Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Whilst recognising the need for a "Town Plan" to meet the future housing needs in Royal Leamington Spa, we are appalled that green belt land is even being considered when other options are available. Urban sprawl is not the answer; running the risk of linking one town to another destroys the feeling of community identity.

Land development to the South of the Town would make more sense. The motorway road and rail links are already established providing good links to other parts of the country and industrial parks in the area, thus eliminating the need for employees to live too far from their place of work.

Building of such a scale on land to the North of the town would most certainly require a relief road requiring even further destruction of our valuable countryside.

Please think very carefully before destroying our countryside - it can't be replaced.

We strongly object to to the proposals for the development of the Green belt land in North Leamington .

We understand the NPPF states that Local Plans must accord with its principles and that 'exceptional circumstances' be shown ,i.e. only where there are insufficient and available sites outside the Green belt . We understand that the Council has identified available land east of the A452 and south of Heathcote but these have not been included in the Preferred Option sites. This area has a large ready built comprehensive shopping centre and is well served by large Supermarkets, food outlets and and modern industrial estate, car showrooms -- presumably providing much needed employment to the residents of all these proposed 1980 households .There are also several schools in the vicinity.and a large and busy recycling facility all generating traffic. The already constructed motorlinks to the M40 are fast and efficient needing no expensive tearing up of the valuable land available. South Leamington does not run the danger of urban sprawl as there are no large towns and few villages in the vicinity.

North Leamingtons Green belt provides a buffer between the towns and villages to the North. The area is used for walking and the villages are unspoilt . Old Milverton and the surrounding green belt in particular is outstanding and should be kept as a heritage area for the generations to come Such villages and areas now enjoyed by the many are the result of wise decisions made by enlightened councillors over the years.

We believe that these plans are seriously flawed and that good sense will prevail

I am emailing to express my opposition to the proposed development of Green Belt land in North Leamington to prevent the Urban sprawl and keep an important local amenity for walking. The open Green Belt space is so needed in the area.

I understood that Green Belt land should not be built on if other suitable land is available and that other suitable land is available to the Council in South Leamington.

I urge you as my MP and Town Councillor act on my behalf to ensure the NPPF principles are adhered to where Green Belt is concerned and appose the proposal of development of Green Belt in North Leamington.

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter.

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

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

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

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

I would like to strenuously object to the proposals for the extremely large housing development in the green belt to the north of Leamington. I accept there may be a need for more housing although the proposed figures are flawed because they are based on an unrepresentative time period of unusual growth and should be reviewed before going any further.

The proposed green belt land is a beautiful rural area, very well used by many people for recreation, and other options for public access are very limited. The Council is required to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' if there are insufficient sites outside the green belt but has failed to do so and in fact will be unable to do so. Appropriate land was previously identified to the south, east of Europa Way and towards Bishops Tachbrook, but a political and not a planning decision has been made to ignore this. National requirements also appear to indicate that the Council cannot legally remove the green belt designation.

Leamington, Kenilworth and Old Milverton have separate identities and are surrounded by beautiful countryside. In purely practical terms the proposed development would merge them in to a large sprawling conurbation in an area completely lacking the necessary and expensive infrastructure unlike the area to the south, and the suggested North Leamington Relief Road costing £28 million will destroy Old Milverton and be a very large avoidable additional expense.

In summary I suggest the proposed scale of any development needs urgently reviewing before going any further. Having identified an accurate number it may well be that a much smaller number can be accommodated by limited extensions to existing housing north of Leamington while any larger increases that are needed are directed to the immeasurably more suitable area already identified south of Leamington.

I find it incomprehensible that development is proposed in North Leamington when infrastructure is in place South of Leamington already. The type of employment there lends itself to mixed development(housing/office/high tech/retail) and where travel to work shouldn't entail as many journeys by car. Its proximity to "Old Town" would greatly encourage the "Up grading" of this area of Leamington. Future employment opportunities are obviously in the area south of Leamington.

Surely having new development involving infrastructure is far more economical if kept where the new infrastructure would not have to be fragmented and could more easily be extended from the modern infrastructure already in place in the vicinity.

The area between Leamington and Kenilworth bordering the river Avon provides a "Green Lung" and is of far greater value for recreation than the land south of the town,

Decisions were taken in the past to provide housing and employment in the area to the south of Leamington and not to follow on with further expansion of this planning appears very indecisive and weak.

I wish to record our objection to these proposals for development in North Leamington on the following grounds.
1. the reduction in open attractive countryside in an area which is already under threat from the proposals for the High Speed Rail Link and possible expansion of Coventry Airport.
2. The "swallowing up" of the green space seperating Leamington from Kenilworth and subsequent loss of identity.

I have only just heard about the District Council's plans to develop on Green Belt Land North of Leamington as shown in their 2012 Preferred Options booklet. I am strongly opposed. Nothing has changed since the 2009 Core Strategy, so there cannot be any justification for these fundamental changes now.

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

scanned letter

scanned letter

I am personally greatly concerned and strongly oppose the proposed location of new housing in the Green belt land to the north of Leamington, either on the west or east side of the town. This has for very many years provided a buffer at the edge of and a well-defined boundary to the town. Breaking into this will both destroy a local amenity and threaten that the expansion of the town will allow Leamington, Kenilworth and the intervening villages to merge. It should be a firm policy that designated Green Belt areas are retained. Should it be impossible within the stated growth proposals to achieve these without encroaching on the Green Belt, then the planned growth should be curtailed as necessary. However, it is my belief that sufficient brown-field land exists to accommodate any likely growth over the period of validity of the plan.

I am appalled at the Council's proposal to build on our green belt land north of Leamington Spa. One of the delights, for me and my family, about living in Leamington Spa, is its proximity to the countryside for walking and for fresh air. It also keeps Kenilworth as a 'separate' town with it's own distinct character.

I understand that other, local non green belt areas have been identified which would be suitable for development on this scale and would not need so much alteration to the road system etc.

There is also the question of building on flood plains. Surely the weather this year will show that the danger of large scale flooding should be taken very seriously.

Green Belt (North Leamington) Proposals

"You cannot be serious !" Try redeveloping existing brownfield slums before you ruin Green Belt.

I appreciate the need for more housing but not on valuable Green Belt land to the North of Leamington Spa.

This proposed new development does not make sense when the WDC has also identified suitable non Green Belt land to the South of Leamington Spa where the infrastructure and employment also exists !

There is also a need to protect Green Belt land and not destroy it which this proposed development will effectively will do.

I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local plan. This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.

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

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

-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 and Warwick, both historic towns.
-Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

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

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

Please reconsider your Preferred Options

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

I have lived in the area for my whole life, in the same house which backs onto the Greenbelt land, upon which there are development plans. Every day, I walk through this land and there is always another walker, runner, cyclist, dog walker etc., out and making the most of this wonderful expanse of countryside in the area. I was, therefore, quite shocked, as well as mystified, when I heard of the proposed plans to remove this Greenbelt from the area to which it adds so much, and has done so over my years here.

I am not only surprised to hear of the plans because of the recreational value of this land. The land also prevents unrestricted sprawl of the town of Leamington to the north, as well as its merging with Kenilworth.

Furthermore, it is unusual to propose development on this Greenbelt land because of the statement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) attaching great value to Greenbelts such as that which is planned to be destroyed.

The NPPF also states that the alteration of Greenbelt boundaries should only happen in exceptional circumstances. I can report little success in finding any such circumstances, especially with the clear availability of other sites, mainly to the south of Leamington, which were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). This land is clearly a valid alternative, as is reinforced by the already established employment opportunities and infrastructure, therefore leaving no excuse to apparently ignore this land's potential, instead choosing to alter the boundaries of the Greenbelt land in Old Milverton and Blackdown. Since, then, there seems to be a lack of 'exceptional circumstances', the harm caused by choosing to develop on this Greenbelt is reason enough to reconsider your preferred options.

I hope you can realise the reason for my objection, and take heed of the obvious local discontent at these plans.

I would like to register my objection to the proposal in the new local plan to build 810 houses plus employment facilities on green belt land to the north of Leamington and a further 1170 houses plus employment facilities on green belt land at Blackdown. My objections are as follows:

Green belt land should not be developed when other suitable land is available and sites to the south of the town and east of the A452 have been identified.
Non green belt land has been identified which is suitable for development. This land is not going to be used for this proposal but will almost certainly be snapped up by a developer who will then probable obtain planning permission to develop the site. If the proposed amount of development takes place this will result in the over provision of land.

One of the stated aims of the planning process is to preserve the separate identity of Leamington and Kenilworth. The size of the development at Blackdown would seriously compromise this aim, particularly as the plan also proposes development to the south of Kenilworth.

Another concern was that development to the south of the town, although deemed suitable, was rejected because of the amount of cross town travel this would encourage. I dispute this. Trips into the town certainly, but with employment facilities provided in the south as well as the amount already there, I do not see why this should be the case.

Old Milverton is a distinctly different settlement and it's identity would be destroyed by the development, particularly as a relief road is planned to go right through the area.

I also dispute the council's predictions for population growth as they are based on projections from a past period of exceptional growth. The proposed amount of development, therefore, appears excessive.

As a member of the community for nearly 30 years I feel it is vital to protect our green belt land for the well being of it's inhabitants, for our wildlife, and for the greater environmental good.

I wish to object to building on Green Belt Land in Blackdown and Old Milverton as shown in the 2012 Preferred options Plan.

I have been a resident of north Leamington for 44 years (all my life) and am an active runner, walker and cyclist. The area mentioned above is one of the very few where you can safely get into open countryside and enjoy the fresh air and amenity. A loss of such amenity is surely avoidable given the other areas of non-green belt land available?

Your point about 'sharing the pain' is absurd as it is surely more important that Leamington retains such an area to continue to attract people to the town. My wife having moved constantly with her father's work never left Leamington once she found it in part due to the mix of land, property, town, countryside and people. Please don't destroy one of the last few beautiful areas that my one year old twins love being carried through and in time will cycle and run.

It would be shameful to build here until you have exhausted all alternatives and checked that the number of houses you require is needed !

I write to strongly object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in the Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local Plan.

This land has great recreational value to the local community, and to people visiting the area. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders and cyclists and in view of the Government's professed policy of fighting obesity, removal of such a facility would be detrimental.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and that the fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. This Green Belt land in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and should therefore remain as open Green Belt land for ever. 1) It prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north, (2) prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth and (3) helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment. (4) It also helps preserve the setting and special character of the historic town of Royal Leamington Spa and (5) helps urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Green Belt. 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 exist here and this land should be used in preference to any Green Belt. Furthermore, the huge cost of building a northern relief road, which would have to cross a flood plain causing even greater expense, cannot be justified when in the south of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at a considerably lower cost.

The NPPF states that Green Belt 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 Green Belt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.

PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR 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
I object to building on Green Belt Land in Blackdown and Old Milverton as shown in the 2012 Preferred options Plan. This area is an asset to Leamington Spa. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners riders and cyclists and should be preserved at all costs. It would be shameful to build here until you have exhausted all alternatives and checked that the number of houses you require is needed !

I am writing this note to strongly protest about the plan to develop green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton as part of Warwick District Council's preferred options for increasing local housing.

I have followed advice from both a lawyer and planning consultant in putting together my objections. Whilst I do understand the need to increase the availability of affordable housing in the area, I object to these being planned in the Blackdown and Old Milverton green belt land.

I object to this on a number of grounds:

I believe there are other viable non-green belt alternatives as identified in the 2009 plan. There are no compelling planning reasons or 'exceptional circumstances' to justify the development of the green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.

This green belt land satisfies the 5 purposes of green belt and in paragraph 16 of the government document ' Strategic gap and green belt policies in structure plans' clearly indicates that if there is a choice between green belt and green wedge then it is more important to preserve the green belt. Therefore if the choice is to either reduce the greenbelt land to the north of Leamington or reduce the green wedge in the south then the latter option must be the choice.

In the previous preferred options the green belt land in Blackdown was eliminated for further study ( point 7.32) and so Warwick District Council seem to have abandoned these conclusions from their own greenbelt study. In 2009 WDC carried out a substantial investigation, and a public consultation, and adopted a development plan for a similar number of houses which did not require ANY release of greenbelt. It has come to my attention that at a recent meeting with councillors the reason for the change from this plan was given as 'everyone needs to share the pain'. My barrister has pointed out that this is not a legal planning argument!

There are other options, mostly in the south of Leamington, and on non- green belt land.

The land just south of Heathcote would allow for 1200 houses in an area previously deemed suitable. The Radford Semele site could accommodate more than 550 houses instead of the 100 proposed. I have been told that the reason given for not developing Radford Semele to this level is the existence of a gas pipeline. This has been examined by a planning expert who believes that the pipes would cause no issue with the construction of the higher level of housing.

It would make much more sense to develop land to the south of Leamington that is nearer the various transport links, and closer to employment opportunities.

New housing to the north would significantly increase traffic on the A46 and A445, and would require the construction of a new road. This seems totally inappropriate when there are other viable alternatives.

There appears to have been no consideration given to the removal of productive farm land that would be removed as part of the plan.

In summary, I cannot object strongly enough to the development of greenbelt in Blackdown and Old Milverton. There are more viable alternatives to the south of Leamington which make far more sense from a planning perspective.

Significant advice has already been taken which has only reconfirmed my view that firstly the plan is flawed, and secondly I would be prepared to mount a robust legal challenge should it come to that.

I am writing to you with concern as to the proposed development of Old Milverton and Blackdown in Leamington Spa. I severely object to this development due to the following reasons:

1. The land is incredibly valued by the local community and is used throughout the year by many people such as cyclists, dog walkers and joggers to name just a few.

2. The proposed development encroaching Greenbelt land - The National Planning Policy Framework states that the government attaches great importance to Greenbelt land as it prevents urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The main purposes of of the Greenbelt as set out by the NPPF are fulfilled by this land as:
- it prevents the unrestricted urban sprawl of Leamington to the north
- it prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
- it helps to safeguard the countryside from encroachment
- it preserves the setting and character of the historical town of Leamington Spa

3. It is to my knowledge that there are other sites which can be developed other than this cherished Greenbelt land. These sites (mainly to the south of Leamington) were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exist here, making the use of this land preferable.

4. The NPPF states that Greenbelt land should not be developed except in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, I believe that the reasoning for the proposed development of Old Milverton and Blackdown does not constitute as an exceptional circumstance.

Not only do I object to this proposed development for these practical reasons, I have very personal reasons also. I was born in Leamington Spa and continue to lead a very happy life here, throughout my childhood and up until this day I continue to use our Greenbelt land with my family and friends. I believe that my use of this land has helped me in my development, giving me a sense of worth and shaping the person I am today. I fear that due to the proposed development, others both today and in the future will not be able to enjoy this land like I have and continue to do so, therefore I plead for you to consider the other, more suitable and less destructive, sites on which to develop.

I urge you to reconsider your decision and please allow the Greenbelt land to remain intact.

I am writing to show my strong objection to the new Proposed development plan on Green Belt Land in North Leamington. One can only assume that it was designated as Green Belt after careful consideration of all the relevant factors and was then included in the 2012 referred Options booklet. Why is this original work now being ignored? Nothing has changed since the 2009 Core Strategy, so what justification is there to disregard all the work that was carried out and resulted in the Green Belt Classification?

Whilst I understand that more houses have to be built, such building must be carried out on Brown and White field sites before any consideration is given to using valuable Green Belt Land.