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

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

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.

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

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


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

Re: Warwick District Council New Local Plan Preferred Options May 2012
I wish to register my objection to the proposed development in the New Local Plan of the Green Belt land referred to as Blackdown/West Hill.
1. The Joint Green Belt Study 2009 intended to form part of the evidence base to inform the respective authorities Core Strategies assessed the relative "value" of a number of parcels of Green Belt land around Warwick and Leamington. The study concluded that the parcel of Green Belt land WL7 (Blackdown/West Hill) when measured against the five criteria for the purposes of Green Belt land as set out in Planning Policy Guidance 2 : Green Belts ('PPG2') was of such high value in terms of its contribution to the purpose of Green Belt that it should be retained as Green Belt land.

2. The Joint Green Belt Study 2009 also referenced the Planning Policy Guidance 2 : Green Belts ('PPG2') in para 2.3.5 where it states in relation to the uses of the land within Green Belts that:
"the extent to which the use of land fulfils these objectives is however not itself a material factor in the inclusion of land within a Green Belt, or in its continued protection. For example, although Green Belts often contain areas of attractive landscape, the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a Green Belt or to its continued protection. The purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection, and should take precedence over the land use objectives". And further in para 2.3.7" Once land has been identified and allocated as Green Belt land, the boundary of the land should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and when all opportunities for development within urban areas contained by the Green Belt has been explored."

The recommendation that WL7 remain Green Belt was made on the basis of the purposes of Green Belt land.

3. The New Local Plan Preferred Options May 2012 in para 7.32 states:

"Assessment of Green Belt land to the north of Warwick and Leamington in the Joint Green Belt Study concluded that the land bounded by the A46 in the west, the River Avon to the north and Sandy Lane to the east was worthy of further study. This was largely because there were no other towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment, but also because there were other physical barriers to the wider open countryside. The Green Belt assessment suggested that the land at Blackdown was not suitable for further study. However, the land has similar characteristics to land to the west in that there are no towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment, and there are clear boundaries to the site to protect the open countryside beyond."

The above paragraph is not correct. It states "The Green Belt assessment suggested that the land at Blackdown was not suitable for further study" in fact the study concluded: "We recommend WL7 is wholly retained within the Green Belt." The study then went on to exclude WL7 (which is the area of Blackdown/West Hill) from any further consideration.

This was not the case with the parcels of land bounded by the A46 in the west, the River Avon to the north and Sandy Lane to the east (includes WL6A and WL6B) where the study concluded "We recommend that this area is considered for further detailed study, but that the majority of it is retained within the Green Belt."

Further the last sentence "However, the land has similar characteristics to land to the west in that there are no towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment, and there are clear boundaries to the site to protect the open countryside beyond." Is not supported by the finding of the Joint Green Belt Study 2009. which concludes in the case of Blackdown/Westhill WL 7 "Our view is that the existing road system strongly defines the existing settlement pattern and urban expansion into this area would be difficult to justify. We recommend WL7 is wholly retained within the Green Belt."

Study Area WL 7
Study Area
Description An area known as Blackdown Hill and West Hill to the north of
Leamington, bounded by Sandy Lane to the west, the A4113 to the
northwest, field boundaries beyond West Hill road to the north east
and the A445 Leicester Lane (the urban edge) to the south.
Landscape
Character The area lies within the Arden character area and the Arden
Parklands character type. The area is principally arable agriculture,
but there are some substantial (former?) residential premises - most notably West Hill house.
Visual Issues Visually diverse due to local topography, trees and hedges. The
housing along Leicester Lane is quite visibly prominent and creates a strong edge to Leamington.
Historic and
Cultural Issues No historical information gathered. Some declining estate parkland
noted. The manor of Blackdown held by the eminent royal gardener, Henry Wise, in the early eighteenth century. One footpath - to West Hill house.
Ecological
Features Woodland, hedges, hedge trees, permanent pasture.
Landscape
Condition Reasonably good.
Conclusion /
Recommendation Our view is that the existing road system strongly defines the existing settlement pattern and urban expansion into this area would be difficult to justify. We recommend WL7 is wholly retained within the Green Belt.
Score for
Landscape Value WL7 - 3 (High Value)

Study Area WL 6A and 6B
Study Area
Description WL6a and 6b lie north of Leamington and are defined by the rail line to Kenilworth to the west, and Sandy Lane to the east, the urban edge to the south and the river Avon to the north. 6a and 6b are split by Kenilworth Road (A452).
Landscape
Character The area lies within the Arden character area and the Arden
Parklands character type. The area is principally arable agriculture,
but there are a variety of urban fringe land uses.
Visual Issues The principal route through the area is Sandy Lane and from this road there is a fair level of enclosure from hedges and hedge trees. It is easy to miss that the Avon valley lies just over a crest. The existing urban edge seems well defined.
Historic and
Cultural Issues No historical information gathered.
One east-west footpath noted north of the suburb of Milverton
Ecological
Features River valley, hedges, hedge trees, some pasture.
Landscape
Condition Some urban fringe degradation. A 'disc golf' course (Sandy Lane)
may be on the remains of an area of parkland. Some 'horsiculture'.
Arable agriculture quite intensive. Some new hedge and tree planting would benefit landscape character.
Conclusion /
Recommendation In general the transition from urban to rural is successful - with
schools, playing fields and allotment gardens helping to create a
successful transition to arable based agriculture. At Blackdown,
adjacent Kenilworth Road, there is the Nuffield Hospital, 'Woodland
Grange' conference centre and other large commercial premises -
and there could be opportunities for additional development of this
kind. We recommend that this area is considered for further detailed study, but that the majority of it is retained within the Green Belt. Public access routes might be improved.
Score for
Landscape Value WL6a - 2 (Medium Value)
WL6b - 2 (Medium Value)

4. The Council's own reports and studies show that the case for WL7 Blackdown/West Hill Green Belt remaining as Green Belt is fully made out. There is overwhelming support from the local public consultations for Green Belt land to be protected. Extracts from Warwick District Local Plan Key Issues Report, Report of public consultation September 2002 found:
3.3.3 Managing our growing district
* We should strongly resist building on countryside and on open space within our towns.
There was a very strong consensus that we should make best use of land with our towns before using green field land on the edge of towns. In the leaflet questionnaire, 91% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed we should do this, and 89% said we should not build on Green Belt land or high quality farmland. Support was also given to protecting all green open spaces within towns (91%) and avoiding building on areas of wildlife value (92%).

Respondents to the Key Issues Report were asked which of the major landscape designations in the present local plan (Green Belt, Areas of Restraint, Special Landscape Areas and open countryside) are most important for defending the countryside. Whilst several respondents felt all to be equally important, and several others highlighted more than one, Green Belt came out as the most important, followed by open countryside.

3.3.6 Employment
* Protecting the countryside and open spaces should also be a high priority The Key Issues Report asked respondents whether they agreed that we should protect certain types of land from employment use. There was strong support for all the types suggested; Green Belt land, high quality farmland, open spaces within the towns and areas of wildlife value.

5. The Councils own policy documents and national policy documents all require non Green Belt land to be fully utilized before Green Belt land is considered. The New Local Plan Preferred Options May 2012 in para 7.29 states

"7.29 In the case of meeting the housing needs of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash, the SHLAA identifies a potential capacity within the urban area of 650 dwellings on sites of 50 or more. Outside of the built up area, and outside of the Green Belt, the SHLAA identified a capacity of 7,200 dwellings. These sites are concentrated in the area around Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Harbury Lane as well as to the south and east of Whitnash."

Given the Council has identified sufficient space to meet its development requirement, outside the use of the Green Belt land, the Council's own policy documents and National policy documents require the use of that non-Green Belt land before the use of Green Belt land.

The New Local Plan Preferred Options May 2012 in para 7.27 further states:

"7.27 Exceptional circumstances can include the need to accommodate housing and employment growth to meet the needs of a community where there are insufficient suitable and available sites outside of the Green Belt. Where it can be justified to review the Green Belt boundary in order to accommodate development, it is necessary to assess Green Belt land in terms of its contribution towards the five "purposes" of including land in the Green Belt (NPPF Para 80). The Joint Green Belt Study carried out such an assessment of parcels of Green Belt land on the edge of Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry..... "

In the event the Council seeks to establish exceptional circumstances then the Joint Green Belt Study 2009 identified on the basis of "purposes" that WL7 (Blackdown/West Hill) should remain as Green Belt.

6. The New Local Plan Preferred Options May 2012 in para 7.22 states:
" 7.22 The sites/ locations which have been identified would allow for the development of 8,360 new dwellings. This is over and above the balance of the requirement of 6,986 so would give an element of flexibility of about 1,370 dwellings. This flexibility allows for two potential courses of action:

* To enable some sites to be removed from the allocation proposed in the draft Plan depending on consultation and any further evidence that is provided, and/or
* To provide housing to support a Regional Investment Site in the vicinity of the A45/A46 Junction close to Coventry Airport (the Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway) if further research demonstrates that this is a suitable location (see section 8)."

The over allocation of the development requirement, gives the Council the flexibility to protect areas of the Green Belt and enable WL7 (Blackdown/West Hill) to remain as Green Belt without adversely impacting the Council's Local Plan.

Attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to register my objection to your Preferred Options document, with the removal of land at North Leamington from the Green Belt.

This open land is an important recreational resource for families in this area.

I do not consider that you have demonstrated the 'very special circumstances' necessary to remove this land from the Green Belt when there are other non-Green Belt sites that were deemed suitable for development when the Core Strategy was being prepared in 2009.

Furthermore, I think it appropriate to allocate land to the south of Coventry to reflect the location of a Regional Investment Site in this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Very special circumstances" are required by The Government's National Planning Policy Framework for there to be development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to be outweighed by the benefit. That there is nowhere else for the homes to be built is cited as the special circumstances. The previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council (the "2009 Core Strategy") identified land South of Leamington 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 reasons for not considering this now are stated that there is not as higher profit expected for the developers.

I'm afraid the era of the quick building buck has gone. A sustainable approach to land use needs to be taken in general in the UK due to the limitation of space as we are a small densely populated island. Other, much bigger countries such as France and the US seem to value their space more and come up with more innovative solutions: Sinking multi storey car parks below ground to use the space above for open space and mixed used accommodation, this would free up several acres of land in Leamington centre alone allowing houses to be built where existing infrastructure can be used or improved benefitting many. Higher density solutions need to be used. There are in the UK an appalling number of "empties" which are vacant properties that are not lived in as highlighted by Architect George Clarke in his recent TV series. We cannot continue with such short sightedness as to continue to eat up swathes of this beautiful countryside with more building and more rail (HS2) "solutions" these do not address the cause or provide a viable long term solution as there is no going back once the land has gone. Yes, these are more expensive solutions but what price do we put on our countryside and it's future, it is so much of what England is, that the opening ceremony of the Olympics is depicting it! The era of a quick buck has gone and developers need to know that we will not continue to develop and expand town boundaries.

Our towns of Leamington, Warwick & Kenilworth have suffered in the recession and as a result there are disused shops, disused pubs, disused business premises, disused garages, disused schools and many "out of town" poor quality shopping complexes with little footfall. A more innovative approach needs to be taken here - turning some of these premises into residential use, they already have a lot of the required infrastructure, if this is inappropriate turn them back in to green fields, woodlands and parks. We should protect the remaining greenbelt at all cost, it is a finite and incredibly valuable resource, we should not just delay proposals to build on it but simply never allow any development of it, it is not a sustainable solution and what legacy do that leave to our children and grandchildren.
A "buffer" of 1400 homes has been included in the number of houses Warwick District Council believes will be necessary between now and 2026. There is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals if this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions.

We would like to register the strongest objections to the proposed North Leamington Development, contained in the Local Plan. Our reasons are several, as follows:

* The designation of areas of Green Belt was done for a reason and that reason has not changed. It is not possible to put a price on the amenity value of having ready access to green areas for walkers and people enjoying other recreational pursuits. These enrich the human experience and must never be sacrificed unadvisedly. This area is extremely blessed with wild life, which will be obliterated by the proposed development. When will we realise that we should be responsible custodians of our environment, not despoilers? Surely the destruction of rain forests provides enough evidence that there is no going back, once the vandalism has been perpetrated! The Green Belt must be preserved.

* One of the principles of Green Belt strategy was to avoid urban sprawl - the current proposals clearly ignore this and would destroy the distinctive character of the areas affected. They also constitute the "thin end of a wedge", in contravention of the strategy to avoid urban sprawl.

* As populations grow there is obviously a need for additional housing. However, we have a sacred trust to pass onto succeeding generations the kind of environment that encapsulates the very reasons why people choose to come to live here.

* It is fundamental that we make maximum use of existing brown field sites before considering any incursion into areas designated as Green Belt. These should be exhaustively pursued and utilised to the maximum. We must not allow the easy profits of developers to influence our longer term obligation to preserve what is good about our environmental inheritance.

* There is no convincing evidence that these proposals prove to be "the very exceptional circumstances" required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

* It is important that we encourage local people to shop within the Leamington area and preserve the special nature of the retail shopping experience. Independent shops are currently having severe problems in remaining profitable; we must aim to increase the variety of retail outlets to bring prosperity and vitality to the area and improve existing parking facilities. Any additional difficulties in accessing the town will inevitably drive people to use "out of town" facilities.

* There have been instances of flooding in some of the areas included in the proposals. Further concreting of land on the scale proposed will exacerbate these possibilities, unless significant expense is incurred in avoidance schemes and huge infrastructure changes, which will blight what is treasured today.

* In an age when "transparency" is a watchword for the activities of government and public authorities, at least the Executive Summary of the Local Plan, produced in May 2012, should have been circulated in hard copy form promptly to all residents affected. Posting on-line documentation alone gives the impression of a local authority that wants to exclude a proportion of the population and to railroad its proposals, with scant regard for the wishes of residents who support the area and pay their community charge.

We believe that the Local Plan is very bad for this area and we hope that wiser councils will prevail by those who wish Leamington to prosper in the long term. We, therefore urge that the current proposals be rejected.

An era of austerity dictates that profligacy can no longer be tolerated. Spending constraints are a
necessity with budgets at all levels. The following comments are submitted to address this particular
aspect.
Significant development opportunities have been neglected in favour of a financially wasteful
scheme. It has been nigh impossible to find the logic for the planning decisions made. Glossaries
and Source References in the published material appear to have been 'lost in translation'; and public
access to detailed Planning and Survey documents is limited.
No objective audit of Housing Need (quality and quantity), appears to have taken place. Equally
lacking is an audit of Existing Development Opportunity, including canvassing and incentives for
Windfall Sites offered up for consideration now or for release within the next 15 years. If demand
for these new houses is a fiction, then they will blight the area and depress market values generally
for the whole of the District. Added to which Employment Opportunities cannot be guaranteed for
the budgeted influx of additional people.
In South Leamington, we have the near perfect basis for a 'Transport Hub', based on the existing
Railway Station. Similarly, there is a 'Commercial Hub' already in existence immediately adjacent
to the 'Transport Hub' extending to the Warwick Gates development, just begging to be extended
and developed. So why have Planners shied away from exploiting these remarkable assets and
advantages ?
The selection and use of large areas of Greenbelt land for development is irresponsible, being
contrary to accepted National and Local policy. 'Very Exceptional Circumstances' have not been
demonstrated, nor can they. Once this land has been developed it is lost to all for ever, depriving
those living in the District, of a much loved green lung and offering opportunity for quiet, peaceful
recreation in an attractive environment close to Leamington Spa. This unacceptable sense of
impending loss is not confined to those living in the two parishes or those adjacent to them !
Large areas of the best local Agricultural Land, in a very sensitive area, have been selected for
development regardless of the ultimate consequences, they include :
a)
The loss of land devoted to Food Production.
b)
Irreparable damage to the local ecosystem, comprising the watershed to this loop of the Avon.
c)
Reduced separation between Leamington Spa & Kenilworth and the loss of separate identity.
d)
The present attractive gateway to North Leamington Spa will be significantly diminished.
The Social, Economic & Environmental losses incurred by developing this land far outweigh the
gains, particularly when it is perfectly clear that there are realistic and preferable alternative
development options, - but see later.
It is generally acknowledged that World demand for food fast approaches the tipping point, where
demand is set to exceed supply. This can only accelerate under the influence of Global Warming,
Climate change and the detrimental effect on Weather Systems. This in turn introduces the
circumstances leading to significant international conflict. It follows that UK food production must
be stepped up and be geared towards greater self-sufficiency. This is the only way to avoid serious
food shortages the like of which most cannot contemplate and which few UK residents, alive today,
have experienced.
At least one thriving Farming Business will be seriously damaged and its viability put at risk.
Further loss of Greenbelt land is threatened, as the planned development unfolds identifying sites
for the supporting commercial development, new road systems and infill. This is only hinted at in
the Local Plan, but it is an inevitable consequence. This further encroachment on Greenbelt land
could destroy as much Greenbelt land again.
Two road developments are contemplated, both of which are unnecessary and will achieve little.
The dual carriageway proposed for the A452, can only transfer congestion from one place to
another, slightly more quickly. The proposed new Northern relief road (additional to the A46 ), can
only realistically be used preferentially by those living in the houses comprising the proposed new
development in Blackdown and South of Old Milverton Lane.
Although the planners state the cost of this exercise will fall to the developers, an ambiguity is
apparent signifying there will be a cost over-and-above that met by the developers, which can only
fall ultimately on Rate Payers; this element has not been quantified. The allowance for the Northern
Relief road of £28m seems unduly small bearing in mind the problems faced in driving a road
through a large area prone to flooding, together with the construction of a new bridge over the
Avon and probably a new bridge over the Railway (or significant re-enforcement of the existing
bridge). The additional unknown costs will inevitably fall to Rate Payers.
The most important financial/economic consideration is that despite the recently established
comprehensive infrastructure South of Leamington; it is now proposed to develop North of
Leamington which will involve the construction of new roads and a whole new infrastructure to
cater specifically for the 1,980 houses intended. This is an extravagance which cannot be justified.
Infrastructure includes the major services, Water, Gas & Electricity, Sewers, Roads, Rail, Canal,
Recreational & Faith facilities, Schools, Supermarkets, Restaurants, Public Houses, etc. All are
successful and well established in South Leamington and in many cases lend themselves to
expansion and development. How can it be sensible to duplicate much of this North of the town,
only to exacerbate the existing traffic and parking congestion by encouraging unnecessary cross
town interaction ?
Access to major road and public transport networks seems to have been largely ignored in deciding
where to develop. Access to the M40 and Rail Network looms large in any sensible planning
decision. The Mainline Rail Stations and Coach Services have seemingly been ignored. Housing
and Workplaces (requiring large work forces) ought to have been considered for location within
walking/cycling distance of Leamington, Warwick, Warwick Parkway and Hatton Railway Stations.
All this emphasises the imperative to develop South, East and/or West of Leamington, even if solely
for the one consideration of access.
It will not have escaped notice that Windfall Development opportunities within the towns and
villages have been ignored. They appear to have been 'airbrushed' out of existence. There are
significant areas of Whitefield & Brownfield sites available. There are areas of prime redevelopment
opportunity constantly offered up. The old Fire Station, the old Ford Foundry,
redundant schools, the many empty shops constantly referred to in the local newspaper as a disgrace
and a blight on local communities. Past Planning decisions in this and other towns have resulted in
most town shopping centres becoming a ghost of a previous existence through the enabling of 'out
of town shopping centres'. So why not re-populate town centres, at basement, ground and above
ground level ? Flats over shops have long had an appeal for the young and those relying on public
transport. This way of living is accepted as 'normal' in London and other major towns and cities.
If it is seen as particularly desirable to have the major part of the new development largely in one
piece, for community identity, sharing infrastructure costs, services etc. The Prince Charles inspired
'Poundbury Development' urban extension to Dorchester offers a useful model. What is wrong with
building a 'Royal Poundbury' style extension' to Royal Leamington Spa ?
There are two natural sites for such a development. One to the East, between Radford Semele and
Cubbington; another to the West, between Warwick Parkway and Hatton Stations. Achieving this
requires the application of objective contemporary problem solving for planning decisions fit for the
longer term; and with the Environment, People & Communities, for once, given the consideration
they deserve, rather than pandering to the wishes of Developers, Architects, Planners and Politicians
who so rarely live in the houses they cause to be constructed for others to inhabit.

I write to register my views on Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for its Local Plan published for public consultation on 1 June 2012. In particular I wish to record my objection to the proposal to redraw the green belt north of Leamington to permit the construction of:
 1980 dwellings,
 out of town shopping facilities,
 light industrial units,
 schools
 park and ride facilities
 changes to the road network to cope with the increased traffic resulting from this development including the proposal for a "Northern Relief Road"
in the parishes of Old Milverton and Blackdown.
I have no doubt that there is a shortage of housing in the Country and that Warwick District will continue to expand, creating further need for housing and employment. However the current proposals are ill conceived and have no regard for the Council's previous planning policy. This policy was to direct expansion to the south of Leamington and Warwick where it has already invested in the necessary infrastructure and employment opportunities to support growth.
The elected Tory party majority has stated that its political ambition is to "spread the pain" of growth around our Towns. Such an ambition cannot be supported by sound planning policies and contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework which requires there to be "very special circumstances" to permit the development in the Green Belt proposed in the Preferred Option for the Local Plan.
National Planning Policy Framework requires "Very Special Circumstances"
 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
 As well as "very special circumstances" The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development.
Holly Cottage
Old Milverton
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV32 6SA
Email Jmlander@aol.com
Telephone 01926339112
 From the various public meetings that I have attended, Warwick District Council's argument appears to be that the "very special circumstances" are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built.
 However, in the "2009 Core Strategy" Warwick District Council identified land south of Leamington (not in the Green Belt), as being suitable for development. This land is still available. 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 the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the Town centres.
 The 2009 Core Strategy is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "very special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are invalid.
 Warwick District Council argues that if the development is concentrated in a few geographical areas (for example to the south of Leamington) that lack of choice will depress demand for the houses. No evidence is offered for this statement. I have spoken to developers who do not support this argument. They point out that similar sized developments have been delivered in the past. They also state that in practice the development will be phased over 15 years, it will not be delivered by a single construction company (land will be on sold to different developers) and that competition, choice and demand will be created by different areas of the sites having different characteristics.
 Warwick District Council's argument about very special circumstances also ignores a fundamental economic fact that need for houses and demand for houses can be equalised by price. If the new houses are priced correctly demand will satisfy the need for houses. In taking the decision to create demand for house by building in the Green Belt north of Leamington, Warwick District Council is helping to maintain land owners' and developers' profits. Consideration of the land owners' and developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.
 The Preferred Options quite correctly makes much of the need to provide affordable housing and sets the requirement for 40% of the homes on new developments to meet the need for affordable housing. The Preferred Option is to build 45% of the new homes in the Green Belt. This land will probably be more expensive to acquire and together with the probable higher demand for houses in the Green Belt will result in these homes costing more. The Preferred Option to build in the Green Belt does not therefore support the preferred option for 40% of the new homes to meet the need for affordable housing.
The Green Belt
 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out five purposes for Green Belt 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 proposal to develop in the Green Belt in Blackdown and Old Milverton contravenes each of these five purposes:
o It encourages urban sprawl
o It reduces the "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 11/2 miles encouraging the merging of these two towns
o It encourages encroachment the countryside
o It will destroy the setting and the special characteristics of Kenilworth and Leamington each of which has great historic interest
 The Preferred Options ignore Warwick District Council's Joint Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown. The Study concluded that the land at Blackdown was not suitable for development and that the land at Old Milverton was only worthy of further study because "there were no other towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment [and] there were other physical barriers to the wider open countryside." This conclusion on the land at Old Milverton has ignored the resulting coalescence with Leek Wooton and Kenilworth.
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.
 The A46 already effectively provides a Northern Relief Road.
 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". The resultant savings could be used to enhance other services such as improvements to Warwick Hospital.
New Out of Town Stores
 Warwick District Council's vision is to make "Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit". A key element which already makes Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit is the number of independent retailers and the pleasant and unique "feel" that this gives to our High Streets.
 The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick as further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
 More out of town shopping and the A452 dual carriage way between Leamington and Kenilworth will detract from the uniqueness of our Towns making them like any other in the UK and deter visitors.
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.
 Insufficient account has been taken of potential windfall sites in the forecasts. The model used to calculate the number of houses required appears flawed by using average data over recent years for demand rather than projecting on the basis of the current downward trends.
Alternative sites
 If the requirement is to "spread the pain" of development around Warwick and Leamington why is the preferred plan to concentrate development on a north, south axis rather than east, west? There are two sites west of Warwick that have been identified which are not in the Green Belt but are not included in the Preferred Options.
 In the 2009 Core Strategy land was identified to the west and east of Radford Semele outside the Green Belt. I understand that the land east of Radford Semele has been rejected in the current Preferred Options because of gas pipe lines. Why do the gas pipe lines rule out the entire site for development when the building constraints only prevent construction within 100 metres of the pipelines? Surely these resulting corridors could be used imaginatively to encourage wild life or as cycle routes.
 The area around Grove Farm to the south of Leamington (not Green Belt land) was included in the 2009 Core Strategy. I understand that this has been excluded from the Preferred Options because there are concerns that it would lead to coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook (also not in the Green Belt). The 2009 Core Strategy proposed an area of restraint to prevent coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook which could still be introduced. If preventing coalescence is so important why is Warwick District Council encouraging development in the Green Belt north of Leamington when one of the main purposes of the Green Belt is to prevent towns merging? It just does not make any sense.
Conclusions
The areas identified for development in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan issued by Warwick District Council simply fulfil the political aspirations of the majority of the Council's members to "spread the pain of the development". The Preferred Options are not based on sound planning principals. Very Special Circumstances to permit 45% of the development in the Green Belt and in particular in Old Milverton and Blackdown cannot be demonstrated. There are other suitable sites for development which are not in the Green Belt. The building of a new "Northern relief Road" and turning the A452 into dual carriageway will not address any of the existing traffic congestion. Developing the Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown will deprive the community of an area of countryside close to Leamington and Warwick that is used by many for recreational purposes. The area of Green Belt between Leamington and Kenilworth is particularly important because it provides a narrow "green lung"between the two towns, preventing their coalescence and preserving their identities. It should continue to be protected. I therefore urge Warwick District Council to reconsider its Preferred Options to develop this area.

We are both residents of South town who have lived in Leamington for over 30 years, both in north Leamington and currently South of the town.
We were and are always aware of the particular character and personality of the town, it's buildings, it's green spaces, avenues of trees and access to the surrounding countryside.

Leamington is a particularly beautiful town which has preserved much of it's individuality and historic integrity and attracts a lot of people.
The northern approach from Kenilworth has retained an elegance which continues into the town while both Stoneleigh and Old Milverton have a country approach which is in keeping with the rural locations.
Old Milverton is accessible from Northumberland Road via the footpath and People use it constantly as a leisurely, countryside, route from Leamington to Old Milverton and beyond to Guys Cliffe in northern Warwick. It is an facility which is an obvious and well enjoyed asset to the area.

Our concerns are that the proposed plans for development as outlined will have the effect of changing the integrity of the northern approaches to Leamington and create a suburban aspect with the visual impact and uniqueness of the the Leamington approach being destroyed. Similarly the eroding of farming land between north Leamington and Old Milverton would have a negative effect of Old Milverton's particular historic character as any significant increase in building habitation in the north of town will require an extensive expansion of the existing network of roads in order to accommodate the increase in traffic thereby damaging the qualities that keep North Leamington roads so special.

We think that South Leamington could benefit from a sensitive and well considered accommodation of housing, without the effect of engulfing Bishop's Tachbrook. The area needs a serious investment and revitalisation and this is an opportunity to drive its development. A good transport infrastructure already exists in the area, with fast road links via the A46 in both directions and the M40 motorway.
Railway stations already exist in Leamington and at Warwick Parkway, neither of which would draw traffic through the centre of town. It seems sensible that the main thrust of any development should be to the benefit of the south Leamington area.

We are writing to object to Warwick District Council's proposed Local Plan Preferred Options (May 2012) which effectively allows the development of 1980 new homes on designated Green Belt land to the north of Leamington, on sites at Old Milverton and Blackdown.
Whilst we can see the need for new housing to help the local economy grow, we do not believe that there are proven `exceptional circumstances' as required by national guidelines to permit the development of Green Belt land, particularly as there are other suitable sites which have already been identified by WDC as "suitable for development" and which require less spending on the infrastructure to support this development. Such land exists off Europa Way and south of Bishops Tachbrook. In our opinion the Preferred Options paper does not provide the evidence required under the National Planning Policy Framework to permit the proposed Green Belt development. The loss of publicly accessible open spaces in these two areas would deprive North Leamington of a valuable amenity area used by large numbers of local residents for dog walking, jogging, cycling and walking. These are all activities which are being promoted at both national and local levels in an effort to encourage more healthy and active lifestyle choices. These areas are also a habitat for a diverse range of wildlife including birds, small mammals (including bats), insects and hedgerow plants.
The NPFF clearly outlines that the purpose of a protected Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl. If these areas of land to the north of Leamington were to be developed this could lead to the merging of Leamington, Old Milverton, Hill Wotton and Kenilworth in the future. This would be even more likely if the proposed plan allows for Kenilworth to expand southwards. This coalescence would lead to the eventual loss of the individual towns and villages distinct identities.
The current infrastructure would be unable to cope with the proposed new development and WDC's solution in the form of the North Leamington Relief Road would result in additional destruction of the countryside around Old Milverton.
For these reasons we believe that the plan is flawed and contrary to the government National Policy Planning Framework.