I would like to register my strong objection 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 five purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land forever. Specifically, it:

* Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
* Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
* Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

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

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

- Although I do understand the need to build new houses in Leamington , I strongly object the proposal for development on Green Belt land , as I believe there are suitable and available areas outside the Green belt , more specifically to the east of the A452 ( Europa Way) and south of Heathcote towards Bishop Tachbrook , areas already identified as available land by the Council itself .

- I do not believe Warwick District Council has demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to build on Green Belt land when there is already genuine alternatives and land available for development in South Leamington , an area where there is also enough infrastructure and employment to support the growth. The National Planning Policy Framework clearly states that one of the purposes of Green Belt protection is to prevent urban sprawl, but this is exactly what the proposal is doing.

- the current infrastructure in North Leamington is not sufficient to support the new development , and the current plans to build the Northern Leamington Relief Road , at an estimated cost of £28 millions , is unacceptable and a waste of tax payers money . The infrastructure is already available in South Leamington and the construction of the Relief Road will just divert the resources from other areas where we really need some public investment .

-the amount of new houses proposed seem to be disproportional , with the Council using projections from a past period of exceptional growth , but even if we agree with the projections , the units proposed for the green belt land could be deleted without causing any deficit.

- if the development goes ahead , due to the amount of new houses planned beyond the current north edge of the town, Leamington and Kennilworth will pretty much merge in the future , losing our individual town's identity. This needs to be avoided at all cost and as town planners it is your responsibility to protect it.

In summary , I believe the council has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances set out by the NPPF to permit development in the Green Belt of North Leamington. There is sufficient available land in South Leamington where the houses can be built without impacting the green belt land , the area is supported by existing employment and infrastructure so there would be no need to spend huge amounts of money on building a Relief Road and we will avoid merging with Kennilworth and losing our town identity.

I really hope these objections are taken seriously into account before proceeding any further with the plan.

I wish to register my objections to the proposal to build 2,000+ new houses in the North Leamington area.

I believe there is no need to build on the Green Belt in North Leamington whilst there are other possible sites outside the Green Belt. Areas of natural beauty and reserves for endangered wildlife will be destroyed and public footpaths disrupted. We also have to probably endure the building of the High Speed Railway less than a mile away.

I am also concerned by the lack of transparency concerning this matter and the great difficulty in finding an appropriate email address to send my objections.

I thank Sally Jones for suggesting that I use her email address and her willingness to pass my objections to the appropriate authority.

I am writing to object to Warwick District Council's Preferred Options plan for the local area.

I am a new resident to Warwickshire, having moved to Leamington Spa at Easter. I was attracted to the area because of the historic nature of the town and also its fantastic rural surroundings. The idea that both of these appealing aspects are to be compromised leaves me considering my future in this town.

I attended the Old Milverton Parish Council meeting on Monday 16th July at which Bill Hunt stated that the Council's "preferred options" are sustainable. In line with UK Sustainable Development Strategy, 2005, he quoted the definition of sustainable development; 'the aim [...] is to ensure that people can meet basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations'. I fail to see how this applies to the new proposals in any way at all. Building on the greenbelt land will compromise the quality of life of future generations in every manner possible. I believe that the merging of some of Warwickshire's best towns and villages will lead to poorer urban environments, whilst the destruction to the countryside is unthinkable. The area of land at Old Milverton and Blackdown provides all that a greenbelt should and has infinite worth to both the local community and further afield. It is fun as well as functional, and used by residents and visitors alike to walk, run, ride, cycle, explore and play.

There is on-going reference to the 'exceptional circumstances' which justify this plan and yet I strongly object to their existence. According to Warwick District Council the special circumstances are that there is no other location for this development. Even being new to the area and without knowing the details, I understand that there was a viable alternative in South Leamington. The '2009 Core Strategy' was at the time the "preferred option" - what has changed since then? The land is still available and crucially the homes and other amenities could be built on brown and white field sites, not greenbelt. In the South of Leamington there is the existing infrastructure and the proximity to employment that these new plans will lack. Claims that the road network in South Leamington would be unable to cope appears to be unfounded and without real evidential support.

The council has asked for people to come up with alternative ideas so please hear them. I fear that the term 'preferred option' is just a pseudonym for 'our decided plan'. I urge you to open the consultation process wider and really listen, absorb public feedback and develop a number of truly viable possibilities.

The greenbelt is a valuable public space and an asset to Leamington Spa, Warwickshire and the country. Please note my opposition, and that of others. Rethink you plans to develop on Green Belt Land.

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

This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by us as walkers and cyclists along with many other runners and horse riders.

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. This does not appear to be happening in this instance if the proposed developments are progressed.

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

o Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
o Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
o Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
o Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
o Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

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

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

We hope you will consider the above points carefully.

This is my response to the New Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation

Number of homes
I have read the relevant material on how you calculate that 10,800 new homes will be required in Warwick District over the next 15 years, at a rate of 550 per year. I note that in your consultation questionnaire of 2011 the majority of respondents preferred the option of a lower number of houses per year, fearing overdevelopment and coalescence among other concerns, but it seems these views are being ignored. I would also question the figures predicting a growth in 'high level' and managerial jobs and wonder what and where these jobs are going to be. What jobs are those occupying affordable or low cost housing going to be doing?
Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework requires that development on Green Belt land should only be allowed in 'very special circumstances' which Warwick District Council maintains exist here. I would question this and note that you propose to 'alter Green Belt boundaries in line with development sites described'. You acknowledge that 'The Green Belt ... 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', and yet 43% of preferred option sites are on Green Belt land.
In 2009 after substantial investigation and public consultation WDC adopted a development plan, for slightly more homes than the present proposals, which did not require release of Green Belt land. What has changed between 2009 and now? Most noticeably the land to the east of Radford Semele and Grove Farm that was in the 2009 plan has now been removed, in the case of Radford, because of gas pipelines and at Grove Farm because of coalescence with Bishops Tatchbrook. Why is coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook, which is outside the Green Belt, more important than coalescence with Leek Wootton and Kenilworth or the fact that Blackdown will be joined to Leamington? Why has the land at Radford been rejected when the gas pipelines did not pose a barrier to the previous plan?

The results of WDC's Green Belt study which scored Old Milverton and Blackdown highly have been ignored. If Green Belt development is necessary lower scoring land should be used.

Preferred Options and size of developments
According to WDC the Preferred Options have to be, and are apparently, supported by strong evidence. I would like to know what this evidence is.
WDC has presented a preferred plan rather than consulting on options. No options have been presented to the public for consultation. Who has suggested the proposed sites? Has WD carried out its own survey of possible sites, or have all the sites been proposed by developers? Apparently, these sites have become available because landowners wish to sell. Developers are very persistent with their offers to buy land and I'm sure some land owners could easily be persuaded to sell if they stood to make a substantial sum of money.

Some of the proposed developments are huge. 1600 on preferred site 3 would constitute a large village on its own and will merge with site 2, making a total of 2700 houses. This is an enormous development and would require a huge amount of infrastructure. It would not be part of either Warwick or Leamington, but would be a separate community therefore not integrated into either town. Sites 4 and 5 also represent a huge development, much of it on Green Belt.

The Thickthorn development in Kenilworth is also very large at 770 homes for the size of the town. Kenilworth underwent considerable expansion in the 1950s - 1980s; should it be further expanded to such an extent? Also, how was this site decided upon? Much of it is on Green Belt and farmland and includes a nature reserve which would be swallowed up by surrounding houses. It too would not be an integral part of the town. I do not live immediately near it but it does concern me that such a development would be so near the A46, the noise from which we can hear quite clearly from our garden. I don't think building business premises alongside the A46 would lessen the noise much for those living there. A new primary school and other facilities are proposed for this development. Why not build extra houses in some of the villages which could afford to expand and already have schools etc. Leek Wootton is a case in point where the school was once under threat of closure could take an increase in pupils.

Transport
It is estimated that £50,000,000 will be needed to improve roads. Where is this to come from? Regarding the road links between Kenilworth and Leamington, does this mean making the A452 a dual carriageway? This scheme was rejected a few years ago after a successful campaign and the realisation that it was not really needed to alleviate a minor problem of congestion twice a day. It provides a very pleasant green corridor between the two towns and should not be spoilt. Access to and from the Thickthorn development at one end of the A452 and to and from the Blackdown and Lillington developments at the other end would result in a massive increase in traffic. However, a dual carriageway would still lead to congestion at the entrance to either town as it funnelled into a single lane. A dual carriageway linking the A452 with the A46 would cut across a swathe of countryside and spoil the village of Old Milverton.
Communication
I am concerned that many people in Kenilworth are unaware that there has been this consultation period even if they are aware of the Local Plan. It is not enough to assume that everyone reads the local press as many do not, and most people would not be looking at your website unless they were aware of this plan and therefore there was something to look at. There has been some limited information in the library but for most of the time this was tucked away round a corner and I had to ask where it was. I know there have been various meetings but these were not well publicised. The exhibition in Kenilworth Library was staged only a week before the end of the consultation period and again there was little publicity. In the interests of transparency, surely every household should have been leafleted about this very important plan, not just people who had already responded to the questionnaire or registered on your website? I hope the next consultation will be better publicised.
I have other concerns but these are the main ones. Please listen to the views and concerns of the people and don't force this plan on us without giving us alternative options to consider.

I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan.
This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
* Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
* Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
* Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.

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.

I strongly object to the proposals to build in the Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown near Warwick. I have taken walks and runs on that land for many years and it is such a beautiful area. There must be more land site available for you to choose.

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, cyclists and allotment keepers. 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.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
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.
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.
Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriageway 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 carriageway 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.
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.
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 wish to register my objection to the proposed building of 770 new homes in the Thickthorn area of Kenilworth and nearly 3,000 houses north of Leamington Spa.
I fully understand that new building is required - though not as much as proposed in your plan since there are always a large number of empty houses unaccounted for - but my main concern is the huge amount of extra traffic which this building would generate, as well as the loss of valuable Green Belt and agricultural land.
I certainly don't wish to appear to be passing on unwanted building to another area, but it does seem that the south of Leamington Spa would be a better location for large amounts of building, as there is already an existing road network which could be upgraded far more easily and cheaply than a new "Northern Relief Road". If the A452 were to be turned into a dual carriageway, this would still not help the traffic flow through Kenilworth and rush hour conditions would be far worse than they are even now.
Please consider altering the proposal as I do not believe that Kenilworth and the northern side of Leamington can cope with the huge amount of extra congestion which would be incurred.

I wish to vigourously object to the building on green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.

The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Wawick District Council) land South of Leamington was identified, and is still available, for development. This land is east of the A452 Europa Way and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
* The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The policy of "spreading it around" again is not planning policy but a political one. Thus the legality of the councils desicion making process comes into serious question.
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.

* Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns. The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth, it will change the character of Leamington for ever,.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, riders, and cyclists.
It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park would detract from rather than enhance its value. There is no infrastructure problems to the previous chosen development sites in South Leamington.
* Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026. If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals. There has been in recent years an exceptional growth in Leamingtons population partly because of Europe. However this has now levelled of. There are not hundreds and thousands of homeless people sleeping in the streets of Leamington at night, so I seriously question the need for development of such a scale. The prime minister recently stated that people should no longer except free housing there friends and family should assist, by carrying out such a development the council is not working to the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying, I for one will be writing to him to inform him of this. Further more there has been an extra approximately 500 student beds places created/about to be created in Leamington in purpose built buildings this year alone. This means talking to local agents that small houses are now not being rented by students and about an extra 100 5 bed homes are sitting empty this year, they are going to be either rented out to private tenants or DSS tenants or sold of private individuals or families, I feel the council has missed the point that about 500 extra beds spaces houses will be available this to the community, as student population is down by about 10% this year nationally, furthermore with the increase in fees this year, there is likely to be an even further decrease in the student population freeing up more housing.


To summarise I am objecting on the below grounds

1. Local amenity taking away our local open public space
2. Green belt, not adhering to policy when you have already suitable land for development.
3. Over provision of housing, as the sires previously declared suitable will inevitably be still developed, and student houses becoming available.
4. Coalescence of urban sprawl, towns will soon be close together losing their identities, which makes Leamington so special
5. Infrastructure. No need to spend £28 million on new road when there is infrastructure in place at the previous south Leamington sites declared suitable

1) The NPPF Guidelines

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

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
* Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north

* Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth

* Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment

* Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)

* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land


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.

2) Recreation & Green Space Strategy
* This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists and already fulfils the many ideals specified in the Green Space Strategy

* I do not believe that the Social value of the green spaces for local residents has been objectively assessed through a specific public consultation following the advice in the "Draft Green Space Strategy". I, and new residents who have moved here in the past couple of years, have all mentioned the special area as a draw to live.

* The greenbelt is a key draw for locals and visitors - groups strolling in hiking boots passed the house at weekends and the parking spaces at this end of Guys Cliffe are regularly occupied as it offers an excellent opportunity for recreational walking to other areas of North Leamington and beyond with through fields to the Saxon Mill (a 20 min walk vs a 10 min drive) and the historic links to Blacklow Hill

* The fields are safe and convenient - also recommendations in the Green Space Strategy.

* The paths are ready made corridors and networks that offer attractive access for pedestrians (as set out in 4.1.7 of the Green Space strategy).

* 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.



3) The Projections that are driving the Preferred Options Location and Population Requirements

From the information in the evidence base I do not see a clear case for developing on Greenfield site and that the rational for the number of homes is not provided with full assumptions.
Waiting on the full results of the 2011 Census may be more appropriate to ensure that the housing are aimed at resident and future resident needs - demographic, economic etc.

I hope that the National Planning Policy Framework is not just being used because it can rather than of necessity.


4) Alternative to Greenbelt
* 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 "2009 Core Strategy" 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.

* Consideration of the developers' financial opportunity in developing Green Belt, rather than land available in South Leamington is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.

* 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.

5)The Proposed New Roads & Transport Strategy
* 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 and to Coventry, Kenilworth or Stratford

* 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 centre. Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.

* That rail access is not convenient in the propose area. With fuel prices and environmental concerns, building developments further from the local rail services seems counter intuitive and could result in more people choosing to use their cars to drive to stations - causing further congestion.

6) Consultation and Reconsideration
* As a resident here for over a year in North Leamington, I am shocked by how little consultation there has been, and have found all of the information through the Leamington Green Belt Campaign
* I have not received anything from the council or invitations to consultations meetings
* If the council is now focussed on the 'town centres first' message (PO09) - why was additional consultation held in a supermarket in an out of centre retail development . This does not appear to be living the values that are written in the strategies and proposals
* That the scale of the changes should be consulted with the whole of Leamington rather than with the affected areas - consultation should have been more visible in Leamington Spa town centre.

Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I write to register my objection to the Old Milverton and Blackdown development in Warwick District Council's local plan.

My reasons for objecting are as follows:

* The proposed land is designated as Green belt, and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated as to why the land should be encroached upon in such a manner as the building of several hundred houses.

* With the addition of hundreds of houses in one area, the inevitable concequence is double the amount of cars (each household will have up to or more than 2 cars). Simply building another road, over yet more greenbelt, will not syphon those cars away from the narrow lanes of Old Milverton and Blackdown. These lanes will become dangerous rat runs and take away the intrinsic peace and quiet of the area.

* There are alternative areas of land, closer to existing amenities, which would negate the need for an ugly and cramped housing estate, and would provide a way of making sure WDC fulfilled any need to provide extra housing. Why not build on these brown spaces and provide them with green spaces for leisure and relaxation instead of shoe horning yet more small boxy houses into a place already providing leisure and public access for hundreds of people.

* The Greenbelt also comprises excellent and productive farmland which has provided a living to families over the years. The compulsary purchase, or denying the farmer his rights to farm this land, would deny him the right to make a living, thus forcing yet another working farm to the brink of closure. Farming methods such as early crops under plastic would be the only profitable way to carry on, a method wich is not only pesticide and insecticide heavy, but an eyesore to look at. Productive farmland should never have to be sacrificed over more suitable land for the building of houses.

* Old Milverton and Blackdown are already satelite villages with little or no public transport, no shops, post offices, pubs, or facilities such as gas, fast broadband or cable. Nowhere in the plans does it say these issues are going to be addressed. Simply building hundreds of houses and putting a park and ride system outside the hospital will not make up for the fact that this scheme is simply an exercise in ticking boxes and riding rough shod over the views of local people who recognise the need to preserve greenbelt spaces for the important role they play in the wider community.


I am emailing a copy of this letter to my MP and I hope he will do everything he can to stop the proposed development here and direct them towards other areas which would welcome and be able to support such infrastructure.

I vigourously object to the building on green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.

The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Wawick District Council) land South of Leamington was identified, and is still available, for development. This land is east of the A452 Europa Way and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
* The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The policy of "spreading it around" again is not planning policy but a political one. Thus the legality of the councils desicion making process comes into serious question.
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.

* Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns. The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth, it will change the character of Leamington for ever,.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, riders, and cyclists.
It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park would detract from rather than enhance its value. There is no infrastructure problems to the previous chosen development sites in South Leamington.
* Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026. If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals. There has been in recent years an exceptional growth in Leamingtons population partly because of Europe. However this has now levelled of. There are not hundreds and thousands of homeless people sleeping in the streets of Leamington at night, so I seriously question the need for development of such a scale. The prime minister recently stated that people should no longer except free housing there friends and family should assist, by carrying out such a development the council is not working to the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying, I for one will be writing to him to inform him of this. Further more there has been an extra approximately 500 student beds places created/about to be created in Leamington in purpose built buildings this year alone. This means talking to local agents that small houses are now not being rented by students and about an extra 100 5 bed homes are sitting empty this year, they are going to be either rented out to private tenants or DSS tenants or sold of private individuals or families, I feel the council has missed the point that about 500 extra beds spaces houses will be available this to the community, as student population is down by about 10% this year nationally, furthermore with the increase in fees this year, there is likely to be an even further decrease in the student population freeing up more housing.


To summarise I am objecting on the below grounds

1. Local amenity taking away our local open public space
2. Green belt, not adhering to policy when you have already suitable land for development.
3. Over provision of housing, as the sires previously declared suitable will inevitably be still developed, and student houses becoming available.
4. Coalescence of urban sprawl, towns will soon be close together losing their identities, which makes Leamington so special
5. Infrastructure. No need to spend £28 million on new road when there is infrastructure in place at the previous south Leamington sites declared suitable

Like many, I am dismayed by the scale of the new plan to build 2930 dwellings in this area.

I know one email is likely to do very little - and from previous campaigns, such as the Dog Control effort - I'm not convinced councillors take our protests seriously. However, I feel so strongly about this that I felt obliged to try.

A "sound plan" (I quote your words) does not require development in such an important area of Green Belt. In 2009 Warwick District Council approved A Core Plan for Strategic Growth until 2026 which catered for more homes than the current plan and did not involve development of the Green Belt between Leamington and Kenilworth.

The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for there to be development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. The previous plan is direct evidence that this is not the case.

So, I hope someone is pleased with this ghastly effort. Obviously, the rugby club is happy. But many of us are appalled at the cavalier carving up of our precious woods and countryside.

I implore you to think again, and perhaps, just this once, listen to the people who live here.

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

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

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
 Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.

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 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.

A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. 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.
It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
If the proposed development is concentrated in the South of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost.

This land has great recreational value to the local and wider community. These proposed developments would devastate the setting and special character of Leamington Spa

Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I object to the proposal contained in the Preferential Option Plan proposed by Warwick District council to build houses in Blackdown/Old Milverton parish. My reasons are:

The erosion of Green belt land will cause urban sprawl from Leamington spa to Old milverton and subsume the village of Old Milverton into Leamington Spa. Green belt is meant to

save the countryside from encroachment by urban development.The land proposed for development is very important for recreational purposes for local people. It is therefore very precious and

should be preserved as it is.

I am not comfortable with the method explained to us by you as to how you arrive at the number of houses you may require in the future.

I believe there is land to the south of Leamington which was earmarked for development in a previous plan but you are not now considering it. Why not?

Green Belt should not be invaded unless as a last measure and only after proper assessment.

Once houses are built on green belt land it is no longer available for production of food .Once lost to building it will never be restored to agricultural production

I object to the building on green belt part of the above plan for the following reasons: 1. The plan assumes the high growth rate scenario (scenario 3) as outlined in the Local Plan Preferred Options Draft Infrastructure Plan by WDC of May 2012 page 8. Given the changed economic outlook even since that date and the continuing economic problems affecting not just the UK but also the European Community and even markets such as China it seems to be a very high risk strategy to plan on the high growth scenario. If more realistic growth assumptions are made and the buffer of nearly 1400 homes added by WDC are taken out then it would be apparent that all the projected housing need could be built on already identified non Green Belt land. 2. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out 5 purposes for Green Belt land which the Green Belt land identified in the local Plan for development does carry out these purposes and so according to the NPPF should be kept as Green Belt. 3. Previous plans eg 2009 Core Strategy identified sufficient non Green Belt land that was available and suitable for housing and employment purposes thus showing that there is no need to encroach on Green Belt land. 4. The fact that developers may make less profit developing non green belt land does not seem to me to be a valid reason to encourage developers to build on green belt land; the council are supposed to be protecting the green belt not destroying it. 5. The proposed new Northern Relief Road is only required if the Green Belt development is allowed, even then it is as likely to lead to people driving out of the area for jobs , shopping and recreation as to staying in the area. It will also encourage further development up to the boundaries of the road. 6. Dualling the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth is unlikely to reduce peak time congestion as the choke points are within both towns. 7. The proposed Park and Ride facilities to the north of Leamington are only required if the Green Belt developments take place. In any case one would like to see better justification for such schemes: for example the Stratford upon Avon scheme always looks grossly under-utilized whenever we see it. 8. One suspects that WDC's vision of Garden-city type development is just that, a pleasant fantasy at odds with what developers will actually build especially given the social housing obligation which developers will have to meet.

I strongly object to the proposed plan to build 1980 houses on green belt to the north of Leamington Spa, for the following reasons.

Whilst accepting that there is a need to plan future house building in this area, the current proposal is for a large number of new houses which would drastically reduce the already short distance between Kenilworth, Miliverton and Leamington Spa. Planners must avoid merging the towns of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth. The Leamington and Warwick boundary already merge in several areas with consequential regular traffic problems.

There is already severe delay and regular congestion on the A452 Kenilworth to Leamington Spa road. Another imposed large housing development of a 'small town' will exacerbate this
gridlock. The proposed major new road (at enormous cost at a time of current severe economic restraints) would add to current heavy traffic queues in both Kenilworth and Leamington.

The plan must incorporate a change of infrastructure with ready links to the M40, at the lowest cost.

Green belt must be the last land resource considered for mass housing development. Land south of Leamington is not green belt and was previously identified by the Council for development in an earlier plan. The Council has not provided any exceptional circumstances to justify the sacrifice of green belt land in the current housing development plan; this is necessary to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework. Clearly, the National Planning Policy Framework is being violated. This must not be permitted to occur.

I trust my very strong objections will not be ignored.

I note with horror at the development planned for the North Leamington relief road and the green belt developments which are servicing it, specifically the developments at Milverton Gardens, Blackdown and Kenilworth.

I regularly use this area for walks with my family and I have done so for many years, as it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Surely there are plenty of other local locations to develop that would not encroach on our beautiful greenbelt areas.

I assume you are already aware this area floods in extreme weather.

I would be grateful if you would take my views into consideration.

I am writing to ask you to protect our greenbelt land and not build on any land that includes Old Milverton, Blackdown and Kenilworth.

I live in Leamington, near to the fields and allotments in Old Milverton and often walk amongst the fields, up to St. James's Church and down to the river and weir. It is a beautiful part of Leamington and should not be spoilt in any way.

Please do not let this go ahead.

I wish to strongly object to the New Local Plan being proposed in Old Milverton and Blackdown.

Firstly, Green Belt Land is irreplaceable, when lost, it has gone forever! We are a small island and all Green Belt land Land is precious and we must fight for every inch!
The NPPF states that Green belt Land is there to prevent towns merging and to protect the countryside from encroachment. We have some beautiful greenbelt land in this area and everything must be done to avoid destroying this land.
A huge amount of wild life and their habitats would also be destroyed.
In 2009 a Core Strategy was identified and is still available for development with a certain amount of infrastructure, including access to the M40 already in place, so why is it necessary to demolish other areas, including GreenBelt Land?
In Blackdown there are a tremendous amount of people who enjoy activities in this area by cycling, walking and running, not to mention the people who ride horses in this area, all this would be lost should your plans go ahead.
Agricultural land would also be badly hit in Blackdown and Old Milverton, there already plans afoot to develop Stonleigh Agricultural Centre, so why are more employment facilities needed?
Your plans for a dual carriageway on the A452 from Kenilworth to Leamington are unnecessary, the road is busy in the rush hour but after that traffic is normal. The continuation of the dual carriageway into Stonleigh Road and down through Old Milverton would destroy the area completely.
By building a dual carriageway you would be encouraging more traffic to use the road and where would the cars end up? I think Kenilworth and Leamington would be swamped with traffic!
The dual carriageway would greatly change the appearance between Kenilworth and Leamington by removing all the hedgerows and greenery and turning the area into concrete. Who will be paying for this road to be constructed?
I question the need for the large amount of housing proposed for North Leamington, the building of thousands of new homes would only increase the congestion and totally change the beauty of the area.
Proposed housing at Lowes Farm would be a travesty and again, unnecessary, when other land is already earmarked in south Leamington as being suitable for housing.

I object to the new local plan to build houses on green belt land under PO4 for locations 4 & 5 for the following reasons.

1)Over provision of housing plan from projections from a period of exceptional growth in the town is already slowing.
2)WDC have not displayed a satisfactory response to "exceptional circumstances" necessary to build on Green Belt under NPPF.
3)This area of land is used by myself and my family for rural walks and is a vital piece of green land within Warwickshire.
4)The council have identified land east of A452 (Europa Way) 7 South of Heathcote that have better road infrastructure in place.
5)The North Leamington Relief Road @ £28 million pounds would destroy Old Milverton Village & merge it into Leamington spa.

I am a local resident who with my family enjoy the peace and quiet that this beautiful bridal way and green belt land from Leamington through
Old Milverton to Saxon Mill & the canals in Warwick offers all the residents of North Leamington and would hate to see it swallowed up by an
over ambitious development plan.

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

We are particularly concerned that the Greenbelt is being threatened when other options are available for development in the area. 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.

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 exist here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt. For example, the major supermarkets are to the South and West of Leamington. The building of houses in the North East of Leamington will greatly increase the traffic through the currently congested town centre.

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 write to express my concern over the proposals to label greenbelt land in north Leamington as suitable for development.

My family & I use the area frequently to walk, run and also to go on 'adventure' trails with my young son, where we go looking for bugs, birds etc. We would not be able to do this if the area is developed for housing.

I am also concerned the areas in Blackdown and Old Milverton have been selected for the preferred options when other non-greenbelt sites (which were previously identified as having potential for development) have not been included in the preferred options.

I can see no logic in destroying greenbelt land, when non-greenbelt land is available.

I wish to register my objections to the proposed development in North Leamington.
I tried to register on your website, but there appears to be an error and could not reach the relevant page!

* The land are in North Leamington contains many open space walks and relaxing recreation opportunities used by myself and others nearby. There is no accessible alternative provided by existing public areas. The proposed development will mean the Council is taking this open recreation space away.
* This is North Leamington land area is Green Belt. I cannot see justification for building on this land when the Council's own analysis shows 'sufficient' alternative land available that is not classed as Green Belt. Therefore I do not see that this meets the criteria of the NPPF as the alternative options means this is not 'exceptional circumstances'.
* The alternative land east of the A452 is not Green Belt but is within the alternative land area identified by the council, so would seem to meet the criteria of the NPPF and the Council.
* I accept the need to provide sufficient housing for the needs of our local area, however, the Council's predictions seem excessive given the economic climate and hence difficulty in expecting to create new employment. Within the Council's own alternative options areas, there is significant opportunity to add new housing without encroaching on Green Belt.
* As the Council has identified quite significant areas of land that has potential for development, but not included this in the 'preferred option'. I would expect the land owners or developers of those other areas to want to appeal for development planning which could lead to over provision of housing. As the Council has identified this other non Green Belt land as an option, it seems likely that any such planning appeal would be difficult to argue against.
* The land area in North Leamington currently creates a green barrier between nearby villages and Kenilworth. If the North Leamington area was developed it will significantly close the gap leading to merging between the areas, especially Kenilworth to Leamington. This is contrary to NPPF.
* The infrastructure in the North Leamington area would need significant investment, £28 million according to the Council's own assessment, and would massively negatively impact Old Milverton. The investment and impact do not seem justifiable.
* In the Council's own assessment access to major routes such as M40 and rail links is important. The land area to the North of Leamington is furthest from the M40 and does not provide access to rail links. The area to the east of the A452 provides a much better opportunity to more easily reach the M40, and if needed could gain easier access to Warwick Parkway rail station.
* North Leamington area has no significant retail or recreational amenities nearby, residents typically have to go into Leamington centre or beyond to reach the retail park on Europa Way. The land area to the east of the A452 would have easy access to the existing established amenities, and the infrastructure could be more easily developed to support this.

I am writing in regards to the proposed building and development plans for the Green Belt Land near my home. I seriously object to your proposed plans.

I am strongly opposed to any building or development on these lands. This area is beautiful and peaceful, and the building of nearly 3000 new homes as well as Super Stores will ruin the atmosphere and appearance of the area. This is a historical countryside, and I wish for it to remain this way. Please do not ruin this lovely land with development and building that will cause congestion and take away the peaceful landscape we all love.

I would like to say that I am opposed to the proposed building at Old Milverton and Blackdown. Surely we do not need any more shops judging by the number of closed shops in the centre of lemaington, and no more supermarkets we can only buy so much food.
People in the area need some where to go to walk cycle and enjoy the beauty of the country side. In these days of austerity, we need places where exercise is free and where we can benefit by seeing and experiencing beautiful surroundings.
Where will all the people in the new houses work? How will our infra structure cope?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preserving the Greenbelt


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

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

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


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

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

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

Other Possible Housing Development

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

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

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


* The Leamington Community

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

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


Motivation

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