As scanned.

New Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation
1. Thank you for your consultation dated 1 June 2012, which we received on the same date. Thank you for allowing additional time in which to respond. This enabled our submission to be compiled with the benefit of some input from locally based colleagues.

2. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Overview

3. There is much to commend within the consultation document in terms of protection and enhancement of the natural environment. We have relatively few comments to make but would like to raise a small number of potential areas of concern and possible improvement.

4. We assume the numbered preferred options presented in the mauve boxes foreshadow policies content rather than representing proposed policy wording. For that reason have not recommended any detailed changes to text but have confined ourselves to broader observations.

Detailed comments

Section 2.5 Strategy for the Future and Sustainable Prosperity of Warwick
District

5. We support the fourth bullet under "environment" and second bullet under "emphasis on infrastructure" which pick up on the importance of protecting and enhancing of the natural environment. It is important that the final version of the plan follows through on these important components of the vision. In line with the NPPF requirement (paragraph 157) that

Section 4.12 Enabling the district's infrastructure to improve and support growth

6. We welcome the reference (objective 14) to enabling improvements to be made to the built and natural environments which will help to maintain and improve historic assets, improve habitats and their connectivity, help the public access and enjoy open spaces such as parks and allotments, reduce the
risk of flooding, keep the effects of climate change (including the effects on habitats and wildlife) to a minimum, and support healthy lifestyles. This should help to translate the requirements of the NPPF into practice and is welcome recognition of some of the multiple ecosystem and other benefits that the natural environment and green infrastructure delivers for communities.

PO2: Community Infrastructure Levy

7. Natural England recognises that CIL has a part to play in providing the infrastructure that new and existing communities will need. Green infrastructure is a part of the essential necessary to support growth and we trust the Council will ensure that the need to make provision for key green infrastructure

PO3: Broad Location of Growth

8. Natural England is concerned that the overall level and spatial distribution of growth should be informed through detailed environmental testing. From that perspective we welcome the Sustainability Appraisal work undertaken so far and the fact that the allocations have avoided direct impact upon statutory biodiversity designations.

9. We do note that a number of preferred allocations (e.g. Whitnash East) incorporate, or are bounded by, Local Wildlife Sites and/or Local Nature Reserves and would encourage the Council to ensure that sufficient safeguards could be incorporated before confirming these allocations.

10. Similarly, a number of the preferred allocations (e.g. West of Europa Way) lie adjacent to Warwick Castle Park . This site is not subject to any natural landscape or biodiversity designation but is the subject of a Higher Level Stewardship agreement to maintain and improve its environmental value. We would like to ask whether the Council will consider the potential for indirect impacts on the Park (e.g. of increased recreational pressure) and degree to which these can be moderated before confirming these allocations?

PO10: Built environment

11. We welcome inclusion of the intention to protect, enhance and link the natural environment through policies to encourage appropriate design of the built environment. We also welcome the intention to set out a framework for subsequent more detailed design guidance to ensure physical access for all groups to the natural environment. The natural environment and access to it are important aspects of urban design that have been overlooked in some areas in the past.

PO13: Inclusive, Safe & Healthy Communities

12. The third and fourth bullet points are supported, provided a proportion of the new open spaces provided as part of new development are made up of accessible natural green spaces with all the associated health and wellbeing benefits. Natural England promotes an Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard1 that we encourage local authorities to adopt.

PO12: Climate Change

13. Natural England welcomes measures to tackle climate change which is the greatest long term threat to the natural environment. None the less, we look to plans to take full account of the local natural environment to accommodate such infrastructure. In particular, we encourage plan makers to identify areas for different forms of low carbon energy and to ensure that designated landscapes are fully protected.

14. The intention to require that new development is designed to be resilient to and adapt to the future impacts of climate change in welcome. We particularly support the reference to the use of greenspace and vegetation, (such as street trees) to provide summer shading and allowing winter solar gain.

PO15: Green Infrastructure

15. We support the preferred option relating to green infrastructure, which is consistent with the NPPF (paragraph 114). We particularly welcome the recognition that this exists and can be supported through planning at a variety of spatial scales.

16. We would expect the final pan to include more specific detailed policies on certain aspect of green infrastructure. For instance, we trust that policies for biodiversity will extend beyond offsetting to cover the landscape scale approach, net gain, ecological networks, designated sites and priority and protected species.

17. Similarly, the references to geology, soils and ecosystem services are welcome and we would expect that these matters will translate into robust policy content within the final plan.

PO16: Green Belt

18. We support the reference to positively enhance the beneficial use for the Green Belt, such as looking for positive opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity or to improve damaged and derelict land. This is an aspect of Green Belt that has not always been afforded an appropriate degree of attention in all areas.

Scanned representation

See scanned response forms

PO1 Preferred Option: Level of growth
I consider that the proposed level of housing growth of 555 homes per year is not supported by all the evidence available. The mathematics of the calculations are not shown so they cannot be checked easily.
The baseline population on which the future need is apparently calculated is the ONS estimate of 138,670. Since those calculations the 2011 census has measured it at 136,000.
The initial stage of consultation gave a range of growth possibilities and the clear majority of respondents opted for the lower growth levels which would more reasonably reflect the inevitable organic growth in our population due to increased longevity, better health and changes in birth rates along with some inevitable inward migration.
Residents made a clear choice to accept lower infrastructure gains in return for limiting growth and specifically avoiding more growth in excess of local need.
Approximately 250 homes per year would appear to be more than adequate to meet these need if more adventurous use of brownfield urban sites was made..

PO2 Preferred Option: Community Infrastructure Levy
The current market conditions demonstrate that because developers are not confident in the ability of customers to buy, and sites that already have planning approvals are not proceeding.
CIL should be used on a local benefit to relieve effects of or immediately related to development proposal areas.


PO3 Preferred Option: Broad location of Growth
I supports the dispersal of additional housing that cannot be located on urban brownfield sites so there is a small effect on a number of places, rather than a large effect on a few. In general, this will reduce travel and demand for traffic improvements, use existing educational, health and other community facilities where there is available capacity to do so.
The NPPF para 54 requires that in rural areas, local authorities should be responsive to local circumstances, planning housing development to reflect local needs. In para 55, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

PO4 Preferred Option: Distribution of sites for housing
Location 1 Sites within existing towns. This is the best option. If it were possible, all the housing required should be in existing towns and dispersed therein, to make the least demand on support infrastructure and reducing traffic movements.
Location 2 Myton Garden Suburb. No objection.
Location 3 South of Gallows Hill/West of Europa Way. This development must not take place. It is a criminal intrusion into the rural southern setting of both Warwick and Leamington with important implications for the setting of Warwick Castle and its parkland. It will create a natural infill area for later development until eventually all the area south of Warwick and Leamington id completely filled.
The additional traffic from the proposed 1600 homes plus employment on a road system that is already struggling will impose even greater stacking effects back through the village of Barford which already suffers enormous amounts of rat-running from commuters trying to avoid the daily J15/Banbury Spur commuter
The numbers show that it is not needed and the council needs to bold enough to decide to continue the Green Wedge through to Castle Park.
Location 4 Milverton Gardens. 810houses + community +employment + open space.
and
Location 5 Blackdown. 1170 houses+ employment +open space + community.
These two sites may well be cases where the Greenbelt policy could be relaxed with limited overall damage whilst providing essential housing land. There would be limited damage to the settlement separation intentions of the Greenbelt policy.


Location 6 Whitnash East/ South of Sydenham. 650 houses + open space and community facilities
No specific comment but is this really required?
Location 7 Thickthorn, Kenilworth 770 houses + employment +open space + community
Use of this as part of the policy for dispersal of the housing required is supported.
It is, better to use this site than land of rural, landscape and environmental value elsewhere in the district. It is the only contribution to the preferred option plan located in or near Kenilworth.
Location 8 Red House Farm, Lillington 200 houses + open space.
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 9 Loes Farm, Warwick 180 houses + open space
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 10 Warwick Gates Employment land 200 houses + open space.
No objection.
Location 11 Woodside Farm, Tachbrook Road 250 houses + open space
There seem to be merits in using this site as it extends previously developed land towards a natural boundary (Harbury Lane) and is hence self-limiting.

Location 12 Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash 90 houses + open space
No objection.
Locations 13 &14 Category 1 & 2 villages Category 1, 5 villages at 100 and category 2, 7 villages at between 30 to 80 in each plus 8 category 3 villages within the existing village envelopes.
These are very significant increases for many of these villages! Do the category One villages really NEED to take 500 in total or 100 each. In Barford's case this will be an 18% increase in the number of dwellings, and that on top of a recent development of approximately 70 homes. I would suggest that the total Cat One numbers should be significantly reduced and that numbers should then be spread pro-rata over all the Cat one villages according to current house numbers of population number to give a more equitable spread and certainly to keep the increases at or below the district wide increase.
Considerable attention should be paid to the Sustainability Assessments included in the plan where it should be noted that Barford, a Category one village based on its facilities scores the THIRD WORST Sustainability score of all the villages assessed (Cat one, two and three) with only Rowington and Norton Lindsey scoring lower.

Furthermore despite having a very successful school there is considerable doubt about how such numbers could be accommodated and the amount of harm that would be inflicted on currently resident families and pupils of such increases.


PO5 Preferred Option: Affordable housing
I have considerable concerns that the 40% requirement is considerably in excess of the real need for "social housing" and as such will drive up the costs of market homes to such a degree that all homes will become significantly less affordable. It is perhaps appropriate to consider what is trying to be achieved and to review the way in which Affordable Housing need is actually measured - specifically it seems that those in need are counted before their need is actually validated whereafter the real need is actually considerably less and they are re-routed to more conventional housing sources.
PO6 Preferred Option: Mixed communities and a wide choice of homes
Regarding retirement housing of various sorts must be provided as part of a whole-life

PO7 Preferred Option: gypsies and travellers.
The Gypsies and travellers remain and always will be a problem. Most tax-payers are at a loss to understand why they must be treated differently to everyone else when they could acquire land and pursue the planning process just like everyone else.
The proposal to "provide sites" will bring out the worst elements of the NIMBY culture and blight certain areas.
It is my opinion that the problem needs solving by primary legislation not the current soft PC approach. This is a job for central government, no doubt through "Europe".

PO8 Preferred Option: Economy
Employment need only be provided/attracted to match our population. The previous stage of the consultation gave a clear indication that the majority were preferring to accept lower growth rates of housing, employment and infrastructure. That choice must be selected and a focus on consolidation rather than growth should be the watchword. We are a low unemployment area and any extra employment provision will bring with it a proportionate housing demand and inevitably more houses, which is not required.
The Gateway project may still materialise and this will make extra demands as some of the jobs will no doubt be attractive to our residents in addition to bringing in new workers. Provision should be made for housing local to that site and not for such workers to be subsumed into the wider WDC area.

PO9 Preferred options: Retailing and Town Centres
The support retailing and town centres is welcomed and should be vigorously pursued by both planning policy and fiscal incentives. There must be adequate town centre parking provision to support town centre businesses.

PO14 Preferred options: Transport

Access to services and facilities.
Clearly, it is essential to provide sufficient transport infrastructure to give access to services and facilities. The amount of work required is dependent on the level of growth selected. If the low growth scenario is chosen in preference to the current preferred option, then the infrastructure improvements will be much less and probably not much more than is currently necessary to resolve existing problems. This would be less costly and less inconvenient to the public than major infrastructure improvements.

Sustainable forms of transport.
The best way is to keep as much new housing provision as possible in existing urban locations because people are then more likely to walk, bus, bike to work, shops, school etc.


PO15 Preferred options: Green Infrastructure

The policies set out in PO15 are supported


PO16 Preferred options: Green Belt

The NPPF states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. I believe that it may be a proper time to review the Green belt to ensure that it is appropriate to the current situation and not merely being carried forward, just because it has always been so. Some relaxation within villages and on the edges of the major settlements would make massive contributions to the housing need whilst doing little harm to the concept of ensuring separation between settlements.

Removing Green Belt status from rural villages would allow currently unavailable infil land to make a significant contribution to housing numbers whilst improving the sustainability of those villages. Barford, not in the Green belt has had considerable infil in the past and as such is relatively sustainable whilst actually scoring poorly on the WDC conventional Sustainability Assessment scoring system.



PO17 Preferred options: Culture & Tourism

The preferred option of medium growth seems to be totally oblivious of the value of the approach road from the south to the Castle. It proposes to materially downgrade the approach past Castle Park by building housing along the length of the road from Greys Mallory to Warwick, a distance of about 2.5 km. The views across the rolling countryside to the east of the approach road are an essential part of the character of the district and county about which books have been written.

The low growth option makes that loss unnecessary.

PO18 Preferred options: Flooding & Water

Flooding: Development should take place where flooding is unlikely to occur. The low growth option would make it easier to select sites for development that do not carry this risk.

Scanned representation

See attached Response Forms

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

See Attachments

See Attachments

scanned form

See attached documents

scanned form

Scanned representation

I am strongly opposed to the urban expansion in the green belt North of Leamington Spa.
I feel apart from taking away business from the centre of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth, it would spoil the beauty of our countryside.
I do not understand why we are not placing our focus on the south of Leamington. It desperately need money spending on it.
Surely we would attract more visitors from other areas to visit and shop in Leamington Spa if they came by rail and we made shopping easily accessible.
Visitors should come out the railway station and instantly be attracted to the sights Leamington has to offer. An indoor shopping centre would be ideal.

scanned letter

The Greenbelt Development Objection

I am writing to you about the proposed development on green belt land. We understand there is a need for housing but it is unsustainable for this development to take place for the following reasons.
Green belt is in place to stop urban sprawl, if the development takes place it will contradict primary use of green belt land and will lead to Leamington Spa and Kenilworth merging. As a result of the towns merging into each other they will lose their individuality.
Also the infrastructure in place at the moment cannot take the strain from the development taking place it would need more land and more investment, with the North Leamington Relief Road costing approximately £28 million all the money which could have been used for much needed public investment.
Warwick District Council has not given the appropriate exceptional circumstances that are required to build on green belt land under the National Planning policy framework, which state that local plans must accord with the NPPFs principles such as "insufficient suitable and available sites outside the greenbelt". However this is not the case as there is derelict housing around some of the areas listed. Also the council located land east of the A452 & south of Heathcote but these are not included in the Preferred Options sites.
The Preferred Options policy of "Distributing development around the district" Is not a policy found anywhere in NPPF. However the NPPF clearly does state that one purpose of Greenbelt protection is to prevent urban sprawl, but the Preferred Options document actually encourages urban sprawl.
The area in North Leamington which is a proposed land for development in important to the local community because it is one of the few open spaces in the area that people are free to exercise and take part in other recreational activities such as dog walking. The area is important because it is home to many animals which will lose their habitat if the development were to take place. Losing the area would mean people wouldn't have an area they could cycle, walk or jog in, this effects all the people not just in the immediate area but surrounding ones that use this area. With the destruction of this area it will lead to people having a depleted healthy lifestyle and will lead to the lessening of people's happiness therefore leading to the lowering of people's quality of life.

See scanned letter and response forms

See attachments.

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

We are writing to object to the proposal for 3,330 new houses in Warwick. In objecting we refer to the National Planning Policy Framework which "aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of up-to-date plans".

Population Growth

The NPPF states that there should be a clear strategy "taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities".

Why has the number of 10,800 new homes (up to 25,000 more people) been proposed which is the same number as proposed in the Core Strategy and was strongly resisted by Warwick District Council at that time? The West Midlands Regional Office was vehemently criticised by WDC for producing these flawed and untenable figures. Your figures do not comply with WCC population figures and are therefore unreliable. A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause immense damage to the character of the County Town. Migration from other areas into Warwick's more attractive green environment has produced most of the population growth. The provision of more houses will encourage more migration and Warwick will no longer be an attractive area. The new Plan should cater for LOCAL needs not migration into the area. You have included figures to cover an increase in students but they should be housed near the Universities not in the District, especially in south Leamington. Increasingly high concentrations of students in certain areas is an issue of concern.

Regarding your assumptions on the demand for housing, given that more than 50% of national population growth has been from immigration over the last two decades, and the government has publicly stated it wishes to greatly reduce this future net immigration, why is Warwick District planning for an even greater level of growth over the next 15 years, than has been experienced in the recent past? Warwick District population has increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately twice the rate of increase for Warwickshire, twice the national average increase, and over three times the increase for West Midlands. Warwick has had its fair share of development over the years with major estates at Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow (with further development allocated), Hatton Park, along the Myton Road and many other infillings. This is far greater than other areas in the District and history has shown that the necessary infrastructure has never been put in place. The NPPF (48) states that Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply". 1,224 properties have planning permission or a planning brief at the moment and yet you do not appear to have taken these into consideration. This would equate to a two-year supply of houses. We do not believe our authority has identified and brought back into residential use the 300-400 empty houses and buildings (NPPF 51) to the extent they should have done.

We believe that the only motivation for WDC producing such figures for demand is the income that will benefit WDC in New Homes Bonus, rent, rates, council tax monies etc.

Brownfield Sites

The NPPF (111) states "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land."

So why are we not making it a priority to develop brownfield sites first and regenerate poorer housing in urban areas? The Ford Foundry site is a prime example of revitalising an eyesore of a brownfield site to vastly improve the area and bring it back into good use. There are many more examples of brownfield sites in Warwick District which could be regenerated.

Gypsy Site

We suggest the land adjacent to Junction 15 of the M40 might be a suitable site. There is little nearby existing housing, but a public bus service and good road access

Green Belt

The NPPF (79) states "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

An incredible 37% of the 11,000 homes proposed for Warwick District are to be built on the land south-east of Warwick, covering nearly all of the green space between the Banbury Road, Greys Mallory, Europa Way, Myton and the Technology Park. This would mean estates more than three times the size of Warwick Gates, Woodloes Park or Chase Meadow!

The NPPF (76) states "By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances". "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances." (NPPF 83) Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt is that "there is nowhere else to build" (your quote at the Warwick Society Meeting).

NPPF (88) states "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.." The exceptions given in NPPF 89 and 90 do not apply in your proposed Local Plan. Our Green Space is already designated.and we are objecting to this scale of development which will undoubtedly impact negatively on the character of Warwick and the quality of life of existing residents. Why are we facing urban sprawl rather than the housing being spread equitably around the District as you stated was your aim? The previous Core Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. Yet in the new Plan less than 10% of housing is proposed for villages, some of which, such as Barford, would welcome more homes including low-cost housing to build up sustainable communities with schools and facilities and meet the need for affordable rural housing. Those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there would then have the opportunity to do so. We would propose that at least another 1,000 could be spread around the villages and the number proposed for Warwick reduced.

The area to the west of Europa Way was identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl. The District has 85% green belt but 45% of this is to be built on, thus reducing the gap between conurbations. The green space threatened is valued rich agricultural land, essential for food self-sufficiency, environmentally precious landscape with many wildlife habitats and biodiversity including badger setts and also prevents coalescence which you declare is one of your aims. Our existing green space provides open space, sports and recreation and such land, including playing fields, should not be built on!

Alternative Sites

The previous Core Strategy identified several other sites with potential for housing. Local villages where there are good transport links and the potential to improve road access should be developed rather than the urban fringe development of Warwick. The Warwick Parkway area provides a first class rail link. Hatton has a station and easy access to the A46 and Barford has immediate access to the M40 and A46. Two other areas of potential for large scale housing provision are Radford Semele and Lapworth which already have infrastructure to cope with further development, with good public transport, roads and a railway station.

This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Milverton and Warwick would therefore be required. Although you state that there are three gas lines near Bishops Tachbrook. I can see from the map that there is an area to the west which could take some housing whilst avoiding the gas lines. There are other areas which were identified in the Core Strategy options which have not been considered this time, such as the A46 corridor and further development at Sydenham. The commercial units at Sydenham have mostly closed and been boarded up and would offer an ideal brownfield site for development.

Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt, against the National Planning Policy Framework is that "there is nowhere else to build". This argument is totally flawed and I would expect the Inspector to find this Plan unsound if only on this issue.

The NPPF (17) states that planning should be "empowering local people to shape their surroundings."

Why has this amount of housing been proposed for South Warwick when the previous consultation on the Core Strategy produced a 97% response in overwhelming opposition to housing here (700 objecting to the Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Banbury Road area.. Why were those results not heeded when you devised the new Plan? These plans do not reflect the aspirations of the community as the Government intended in the Localisation Act.

 
Flood Risk

The NPPF (94) states that "Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk". Also "Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk....." and (NPPF 99) "When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure." We already have existing green infrastructure to mitigate against water run-off and flood risk but you are proposing to build on it!

The NPPF (101) states "The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test." There are other available sites as already stated. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall." (NPPF 102) You have not carried out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment before allocating these sites for housing.

Europa Way and an area to the south of Gallows Hill are in flood zones and at significant risk of flooding, yet housing is proposed in Flood Zone 1, adjacent to Zones 2 and 3. Areas at risk of flooding have always been designated areas of restraint but you are dispensing with these. More concrete on green fields here which currently soak up heavy rainfall must increase water run-off and impact on the areas of Warwick which already suffer from flooding, especially around Myton Road and Bridge End. This is contrary to NPPF 100 "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere." The previous Core Strategy decided that this area may not be needed for development in the future being an area of restraint and the worst area for infrastructural needs. Development is not necessary in these areas of flood risk and should be avoided, certainly not put into the first phase for building. Home-owners would also face being turned down for insurance in postcodes where there is flood risk. This problem will possibly increase next year when the agreement between the Government and the Insurance Association ends. The Portobello development, built on a flood plain, is a prime example where many of the apartments are still unsold. This area you have designated for building is vital for flood alleviation and should not be built on at all. At the very least it should be the last designated site.

Density

Garden Town suburbs sound admirable but naiïve when you look at the number of buildings proposed and the impact on the environment. This concept did not materialise in Warwick Gates or Chase Meadow and developers will build at high density for increased profit margins. 1,100 houses were first proposed for Chase Meadow and now it is to be 1,600. WDC has no budget for tree maintenance and developers cannot be relied upon to carry this out, as we have seen in other recent developments. After 14 years Chase Meadow still has unadopted roads, only just received its link road to the local school and the prospect of a community centre for sports provision and social interaction. Developers will not be persuaded to build at 30 units per hectare and there is no means of insisting on this. This is just a red herring in our opinion, as are green wedges since you admitted that where these are proposed, you will be reliant on private landowners to permit their development. Once again, funding for this would be dependent on developers' contributions and these monies, being in short supply, would be diverted for other more essential infrastructure.

Why are we allocating housing for the Coventry Gateway project? It should be up to Coventry Council to provide for this. They should also provide more dwellings for Warwick University students which would free up hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes. WDC have recently been forced to change their planning policy because of the problematic increase in HMOS in the District.

Infrastructure

The NPPF (17) states that strategies should "deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet Local needs". Also (NPPF 162) "Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:

* assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands and

* take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."

Yet you confirm that infrastructure will not be put in place before building commences but that you hope that infrastructure will be provided from developers' contributions, whilst admitting that this may not raise enough to cover escalating costs of new roads, bridges, schools, extra health provision, policing, fire service, community centres etc. If left to developers, history has shown this may not happen. Infrastructure needs will then be prioritised and some areas may miss out. You have admitted that infrastructure proposals will be prioritised and there will be a cut-off point when the money runs out. We have seen no architects' proposed site plans showing each area with all the necessary infrastructure in place. You have provided no idea of potential costs at all. You have provided no results of studies at all. Warwick has already lost its police station and fire station, roads are completely congested at peak times, schools are drastically oversubscribed and have no places (particularly Myton which is the catchment area), the hospital is at breaking point and cannot cope with the load, having day surgeries and evening clinics to clear backlogs and lack of parking leads to innumerable late attendance for appointments, and the police haven't a clue how they can cope with more communities. Utilities such as water, sewers, electricity provision will have to be provided at escalating massive cost.

CIL

The NPPF (175) states "Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place."

You have not provided information on these charges at all. We do not believe that there will be anywhere near the amount of funding available from CIL to cover the above extra infrastructure needs, especially new roads, bridges, schools and hospital.

 
Air Quality/Traffic

The NPPF (17) states that the Plan should "support the transition to a low carbon future" and contribute to "reducing pollution". Also "Local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (NPPF 95)

The NPPF (17) states that policies should "recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality". (30) "Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion". Also (NPPF 124) "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

The traffic congestion that Warwick already suffers will increase by a possible 6,000+ extra cars from extra South Warwick housing alone, let alone the increase from 10,800 new homes, bringing with it increased pollution in areas where air quality is already over the limit. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. Air quality remains in breach of these regulations and will become toxically high with the 27% increase in traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. There is no management plan to address these levels. The County Council admitted that air quality will suffer as carbon emissions will increase in surburban sprawl. You admitted that you did not know how the carbon emissions could be reduced by the 20% currently necessary. It therefore seems incredible that the large-scale housing developments on the edge of Warwick are suggested with a likely 40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years. This will inevitably add to the congestion and air pollution; so why is it in the plan on this scale?

The NPPF (34) states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised." "A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan" (NPPF 36). All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan". We have not seen such a Travel Plan.

Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way are all highly congested with long queues or at a standstill at peak times including the Town centre and often emergency vehicles cannot negotiate a way through, even via the pavements. If the closed Warwick Fire Station were to be relocated at Queensway, their vehicles would experience increased problems and response times would be worsened. There is a suggestion that Europa Way could be widened but this would exacerbate bottlenecks when the traffic reaches the roundabouts. The County say they can mitigate but not contain the resulting increase in traffic and admit there are places where congestion will worsen.

Historic Environment

Pinch points at bridges cannot be alleviated and the 300-year old Castle Bridge already carries 20,000 vehicles per day and cannot sustain an increase in traffic without threat to its very structure. We should be trying to reduce this traffic to prevent the bridge collapsing, not increase it. The NPPF (112) states "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional." The precious historic and listed buildings in Warwick are being damaged by traffic vibration and pollution and this problem will only worsen. Increased commuting traffic must not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. Danger to schoolchildren and others is currently problematic on our roads and will be exacerbated near schools such as at Woodloes and Aylesford/Newburgh.. We are given no concrete proposals for new roads, only ideas. A North Leamington relief road suggestion could cost £50million+ and the idea that the A452 could be routed to the Fosse - one of the most dangerous roads in the County is preposterous. The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and on to the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road with the addition of Morrisons and the proposed trading estate and Aldi supermarket all exiting out on to the double roundabout system. The present Plan does not address these traffic problems sufficiently and should be "refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe (NPPF 32).

Conclusion

You state that in 2026 Warwick District will be renowned for being "A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities....." In our opinion this could not be farther from the truth.

The above comments demonstrate that this Plan is seriously flawed. It is not specific to the needs or the character of this area and the necessary infrastructure is not deliverable. We believe the Planning Inspector will declare it unsound. It cannot be justified as "the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence" and it is not "Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework." (NPPF 182)

This Plan should be completely revised taking account of the above, specifically reducing the numbers of housing proposed for Warwick.

I look forward to your response to the comments contained in this letter.

Attached letter/proforma

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

Scanned representations