I am writing to let you know that I strongly object to the proposed plans to develop the very important, well-used and beloved area of Greenbelt in North Leamington that is designated for development in WDC's Preferred Options for the New Local Plan.
The land around Old Milverton and Blackdown is vastly important as a recreational area for many people living in the area; for runners, riders, walkers and cyclists. It is the only area near by where we can pursue these outdoor recreations, which encourage people to lead more healthy lives in an outdoor environment.
We NEED Greenbelt areas to make us feel that we are part of local communities and not just part of large urban sprawls. If this development goes ahead it will feel like the area between Warwick and Leamington Spa along the Emscote Road. Years ago there were gaps between the urban areas. Now it's one long urban sprawl with, I believe, a consequent loss of identity and feeling of well-being.
There will be very little space between Leamington and Kenilworth - except for the A46!
Surely it benefits us all if Leamington keeps its special character as a beautiful Spa town in the middle of beautiful countryside - not surrounded on all sides by developments.
I understand that land south of Leamington was originally designated for development. Surely with the old Ford's site being developed, the already established large retail development containing Sainsburys and the roads that lead to it from the south, with direct links to the M40, would make a much more financially viable alternative? More out-of-town retail development is surely detrimental to the face of our unique towns. And if this land south of town was previously designated why isn't it being used. Why are the WDC now suddenly changing their focus to an established Greenbelt area north of Leamington?
Living close to the Kenilworth Road I can see no purpose in making the A452 a dual-carriageway. Road improvements are all well and good but the purpose of a road is to get people somewhere quicker. What's the point of making part of the road a dual-carriageway when in essence it leads into 2 town centres where there are no dual-carriageways. There will still be hold-ups at the end of the dual-carriageways - hence still traffic delays.

I beseech you - please reconsider your options.

I am emailing to register my OBJECTION to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown as set out in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local Plan.

Whereas I acknowledge that the District Council needs to have a plan for future development I have strong and valid objections for proposed development in the areas of Old Milverton and Blackdown, north to and on the edge of present boundaries of Leamington Spa in designated Green Belt land.

Please read through my points below:

Note:
Apologies if I sometimes refer to the Warwick District Council (wdc) as 'Council' - it is the people in charge of making decisions and who have the responsibility to listen to the views, concerns and objections of residents such as myself to whom I refer.
I know the term 'Green belt land' - but unsure about other - I think 'White land' is land identified for building potential but which is not designated Green belt - as I am unsure I have called such land 'not-green belt land'.

1) PROPOSED NUMBER OF HOMES:

Whereas I acknowledge that the District Council needs to have a plan for future development, I have strong objections for proposed development in the areas of old milverton and Blackdown, north to and on the edge of preasent boundaries of Leamington Spa in designated Green Belt land.

There appears to be an over-provision/over-calculation of proposed housing; most probably as the council have forecast using figures from periods of exceptional growth in the past. Such growth can not be assumed and therefore I would prefer that more realistic figures are applied.

WDC has added nearly 1400 homes to the number that it anticipates will be required so as to 'buffer' its proposals. There does not seem to be firm evidence about numbers of houses needed - and if figures are correct, why would there be a need to add on the 'buffer' of 1400 extra homes - a considerable percentage of the total of homes 'needed' in the WDC plans.

If this 'buffer' is removed from the WDC forecast then there would be NO NEED to include the land noth of Leamington in Old Milverton area and Blacvkdown.

Also, the non- green belt sites already identified by the WDC (and not all listed in the 'Preferred options' plan) for development could still possibly be built upon if the present owners get planning permission/sell to developers, etc - therfore reslting in even more excessive housing.

Change to plan: Remove the 'buffer' (approx. 1400 homes) which would easily allow removal of development plans on Green Belt
land in Old Milverton area and Blackdown.

2) OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN BELT LAND:

The government has made it clear that it holds great importance to Green Belts (e.g. in the National Planning Policy Framework - NPPF) and I am aware that Local Plans must adhere to NPPF principles.

One of the NPPF's goals is to protect communities and Green belt and to help local people "to protect local countryside and green space they value" ... I value the Green Belt land outside my front door - and that which I have enjoyed walking through and looking at for the 44 years I have lived in Leamington Spa. WDC has a responsibilty to be accountable to the NPPF with its policies and practice.

The fact that the New Local Plan 'Preferred Options' suggest development on Green Belt land is dreadful considering that there is other non-greenbelt land available on which the proposed number of houses/development could be built and local needs met.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. That should be WDC's priority - to leave designated Green belt land as it is when other sites are avalable.


The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfills the the first 4 of the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land. It:
- Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of leamington to the North
- prevents the merging of leamington and Kenilworth
- helps to safeguard the countryside from encroachment
- helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic spa town amidst beautiful countryside)
If other AVAILABLE non-Green Belt land is developed then the 5th purpose would also be addressed:
- Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
... Development of Green Belt land in Old Milverton and Balckdown would be contrary to the NPPF guidelines.

To build on Green Belt land North of Leamington Spa would result in a spread towards Kenilworth and put both towns at risk as the danger would then be that future Councils would encroach further and further across Greenbelt land and result in the towns joining together.

Proposals in the New Local Plan would reduce the "Green Gap" betweeen Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles; encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities. The village of Old Milverton would also be at risk of being swallowed up into Leamington and lost as an 'independent' village community.

There are many other non-greenbelt sites that could be developed instead - those areas should take priority above any Green Belt land. As a matter of principle and responsibility the Council needs to develop these non-greenbelt areas instead. Many of these sites, which were includede in warwick district council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy), are south of Leamington Spa. (I will expand upon this issue in a later section).

The NPPF states that greenbelt boundries should only be altered in exceptional/ very special 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. Therefore, WDC has not demonstrated the 'exceptional circumstances' correctly.

The Government's NPPF states that development of Greenbelt land should only be allowed if the benefits of development outweigh the harm caused to the Greenbelt. There is no evidence to show that development on Greenbelt land north of Leamington would provide sufficient benefits to the community and Greenbelt land. according to WDC the special circumstances are atht there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. However, as mentioned above, in the '2009 Core Strategy' (a plan which was adpopted by WDC) land south of Leamington (not greenbelt) was identified and IS STILL AVAILABLE for development.

If WDC applies a policy of spreading developments areound the edges of Leamington and Warwick on grounds that it will not cause as many objections from one local area/group of pouplation then that is not a valid 'planning policy' - or one acknowledged by the NPPF - it is more of a political move to please everyone. (Apologies if not termed correctly!) The WDC needs to only apply planning policy to this situation - therefore, build on non-Green Belt land first ... NOT leave non-green belt land 'vacant' and undeveloped and yet take away and develop valued Green Belt land.

The 2009 Core Strategy is sound basis as evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than Green Belt land north of Leamington - it also sustains that the "very special circumstances" put forward by the present WDC are wrong.

WDC had studied the value of Green Belt land north of Leamington (old Milverton and Blackdown) which concluded that these areas had HIGH GREEN BELT VALUE. Therefore, should not be built on.

Change to plan: Develop areas south of Leamington that have already been identified by WDC as apporpriate for development.
Erase any proposals to develop Green Belt land north of Leamington Spa.


3) HEALTH, LEISURE and WELL-BEING:

The land suggested for development in Old Milverton and Blackdown is used by many people - individuals, couples and families; and groups (such as, local scout groups) - for recreational purposes ... walking, dog walking, rambling, cycling, running, bird watching, etc.

Highly valued, cherished and utilised recreational areas need to be protected.

Health and well-being of Leamington Spa's residents is important.

These areas provide Leamington and Warwick residents with easy access to the countryside environment.

For example, the footpaths across Old Milverton (e.g. entered from Bamburgh Grove/allotment area down to Old Milverton and onto the Saxon Mill and beyond) are regularly used by local residents (such as, myself) and also people not from the local area who choose to walk in an area of beauty and tranquility. Having access to outdoor ammenities such as the pathways that cross the Green Belt land is an activity to be enjoyed by all ages; and definitiely an encouragemnet to keep young people busy and away from anti-social behaviour.

Any proposed development on the Green Belt land would encroach on this valuable local asset which encouirages people to visit our lovely town - an area and amenity of which residents and the WDC should be proud.

There is very little publicly open space in the north Leamington area - we need to protect that Green Belt land for future generations and visitors to enjoy.

There are many elderly and infirm residents around the Old Milverton and Blackdown areas - it worries me that developments surrounding their homes will have a harmful affect on their health and well-being caused by worry, stress, noise, light pollution, extra traffic, etc. which could be avoided if the Green belt land is not built upon. Many of our older, long-term Leamington residents will have been unable to lodge their objections with the consultation system having been advertised and completed in the way it is. (Many will not be able to access the internet, read easily, rely on carers, etc.)

To be fair to all of those in our communities - a door-to-door consultation/questionnaire should bge used to ascertain the opinions of all residents. A postal questionnaire could be carried out and then WDC employees call at houses not retur=ned a view/opinion.
Land that has been designated as Green Belt land - and so shown as such in 'searches' when people buy their homes - has had a key affect on people's decisions to purchase their home in present outer edges of Leamington that are earmarked as residential areas. That amenity and privilege is often reflected in house prices (more costly). Local residents have chosen to live where they do because of the positive aspects that living near Green Belt land without affecting the Green Belt land itself (that is, not buying houses built on and destroying designated Green Belt land). If nearby Green Belt land is developed that will have an adverse affect on local residents' enjoyment of their homes, and highly likely, their well-being; totally changing the landscape and area where they have chosen to live. The counil have a responsibility to their present population/rsidents - what is the point of having alegal system (e.g. searches) when the council can then change its boundaries?!! (excuse the pun!)

Change to plan: Omit Green Belt areas in Old Milverton and Blackdown from the Local Plan as they are valued areas for recreation
as the Council has a responsibility to provide areas for recreation - and protect those we already have AND USE!
Ensure that the consultation actually does 'consult' all residents - especially considering the elderly and infirm



4) WILDLIFE:

Any development of the Green Belt land in Old Milverton and Blackdown would obviously have a negative, detrimental effect on the environment and local woildlife - e.g. destroying habitats, increased noise and light pollution, pollution from traffic, etc.

The Green Belt land surounding Old Milverton, North Leamington, Blackdown, is beautiful and home to many varieties of plant, tree and creature.

I see many wild birds from my house and as I walk along the pathways crossing the Green Belt land; including a heron who regularly visits and flies over the field opposite my house. There are newts, etc that live on the land nearby - and woodpeckers nest in trees. Areas such as these are already few and should be protected.

Any development in this area of Old Milverton would have a dramatic and negative impact on the natural environment.

The WDC has a responsibilty to protect Green Belt land that homes such a wealth of wildilfe and plants. The Green Belt land should be a valued resource - not something that can be signed off to developers!

WDC also has a responsibilty to the education of all the young people within our community - without these Green Belt areas - and established pathways and habitats - children and young people will not be able to learn about and value our countryside and wildlife.


Even if proposed developments suggest areas for 'green space' they would be artificial and wildlife would have already 'moved on' when developments are being built.

Change to plan: Erase proposals to develop Green Belt land north of Leamington Spa.
Protect present Green Belt land & wildlife.
WDC should ensure they have a firm policy to only plan to develop non-Green belt land as there is enough of that
available to suit the anticipated growth and need of our community.

5) DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF LEAMINGTON:

As referred to earlier, there are many sites to the south of Leamington Spa which have been identified as areas which could be developed and are NOT greenbelt land. therefore, these sites should take priority as it is important that Greenbelt land should be protected.

Assessments made by WDC (re. 2009 Core Strategy) identified the sites south of Leamington as land which is easier to develop than land to the north of the town, and the land south of Leamington already has a substantial amount of infrastruicture in place which would support further development and increased population. The Council had identified available land east of the A452 (Europa way) and south of Heathcote towards Bishops tachbrook - these areas are still appropriate sites for development and should be considered in full.

There is factual evidence from SHLAA that enough land exists south of Leamington spa for the development needs of WDC. So this should be built on before any Green belt land is destroyed.

Land south of leamington is close to the M40 and various link roads and the A46 - allowing easy access to roads and rouotes for residents and businesses south of Leamington.
There are existing employment opportunities south of Leamington.
Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists south of Leamington.
Large shopping facilities (including, major supermarkets) are south of Leamington.
There has also been talk about development of another large supermarket near/on the old Ford foundary site, south of Leamington; the old Oak pub site, etc.

It would therefore, seem better to build more homes south of Leamington as they would have easier access to those shops and not (if developments north of town) cause more grid lock through the town centre, with people trying to get south town to do shopping (and travel to work, and links to M40, etc).

WDC suggests that the land south of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because of coinsideration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. May I propose that:
- Developer's financial gain should NOT be a priority (definitely not a "very special circumstance")
- Developer's financial gain is NOT a valid reason to allow development on Greenbelt land
- The financial investment of present leamington residents (e.g. money we have invested in purchasing our homes as they are) is
important - developments on greenbelt land in full view of many homes north of Leamington will affect the house prices of
present loyal local residents - WDC should protect local residents

As far as I am aware, due to the land layout, developments in south of leamington would not have such a visual impact as they would north of leamington - where developments would be more visual to both present local residents (views, lifetsyles, well-being affected) and visitors approaching our lovely town. Therefore, it makes more sense to develop south of Leamington where the developments can suit the land and area more suitably.

There are already good routes laid out for public transport south of leamington which serve the community well and would easily be enhanced if development happens in that area. The restructuring of public transport rourtes and ammenities north of Leamington would be costly, difficult and disruptive.

Change to plan:
WDC should adhere to their proposals from 2009 and make developments in areas south of Leamington Spa.
Prioritise development south of Leamington due to reasons listed above (e.g. present infrastructure, non-greenbelt land, employment and business amenities already in place, large open areas to develop communities which will develop positively)
Remove proposed Green Belt areas north of leamington from the 'Preferred options' plan.



6) PROPOSED NEW ROADS:

Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into a dual carriageway will not help traffic flows. at peak times of the day the delays on the A452 result from commuters waiting to access the town centre. With developments north of leamington that will just add to the traffic.

Such a major road will have a detrimental affect on the visual approach to Leamington (and into kenilworth) - the rural aspect is something that people like about our town. To put in a dual carriageway and built up areas north of the town would make Leamington look just like 'urban sprawl' and not attract so many visitors/new residents.

Building hundreds (thousands) of houses north of Leamington willl increase the congestion into the town centre - at peak times and weekends - and also as people try to drive the 'short route' through Leamington town centre, down through town to get to the larger shopping areas (and ammenities - e.g. bowling, restaurants, pubs) south of Leamington.

Without the need to build vast amounts of houses north of Leamington (see earlier reasons) there would be no need for WDC to spend excessive amounts of money (i think budgeted at around £28m; so could be more eventually) in bulding a 'Northern Relief Road'. Residents from north Leamington travel south to south town - not out and around... new home owners would just be encouraged to travel out and away from Leamington and it's shops etc (eg to travel off to Coventry and Birmingham instead). without development in north Leamington the road would not be needed - saving WDC (and ratepayers) lots of money.

Should a 'Northern relief road' be considered it would form a further barrier across Green belt land; and encourage furure developments in Green Belt land as well, resulting in urban sprawl and merging together of Leamington and Kenilworth. It would have an adverse effect on the River Avon area; also valued for wildlife and recreation. The road would be incredibly and excessively costly as would have to be built on what is known to be a flood plain.

if the proposed development is concentrated in the south of Leamington spa then there is already an existing road network that could easily (less costly!) be upgraded to suit local needs. It would also be easier to sustain and enhance the good public transport links and routes south of the town rather than put n lots of new structures to the north.

Change to plan:
Erase proposals to develop Green Belt land north of Leamington Spa and so negate the need to build a 'Northern Relief Road' as detailed in Preferred Options Plan.
Plan to enhance public transport systems south of Leamington

7) PROPOSED OUT OF TOWN SHOPPING AREAS:

Where new out of town shops and stores have beeen proposed, this would have a detrimental affect on the independent retailers within Leamington (and probably kenilworth & Warwick) town centres.

Further 'out of town' shopping complexes will take shoppers out of towns where local, independent traders rely on customers; shops will close (even more than are empty already) and this will have a negative affect on our town - reducing the appeal of the town and the number of visting shoppers who like to visit Leamington for shopping.

A town of empty shops - and few independent retailers will not encourage people to come and live in Leamington Spa.

8) OTHER OPTIONS:

There seems to be a lack of detail in the available documentation about the other options available for development within the present town and residential boundaries.

There are many empty houses and buildings in Leamington which would surely be ripe for developers (and the council) to develop and rennovate. This would look after buildings in the town , helping the town to look better and - most importantly - providing affordable homes for our younger - and older - generations.

There are other places that 'we' hear whispers about being developed - have they been included in your 'preferred options' plans and oropsals? For example, the fire station ... Fords foundary area ... grounds form the old Park and Croft hall schools? all areas need to be fully adveryosed to the public in order for educated opinions to be logged.

Change to plan: WDC to look at developing more buildings and sites within the present residential areas and town centres -
provision especially for affordable housing.
WDC to readvertise where ALL possible sites for development are - not just 'preferred options'


9) OTHER CONCERNS:

The proposals don't seem to make it very clear about WDC projections for the impact of new developments on crime and anti-social behaviour figures. New developments will have an impact on present residential areas.

I object to the term used as 'Preferred Options' to the general public. having attended a council meeting earlier in the process it seems that there could have been a way of ensuring that all sites identified as having development potential could have been advertised more readily to the general public at this tage. this would have includied those poropsed and agreed in the 2009 proposals - those that have been ommitted (or at least not so obviously displayed) to the public gives them an unclear/uneducated view of all possibilities. ALL available sites should be made available for the general public to know about - and so make a more informed decision - including the non-green belt sites south of Leamington.

The proposed 40% affordable housing figure given in the WDC plan concerns me - as there seems to be no firm evidence why this wuld be the percentage of affordable homes needed. More consultation needs to be done on this. There has been no poll of local residents. If too much 'affordable housing' is built it may well stop people wantig to move to certain areas in and artound Leamington - and stop residents wanting to stay in Leamington long term. WDC has a responsibility to its long term residents.

Change to plan:
Investigations/research into impact on social issues, crime statistics etc. needed
WDC to readvertise where ALL possible sites for development are - not just 'preferred options'

CONCLUSION:

Finally, thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy email. As you can tell, i feel very strongly about the valid points I have raised and hope that 'you' (the district council) will reconsider your Preferred Options and NOT develop on the land north of Leamington in Old Milverton and Blackdown areas.

There are clearly areas available for development which would allow the council to meet the needs of the town and their responsibilities without building on such precious and Green Belt land. The WDC has NOT provided adequate evidence for 'very special circumstances' for suggesting Green belt land for future development.

In view of the need for some town growth, the general proposed numbers should also be reduced without the 'buffer' of 1400 homes which most probably won't be needed. This would also erase needs to build on the Green Belt land north of Leamington.

I came to live at my present address mainly because of the pleasant views acoss the green belt countryside close by,which I was assured would not be built on. I am now informed that there are plans to do this even though there is non green belt land available elswhere in the Leamington Spa area.
I stongly oppose the the planned developement for the Milverton and Blackdown area as it will be further encroachment on the countryside and will be another step towards linking up with Kenilworth and destroying the pleasant character of Leamington Spa.
For the last few years I have lived under the threat of increased air traffic from Baginton airport, the theat of HS2 in the area and now the threat of green belt developement. Am I glad I moved to live in North Leamington ?

Re: Development of Green Belt between Kenilworth and Leamington Spa

We strongly oppose Warwick District Council's plan to destroy the green belt between Kenilworth and Leamington Spa with the development being planned.

We undernote details of our opposition:

The planned development will:

* Result in a "Northern Relief Road" which has no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.

* 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.

* Not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres. Making it a dual carriage way will not help.

* Not comply with the Government's National Planning Policy Framework for development in the Green Belt.

* Violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.

* Involve construction on the flood plain at Leek Wootton.

* Result in the loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land.

* Ignore the views of residents. In response to a previous consultation nearly 60% of respondents opposed development in the Green Belt

We understand that the main alternative sites are South of Leamington and that potential land has been identified and is we understand available. It is also easier to develop, there is the infra structure to support it, and it was in the 2009 Core Strategy plan which was the previous plan that was adopted by Wawick District Council. This previous plan did not involve development in the Green Belt North of Leamington.

We further understand that Warwick District Council emphasise the need to have an evidenced based plan to cater for the needs of the District to 2029. It states that if it is not a "sound plan" the Government Planning Inspector will reject it resulting in a "free for all" by developers. There will not be "a free for all", we understand that if the plan is rejected by the Planning Inspector development would be controlled by Warwick District Council which would still have to approve planning applications.

A "sound plan" does not require development in such an important area of Green Belt. We are informed that in 2009 Warwick District Council approved - A Core Plan for Strategic Growth until 2026 - which catered for more homes than the current plan and did not involve development of the Green Belt between Leamington and Kenilworth.

The Government's National Planning 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. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. The previous plan is direct evidence that this is not the case.

We therefore strongly oppose the current proposals.

I am writing to oppose the Warwick District Council's Preferred Options Local Plan, which is proposing a large expansion of housing in the Green Belt north of Leamington Spa.

Green belt, as per the Governments National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is designated to prevent the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevent neighbouring towns from merging, safeguard the countryside from encroachment, preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

By developing the proposed sites around Old Milverton in North Leamington, it will ignore the Councils own study of Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value, as set out by the NPPF. It will also bring Leamington Spa and Kenwilworth closer towards merging, the boundaries between the two towns being less than 1.5 miles.

The land is currently an important open space for all residents of North Leamington, enjoyed by walkers, cyclists and many others for recreation. The proposed building and road development would substantially limit the amount of land available to be enjoyed and turning some of it into maintained parkland would still detract from the value it has as countryside.

Warwick District Council has previously identified (2009 Core Strategy) areas that could be developed that are not on Green Belt land and have not been included in the new proposals. As such these areas should be developed before consideration of developing on Green Belt land according to the NPPF. According to Warwick District Council, these areas are easier to develop, have much of the necessary infrastructure already in place, as well as existing out of town shopping centres. However they have been overlooked as they are not seen to be as 'attractive' to developers who would make less profit.

I hope that you will consider my views and those of many others who are objecting to this abuse of the governments National Planning Policy Framework, by retracting the proposal to develop the land north of Leamington Spa at Old Milverton and Blackdown and consider again already viable non-Green Belt options.

The fundamental aim of a Green belt policy, as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework, is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. I believe the area of land by Old Milverton should be kept as Green belt land. I hope you decide NOT to build any houses, supermarkets, schools etc as there are enough already.

Re. Local Plan Preferred Options
I wish to raise the following objections:
Use of Green Belt land generally
In order to use Green Belt land, you must demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances that require its use. I understand that the demand for thousands of new houses has come from central government and would not, in the normal course of things, be something you would expect to be faced with. However, that in itself does not constitute exceptional circumstances. I would only consider it exceptional if every possible non-green belt area that has been highlighted for possible development had been included in the proposal, and yet there was still insufficient land without using the green belt. As I understand it, this is not the case and there is a considerable area to the south of the town east of the A452, which has not been used, despite being highlighted earlier. I understand that you wish to avoid large development in a particular area, but spreading it out doesn't diminish the size of the development overall.
Convenience does not equal exceptional
Spreading the development does not equal exceptional
Spreading the building contracts does not equal exceptional
I would therefore contend that you have failed to meet the required criteria for Green Belt use.

Milverton Gardens area specifically

* Traffic on Old Milverton Road
This is my main concern. Many children walk, run, scoot and cycle along old Milverton Road on their way to Brookhurst and Trinity Schools. They are forced to the very edge of the pavement by overgrown nettle-infested hedges, which are rarely cut back. With 810 extra houses just north of here, a conservative estimate puts an extra 200 cars on that stretch of road in rush hour. Every day I see children casually step off the pavement to get past others, without looking. This is not hysteria, this is fact: with that many extra cars, someone will be seriously hurt or killed. The result will be that more people from that side of the railway line will drive, putting yet more stress on the congested streets. If you do go ahead with this development, please: cut the hedges back regularly and look at installing railings along the stretch of road between St James Meadow Road and the cut-through.


* The effect on Old Milverton itself
This is a small close-knit community. With hundreds of extra cars going through it every day, new bridges and roads being built to accommodate the changes and a massive new estate on its doorstep, that will change forever. Yes, you have kept a gap, and yes, I am informed by the planning officer who was stationed at Tesco, the new road will go to the North of the village, rather than through it (as shown on the map) but the fact remains that it will become part of a commuter route and a much less attractive place to live. People will move and the traditions of the village, such as its annual show, will be lost.

Overall
You have flexibility built into your plan. You have 1370 "spare" houses and additional areas outside the green belt at your disposal. Please do the right thing, so that future generations can have the pleasure of a walk across the fields, as well as a safe walk to school.

The New Local Plan - Objection to Development of the Green Belt in North Leamington.

Common sense and concern for present and future generations dictate that the green belt should be conserved and only used for development when no other suitable sites are available - in this case sites are available to the south of Leamington outside the green belt.
Building that is proposed on the Milverton and Blackdown sites will be seen as an act of vandalism in the future.
No one is looking ahead. The proposal is an invitation to future councils to eat further into the green belt until there is none left between Leamington and Kenilworth as has happened between Leamington and Warwick now a continuous urban sprawl.
Green Belt must be sacrosanct - Why?
Councils must avoid short termism. They are responsible for the future of our children who, it is now understood, should wherever possible have easy access to the countryside - trees, fields and fresh air - everybody's right.
Development of the green belt involves destruction of hundreds of prime oak trees, miles of hedgerows and thousands of species of plants , animals, birds and invertebrates which depend on clear air, space and greenery. The native Oak tree is estimated to provide habitats for some 35,000 different species which are wholly or partially dependent on it.
For some time now we have been able to monitor people walking - with and without dogs - throughout the year at just one point of access to the Green Belt namely the Northumberland Road / Bamburgh Grove entry. As many as 20 - 30 people daily can be seen using the footpath across to Old Milverton and on fine summer days and weekends as many as 100 will use the path, some making their way through to Guys Cliffe. The recreational and scenic values offered by this important area alone will be lost if the new plan is goes ahead.
At a previous location some 50 years ago it became apparent that, after blocks of around 1000 houses were scattered around the countryside , the sites were non - sustainable and shops soon closed , communities requiring at least 2500 homes for shops ,restaurants / take-aways ,medical services, pubs and churches to function successfully. Splitting the Blackdown and Old Milverton developments simply repeats those mistakes becoming small development dumps from which people need to escape.
Any successful development of a new village requires a definable centre and thoughtful road systems not just straight lines. The roads serving these areas are already choked during rush hours and the proposed plan will make the situation much worse especially on the A452 Leamington towards Kenilworth and the A46. What are the exact proposals for easing the added congestion that will inevitably occur. An exact plan is needed not merely a wish list. The proposed new road through Old Milverton will surely kill the village. Is that what the council wants?
There are no extra jobs in these areas nor will they be created once the houses are built. At least South Leamington has better access to the town and jobs.
Developers love building on Green Belt - it is a cheap and easy option maximising their profits whilst destroying the environment.
There are many weasel words in the document. Affordable housing - for whom? First time buyers / social housing - who decides? Sustainability - a meaningless word suggesting care and consideration - clearly not the case. Words covering a multitude of sins giving developers a free rein.
Surely before consent for development is even considered ,we must look to the next 5, 10 or 15 years. What is bound to happen is that having ruined the Green Belt on the north side of Leamington and built houses in numbers too small to support a viable community, other developers will turn their attention to land already identified by planners outside the green belt to the south of Leamington. The council will find it impossible to resist their demands to develop this land because the Government has announced a presumption for development , so that on appeal the council will have no grounds for refusal . So we will ultimately be left with a vandalised Green Belt and the south side will be developed anyway - we must therefore never build on green belt which should be kept in trust for future generations.
We are certain that the councillors who have put forward this dreadful plan cannot be familiar with the tranquil beauty of our local countryside. To this end we are enclosing photographs taken this year to illustrate the devastation that is proposed .
These piecemeal plans must be rejected out of hand and we plead that the Councillors THINK AGAIN.

We wish to register our objection to the New Local Plan for the following reasons:

1. The development of housing and associated infrastructure planned for the precious green belt land to the north of the town and the construction of a new link road from the A452 to the A46 through Old Milverton, when better alternatives exist involving less cost to the environment and most probably also in monetary terms.
2. We accept that new housing is needed in the district though the estimates of the numbers required look well in excess of reality. We think it would be a tragedy for future generations if Green Belt land is lost when other good alternatives exist such as:
a) Land between Whitnash and Radford Semele and South of Leamington towards Bishop's Tachbrook
b) Hatton where good rail and road access already exists
3. The development does not appear to cater sufficiently for pedestrians and cyclists.

The plan gives the impression that it was started from the premise of taking the Green Belt land and all the verbiage in the plan then sets about trying to justify it.

We very much hope there will be a fundamental re-think before lasting damage is done to our local heritage, which future generations will deplore.

I would like to register my objection to the development of the Green Belt land around Old Milverton and the surrounding area in North Leamington.

I do not live in Old Milverton, but like many others I have always believed that land which is designated as 'Green Belt' has been deemed as such because there are very good reasons for preserving its characteristics for the good of all, and resisting development in those green belt areas should always be paramount.
However, it would seem that the Council, despite having other land in the South of Leamington, which is not in the Green Belt and has already been identified as developable in 2009, have chosen to ignore all the reasons for which the land between Leamington and Old Milverton was made 'Green Belt' in the first place.
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 Green belt land at Blackdown and Old Milverton not only provides a barrier to the merging of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington, enabling them to retain their character and individuality, it provides a much needed space in which to enjoy nature, the simple opportunity to walk in the countryside in an already crowded county. There are few opportunities left in this part of Warwickshire to enjoy rural charm and quaintness, but the fields, lanes, countryside and riverbanks here provide many of them. This plan destroys those opportunities and despoils the attractive northern entrance into our elegant Regency town. What does the use of this Green Belt land portend for the remaining fields and river banks?

What can we expect if this proposed plan goes ahead?
* More congestion on expensive new roads.
* Beautiful countryside replaced by sprawling housing estates and to compensate all the walkers, runners, riders, and cyclists who enjoy it, a park.
* The eventual merging of Old Milverton, Leamington and even perhaps Kenilworth.
* 3,000 houses north of Leamington increasing traffic flows on a duel carriageway stoppered at both ends by the two towns at immense cost and causing increased congestion.
* 28 million spent on a Northern 'relief' road which will encourage further development in the Green Belt up to the new road, encroach on the riverbank and take trade away from the already beleaguered town centres.
* Out of town stores further depleting opportunities for independant retailers who make our towns attractive places to visit.



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' required to encroach on designated Green Belt areas are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built.
The land in South Warwickshire is still available. It is close to the M40, there are existing employment facilities, out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres. Why then not use it, and why is it necessary to develop the Green Belt at great further expense and the loss of a beautiful part of Warwickshire?

I strongly object to these proposals . reasons below

It's green belt land .

Infrastructure poor through Leamington .

Building on this natural draining land will cause more flooding as this area drains slowly into the river .

South Leamington with its direct access to the m40 is the simple option .

28 million pounds for a relief road is a wild guess it will cost much more that this .

Leamington will lose its appeal . it will become another urban sprawl .

I am writing to let you know that whilst I understand you believe the new proposition could be positive for Warwick DC, I strongly object to the proposals for the new houses on our North Leamington Greenbelt, the out of town shopping centre, new supermarket and the feeder road through the fields of Old Milverton on the grounds that: the very special circumstances cited to justify damaging the Greenbelt are invalid.

I also disagree with your statement "if a proposal is not approved, builders will be able to build anywhere they like." Planning permission will always be required and therefore could still be rejected if inappropriate.

I'm amazed that you were able to propose building on the Greenbelt when the Government has recently re-emphasised its protection for the GB in the new NPPF. Even Warwick District Council's objection to HS2, sited the unnecessary irriversable damage to the environment as part of your argument! Clearly the Council have double standards. Especially when you have already previously identified many suitable brown and white field sites, including the ones in your 2009 proposal. Why have these sites now been discounted?


New Out of Town Shopping Centre
The District doesn't need another out of town shopping centre. We already have one out of town shopping centre on the Shires Industrial Estate which is linked to a wonderfully adequate infrastructure. It currently has a large empty unit and room for expansion on the other units (by adding second floors, which some have already done).

What retail businesses do we expect to attract to North Leamington anyway? The usual out of town retailers like Currys, Outlet (inc DP, Topshop, Wallis, Burton etc), Mothercare already have locations in the Shires. Do you want the remainder of the town centre shops to move out and take up residence there, making them ghost towns?

In Leamington Spa town centre there are numerous empty retail units, including the large, not so old shopping centre - Regency Arcade. Shouldn't we be filling these up first? Town Centres used to be the hub of social activity. If you build more out of town shopping centres, you will no doubt kill even more of the local shops in our town centres and people will no doubt loose their jobs. If free parking in town was offered again, this would help jump start inner town spending.

We don't need a park and ride. If you go into town during the day, there are numerous spaces available on the streets - thanks to the parking meters. Also the multi story car parks are never full.

In addition to this, internet shopping is increasing all the time. At present, they say that £1.30 in each £10 is spent online. Shops will be effected and become less desirable should this trend continue, which it almost certainly will. With the above in mind, I believe we need to look at things that will not be effected by the internet like tourism, agriculture and services which we are already good at in Warwick District. Stoneleigh Estate are currently working on a proposition which will create employment and makes much more sense.


New Proposed Supermarket, Blackdown
How many Supermarkets does a town need! I looked on Yell.com and noticed that we already have at least 20 supermarkets in Warwick District.

Even if the new dwellings are built, we already have access to adequate supplies from the existing supermarkets. Tesco Warwick and Tesco Metro (on Leamington Parade) are both under 2 miles away from the proposed development. Tesco Cubbington Road is just over 2 miles away. We also have a huge new Morrisons being built on the old Ford Foundry.

Are we allowing them to build on our Greenbelt as part of a Section 106 agreement, to raise funds for the rest of your proposals? Raising funds is not an exceptional reason to build on Greenbelt land. It is a fact that the Supermarkets kill our local businesses. Greengrocers, butchers, bakers and pharmacies, even news agents are going out of business and our town centres are filled with empty units where they once were.

When I was younger, my mother travelled 3 miles to do her shopping. This was acceptable back then and the likes of Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose etc are killing the local businesses. Look at what's happened on Coten End after Sainsburys moved in! We are in danger of being taken over by the Superstores and killing the soul of our towns.


New Houses In North Leamington Greenbelt

The number:
I understand some new houses may be required but not on the scale you propose. I dispute your calculations on the number of dwellings required. You propose that we need 11,000 over 15 years in addition to the numerous new developments currently under construction which have not been sold or rented.

Since you produced the report, new planning permission has been granted for more and buildings, including the Dementia Unit on Milverton Road. I'm sure there will be more over the next few years in addition to these you are proposing. I would be pleased if the equivellent was deducted from your plan as this was not approved at the time of your plan making.

People extend their houses to make more bedrooms / granny annex's and build new houses on large back gardens all the time, thanks to new planning regulations. Some developments are unfinished because they cannot fund the final stage, due to lack of demand - eg Portabello.

Currently, a large percentage of rental properties in the district are inhabited by students of Warwick University. With tuition fees of up to £9,000 per annum, increasing, it is likely that the number of students are already reducing. Therefore there will be numerous houses and apartments available to rent.

The Government are looking at the housing benefit policy. If this goes ahead, the under 25s won't get benefits and will therefore not be able to afford to rent local houses and apartments.

To help local employment and to preserve our beautiful historic regency town of Leamington, I strongly believe the Council should be looking to improve Warwick District through Urban Regeneration in the very first instance. This would give small local building companies, plumbers and electricians work which is very much in short supply. Surely, we want to support our local businesses first over national building companies.

Currently, there are more houses on the rental market than meet our demands and numerous vacant properties for sale, vacant possession. As an example, there is a 12 bedroom property for a mere £800k on St Marks Road, Leamington. This would make an excellent Residential Home, several large flats or even a good home for several single parent families.

forget the 'big boys' who are not interested in small sites, but look to regional and local builders - who bring added sustainability benefits, such as keeping money local, reducing travel to site and providing jobs within the immediate locality.


The Location
The land you propose to build on in Old Milverton is "A grade" agricultural land which enjoys significant protection from development. It is referred to as 'Best and Most Versatile' land.

The old IBM site is huge and is already well linked to the bypass and services. You could fit over 1,000 family homes on there, even more homes for the elderly. I've heard rumours that ASDA (yet another Supermarket!!!) wish to develop it. Under the circumstances, it would be unethical when you say brown field sites are a priority for dwellings. There is also the old Hobsons Choice public house on Spinney Hill and several sites along the canal (Wharf St, Nelson Lane) which could be developed into desirable dwellings, whilst at the same time, making the area more attractive.

Why do the new developments in rural areas need to be so big anyway? Why not have small developments in each area and spread it out over the district where sites are available? Is it because the developers you have in mind aren't interested in this?

By building the houses, Old Milverton will no longer be a hamlet, which is inconsistent with 7 of 4.11 of your objective. It does not respect the integrity of existing settlements.

In your report, you state that most the employment is in South Leamington. With this in mind, surely the best position for the new houses, to avoid congestion in North Leamington would be South Leamington - Barford even Radford Semille way.

If new rural dwellings are required, they should be kept on a very small scale and in the character with the other dwellings in the settlement, maintaining the charm of each existing development. Large new developments on Greenbelt land are not the answer.

I mentioned the Stoneleigh Development earlier. Should this go ahead, isn't it sensible to find a location in that area for a small percentage of the houses, if only 50 of the dwellings, if you are trying to discourage reduce car usage?

New Proposed Road to Feed Into the A45 from Milverton Road
This proposal is a contradiction to point 7 of 4.11 of your objective. It does not respect the integrity of existing settlements, in particular, Old Milverton Village.
If you are making improvements to the A452, why is this road needed?

Should it go ahead, it will only reduce the distance for users by 2 miles, (2 minutes drive time) if they get off this junction instead of the Kenilworth junction so how can the reduction of valuable agricultural land and destruction of our Greenbelt be justified, financially or morally.

It also goes against objective 13 of 4.12. The road, leading up to the new proposed development is well used by cyclists, joggers, walkers and horse riders at present. Should the proposed road go ahead, the road will become a busy road making it unsafe for current users to enjoy. Especially because there is no pedestrian pathway alongside the road.

As I write, there are already daily traffic jams at the A45 exit by the Saxon Mill on Coventry Road, which will join the feeder road. Having a feeder road will only make this conjestion worse - a contradiction to point 4 of 4.11.

If the Council wishes to ease congestion on Kenilworth Road I believe the Council should provide better bus services in rural areas, especially during rush hours. It would be even more effective if busses had priority over cars on the roads. Also, if the road out of Hill Wooton onto Kenilworth Road was changed so it was left turn only, this would help congestion. Perhaps this could be done on the Kenilworth Road?
Who's going to use it? If it is to help people get to the proposed out of town shopping centre in North Leamington, it will not be required. People in Coventry, Stratford Upon Avon and Birmingham all have more than adequate shopping centres and certainly won't make a special effort to come to ours. Especially as all out of town shopping centres tend to be filled by the same shops.

The suggestion of a feeder road is a further contradiction to objective 4.11.4. The fields surrounding Milverton and Old Milverton (leading down to the Saxon Mill) is already, today, meeting the objective you set in this section and is a much loved and well used, safe route for cyclists, runners, nature photographers, walking groups and dog walkers. People like the route to get escape from urban life and it's important to have this close to North Leamington residents, without having to get into a car. There is nowhere else we can use within walking distance. If you make these changes, a big ugly bypass or any type of road running through this field will most definately make this an unattractive, unhealthy, unsafe option. If you really want to encourage people to be more healthy lifestyles, we need this area to remain untouched. If we loose our open land, we will have to get into our cars to find a similar option.

As a result of the feeder road, there will be additional traffic conjestion where the Rugby Road meets the Old Milverton Road and increased traffic through Milverton (not just from the new houses). It is hard enough now in the mornings to get in and out of the Old Milverton Road to / from Rugby Road. You will need to introduce a new traffic management on the entrance and the Old Milverton Road. Additional crossings will be required to ensure safe crossing for the walking school route for residents of Milverton and Old Milverton and it will become a busy main road.

Again, this will create the opposite of objective 13 of 4.12. The Old Milverton Road is also enjoyed by parents of children, and children attending Brookhurst and Trinity. We use this route to walk into Leamington regularly. It is a nice quiet, low traffic, pretty rural, safe road with a short cut under the railway bridge to Beverley Road. I would not be happy for my young children to use this road if it becomes a busy highway, which will happen if the new proposed road goes ahead. Improvements to this road will be required to keep it safe and so it doesn't become conjested.

Your plan states that Warwick District wants to be low carbon producing. We should look at building and improving cycle paths and public transport links / services. Not building new roads on our Greenbelt and on our limited grade A agricultural land.


Wildlife
We have a family of little owls who nest in our village every year and perch on our Victorian walled garden and surrounding trees throughout the day. Last year we were lucky enough to see a falcon in the garden. Although I don't think they are classified yet as endangered, the numbers are declining rapidly. I presume through over-development of rural areas. The other birds of prey like buzzards and eagles can be seen regularly too. Due to a previous builder's wildlife report not being published, some people believe there is a possibility of great crested newts in the area. I know we have some but as I don't know what crested ones look like, I can't confirm ours are or not. This would need to be verified.


Evidence Pack
Finally, after reading the evidence pack, the questionnaire used, I thought was leading so I think this should be discounted as evidence.


I hope the points raised have been useful and that my objection is registered appropriately. If I need to do this in any different format to make it valid, please let me know.

Scanned Letter

We have examined the above proposals with great interest and we write as residents of the Milverton area of Leamington Spa for over forty years. We, therefore, have some knowledge of local needs and conditions. We are restricting our comments to the proposals for North Leamington although we expect that there will be common ground with a number of the other sites.

We believe that the options as published are flawed on a number of fundamental grounds.

1. PO1. Past performance is no guide to the future. The projections for growth between 2011 and 2029 are overly optimistic and even if achieved there is no need to develop the green belt to the extent proposed.

2. The proposal to develop green belt land to the North of Milverton and at Blackdown is completely contrary to PO4 D. Furthermore, the paper does not provide the evidence required under NPPF to permit development in the green belt. Where are the 'exceptional circumstances'? The study appears to be highly subjective and indeed selective.

3. Insufficient use has been made of available, non-green belt land to the South of the town. This is also the area where the bulk of the potential employment for the new residents is already located.

4. The need for infrastructure development to service the Milverton/Blackdown proposal will be out of all proportion to any possible benefit. £28 million for a Northern Leamington Relief Road would divert scarce resources from other much needed public investment, let alone ruining the amenity value of space around Old Milverton.

5. There appears to be real risk, if these proposals proceed, of North Leamington and Kenilworth coalescing at some point in the future with the consequent loss of identity and in direct contravention of one of the basic tenets of local planning.

In summary, we object in the strongest possible terms to these seriously flawed plans. One of the goals of the NPPF is to protect communities and green belt land from unpopular local plans. The present proposals seem to flout that goal at almost every turn.

A great deal of time, money and energy has already been expended by the Council but that is no reason to proceed along the lines proposed and ruin the future amenity of many local residents.

Scanned letter.

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

We object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local Plan, on the following grounds:
As the Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be 'very Special circumstances' for development in the Green Belt, we cannot understand why W.D.C. is putting the above proposal forward when there was land identified in the '2009 Core Strategy' south of Leamington, land which is still available, easier to develop, and with a substantial amount of infrastructure, such as roads, to support the development. I tis 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 two town centres. The previous plan ( 2009 Core Strategy ) is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development.
The fact that land to the South of Leamington is not so attractive to the developers is, in our opinion, not a 'very special circumstance' to permit development in the green belt.
Developing in the green belt areas of Old Milverton and Blackdown would be very detrimental to the green lung of the area and use up land which has both good agricultural use and is of great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many cyclists, walkers, runners, and riders and at a time when the Government is encouraging people to take exercise to maintain fitness and health. The Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that great importance is attached 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 Green belt set out in the NPPF and should therefore remain as open Greenbelt land as 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 Spa ( a historic town)
* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

We do not believe there are 'special circumstances' for building in Old Milverton and Blackdown and feel very strongly that there are still many derelict town sites and brown areas which could be used to build affordable housing. Our fear is that building in Old Milverton and Blackdown will encourage developers to build luxury or upper value homes rather than affordable housing. We also fear that because there is so little infrastructure in these two areas that the building will not just be houses but schools, medical facilities, shops, and other necessary buildings and with all this will come the need to increase road access, all of which will dramatically change the nature of this part of Leamington Spa and create the 'urban sprawl' which the Government's NPPF is seeking to avoid.
We ask you to please reconsider your Preferred Options.

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Dear Sir, I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown as detailed in Warwick District Councils' preferred option for the local plan. The land in question has great recreational value to the local community - being used and enjoyed by many walkers, cyclists, and runners. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to the Greenbelts - they are designed to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Old Milverton's fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt as set out by the NPPF and should remain open forever. It prevents the unrestricted urban 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 the historic town of Royal Leamington Spa; helps urban regeneration by encouraging recycling of derelict and other urban land. There are other sites and plenty of empty properties which can be developed, which are not in the Greenbelt. These sites have already been included in the Warwick District Councils' 2009 Core Strategy Plan. The infrastructure and employment opportunities are already in place and these options should be used in preference to the Greenbelt. The NPPF states that only in exceptional circumstances should Greenbelt be used. There are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt bounderies in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development of this land. Please reconsider your preferred option.