I would like to register my objections to the above proposed housing development on the following grounds:

1. Green Belt land is not supposed to be developed unless there are exceptional reasons for it, mainly no other land in the area suitable for development. This is not the case in Leamington where there are large areas south of the town centre more suitable for development which already have the necessary infrastructure and are nearer to the M40 and employment opportunities on existing business parks.

2. The fact that the District Council has not supported developments in these areas south of the town centre is apparently based on the idea that developers will make less profit in these areas. The costs of building north of the town centre and the fact that house prices in this area are already high will mean that any houses built in this area will not be 'affordable' and once again we will be swamped by 'executive homes' and 'luxury apartments' which already abound in the area and are not required. I believe that national government require 'affordable' homes to be built. This will not happen here as there would be no opportunities for developers to make a profit.

3. Making the A452 into a dual carriageway is going to do nothing to alleviate road congestion in the area as most traffic build ups occur going into the town and this will still happen at the end of the dual carriageway.

4. This area is valuable agricultural land which at present supports a variety of wildlife and provides a much needed breathing space between the urban areas of Leamington and Kenilworth.

I hope that the District Council will take note of these objections when deciding on the way forward for local planning.

I am writing in connection with the outline district plan and in particular the proposals to build on the Green Belt land in the North Leamington, Old Milverton and Blackdown areas. This is not of course the first occasion upon which development has threatened the character and amenities of this part of Leamington. In 2004 developers' proposals to build apartment blocks in Northumberland Road led to the designation of most of the road as a conservation area by English Heritage.

Preserving the Greenbelt


Although I would not be so dogmatic as to oppose the loss of greenbelt land for residential and commercial purposes in absolutely any context this should only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances, as the National Framework requires.

The Green Belt in North Leamington is of particular importance both in preserving the separate characters of Leamington and Kenilworth and in enabling leisure pursuits such as walking, running and cycling for local residents. There is only a limited open publicly accessible space in this part of Leamington and the proposals in the preferred option would reduce this to vanishing point.

* These proposals will very significantly accelerate a drift towards urban sprawl and is therefore in contravention of the principles of the National Planning Framework. This rejects proposals that urban sprawl and certainly is not justified by any exceptional circumstances. Moreover it was as recently as 2009 in the core strategy that this area was stated in the district plan to be greenbelt which it was vital to preserve. Whilst policies my change over decades this was only three years ago. This proposals therefore go against the whole principle of the Green Belt as developed since the 1940s.


It is also frankly bizarre that the district council is claiming that development in south Leamington will be less attractive to developers because they would make less profit. This is not part of the Council's brief in drawing upon a plan for the future and it is not the Council's role to be a developer's poodle. Surely in the current and foreseeable future economic context developers will be very willing to take up any opportunities wherever offered.

The proposed building of the very significant number 1980 homes on green belt land in the area will have important other implications

* The residents alone in the proposed area will have at least 4000 motor vehicles or more , let alone access by service vehicles of all kinds. The pressure on roads is already heavy, notably the A452 from Leamington to Kenilworth. Proposals to create a dual carriageway along the A 452 will not prevent a much increased build up of traffic as it enters Leamington in the morning rush hour.
* The idea of a northern relief road to meet this increased traffic near to the line of the A 452 and A46 will simply further accelerate the erosion of the Green Belt between Leamington and Kenilworth, in addition to the new housing.. It would also destroy the surviving rural character of Old Milverton. This would over a relatively short time lead to Leamington, Old Milverton and Blackdown joining up with Kenilworth a very large conurbation.
* We already have Leamington and Warwick running into each other with all the attendant traffic problems, deriving from a time before proper planning was in place. With hindsight this ought to have been avoided. With future sight we must not let this happen in north Leamington.
* Although I believe there are very strong arguments to oppose the erosion of the Green Belt in North Leamington, it is more than anything else the large scale of the development which is so damaging
* Adding the northern relief road to the reduction of the Green Belt is mutually reinforcing. The alleged benefits of allowing development on the Green Belt would not outweigh the loss of a very important area for amenity to support local health and recreation. This is particularly important in the growing national concern about the threat to health deriving from lack of exercise.

Other Possible Housing Development

How much extra housing is really required depends upon assumptions and projections based upon census and other data. In the current difficult economic climate, likely to be sustained over a long period, it is very difficult to anticipate what the demand will be but surely unlikely to equal the recent past. In this context I note the continuing efforts to sell apartments in the Portobello development well after the completion of the building project. This is close to the proposed Green Belt development.

However there is surely a powerful case for basing what development is needed in areas of South Leamington, identified by the Council previously for possible development and which is not in the green belt.

* Given the extensive open character of the countryside to the south there is much less danger of urban sprawl
* In terms of commuting and development many of the major industrial centres and attendant employment opportunities are very much in South Leamington. The value of allocating residential development there is that it would reduce commuting pressures, given its proximity to an M40 access point. In this context new housing in North Leamington is thoroughly perverse since commuters wishing to access work in South Leamington or to access the M40 for work further afield would have to traverse the central area of Leamington. This would increase pollution traffic gridlock in the central area of Leamington.


* The Leamington Community

It is very important to stress that this is not simply a matter of people in North Leamington preferring development in South Leamington and vice versa. The increase traffic flows through the central area which development in the north - at least on the scale proposed - would affect all Leamington residents and detract from the amenity of all residents. It would also reduce the leisure opportunities available to some Warwick residents coming into the Old Milverton area..

Appreciating the pressure on the district council's local plan there may be scope for some modest development in North Leamington (and some is currently taking place, such as that at Park Road) which would not threaten the erosion of the Green Belt in any significant way. It is the scale of the proposed development in north Leamington and the associated infrastructure needs which are so significant. This will send us on the high road to the merging of the Leamington and Kenilworth areas with further degradation of local leisure amenities and wildlife.


Motivation

I would stress that my objection is based not on personal interest but on a wider community interest and a sense of trusteeship for the future. Indeed from a personal viewpoint the impact upon house values, which are not part of the planning criteria, would almost certainly benefit me as the owner of house with a large garden. The reduction of accessible public space nearby would certainly raise the value of properties with substantial private space. So if I was thinking of my own personal interest I would not object at all to these planning proposals. But in opposing this development I take a wider view. Any decision to erode the Green Belt in North Leamington now would inevitably lead to its disappearance. This is a defining moment for the planning policy of Warwick District Council.

I am writing to voice my strong objection to the proposals to build on green belt land in and around Leamington, Blackdown and old Milverton. I am bewildered at the reasons put forward and would like to know what the exceptional circumstances are that the council feel give them the excuse to build.

I am not against developments when they are appropriate and necessary and particularly when they are well thought through after extensive research and consideration of alternatives. This does not seem to have happened in this particular case. We currently have the development of the old North Leamington School site which will provide 100's of new homes, just up the road in Cubbington you have a brown field site where the Thwaites plant currently is with lots of derelict unused buildings, this whole site would remove the heavy plant using the old road, stop disturbing the residents and provide for 100's of more homes. The existing plant could be relocated to another industrial site. The south of the town affords additional brown belt land with Harbury Lane being a previous preferred site with developers ready to develop 100's if not 1000's of homes. These would be nearer the M40, train station and the major shopping retail park.

Also the proposal for further commercial properties further perplexes me as the constant empty shop faces we are seeing around Leamington shows that bringing in the 'large chain stores' is affecting the local businesses and subsequently the local communities that prefer to use them. I have previously worked for a long standing local business in Leamington town centre and saw how the shop struggled for customers with larger chains opening in the town centre and Shires Retail Park, surely further more of these will affect the local businesses in Leamington.

I have been a resident on Leicester Lane my whole life and I am disgusted that there are planning applications being made to build on our loved countryside destroying the beautiful land, creating a distinguish between the boundaries of Leamington and Kenilworth. Development here would merge the two towns together and will cause even more disruption to local residents by creating an even further back log of traffic. This would not be simply rectified by turning the Kenilworth road into a dual carriageway, as many people will continue to use Leicester lane and Bericote road as access to Leamington to avoid the Kenilworth road or driving through the centre of town.

I have seen firsthand the affect the Warwick gates development had on residents in Whitnash with many children in Whitnash now not falling into the catchment area for Myton school so being unable to attend the school with siblings, this would create additional stress to parents of children in this area as they may no longer be able to send their children to the local schools in this area having to travel further afield for this.

The green belt land is also home to many wildlife, birds, rabbits, foxes to name a few and also the horses on the paddock, development on Leicester lane and Blackdown will dramatically reduce this and again more children in this area could potentially grow up with the concrete jungle mentality. Leamington is a town NOT a city and over development of our green belt land could destroy the pull that Leamington has for out of Towner's to visit. I ask you to reconsider your plans which do appear to be profit driven and consider saving our 'Important' Greenbelt.

I hope you take my views and those of my fellow residents seriously before blindly agreeing for further detrimental development of our town and would appreciate acknowledgement of this email with a detailed response.

I wish to oppose the District Council's Plans to develop on the Green Belt which is described in their Preferred Options Booklet. I would remind the Council that the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that the Government gives great weight to the importance of Green Belts. As you can see from my address I have no pecuniary interest in this area however I value it as a resource for the local community.
Great emphasis has been placed by the present Government on the need for community and this development will destroy many aspects of the community which are essential for the local participation in joint ventures. In particular the loss of this land will almost certainly destroy the local Annual Flower Show and Fete which has existed for 115 years. It is traditions such as these which maintain our local identity and I would argue that the loss of these traditions diminish all of us.
I therefore urge you to reconsider your options in this matter.

I am writing to express my dismay and strong objection to your proposals to build on the greenbelt in North Leamington - Old Milverton and Blackdown. This land provides a haven for wildlife, walkers, children and also a clear distinction between Leamington and its surrounding villages. As I understand it from the proposals Warwick District Council has not demonstrated the 'exceptional circumstances' necessary to build on Green Belt under NPPF. There is land which is not greenbelt available in Leamington near the existing Warwick Gates development. This also has the advanatge of having better transport provision, better amenities and doesn't destroy forever a loved and much needed part of the British countryside. I see from the proposals that as well as building 1800 new houses, a new relief road would also be required as the lanes in this area wouldnt cope with the additional traffic, this relief road would use up more countryside and destroy the village communities.

I urge you to rethink the plans and take into account our local opinions, after all that is what legislation like the NPPF is for!!

The frightening implications of the North Leamington Housing proposals have only just been expanded upon by a local knowledgeable person and I feel that these aspects of it have been minimised by the Council in order to assist its success. - The specific aspect in this respect being the increased road building and diminution in air quality and peace and quiet that we currently enjoy in this currently predominantly area of the District.

It would also appear that the requirement not to join adjacent connurbations is also being broached as the scheme reaches almost to the boundaries of Kenilworth.


I know that there will be many other points raised vis-a-vis this scheme and would urge revision and amendment before local panic and despondency ste in.

Attached

I write to offer comments on the New Local Plan, for the development of new housing in the Leamington and Warwick District area.

I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils' Preferred Options for the Local plan.

I do not believe the re-drawing of Greenbelt boundaries is either necessary or appropriate for housing development. I believe the Council has failed to adequately demonstrate the validity of their planning assumptions, and that the number of new houses required is significantly overstated.
The greenbelt land at Blackdown and Old Milverton fulfils all five objectives for Greenbelt, as laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework, to which Government attaches great importance. This should have been key to the Council's assessment of their proposals, yet appears to have been widely over-looked or purposefully ignored.

The maintenance of the existing greenbelt is essential, not only to prevent Urban Sprawl to the north of Leamington and the merging of the two distinct towns of Leamington and Kenilworth, but to prevent the destruction of the individuality and character of the hamlet of Old Milverton. This would be destroyed for ever if the development of land at Old Milverton were to be allowed, let alone the addition of the proposed relief road to be driven along the route of Milverton Lane to the A46. I have no confidence that, were such development to be allowed it would only be a matter of time before the suggested 'green wedge' to the west of the development would also receive planning permission, destroying forever the individuality of Leamington, Old Milverton, Leek Wooton and Kenilworth.
In its' current form, the plan also fails to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The land in question at Old Milverton is Grade 2 agricultural land in productive use. As food security becomes ever more important socially, environmentally and economically, it is folly to allow development of productive farmland in the greenbelt when no extraordinary circumstances are present to warrant such action.
The greenbelt also helps to preserve the unique setting of Leamington, an historic Spa town of special character which has been preserved and nurtured until now.
The preservation of Greenbelt also promotes innovative regeneration of derelict and other urban land within the existing developed areas.

I am also concerned that the new plan differs widely from that proposed in the 2009 Core Strategy. In the 2009 proposals land to the south of Leamington was used, which is adjacent to existing infrastructure and not designated greenbelt. This land, identified as capable of sustaining more homes than those currently proposed for the Blackdown and Old Milverton greenbelt, is no longer utilised in the Council's 'New Plan'. Why not? The reason presented at a recent meeting I attended with planners and councillors was that it was not possible to re-route high pressure gas mains running through the area, and that we should 'spread the pain'. This is not a planning strategy. I find such justification shallow and completely unfounded.

The greenbelt land north of Leamington is also of huge local amenity value. I have used the land recreationally myself for over 30 years, and at present barely a day goes by when I do not traverse and enjoy the amenity of this land. Furthermore, even in the depths of winter, it is an unusual day if I do not encounter others using the land, watching and photographing the abundant and varied wildlife, walking, cycling, running, horse-riding and dog-walking.

The New Local Plan is ill-conceived, based on flawed housing requirement projections, and ignores the key principles of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the redefining of greenbelt boundaries.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. There are alternative sites available to the Council, which are of a lesser amenity significance and are not designated greenbelt. For these and many further reasons, some of which I have alluded to in this letter, I suggest that there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the irreversible harm which would be caused to the whole area, and in particular to ancient and distinct towns and hamlets, by allowing the alteration of greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and by allowing development on this land.

I urge that this unwarranted destruction of greenbelt land be rejected outright.

The Council has failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to warrant the use of greenbelt land for development and the preferred options should be redrawn omitting the use of greenbelt land.

We are writing to oppose the District Council's plans to develop on greenbelt land as
outlined in the 2012 Preferred Options booklet. There are many reasons why the
proposals should not go ahead - here are just some of them.
* Little has changed in the three years since the 2009 Core Strategy was adopted,
and the Preferred Options make no credible case for such a radical change in
policy. If it wasn't needed three years ago, it isn't needed now.
* In our opinion it would be both irresponsible and undemocratic of planners to so
damage this area of North Leamington - especially when with a little more
imagination and effort, more appropriate brown- and white-field sites could be
made available for housing development. We certainly do not dispute the need for
more housing - especially affordable housing - but building on greenbelt land is
simply taking the lazy option. For example, the old Ford Factory site in Old
Warwick Road could have been made available for housing instead of yet another
supermarket.
* There are precious few areas of open countryside within easy reach of North
Leamington where residents can enjoy walking, cycling, jogging or simply chilling
out in relatively unspoiled surroundings. The planners owe it to the residents of
Leamington Spa, Warwick, Kenilworth and all those who appreciate and enjoy the
area.
* The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the five purposes of
Greenbelt set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and therefore should
remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
- prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
- prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
- helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
- helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
- helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other
urban land
In addition to these main points, we submit that building on greenbelt land, constructing
a park and ride (instead of investing in sustainable public transport and proper cycle
paths) and destroying a precious local resource (whilst at the same time contributing to
increased greenhouse gas emissions) are all in direct contradiction of Warwick District
Council's own planning guidelines* which state:
* Our preferred option is to enable access to services, minimise the need to travel
and promote sustainable forms of transport (such as walking, cycling and public
transport)
* The fragile state of our natural environment means that it is important that we
protect and enhance it to ensure that future generations can also benefit. Warwick
District possesses a natural environment that is regarded as being of a particularly
high quality.
* The Greenbelt covers a large part of Warwick District and seeks to stop urban
sprawl that would harm the open nature and rural character of the open
countryside around the towns and the urban areas of the West Midlands.
* Climate change is regarded as a major challenge and is likely to affect people in
the future... transport is the biggest contributor to carbon emissions.
We do most sincerely request that you reconsider the 2012 Preferred Options plan and in particular those parts which propose building on greenbelt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton. If planners and councillors demonstrate real leadership and courage to reject these destructive and unnecessary plans, future generations will surely thank them.

I am writing to raise my serious concerns about the proposed inclusion of current
green belt land to the north of Leamington in your housing development plans, and wish to formally object to these proposals.
My objections to this plan are based on the following;
-A current lack of open green space in the local area, as there no parks or
recreation grounds nearby and hence removal of any of the open countryside
would have a dramatic impact
-Development plans proposed are based on excessive population growth
projections which will likely result in an over-provision of housing
-The Proposed Options paper does not demonstration the 'exceptional
circumstances' required under the NPPF to build on green belt land, especially
considering alternative suitable and available sites have already been
identified by your team to the east of A452 and the south of Heathcote and
does not support the NPPF statement that Greenbelt protection is vital in
preventing urban sprawl.

Whilst I accept that new housing is required in the area, the projections as to the level of housing have been based on a period of exceptional growth, which is highly unlikely to be sustained and results in a 'false' target of housing required.
The land identified to the South of Leamington surely provides a far better solution to this housing demand, because;
- it removes the need to build on any Green Belt land at all;
- it would saves the council a significant amount of money in developing and
building new infrastructure and roads in the north of the town. In North
Leamington existing roads are insufficient to cope with the new level of traffic
this would bring, whereas those to the South have been more recently
developed for more traffic use;
- there is also a high level of local employment in the Heathcote area, which it
would appear sensible to site new housing near to for ease of access.

I am writing to object to the proposed development of Old Milverton and Blackdown, as described in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should always remain as open Greenbelt land.

I believe that there are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, mainly in the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan in 2009.

The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by developing the land in Old Milverton and Blackdown.

I feel that it is crucial for Warwick Discrict Council to reconsider its Preferred Options.

I am writing to oppose the District Council's plans to develop on Green Belt Land as shown in their 2012 Preferred Options booklet. Nothing has changed since the 2009 Core Strategy, so there cannot be any justification for these fundamental changes now.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.

I live just off the Old Milverton Road in Albert Street in Leamington Spa. I've lived here with my family for the last four years and really enjoy the area, it's proximity to the town centre, quiet roads for cycling with my daughter and open spaces and parks. I am very concerned to hear about plans to develop in the area and so am writing to you to record my objection. There are a number of different grounds which I've laid out below:

As far as I can tell from the information that I've seen the proposals will develop a large area of green belt land which is currently used extensively by me and others for relaxing. My family and I frequently walk across the paths to Old Milverton, last year making crumbles from the fruit in the hedgerows and cordial from the elderflower. Alternative open 'wild' spaces are some way away and so developing this land will certainly remove this valuable amenity and the opportunity to teach my children about nature (not to mention the productive agricultural land for the farmer).

As far as I can tell, according to the National Planning Policy Framework, this land is treated as greenbelt and shouldn't be developed unless no alternative sites can be found. However alternative brown field sites have been found, do exist and give better connections to both existing transport routes and the town centre. I understand that this option has not been fully considered because of the perceived need to spread development around, however I cannot see this a) as representing evidence based policy, and b) as exceptional circumstances required in the NPPF to develop green belt land. Indeed I believe development can only take place on green belt land where there are no feasible alternatives - but in this case the feasible alternatives have been identified, just not adequately considered. I understand that this area may be less attractive to developers because it is not such a desirable place to live, but I fail to see this as adequate special circumstances for building on green belt. One of the purposes of the land is to prevent sprawl and disturbance of the character of historic towns and villages - yet the proposal would do just that. Ultimately and most confusingly however, the proposals seem to ignore the studies undertaken by Warwick District Council which concluded these areas are of high green belt value.

I understand the development includes some new out of town stores. I cannot see how this sits with the policy so trumpeted by government of reinvigorating high streets. Indeed only last week I understand the high street in the south of Leamington secured a grant to aid development so how at the same time are there plans aimed at undermining this? The independent retailers which make Leamington and Warwick popular and useful places to shop will certainly suffer the most as their margins are far tighter than the high street chains and ultimately many may have to close, which would be a great loss to the high street and weaken the draw of them for visiting shoppers.

Additional traffic resulting from the development, to and from Leamington on the Old Milverton road would also make this a far more dangerous place to cycle along to the local schools and parks - the current traffic calming measures already do little to reduce traffic and keep it to the speed limit. Developing roads to dual carriageways will only serve to add further traffic congestion to to the Kenilworth Road and Blackdown roundabout, as well as spoiling the currently pretty access to Leamington. Adding an additional road junction to the A46 and associated relief road will only be useful to those who work outside of Leamington and Warwick and will not help to add money into the local economy. Additionally this road is to be created at vast expense, money which would be better spent on ensuring adequate public services, facilities and maintaining existing roads - not to mentions social care and other important public uses. Once built this road would not only invade the delicate ecosystem of the river Avon, but also serve as a marker up to which future developments would gradually creep.

Finally I cannot understand why:
a) these additional homes must be built - apparently purely to serve as a buffer in current plans. Confusing as there are current developments which are still not full and only partially developed, such as the old Potterton boiler site
b) why other existing brownfield sites could not be further developed to reinvigorate local communities and take advantage of what is currently wasteland. This should surely be the first option in all cases well before even approaching consideration of developing green belt. The only motivation I can see is ease and profit for a developer, a developer who has not interest in the long term view of an area and simply wishes to make as much money as possible. Hardly adequate reasoning for such a violation of our natural spaces.

I would be grateful if you could update me at all stages with this development proposal (and am slightly surprised that given the area in which I live is likely to be so significantly affected, I have had no communication from the council about these plans either directly or via local media).

I am writing to oppose the District Council's plans to develop on Green Belt Land as shown in their 2012 Preferred Options booklet. Nothing has changed since the 2009 Core Strategy, so there cannot be any justification for these fundamental changes now.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.

The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.

This is my letter of objection to building on green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton as shown in the 2012 preferred options plan.

This area is a substantial asset to Leamington, and is enjoyed by many, and in particular my family of 4 -including one year old twin girls who already walk this route, sit on the back of mummy and daddys bikes whilst we cycle the route, and support mummy and daddy running through the area. It would be a great disappointed to think my girls will not be able to enjoy this area in the future as we all do now.

Please accept this email as an objection to proposed plans in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan..
The land has great recreational value and is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists, including me and friends.

I am writing to express my concern regarding the development proposals on green belt land to the north of Leamington.

My first concern is the proposed road across this area. If it is built we all know that the next phase will be to build right up to this road and then the complete green belt between this road and the north of Leamington Spa is destined to disappear.............

This brings me to my second concern which is the village of Old Milverton. The road will ruin one of the last remaining villages near to the town, by its proximity and resulting visual and noise pollution. This small, ancient settlement is a local beauty spot used by many locals and visitors to the area via walking routes and the path to and from the Saxon Mill. Its facilities ( church, hall and fields ) are enjoyed by many individuals, associations and the general public. A busy (fast) road nearby will ruin this very little corner of old Warwickshire.......

My third concern is that this proposed road will not really ease the congestion into Leamington from the North. Most (all?) business are in either central or south Leamington, so traffic will remain to be funnelled through Leamington as once Northumberland road is reached then these same problems will continue. People will still prefer to sit in their cars for longer than get out and do a park and ride .........

Fourthly, following on from my third point, building homes in this area will only add to the congestion on this route as more people will need to get into work ( more than likely to central and southern Leamington ) via this route......

Fifthly, our housing need is for simpler, affordable homes. This means cheaper land costs. This will not be to the north of Leamington. We need to take the security of our future generations into account and a survey out a couple of days ago highlighted the need for young families to feel secure, and own, or have secure tenancies, in their homes. We need to enable this fairness as much as we possibly can. Simple homes for families are crucial to the health of our community and our country.......

These are my main concerns and objections to the development proposals. Please take them into consideration. The historic triangle of Old Milverton, The Saxon Mill and Guy's Cliff should remain on the boundaries of Warwick and Leamington, undisturbed, for as long as we, the guardians of our heritage, can allow.

With many hopes and wishes for a decision against these green belt proposals.

Local Plan - Preferred Options; Proposal to develop on Greenbelt land north of Leamington

I wish to register my objection to the proposal, within the Preferred Options document, to develop Greenbelt land north of Leamington. I believe it is possible to object on many grounds, but I will focus on just two.

Population projection and housing need
I attended the Community Forum discussion about this proposal held at Trinity School on June 14. During the discussion, Bill Hunt accepted that all previous population projections made since the Second World War had been wrong. They had all been under-estimates. I believe the projections you have used as the basis for this current exercise are also wrong. Only this time they are almost definitely an over-estimate. You have used as the baseline a period in the first decade of the current century, which was marked by an unusually high period of sustained economic growth, and by levels of migration, boosted well above the average by both the growth in the economy and the accession of a number of less economically developed countries to the European Union.
None of us can state with certainty what population growth will be in our district through to 2029. But I would suggest we make predictions from a more representative, and therefore more realistic, baseline. We should model forward projections on average annual growth over, say, the last 20 or 25 years. That would flatten out the upward distortion caused by taking years only from within the previous decade. Then I believe we would have a more realistic indicator of predicted housing need. I do not believe it will be as high as the level from which the proposed local plan starts. It is crucial to get the underlying assumptions right first.
Compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework?
I have carefully read the NPPF, and assessed the approach and strategy of the Preferred Options document against it. I believe the proposal to develop Greenbelt land north of Leamington is inconsistent with the framework and principles set out in the NPPF.
Several of the 12 'Core Planning Principles' are relevant to this argument:
Principle 1. Planning should "empower local people to shape their surroundings."
Principle 5. Planning should, "take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them."
Principle 7. Planning should, "contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment."
According to the NPPF, you should only promote development in the Greenbelt if 'very special circumstances' can be demonstrated. Dave Barber, your Development Policy Manager, also stated at the Trinity School meeting that, "plans have to be evidence-based." I do not believe you have demonstrated the evidence that supports any 'special circumstances' that could justify the inclusion of Greenbelt land north of Leamington for development.
The only principle I can find in the Preferred Options document for including this land for development is that the Council has taken the view that it wishes to "distribute development across the district." That is a planning 'policy' you have asserted but one which I believe does not stand up against the Planning Principles outlined in the NPPF.
The NPPF makes it clear that the purpose of Greenbelt - and why it wishes to see it protected - is to prevent 'urban sprawl'. But the Preferred Options document states quite clearly that the Council has taken a policy decision to promote development "on the edge" of existing urban areas. I think that is a clear inconsistency between the Council's approach, and that required by the NPPF.
A 'very special circumstance' might be established as a result of carrying out a Greenbelt assessment. I have studied your assessment. I cannot find the 'evidence base' that Dave Barber said has to be there. The Greenbelt study simply asserts that the land north of Leamington has been 'identified' as "potentially suitable" for development, and that the land owner is willing to make it available. That simply doesn't stack up as evidence to support 'very exceptional circumstances.'
Your Preferred Options document examines the notion of 'very special circumstances.' It states, "Exceptional circumstances can include the need to accommodate housing and employment growth to meet the needs of a community where there are insufficient and available sites outside the greenbelt." (my italics). I do not believe you have demonstrated any such circumstances. Potential development land has been identified within 'white land' south of Leamington - but it has not been included as a development option in your proposal.
There seem to be two arguments for this. Firstly, you wish to distribute development around the district. But, as I have argued above, that cannot be sustained as a planning principle. Secondly, you claim that larger development could not be achieved in that location because of the difficulties it would present to construction. This is an implausible argument. Development is proposed in phases, not all at once. Larger scale development in the 'white land' area could be achieved on a phased basis. So your own evidence suggests - contrary to what you are proposing - that there are sufficient and available sites outside the Greenbelt (assuming, for argument, that you continue to proceed on the projected overall needs estimate.)
Conclusion
I believe the population and housing need projections on which the Preferred Options document rest are contestable. I would urge a thorough reassessment before proceeding to the next stage of this process.
Whatever level of need ultimately is used as the basis for housing development plans, I do not believe that the Preferred Options paper comes anywhere near establishing the 'very special circumstances' that must be demonstrated before you can proceed with development of Greenbelt land such as that north of Leamington. Without that case being made, you should now exclude these sites from the proposal.
I suspect that, during this consultation, you will hear very clear views from residents about your proposal to develop on Greenbelt land north of Leamington. I urge you therefore to adhere to NPPF planning principle #1, namely that you "empower local people to shape their surroundings."

This letter is the response of the Central Leamington Area Residents' Association to the District Plan as outlined on the WDC website. It comprises an overview and some specific objections.

In summary, we are profoundly dismayed by the overall tone of the plan. The proponents appear to have no concern for the very factors that define the appeal of Royal Leamington Spa. On the one hand It is a town in which people can easily live within short distances of the centre, and wish to do so because of the layout and facilities. On the other, particularly to the North, it has a defined boundary, defended by green belt status for many decades, and with roads that are in scale with the overall size of the town. For most of the day the roads across the whole town handle the motor traffic well, only being stressed during the commuting period.

The plan could hardly do more to destroy this balance. The investment in the planned new and widened roads, and enlarged junctions, will amount to many tens of £millions, all to try and make commuting by car more attractive. The actual effect will be to increase commuting traffic and merely move congestion from one place to another. The work would destroy the essence of the landscape across the town, not only on the greenbelt, as bigger roads and junctions take precious space from every other use. The proposed housing in North Leamington will add yet more motor traffic to this pressure, whilst ensuring the eventual obliteration of the space between Leamington and Kenilworth.

Our specific objections relate to the arbitrary destruction of green belt space for housing in North Leamington, including the following;
* There is already an allocation of housing land elsewhere.
* The north Leamington development would be a major contribution toward coalescence with Kenilworth
* There is not the infrastructure to support such development, and provision of new roads would in itself cause extensive destruction and disruption with the green belt space

We look forward to hearing of the withdrawal of these proposals, and would be glad to cooperate in discussions of alternatives in keeping with the policies for improving the attractiveness of the town centre for visitors and shopping, reduced car use and improved public transport.

I have submitted several objections via the new local plan website , but further to this is a summary below of my objections.

National Planning Policy Framework requires "Very Special Circumstances"
* * The fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
* * The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt. It also requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. According to Warwick District Council the special circumstances are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built.
* * However, in the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council) land south of Leamington (not in Green Belt), was identified and is still available, for development. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure (roads etc) to support the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres.
* * Therefore, the previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy) is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are wrong.
* * Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.
The Green Belt
* * The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's study of the Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value
* * The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out five purposes for Greenbelt land. In summary these are, to prevent urban sprawl of built up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, to protect the country side from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land. The Greenbelt land identified for development in the Preferred Option does carry out these purposes and its development would therefore be contrary to the NPPF.
* * The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1⁄2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
Recreation Value of Old Milverton and Blackdown
* * The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders, and cyclists. It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to be enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park land would detract from, rather than enhance its value.
* * Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation. If the proposals go ahead it is only a matter of time before it is also absorbed by Leamington.


* Proposed New Roads
o * Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
o * Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.
o * The dual carriage way will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateway to Leamington and
southern gateway to Kenilworth.
o * A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. Traffic flows tend to be north to south rather than east to west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns. If the development does not go ahead the road will not be required.
o * A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
o * If the proposed development is concentrated in the South of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost than the £28m allocated to construct a "Northern Relief Road".
o * New Out of Town Stores
o * The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area an attractive place to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
Loss of Agricultural Land
* * There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Blackdown and Old Milverton
* Number of Homes included in the Forecasts
* * Warwick District Council has added nearly 1400 homes to the number that it anticipates will be required so as to include a "buffer" in the forecasts. If this "buffer" is removed from the forecast there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals.

I am writing to object to the plans to build housing on the area to the north of the town. My objections are based upon the quality of life that we as a community currently enjoy by having such a wonderful area near us, enabling us to walk, cycle, and run through countryside within minutes of leaving our homes.
There is in my opinion a misunderstanding that these will be 'affordable homes' in an area which currently has no similar affordable housing. Unfortunately the area where the housing is proposed has no amenities which would be required by the residents - no primary school, doctors, shops, post office (remember those?) The idea that a new 'village' being established in the area is ill conceived and would alter the area for the worse.

when i was a little girl my grandad had an allottment behind northumberland road we used to walk from church terrace to feed his pigs and bantoms, he let me have a piglet of my own to look after. now im 58 years old and have had my own allottment aon the binswood ex servicemens site for twenty plus years my children had there own plots which they grew there own vegetables and flowers, now my grandchildren love to go and pick fresh peas and strawberries, it shows them where food comes from not just the supermarket, we have lots people from all walks of life that enjoy doing there plots its exercise fresh air very hard work and very rewarding. i work for cancer research and enjoy taking in produce we havr grown to share with volunteers it will be a real shame to build on our plots we have a waiting list for plots i for one would really miss my allottment we understand that people need new homes but please dont build on our little oasis

I am shocked and appalled to hear about the planned proposals to develop green belt, land as a member of the local community I frequently use the area around Milverton to walk and jog through enjoying access to local countryside looking at wildlife and enjoying a peaceful atmosphere. I also feel substantial concern for the villagers who will almost certainly see the value of their houses reduce due to the new development.

It is then of even greater concern to find out that there is perfectly usable brown belt land available to use south of Leamington which is mentioned in the 2009 proposal which would also make far better use of current road structures and access to community facilities. The decision not to use this seems simply to be that it does not bring enough financial benefit to developers, this strikes of pure greed and not in the communities interest whatsoever!

Considering the continued growth of our population a need for new houses is understandable, have local governments even begun to consider that this increased population will also need to be fed! We should be preserving our agricultural land as well as the allotments which help support our community.

I am not in any way against new development, I have 12 new houses being built only 3 doors away from my own home on a piece of land which originally housed an underused pub, this will make an excellent use of the land. This iscertainly not a "not in my backyard"complaint!
I have outlined some of my personal views against this development and feel very strongly that this is in the worst possible interests of our community.

I would like to object to the proposed planning in North Leamington. The reason for my objection is as follows:-

* This area is a green belt area which is vitally important for recreation and general outdoor use as in the North Leamington area there is not enough open green space available.
* I also do not understand why Warwick District Council feels it necessary to build on green belt land when it has already identified developable land in the Heathcote area.
* I live on the Lillington Rd and have seen quite a few new developments in our area that have impacted on the infrastructure. For example there have been problems with traffic congestions and drainage/sewage issues.
.
In summary, I appreciate that new housing is required and some small developments in North Leamington would not be a major concern however the size is inappropriate for this size town and too much green belt is being lost as a result when there is already an area with better infrastructure readily available.

I am writing to you to lodge my objection against the development of housing on Green Belt land in North Leamington Spa.

The land proposed to be developed to the North of Leamington, in the area of Old Milverton, is an important amenity to local people for exercise and recreation, as there is very little other publicly accessible space in this area. It is vital to the health and wellbeing of the residents of this area that they have continued access to such existing amenities.

Additionally, this designated Green Belt should not, in my opinion, be developed, the very nature of established Green Belt Land is to identify important areas where development would be detrimental to the surrounding population and the area as a whole. This proposal is not inline with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and I do not believe that Warwick District Council have demonstrated sufficient 'exceptional circumstances' to gain an exemption to build on this Green Belt Land. The Preferred Options paper does not, in my opinion, provide sufficient evidence under NPPF to permit this development.

The council has identified land to the east of Europa Way (A452) and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook that would provide suitable alternatives and I ask why these have not been included in the Preferred Options paper? The current Preferred Options policy of 'distributing development around the District' is not part of the NPPF.

I also believe that development in this area will represent 'the thin end of the wedge' towards coalescence of the urban areas of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth. It is recognised good planning policy to avoid such coalescence. I also believe that the development of a Northern Relief road in these current financial circumstances is a necessary but expensive byproduct of this proposed development and such a level of public money could be spent better on the redevelopment of existing Brownfield Sites and change of use.

Overall, I strongly object to this proposed development.

I would like to register my complaint around the current proposals to develop greenbelt land at Blackdown and Old Milverton.
As far as I am aware, the fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt. It also requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. According to Warwick District Council the special circumstances are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. However, in the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council) land south of Leamington (not in Green Belt), was identified and is still available, for development. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure (roads etc) to support the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres.

The areas of Blackdown and Old Milverton are not just greenbelt land but are particularly beautiful areas of countryside in and around Leamington and its villages. Once this is built over, the land will never be green again and if we keep this idea of building on greenbelt land, the next 15 year plan will take even more land and eventually be nothing left. This kind of planning approach is unsustainable over one or two generations and once we have confirmed that greenbelt land is simply countryside waiting to be built upon, the protection offered by designating land as greenbelt will be destroyed.

I was present at the public meeting last night at Milverton Church.

The officers of the County Council and District Council were listened to at great length as they attempted to state their case but they have not convinced me at all to be in favour of this plan.

1. Green Belt is supposed to be inviolate, except in exceptional circumstances. There are NO exceptional circumstances in this case, particularly as there are white belt sites to the south. These were the proposed development sites in the earlier plan. When the officers at the meeting were asked," What has changed?" they were totally unable to give the meeting a satisfactory reply.
2. The area in question contains prime agricultural land, valuable for food growing .Are we not all supposed to be backing home grown production in these difficult times?

3.The area under threat is much used by local residents for recreational activities. Aren't we supposed to look after and cherish these areas on the borders of urban development or have we learnt nothing from the past?

I am not against further house building in the locality, but I have severe reservations about the accuracy of the estimate of the number of houses needed for the future and certainly where those houses and associate developments should be situated.

We live in a democracy, so I sincerely hope that the planners will rethink their proposals in the light of all the public opinion in this neighbourhood ,the vast majority of which is totally against these proposals.

as local residents, living in the Milverton area of Leamington Spa since 1982, we appreciate, and are privileged to enjoy, the amenity of the Green Belt land which the council propose to develop North of Leamington.

We would like to express our extreme objection to the proposed new Local Plan to destroy this Green Belt land. Whilst we understand there may be a need for development, although little reliable evidence for this has been presented, we strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

a) The National Planning Policy Framework requires "Very Special Circumstances" before such development should be considered, However, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

b) The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. According to Warwick District Council the "special circumstances" are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. However, in the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council) land south of Leamington (not in Green Belt), was identified and is still available, for development. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure (roads etc) to support the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres.

c) Therefore, the previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy) is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are wrong. It is not clear what has changed since 2009.

d) Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt, and indeed calls into question the motives and modelling assumptions used to underpin the argument for new development. The public has a right to be reassured that those in local government with the power to drastically alter the fabric of a community are truly independent, and have no interest, direct or indirect, personal or professional, in who the developers are, or how much profit they might make.

e) The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's study of the Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value

f) The National Planning Policy Framework sets out five purposes for Greenbelt land. In summary these are, to prevent urban sprawl of built up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, to protect the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land. The Greenbelt land identified for development in the Preferred Option does carry out these purposes and its development would therefore be contrary to the NPPF.

g) The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.

h) The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders, and cyclists, ourselves included. It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick.
Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road"
would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to be enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park land would detract from, rather than enhance its value.

i) Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation. It contributes greatly to the character of the area. If the proposals go ahead it is only a matter of time before it is also absorbed by Leamington.

j) Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. No matter what the planners say, and no matter what 'modelling technique' or assumptions they use, A452 traffic will be a nightmare at peak times

k) Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.

l) The dual carriageway will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateway to Leamington and southern gateway to Kenilworth.

m) A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required.
Traffic flows tend to be north to south rather than east to west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
If the development does not go ahead the road will not be required.

n) A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.

o) If the proposed development is concentrated in the South of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost than the £28m allocated to construct a "Northern Relief Road".

p) The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area an attractive place to live, deliver diversity and make it possible to shop without owning a car. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.

q) There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Blackdown and Old Milverton at a time when the nation's future food policy is questionable

r) Warwick District Council has added nearly 1400 homes to the number that it anticipates will be required so as to include a "buffer" in the forecasts. If this "buffer" is removed from the forecast there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals.

s) Warwick District Council has presented a preferred plan rather than consulting on options, making a mockery of the 'consultation process'.
No options have been presented for consultation, and it would appear that some of those involved have already made up their minds, at a time when they are supposed to be listening to residents' concerns. Are developers' concerns about profits more important?

Please will you ensure that our objections are noted and considered during this period of consultation, and addressed specifically during your deliberations on the future shape of this historic area. We are trusting you to make the right decision for the area, the residents, the community and the local environment. A bad decision will be impossible to put right and all of our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

I have studied the facts and was present at the public meeting last night at Milverton Church.

Firstly I would like to say that the officers and of the Council were listened to at length and given every opportunity to state their case but they have not convinced me at all to be in favour of this plan.

I am not against further house building in the locality at all, but I have severe reservations about the estimate of houses needed for the future and certainly where those houses and associate developments should be situated.

In brief:
1. It became clear from an elderly speaker from the audience, that the projections of so many houses being required is not based on any proper use of statistics and something better has to be done than just extrapolate current and recent population ingress into the area as a straight line upwards. In fact I understand that trends in the recent past have indicated that there will not be such a need for more houses in the area.
2. Green Belt is supposed to be inviolate, except in exceptional circumstance. These are not exceptional circumstances and there are white belt sites to the south of Leamington that are available. These I understand were earmarked for development in the earlier plan (2009/2010 was it?). At the meeting the supporters of the plan said that there was no infrastructure there or that it could not be put there. I find that hard to believe and from the floor of the meeting we were told that the developer concerned has stated that the infrastructure can easily be put in. I think that the infrastructure for the developments you propose to the north of Leamington would be much more difficult and expensive.
3. The areas proposed for development contain prime farmland that would be lost for ever. Furthermore, we all know the importance of this for the continuance of food supplies for future generations. One of the proposers seemed to look down on objectors, telling them that "Green Belt" is not the same a "Farming Land". A lot of us knew that anyway but such statements show a lack of respect for the knowledge and intelligence of the objectors
1. The area concerned is much used by local people, and other Warwick and Leamington residents, for recreational activities and this would be lost for ever. Assertions by proposers at the meetings that there would be some sort of arrangement with green corridors is not the same at all.
2. Flooding :The proposed new road (£29 million was it at current estimates ?) and all the rest of it will upset the current balance of water dispersal in the are with consequent damage to properties. I thought we had learnt, but obviously not.
3. The development will upset the current balance in size between Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth and will tend towards forming a large conurbation, with Coventry.
4. The assertion was made that if this scheme is not approved then a "Government Inspector" will not allow a smaller one. I find that hard to believe given the aforementioned points, especially point 1 above: How do we know as many houses as are envisaged would be required. The idea that if no agreement were reached then developers could "pick off" individual site does not ring true. They would still have Green Belt rules to deal with , and of course, the local people affected.
In fact if this scheme were to go ahead it would give no incentive to developers and others to make use of what other, more suitable land, we have got available for any development required.

The Council needs "exceptional circumstances" to build on Green Belt land. These exceptional circumstances do not exist.
I have grave doubts about the validity of the model used to project future housing needs. This is especially so given the parlous economic state that we are in and will be in for some years.
While some more housing must be planned for, it is a grave mistake to go this far. Once it happened there would be no going back.
What is envisaged clearly goes right against the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and I object most strongly

Contained in attachment