I am writing with regard to the new local plan and specifically the proposed development of the Green Belt land to the north of Leamington, including land between Old Milverton and Blackdown.

As a resident living in this area, we are already feeling the consequences of the proposed new local plan, as the local housing market is very static, due to the uncertainty cast by such a huge proposed development.

We would like to draw the Development Policy Manager's attention to the fact that the land being considered is Green Belt, and as such is a vital and vibrant area for recreation including walking, running, cycling by many local residents and others who drive to north Leamington in order to use the land. Any development would directly impact upon an enormous number of Leamington's resident's quality of life.

North Leamington is in danger of being overdeveloped and marginalised by the proposed new local plan, the HS2 proposed route and the proposals surrounding the development of Coventry Airport. These are three massive changes, that will singularly impact the local area to its detriment, and together risk destroying an area that is currently a very pleasant place to live and low maintenance for the Authority to manage.





Currently the roads running around the proposed area for development are, at times, very busy, with Northumberland Road junctions congested. Whilst the plan addresses the main roads in North Leamington, it does not, and cannot ease the potential hazardous increased traffic on these smaller roads. The road and pavement users are largely children, from North Leamington, Milverton and Brookhurst schools, along with elderly people living in the increasing number of care homes in the area.

Finally, whilst we understand from the presentation of the proposed new local plan, that planners are keen to balance Leamington between development to the North and South, we feel this is not sufficient justification in itself to override all the other factors outlined above. There are some fantastic brown field sites in the centre of Leamington that lend themselves to affordable and well located housing, giving genuinely attractive quality of working and recreational life.

We look to the Development staff at Warwick District Council to adjudicate and manage the development companies and organisations who are keen to populate our town and take prime brown field sites for non-housing purposes, such as Ford Foundry for a Hotel and yet another Supermarket.

If we can manage to hold onto our green spaces around Leamington, and creatively use existing space and buildings to create more housing, then it will continue to be a thriving and appealing town. If we simply cross hatch fields using a map, we will lose our unique spaces. We understood that Green Belt is sacrosanct and as such we look to the development staff, who are the towns peoples appointed respresentatives, to uphold that belief.

I write to register my strong objection to the Preferred Options Plan currently in
Community Consultation.
There are three major areas of required process in which Warwick District Council
and its executive need to offer significant improvement:
1 The Preferred Options Plan includes Greenbelt but offers no "very
speCial circumstances" as required in the National Planning Policy
Framework. WOe's apparent reason of "nowhere else to go" is
insufficient and made invalid by their own recent identification of
development land in the Core Strategy 2009.
2 The Preferred Options Plan has not been produced as an evidence
based planning document, despite repeated statements by WDC and
its officers that it has been. Councillor Doody on 16th July at Old
Milverton Parish Council meeting stated clearly that the housing target
figure was "the minimum we could get away with".
3 The Preferred Options Plan does not offer the community any options.
To date the consultative process has shown little listening by WDC and
its officers, and much pressure by them on the community to accept it
as it is. It is unacceptable in our democracy to have the community
consultation process so poorly executed, run apparently only to
achieve a pre-agreed result and therefore only to a level of "going
through the motions."
There are in my opinion six areas of major planning weakness in the Preferred
Options Plan, resulting in it being a meagre and insuffiCient document which does
not propose any thoroughly supported substance.
1 The fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy in the Government's National
Planning Policy Framework is to keep land permanently open to
prevent urban sprawl. The "very special circumstances" required by the
NPPF to use Greenbelt land have not been stated in WOe's Preferred
Options Plan. The NPPF requires the benefit of development to
outweigh the harm caused to the Greenbelt. Where is this case? The
previous Plan (2009 Core Strategy) is direct evidence that there are
alternative areas for development, thus proving the special
circumstances put forward by WDC are wrong. WOe's argument that
the land previously identified to the south of Leamington is less
profitable to developers is not a "very special circumstance" to permit
unnecessary development in the Greenbelt.
2 The WDC study assigns high Greenbelt value to the land at Old
Milverton and Blackdown, but this is ignored in the Preferred Options
Plan. These areas have high Amenity and Recreation use as green
lungs for the populations of Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth and
further afield in Warwick District, and should not be sacrificed for the
poorly defined "green wedge" approach. Managed parkland is a very
poor substitute for access to fine agricultural countryside.
3 The Northern Relief Road is not required (budget c f28m) since traffic
flows tend to be north to south. It is proposed across a flood plain with
the aSSOCiated high cost, violates the Avon nature corridor, and will if
permitted provide a natural barrier to encourage further encroachment
of the Greenbelt, coalescence of towns, and detract from the
picturesque northern entry to Leamington and the southern entry to
Kenilworth. If built, it will provide the residents of 3000 houses a quick
route to get away from the jobs, shopping and economic well-being of
Leamington, and Kenilworth. The existing road network in south
Leamington could be upgraded at considerably lower cost to meet the
needs of development on the identified land there.
4 The out of town retail operations proposed are an inappropriate blow to
the independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who
make the area attractive to live in.
5 The use of a significant quantity of high quality agricultural land which
is currently Greenbelt, is inappropriate in the world of rising food prices
and a requirement to increase the green credentials of the economy.
6 There is a lack of clarity, a paucity of evidence and self inconSistency in
the housing, jobs and homes model used for the Preferred Options
Plan . The 1400 homes added as a buffer by WDC on top of the
modelling are not evidence based. If they are removed, there is no
need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown. I would
expect that a properly drawn plan should be numerically consistent,
and not include a quantity of homes which appears to relate to a
similar population increase ie about one person per home.
In summary, the Preferred Options Plan is a very poor plan. It neither has the
support of the community, nor has it adequate compliance to the National
Planning POlicy Framework. I commend the rapid creation of a suitably sound plan
which has significant community support, to provide a relevant guide for the next
decades of Warwick District.
To do this well, the current consultative process must be seen to be working,
both in the actions of WDC at the conclUSion of the process, and in the revised
Plan which should emerge.

I write to register my strong objection to the Preferred Options Plan currently in
Community Consultation.
There are three major areas of required process in which Warwick District Council
and its executive need to offer significant improvement:
1 The Preferred Options Plan includes Greenbelt but offers no "very
speCial circumstances" as required in the National Planning Policy
Framework. WOe's apparent reason of "nowhere else to go" is
insufficient and made invalid by their own recent identification of
development land in the Core Strategy 2009.
2 The Preferred Options Plan has not been produced as an evidence
based planning document, despite repeated statements by WDC and
its officers that it has been. Councillor Doody on 16th July at Old
Milverton Parish Council meeting stated clearly that the housing target
figure was "the minimum we could get away with".
3 The Preferred Options Plan does not offer the community any options.
To date the consultative process has shown little listening by WDC and
its officers, and much pressure by them on the community to accept it
as it is. It is unacceptable in our democracy to have the community
consultation process so poorly executed, run apparently only to
achieve a pre-agreed result and therefore only to a level of "going
through the motions."
There are in my opinion six areas of major planning weakness in the Preferred
Options Plan, resulting in it being a meagre and insuffiCient document which does
not propose any thoroughly supported substance.
1 The fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy in the Government's National
Planning Policy Framework is to keep land permanently open to
prevent urban sprawl. The "very special circumstances" required by the
NPPF to use Greenbelt land have not been stated in WOe's Preferred
Options Plan. The NPPF requires the benefit of development to
outweigh the harm caused to the Greenbelt. Where is this case? The
previous Plan (2009 Core Strategy) is direct evidence that there are
alternative areas for development, thus proving the special
circumstances put forward by WDC are wrong. WOe's argument that
the land previously identified to the south of Leamington is less
profitable to developers is not a "very special circumstance" to permit
unnecessary development in the Greenbelt.
2 The WDC study assigns high Greenbelt value to the land at Old
Milverton and Blackdown, but this is ignored in the Preferred Options
Plan. These areas have high Amenity and Recreation use as green
lungs for the populations of Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth and
further afield in Warwick District, and should not be sacrificed for the
poorly defined "green wedge" approach. Managed parkland is a very
poor substitute for access to fine agricultural countryside.
3 The Northern Relief Road is not required (budget c f28m) since traffic
flows tend to be north to south. It is proposed across a flood plain with
the aSSOCiated high cost, violates the Avon nature corridor, and will if
permitted provide a natural barrier to encourage further encroachment
of the Greenbelt, coalescence of towns, and detract from the
picturesque northern entry to Leamington and the southern entry to
Kenilworth. If built, it will provide the residents of 3000 houses a quick
route to get away from the jobs, shopping and economic well-being of
Leamington, and Kenilworth. The existing road network in south
Leamington could be upgraded at considerably lower cost to meet the
needs of development on the identified land there.
4 The out of town retail operations proposed are an inappropriate blow to
the independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who
make the area attractive to live in.
5 The use of a significant quantity of high quality agricultural land which
is currently Greenbelt, is inappropriate in the world of rising food prices
and a requirement to increase the green credentials of the economy.
6 There is a lack of clarity, a paucity of evidence and self inconSistency in
the housing, jobs and homes model used for the Preferred Options
Plan . The 1400 homes added as a buffer by WDC on top of the
modelling are not evidence based. If they are removed, there is no
need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown. I would
expect that a properly drawn plan should be numerically consistent,
and not include a quantity of homes which appears to relate to a
similar population increase ie about one person per home.
In summary, the Preferred Options Plan is a very poor plan. It neither has the
support of the community, nor has it adequate compliance to the National
Planning POlicy Framework. I commend the rapid creation of a suitably sound plan
which has significant community support, to provide a relevant guide for the next
decades of Warwick District.
To do this well, the current consultative process must be seen to be working,
both in the actions of WDC at the conclUSion of the process, and in the revised
Plan which should emerge

Dear Sir/Madam

As a resident of Leamington Spa, I strongly object to the proposed development around Old Milverton and Blackdown set forth in the Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local plan. Having spoken to many people about this I can assure you this is not the 'preferred option' for the locals I have spoken to.

The National Planning Policy Framework stipulates Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered under "very special circumstances". I don't believe the proposed plans for the area constitute exceptional circumstances. Greenbelts must be preserved in this country and are in place so that that sprawl is restricted, so that the countryside is protected and in this case so that the special character of a town such as Leamington is safeguarded. The fundamental aim of the NPPF is to prevent urban sprawl and keep the land permanently open. The proposed plans go against this completely.

The proposed "out of town" retail operators will also cause further damage to Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth High Streets and retailers that are already struggling to turn a profit in this economy and with the rise in online shopping may not survive. The Leamington high street (and surrounding streets) in particular has seen many closures in the last 12 months. Large retailers are having to bow out, not to mention small independent retailers that don't have as much backing to begin with. Empty shop fronts in a town the size of Leamington stand out like a sore thumb and with each new shop that closes the town loses a little of it's character and buzz. A realistic fear is that this will happen at an accelerated pace if new shops are introduced where the Greenbelt stands.

Thank you for considering these views.
Bree Norton

*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

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
* 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.
* Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.
* The dual carriage way will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateway to Leamington and southern gateway to Kenilworth.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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".
* New Out of Town Stores
* 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

Please note our objections to the above

GREENBELT
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 proposals appear to ignore the purposes of Greenbelt land being to prevent urban sprawl of built up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, to protect the country side from development thus preventing merging of the two very separate towns on Leamington and Kenilworth as they exist at present with their own culture and identities.


RECREATION VALUE
As frequent walkers and cyclists, wee do not want a 'relief road' damaging our country routes, increasing pollution and traffic congestion within this area when there are alternative opportunities within Warwick DC which could be used I.e Ford Foundry site which has been resold for commercial use rather than for housing. We also have the local development, on the former Potterton site, which is only partially complete and is now in danger of becoming derelict due to under occupation.

Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation.


INTENDED NEW ROADS
Instead of, turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriage way what are the plans for developing the rail route I.e building a station at Kenilworth and also developing a safe cycle route between Leamington and Kenilworth.

Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion, air, noise and light pollution, put a strain on natural resources I.e damaging the water table and local amenities and services will also be affected as there are not enough schools, GP practices, Dentists to meet the needs of the proposed increased population

LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND in Blackdown and Old Milverton. This will in turn increase carbon foot print, produce which is sourced from even further afield and from other countries.

I am writing to register our objection to the proposed development of greenbelt land on the north of Leamington Spa.

In our opinion the greenbelt land currently provides an important barrier to urban sprawl (as per National Planning Policy Framework) and the Blackdown and Old Milverton greenbelt preserves the countryside rural character and keeps Leamington separate from Kenilworth. We have already seen how the Warwick and Leamington have effectively merged into one another and the subsequent negative impact on traffic, retail and loss of individual character.

Warwick district council has not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" necessary under NPPF rules to build on greenbelt as alternative land with superior infrastructure already exists south of Leamington.

As the North Leamington land is greenbelt it would require substantial additional expenditure to establish the extensive infrastructure required to support such a large scale housing development. This would destroy the local amenity and provide no open recreational space for the new or existing residents. Additionally the Northern Relief road would require an estimated £28m of public resources to be diverted when the alternative south Leamington site already has superior existing infrastructure to support an existing housing development. Further development of Heathcote appears to make more sense given the existing employment and infrastructure such as retail parks to be used by new residents.

There also appears to be over provision of housing which results from the council using projections from a past period of exceptional growth which is not sustainable. Even using these exceptionally high population and demand projections the greenbelt land could be deleted without causing a deficit.

Overall the greenbelt land in England should be protected especially to preserve the character of Leamington, Kenilworth and surrounding areas. The NPPF rules need to be followed correctly to protect the countryside from development and ensure other more suitable sites are fully utilised before destroying Greenbelt for urban sprawl.

I was dismayed to read about your proposed plans for green belt land between Leamington Spa and Kenilworth.

I object totally to the building on the green belt land in the proposed new plan.
Better use of existing brown field land for housing instead of providing more supermarkets would be a better way of meeting housing quotas.

Were more apartments in the style of the town architecture ever considered in place of blanket modern housing changing the style of this lovely Spa town forever?

In summary I feel your current proposals are an assault on the countryside which will result in permanent loss of natural environment in what is after all known colloquially as 'leafy Warwickshire' for short term aims which will benefit relatively few and destroy much.

I would like to object most strongly to the developments proposed in your "New Local Plan"

1) The number of houses required. I believe the number of new houses that are required has been grossly over estimated. The data you have used for continued growth is out dated and fails to take in to account several new factors. Including but not exclusively, recent trend for Eastern European immigrants returning home, the increasing number of the boomerang generation (children returning to live with parents after college), the forecasted reduction in further education places following the introduction of tuition fees, the proposed new government policy of not giving under 25s housing benefit, therefore reducing the numbers of "have a baby to get a house mums".

You only have to look at Ireland at the impact of getting your numbers wrong, empty new housing estates. If there was this demand know why have we so many empty properties available to rent or buy in the district. Surely the better approach is to build fewer houses and then reassess the situation in say 7-8 years time.

2) There are in particular three areas of greenbelt land proposed to be built on, Kenilworth, Milverton, Blackdown. The government has just recently re-emphasised its protection for the Green Belt in the new NPFF. In order for the development in these areas to go ahead the council would have to produce heavy weight arguments to convince an Inspector before encroachment in to the Green belt will take place. As there need to be "exceptional circumstances" these simply aren't present. In fact the council has already published it's "2009 core strategy" which is contra to the current proposal and certainly demonstrates there are no "exceptional circumstances".

3) The north Leamington Relief Road. What is the purpose, there is simply no case for it unless you like to destroy natural beauty. As a regular user of the local road network, there are no significant delays in the area. Comparing the traffic to the likes of Birmingham where I worked for 20 years the roads run freely. There are some proposed road improvements to the A452 which would help the traffic flow at peak times in addition to the ones proposed I would say no right turn in to Hill Wootton Road. Rather than build new roads we should be first exploring cycle routes and giving bus routes priority, or indeed a new train station in Kenilworth. The only thing that will happen with the proposed new road would be to draw traffic off the Rugby road and up Old Milverton Lane and produce a "rat run". There are a number of school routes along this road is this what we really want, accidents are bound to follow and how would that make the planners feel ! All for the benefit of saving a couple of minutes off journey times madness !

4) An out of town shopping centre to the North of Leamington, would be a further dagger wound to our town centres, we should support our town centres not close them. Who wants another Curry's, Mothercare, Supermarkets etc we have more than enough already. Who would shop there anyway? as it's hardly likely to attract visits other than the immediate locale.

5) If the Relief Road was to go ahead, what routes have been considered. I can only find reference to one. Why build it there decimating the countryside, has thought been given to building it to the East of the railway and sweeping in to connect with the existing B4115 which is already connected to the A46?

I would also add that from an expense point of view I am prepared to fight this all the way, better change your minds now rather than go another 2 years down the line and be forced to do it then after considerably expense for both sides.


Further Representations (see attached):

02 August 2012

* I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local plan.
* This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed
by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
* 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.
* The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
o Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
o Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
o Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
o Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a
historic town)
o Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land,
* 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.
* Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I am writing today to object to the development of the North Leamington Green Belt. My reasons are as follows.

1) Greenbelt should not be developed on when other suitable land is available. Warwick council has not demonstrated the execptional circumstances necessary to build on Green Belt under the National Planning Policy Framework. Warwickshire council has identified land east of the A452 and south of Heathcote. The NPPF clearly states that the purpose of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl, it appears to have been ignored.

2) This development will ultimately lead to the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth. This will result in the loss of both towns identities, this destroys the uniqueness and general appeal of the area to all, including business and tourism.

3) The land proposed for development provides an important local amenity for exercise and recreation as there is very little publicly accessible open space in this area. It would be a great shame for this area, and the whole of Leamington Spa to lose this wonderful space.

4) Even with the current population and demand projections the units proposed for the Green belt could be left out even if no alternative sites were substituted. Having identified non Green Belt land as suitable for development it's possible the owners of the suitable land could apply for planning permission on appeal resulting in over provision of land.

All in all it is blindingly clear that these plans are flawed, and as a result I must object in the strongest terms.

I plan to fight this injustice with everything at my disposal, with money, time and contacts. This can only end in embarrassment for the Council, and most certainly a change in leadership if this were to be forced ahead.

I very much hope the council will reconsider on this matter.

I heard recently of the District Councils plans to develop on Green Belt Land North of Leamington as shown in their 2012 Preferred Options Booklet.

We would like to register that we strongly oppose these developments. This proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown is just beyond belief, why ruin more of our precious countryside when other sites could be utilised?

We wish to object very strongly to the proposal to develop Green Belt land to the north of Leamington Spa. We find it astonishing that WDC appears to be ignoring the Government's National Policy Framework which exists to prevent unpopular local plans, especially on Green Belt land. Briefly, our reasons for objecting are:

1. Loss of amenity. The footpaths in this area are used on a daily basis by hundreds of ramblers, dog walkers, cyclists, joggers and even horse riders. There is no other similar amenity in the area, and its loss would be devastating to many people who currently make use of it, including ourselves.

2. Use of Green Belt land. The Government's National Policy Framework requires there to be very special circumstances for there to be development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. WDC say that these special circumstances are that there is no other land to develop - this argument is patently wrong as previous WDC plans have identified suitable alternative non-Green Belt land.

3. Urban sprawl. The proposed development will lead to Leamington, Old Milverton and Kenilworth merging into each other. Again this is would be counter to one of the main purposes of Green Belt land.

4. Infrastructure. It will require further land and huge expense to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the development. The proposed Northern Leamington Relief Road would utterly ruin Old Milverton and the agricultural land surrounding it.

5. Level of Housing Provision. WDC has over-estimated the requirement for new homes in the area, as the number described has been obtained from projections from a period of exceptional growth.

We sincerely hope that WDC reconsider this absurd and very unpopular proposal

My overriding objection to the proposed plan is that there are plans to build on greenbelt land and I do not see evidence of any exceptional circumstances to do this which is what is required under the NPPF. In the plans Warwick District Council states that it can include green belt development if there is "insufficient suitable and available sites outside the greenbelt". However you have identified in the plan that there is sufficient non greenbelt in the District that could accommodate the number of homes you have identified as being needed. I do not see evidence in your preferred option that would warrant losing greenbelt land. Presumably this is being proposed to spread the new development across the district but this is not a policy endorsed in the NPPF.

Your option is to build for more than the number of homes identified. If no homes were built on greenbelt at all you could still accommodate the numbers required in the plan, so why sacrifice greenbelt.

The NPPF states that greenbelt is designated to prevent urban sprawl but the preferred option will do precisely the opposite. Also the development at North Leamington/Milverton will will lead not just to urban sprawl but also to the increased risk of joining urban areas through loss of the greenbelt, which is there to stop precisely this from happening. The proposal would lead to Old Milverton being within a very small distance of the new development and Leamington spreading close to Kenilworth. With Leamington and Warwick already being one urban area preventing urban sprawl through to Kenilworth becomes even more important.

Your plan also identifies £28 million being spent on the 'northern Leamington relief road'. Not only would this completely blight Old Milverton and destroy even more countryside, it would also be unnecessary to build if the greenbelt is left. Why not spend the money on a station in Kenilworth and enable people to move between the towns by rail, not road.

There are no parks near to where I live and we use the footpath from the back of Bamburgh Grove on a regular basis to walk. The footpath is used by a huge number of people, including joggers and dog walkers. This is a fantastic open space, very well used, that will be lost forever under the proposals.

I live in Vernon Close and we have a significant amount of wildlife that may well be damaged by the development, for example we hear owls at night and there are a large number of bats that fly through our communal gardens.

I therefore am objecting to the proposal to build on the greenbelts sites as I see no justifiable planning reason to do so when non greenbelt land can accommodate the homes required.

1.I wish to register objection to the proposal for the development of 810 houses on the land "North of Leamington" and 1,170 houses on "Land at Blackdown".

2. I recognise that there will be a need for more houses in and around Leamington in the period 2019 to 2029. I do not have sufficient information to judge whether the number required will be anywhere near the number envisaged by this planning proposal.

3. I believe however that the proposals that I mention above do not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF). The NPPF expects that brownfield sites and other land not in the green belt should be developed in priority to green belt land, and requires that exceptional circumstances must shown before planning allows construction on Green Belt land. I do not believe that the Council has demonstrated that there is insufficient suitable and available sites outside the Green Belt.

4. The NPPF does not mention any acceptable policy of "spreading development around", so any actions based on that would be outside - and thus contrary to - the NPPF.

5. The NPPF clearly expects that Green Belt land will protect against urban sprawl - and in particular urban coalescence - and is to be protected for that reason. The danger of coalescence with Kenilworth, especially if development southwards from Kenilworth is also permitted, is very real.

6. The existing infrastructure, especially the road network, could not cope with the additional traffic from the proposed developments. It barely copes with the present traffic at peak times and even either side of the peak. The construction of the roads that would be necessary to support the proposed housing developments would be costly to construct and significantly damaging to the local countryside and community.

Please acknowledge that you have received this objection.

After many years of living in Leamington Spa and using the northern approach road from Kenilworth, I together with all of my friends and acquaintances throughout the area, am staggered to hear of the proposed release of land for upwards of 2000 new homes in the north of the town.

Hearing over the years from many visitors to the town, one of Leamington's most beautiful assets, is the stunning tree lined approach, through the Blackdown area, and the long straight wooded stretch of the Kenilworth road with its many delightful period homes.

For this proposed development to blight this magnificent approach in any way, would destroy forever the first and lasting impression of wonderful Royal Leamington Spa, for all its residents and certainly for all its needed visitors.

As residents of Milverton and allotment holders within the parish of Old Milverton & Blackdown we object very strongly to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local plan.

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In 2009 after substantial investigation and public consultation WDC adopted a development plan, for slightly more homes than the present proposals, which did not require release of Green Belt land. What has changed?

According to WDC the Preferred Options have to be supported by strong evidence. The evidence presented now cannot be regarded as strong as it rests on dubious assumptions. WDC has presented a preferred plan rather than consulting on options. No options have been presented for consultation.

Apparently our allotments are not directly threatened, but even so, the proposed developments in the area would completely destroy the ambiance of our site and it would no longer be a tranquil productive place for recreation, social interaction, exercise and fresh food production for the local families and pensioners who are members of our Association.

There are many other negative implications in the proposed plan, but we are sure that these have already been pointed out by other objectors.

I wish to register my objection to the 'preferred option ' for the local plan.

My main concern is the proposed use of the green belt for building houses and infrastructure.

1 The green belt was imposed to prevent urban scrawl.

2 I was not convinced from Monday night's meeting at Old Milverton
that the violation of the green belt will stay at the outlined plan.
Once violated, it is almost certain that further inroads will be made.

3 A few years ago, 10,000 houses were going to be built not using the
green belt. I do not understand why, with 8,000 houses, it now becomes necessary to infringe on the green belt.

4 In order to build on the green belt, it will be necessary to make
roads and shops to service the new houses. All the large supermarkets are in the south of the town, and another enormous one is being added on the Ford Foundry site. To get there from the north will require a lot of new roads. Alternatively, more supermarkets will have to be built on the green belt. Small shops might be encouraged to be set up in the green belt but the majority of householders will buy their stores at supermarkets. Existing small shopkeepers will benefit from more houses in the south town.

5 Carbon emissions will increase due to more people travelling to the
supermarkets from the Green belt houses.

6 Costs of providing for sewage disposal and water and other services
will be higher from houses in the Green belt

7 In addition to houses and shops, more land will have to be given up
to building relief roads. Apart from the additional noise this will produce, it is unnecessary expense compared to having houses in the south nearer to the shops.

8 Having a relief road close to Old Milverton will help to loose its
feel of the rural village and hasten the time when it is joined up to Leamington.

9 The present green belt land is widely used by many people for
exercise. This facility will go, as will the agricultural produce and wildlife.

10 The railway and M40 are all more accessible from the South of the
town.

11 There are about 1,400 more houses than forecast proposed to be
built. If these were not built the green belt would mbot have to be violated.

12 I can envisage a lot of 'affordable' houses that no-one can afford
and a lot of empty unaffordable houses.

13 The local plan appears to be put forward as a 'fait accompli'.
The District Council offers no alternatives for the public to choose from.

14 I can't therefore see the need for building on the green belt when
there appears to be sufficient brown sites available.

Re: Proposed development at Old Milverton, Blackdown and the rest of the areas at north Leamington.
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 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.
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 would like to register my objection to the new Proposed Development Plans, you could have adopted those prepared in 2009 for the Core Strategy Plan, which did not require the extravagance of a whole new infrastructure, which we do not need.

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 would like to register my objection to the new Proposed Development Plans. It would be unforgivable and irresponsible of planners to damage this area of North Leamington, when with a little effort and thought they could find other more appropriate sites such as Brown or White field sites. They owe it to the residents of Leamington Spa, Warwick, Kenilworth and all those who appreciate and enjoy the area.

I wish to record my objections to development on green belt land in north Leamington

New development around a town may appear healthy, however adding
another layer around a declining centre is not appropriate: regeneration of the
town centre, both the retail and living accommodation often within the same properties,
would be a better first step.

Future housing needs have been based on the 'growth ' over the last ten years continuing into the future. Recession hit in late 2008, after nearly four years of little or no growth there are no favourable economic forecasts to base optimism for growth over the next ten years.
Look to Ireland were they are now demolishing new housing developments, though I appreciate they are part of the Euro problems, belief in projected growth was and is naive.

I am bitterly disappointed and feel let down by my District Council: had I
realised such intents I would not have voted for these incumbants. They
are not acting in the best interests of the local electorate in removing a
natural amenity which costs the Council little or no money to maintain to
build houses not proven to be needed and further to spend £28 million
on a road required only to serve urban sprawl.

Please give serious consideration to these comments.

I am writing to oppose the current 2012 preferred options for housing in the Green Belt for Old Milverton & Blackdown.
The previous 2009 core strategy plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than in this Green Belt. The "Very special circumstances" forwarded by WDC are clearly wrong. Developers not finding South Leamington attractive enough or less profitable have no justification for releasing this precious piece of Green Belt separating Leamington from Blackdown & Old Milverton.
WDC has already added nearly 1400 homes to the number it anticipates are needed so has to include a "buffer" in their forecasts. Surely with all the brown and white field sites readily available in Leamington/Warwick, Blackdown & Old Milverton Green Belt land should be excluded from this plan?
I sat at the meeting on Monday 16th July at Old Milverton Parish Church and listened very carefully to many highly intelligent residents including a professor, a scientist, a barrister and solicitors all asking very relevant questions about flaws in this new 2012 preferred options yet neither Bill Hunt or Councillor Doody answered any of their questions or statements of facts with anything relating to any of these highly relevant issues at all? It felt like the residents were been side tracked away from the main issues at hand for the whole meeting.
All I am sure of is that if these new local plan is adopted; it will obliterate some of the most precious pieces of green belt left in Warwickshire.
Please re-think this. Please!

Ref: Planning proposal for development in Black Down and Old Milverton/ Northern Relief Road, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire


I have recently learnt of the proposal to develop the area of Black Down and Old Milverton thereby requiring a Northern Relief Road.

I wish to register my objection to this ill thought through proposal for the following reasons.

1) The development is the wrong side of Leamington/Warwick with the result traffic will increase to get it over to the southern side where business parks, shopping malls and the motorway are located. This is evidenced by the recognized need to build a new relief road. An unnecessary expense and environmentally wasteful.
2) Appropriate development land exists on the southern side. Lower cost, right location.
3) The development will use green belt land, ignoring previous District Councils findings it should be protected


The cost and environment appears to be ignored and one is suspicious this is driven by local interests hoping to profit from the development


I have lived in Warwickshire for over 25 years and understand the need for more housing development but believe this proposal is totally inappropriate

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.

I went to the meeting at North Leamington School to hear about the 2012 Preferred options Plan and was appalled at the cavalier attitude shown toward the audience and felt the officials present at the meeting considered the plan put forward as a done deal with little option available.

One only needed to look at the overall map showing the proposed development areas to realise that the council were trying to win approval for building on green belt when White and Brown land was already set aside from the 2009 plan and none of the officials seem to be able to answer WHY.

Also why are we wanting to build more houses than is required by the National plan. If we stuck to the National Plan numbers then no extra land is required thus saving building a new road plus other infra structure projects to support over 1400 houses in what is currently Green Belt.

Makes one wonder who the Officials are really representing!!! Certainly not the existing ones of North Leamington. The area of North Leamington Blackdown and Milverton is an asset to Leamington Spa. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners riders and cyclists and should be preserved for the future of all residents including the next generation of children who deserve the opportunity to easily walk and enjoy open countryside. It would be shameful and morally wrong to build in Blackdown and Old Milverton as shown in the 2012 Preferred options Plan until you have exhausted all alternatives and checked that the number of houses you require is needed and if so found to be at least offer alternatives to the plan put forward at the moment.

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

This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.

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.

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF 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 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.

I wanted to write to convey my utter shock and disgust at the proposed violation of the green belt land in Old Milverton with a new development. Having been born and brought up in the village, where my family home is still, I cannot sit by and let this happen without a fight. The proposal will have devastating consequences on the village and utterly ruin what for many many years has been a beautiful little village surrounded by fantastic green belt land. The development will have see huge numbers of additional cars passing through the village ruining the peace and tranquility of the area. I am also hugely concerned that this will have a negative impact of the value of my family home in the village.

I want this email to be recorded as formal opposition to the development and we, the residence of the village will not stand by and let this happen easily.

My husband and I had a double shock this weekend; firstly we were amazed to find out that the Ford site is going to be home to yet another supermarket . How many large supermarkets can you squeeze into a 1/2 mile radius?? We thought with the reported housing shortage, this would be an ideal spot for some affordabe housing, and well suited to people without their own means of transport. Instead, it seems that the decision was based on who can offer the biggest financial sweetener, with little thought to what the local community actually needs.

Whilst this grumble was still fresh on our lips, we decided to have a nice country stroll at the end of Guy's Cliff Avenue, and discovered the various campaign leaflets informing us that the council has now decided that the green belt is now fair game for housing developers.

We are angered by the apparent disregard for our few remaining areas of countryside and feel that a clear message should be given to the individuals that think the rules protecting the flora, fauna and rural life in these areas can be changed at a glance based on a short-sighted whim of a few narrow minded individuals. These areas cannot be replaced.

Attachment contains full text

We would like to raise objections to the proposed development Plan for North Leamington as detailed.
It is very clear that an enormous amount of work has gone into this draft. Nevertheless, it is seriously flawed and it does not reflect the views of the district residents, who, in the published surveys, advocate only modest development.
Points to Consider:
 The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council) land South of Leamington 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 to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
 The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the 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 proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.
 Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns. 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. Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to 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.
 The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth. A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; 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.
 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.
 The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
 The justification appears to be based on an assumption that there will be a substantial growth in population.
 This country is already overcrowded and cannot afford the growth predicated.
 There is a fast developing global food crisis. Britain will have to become more food self-sufficient, which means preserving prime agricultural land, even if the local population does grow at your forecast rate of 13%, it is unnecessary to plan housing at the rate of less than 2 persons per property!
 There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton The land at Old Milverton & Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, 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 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 would detract from rather than enhance its value.
I propose that the Council develops an alternative strategy, which is properly based on the following key elements of the NPPF. The current draft does not follow the NPPF.
1 Promote competitive town centre environments
2 Promote vitality of urban areas
3 Protect green belts around them
4 Recognise the benefits of best agricultural land
5 Conserve landscape and scenic beauty
6 Use brown field sites first
7 Only change green belt boundaries under exceptional circumstances
8 Even then, only consider limited infilling of green belt land
9 Avoid potential coalescence
I propose the plan be based on the following principles:
1 Accept that this area is already overpopulated.
2 Regenerate urban areas. Much of the housing is decrepit and should be redeveloped with a higher urban population density.
3 Regenerate town centres and depressed urban areas. Replace old housing with modern accommodation.
4 Accept that maximising economic growth and housing is NOT the priority for Warwick District.
5 Quality of life and the environment are more important.
6 Moderate developments is the key.
7 Existing green belt boundaries are sacrosanct.
8 Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026. If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals.
The plan should be developed strictly within these parameters.
If this means a slower rate of economic development, then that is appropriate for this District.
If this means a slower rate of population growth and housing, then so be it.
It is still possible to encourage new business, reduce unemployment and provide more housing, given a moderate development strategy.
Green belt boundaries are sacrosanct in this 'Green and Pleasant Land and we urge Warwick District council to consider the overwhelming number of objections to the proposed developments and concentrate efforts and funds into the development of the current infrastructure and development of current building opportunities to regenerate our Town centres.

Document scanned.