character of the Warwick District villages

These objectives are flawed. The first bullet point highlights that the council is failing to make a distinction between green belt land and other land on the edge of urban areas. The second is a valid objective but the plan has the opposite effect, leading to severe narrowing of the green belt between Kenilworth and Leamington and the enclosure of Old Milverton. The third (distributing growth) may be desirable as an abstract concept, but is not practical in these circumstances because it would be at the expense of precious green belt land.

I support the policies as set out in the highlighted paragraph.

It is open to debate as to whether the Preferred Options with actually deliver them.

The stated intention to avoid growth which could lead to existing settments merging is not supported by proposed housing locations 4, 5 and 7. Kenilworth in particular is already under pressure from Coventry and should not need to defend against another develping tide from ther south.

To whom it may concern

I wish to raise an objection to proposals to infill Green Belt land in between Warwick\Leamington & Kenilworth. This is a diverse area of natural beauty enjoyed by all age groups, engaged in a variety of activities throughout the year. Sacrificing this key amenity could potentially alter the whole dynamic of the three towns & their surroundings.

Kind Regards

Kelvin Acford

This policy is supported because it provides for a strategy of housing growth commensurate with the size of the District and which directs development to a broad range of sustainable locations. By directing some housing development to Category 1 and 2 villages the policy promotes a range of development locations that will support facilities and services in larger local communities. By permitting a degree of dispersal to the larger villages the strategy will also protect Leamington Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth from overlarge peripheral development.

Why not allow for a large new village, e.g. based on Hatton, or expansion of Bishop's Tachnrook or Radford Semele instead of concentrating the growth on the fringes of existing settlements?

Again, I do not believe that the Local Plan reflects the principles of the NPPF, nor does it take into account the special nature of Warwick as the County Town. However I think it is clear that the sustainability of our villages is an issue - in terms of schools, access to shops and employment. I recognise and accept that limited development of villages, even if it is within the green belt could be both sustainable and desirable in terms of maintaining and developing services in villages. I do not object to this section of the plan.

Para 7.19 refers to 'significant impacts on the natural and historic environment south of the town'. These impacts are even greater to the north of the town where there are stronger environmental and historical issues than there are to the south (at least the SE) of the town. There is also sufficient white field resource in this area - near to employment and employment development prospects (there are several un-occupied commeercial sites in the area with employment potential.

I have made the point in the submissions above that I do not consider the housing projections to be realistic in terms of defined need and accessibility to the market.
However in broad terms I support the notion of 'spreading the load', with the proviso that the principles of the NPPF are adhered to.

Green Belt land should not be developed when other suitable land is available in Leamington for development. WDC has not shown exceptional circumstances necessary to build on Green Belt under NPFF. Suitable land has been identified east of the A452 and south of Heathcote which has not been included in the preferred option sites. Removal of the Green Belt area in north Leamington would contribute to urban sprawl of the area.

There is also an over provision of housing in Leamington area and the units proposed for the Green Belt could be deleted without causing a deficit.

The current infastructure cannot support the new development in north Leamington and even more Green Belt land and money would be needed to provide the Northern Leamington Relief Road whereas there is already the infastructure in place to accommodate development in the south of Leamington.

The land proposed for development is an important and well used local amenity and there is very little publicly accessible open space in the area and would be a great loss to the community as a whole

The area south of Warwick is proposed for a disproportionate amount of new development.
The Planning Inspector for the last Local Plan omitted this area due to it's high value for agriculture and landscape and I do not see what has changed since then. If development south of Warwick is allowed then in the future it will extend to the M40.
The inclusion of commercial and other uses will have a huge impact requiring roads, drainage, schools etc which will radically re-shape the town and increase traffic in surrounding areas.

Extremely important to 'avoid development in locations which could potentially lead to the coalescence of settlements'.

The Preferred Option provides for "a lower level of growth in some smaller villages in order to meet local need...." The imposition of 30 to 80 houses on a Cat 2 village such as Norton Lindsey is a) not a low level of growth (potentially 50%+), and b) is far in excess of local need, identified as 3 houses in the recent Housing Needs Survey

Object to the proposal of planned growth across Leamington Spa

I object to the proposed edge of town development. The Plan refers to the next 15 years, what happens after that date for future growth?

it must be more expensive to build on green belt due to need for more investment for utilities / roads etc also significant build in those villages will ruin the community

In terms of the location of future development, we support PO3 'Broad Location of Growth' and in particular the reference made to concentrating growth within, and on the edge of, the existing urban areas. Furthermore, paragraph 7.10 rightly identifies that there is limited availability of brownfield land in the District and acknowledges that greenfield land will be required to meet housing needs.