Makes sense.

This does make sense. Indeed I would like to see more money spent on the parks and spaces that benefit the local community. As a avid park user it is sad to see that they are not keep in the best possible condition, grass not cut regularly etc. these parks give lots of pleasure to young and old alike, often the very people who cannot get out to enjoy whats left of the country side.

This needs a high profile, and should include archaeological surveys.

The JPC broadly suuports this proposal but would ask that it be extended to "encourage sympathetic development of historic buildings" by which we mean that development should be in s similar style rather than the "contrasting" or "carbuncle" style which is so often demanded.

The JPC broadly supports the objectives in this section but would prefer if the use of AREAS OF RESTRAINT were re-introduced to control activity in areas which currently enjoy little formal protection.

I wholeheartedly support the policy of "recognising other local assets through Local Lists."

This is long overdue.

Residents of Norton Lindsey are proud of the historic and attractive nature of the village and specifically the Conservation area. Development on the scale proposed in the Local Plan would severely impact on the historic environment.

Norton Lindsey has traditionally grown in a very limited way along the main routes of Wolverton Rd, Main Street and Snitterfield Ln. Development outside this context and style would adversley impact on its historic environment and setting

NL is a historic Warwickshire hill top village mentioned in the Domesday Book, several Grade 2 listed building and important ridge and furrow fields, which are hundreds of years old; as such 30-80 house added would totally change the character of this ancient village. As this would increase the houses in the village by around 50%.

It has a Conservation area, which needs to be maintained and carefully.

Norton Lindsey is an old hill-top village dating back some 1,000 years, which still has ridge & furrow fields, which could be identified as potential building sites. The proposal to put 30-80 houses within the village would ruin the character of the village which has grown gradually and naturally over the years.

Barford Residents Association is fully in favour of protecting our heritage assets from inappropriate development. This does not only involve the buildings but also the surroundings and approaches of major historic buildings such as Warwick Castle must be preserved.

Development on this scale would have a huge impact on our small village.

Residents of Norton Lindsey are proud of the historic and attractive nature of the village and specifically the Conservation Area.

Development on the scale proposed in the Local Plan would severely impact on the historic environment.

In addition to the Conservation Area there are a number of listed buildings and historical landmarks, the context of which needs to be sympathetically maintained.

The village has grown in a "ribbon style" along the main routes of Wolverton Road, Main Street and Snitterfield Lane, and development outside this context and style would adversely impact on the historic environment and setting of landmark buildings and street scenes.

Residents of Norton Lindsey are proud of the historic and attractive nature of the village and specifically the conservation area.

Development on the scale proposed in the Local Plan would severely impact upon the histoic environment.

In addition to the conservation area there are a number of listed buildings and historic landmarks, the context of which must be sympathetically maintained.

The village has grown in a "ribbon style" along the main routes of Wolverton Road, Main Street and Snitterfield Lane, development outside this context and style would adversly impact upon the historic environment and setting of landlark buildings and street scenes.

The housing plans for Loes Farm do not 'protect the Historic environment from inappropriate development'. Listed hedgerows and Green Belt land are going to be destroyed to make way for a small quantity of unnecessary housing.

Local lists. The Leamington Society supports the recognition of local assets through Local Lists, and would like Local Lists to be introduced quickly to add protection to landmark buildings and assets which do not satisfy the more rigorous standards required for full listing.
11.7 This policy will help the Planning Authority "to justify the status given to the historic environment, ensure appropriate significance of an asset is understood, and rectify deliberate neglect and damage"

On behalf of my client C and S Taylor, the owners of Warwick Castle Park, I object to Warwick District Council's Housing allocation of land to the south of Gallows Hill and to the West of Europa Way which is included within Policy PO4 option 3. This is for a total of 1600 homes, employment, open space and community facilities. It is an intensive and dominant scale of development.
This proposed housing allocation will be directly abutting the boundary of the historic parkland, Warwick Castle Park, (registered grade 1), and stretches the entire length of the eastern perimeter that is bounded by the Banbury Road.

Please see attached document for further information

It is essential that the historic nature and character of Norton Lindsey is not compromised by inappropriate development. The village is sensitive to development due to it's prominent hilltop setting, and to the number of existing listed buildings and the Conservation area.

It is essential to preserve historic environments for future generations. Norton Lindsey not only has an established Conservation Area to the centre of the village but listed houses and other features together with a history dating back over 1,000 years. Additionally Norton Lindsey is a hilltop village that can be seen from a number of directions and its prominence means that it is particularly sensitive to inappropriate development and adverse impact on its historic environment. Development on the scale envisaged is entirely inappropriate.

We consider that PO11 could reasonably include specific reference to the canal network as part of the final paragraph which encourages appropriate regeneration of the historic environment, given the range of roles the network can play in contributing towards the regeneration of urban areas and supporting both urban and rural economies. An explicit reference to the canal network would help demonstrate the positive strategy for conserving and enjoying the historic environment advocated by the NPPF; specifically, paragraph 126 of the NPPF states that LPAs should take into account the following:

"the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place".

The active encouragement of appropriate development associated with and supporting the canal network can help to realise the potential of the network as a valuable multi-functional asset, at the same time as increasing general accessibility to it as a historic asset which makes a significant contribution towards the character of the places it passes through. The Trust therefore considers that appropriate development can enhance the character of the canals as a historic asset and that this should be acknowledged within the Preferred Option.

Policy PO11, which seeks to protect the historic environment from inappropriate development and ensure its economic viability for future generations, is supported.

We consider the present extent of the proposed allocation of land south of Gallows Hill/west of Europa Way to be in conflict with this policy.

Noted.

General: The term "preferred options" implies that the decisions have already been made, and that there is little, if any chance of them being changed. This underlines the FACTS that the results of the previous "consultation" have been ignored, so leaving residents with the impression that this consultation will also have no effect.
PO1: 52% of the respondents to the previous consultation opted for the lower number of new houses to be built, on the grounds that this would meet the requirements of current residents and their families. It would not attract further influx of people seeking employment not available in the District, employment which they would only find outside it, further increasing the already unacceptable traffic problems. The Council decided to ignore this view and propose a much larger (100% larger) number of houses. We can only conclude that the Council is bowing to instructions /bribes from Westminster to allow more houses to be built by private developers, since there is no indication anywhere that the Council itself intends to carry out any of this housing growth.
PO2: The infrastructure levy is an essential feature of any increase in the number of houses built in the District. However, it must be levied and spent BEFORE the new housing is occupied. We have already experienced the problems which delaying this expenditure has created in Warwick.
PO3/PO4: There is clearly a preference for a high proportion (almost 50%) of the development to be located in Warwick. There seems very little proposed for the villages. Half the proposed housing development is on the south side of the district. Given that the bulk of the new employment opportunities will not be in the small area of the District, but in the larger employment proposals for Coventry, commuting through the towns will increase, not decrease.
PO5: The balance of the types of new housing should be very carefully scrutinised: too much of recent development has been of small properties and retirement flats, only suitable for short-term occupation by first-time buyers. More of the new housing must be for family use. The proposal that 40% of new housing should be "affordable" is essential, and must be maintained against developers' pressure for its reduction. A better definition of "affordable" is also required
PO6/PO7: Statements of the blindingly obvious.
PO8: The designated employment land must be maintained against the pressure which will be put on the Council by developers. We have already experienced in Tournament Fields the result of this pressure proving effective. There is no indication in the Plan of what percentage of the land will be designated as employment land.
PO9: We note that there will be "support for new retail investment on Leamington Town Centre". Why only Leamington? The other towns are equally deserving of support, though there is no indication that this proposal has any financial backing.
PO10: Forget the concept of "garden towns/suburbs". These were built in an era of weaker planning regulations and allowed a much larger area of land to be taken into use for housing. In the current climate, such land use is not acceptable to the general population. Planning law is about to be relaxed, and the Council must be vigilant in maintaining the quality of development.
PO11: This is a very weak section, "offering help and advice" is not very positive: more concrete proposals, including financial commitment is needed. This is repeated in PO17 where "support" and "seek contributions" are the key words.
PO14 (and un-numbered section following): The road improvements proposed would be of marginal value. The "improvements" to Europa Way and the junctions would be very expensive, and could use up a substantial proportion of the available infrastructure levy, to the detriment of more useful projects, such a schools, health centres and open areas.

We have been advised to write to you re new objections to the Core Strategy Plan. Having studied the documentation we wish to object to the overall plan to build a further 8100 new homes in the Warwick district area and in particular the 2700 planned in the south of Warwick (P04 Distribution for Sites for Housing: Location 2 and 3).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. Imposing massive growth on an area with little expansion of employment would create greater numbers of people who would have to commute to work, much to the detriment of the area and a poor location of people. Warwick District has already seen much development recently, much of it to accommodate those moving from the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham into a less dense area. Many of those still commute into Birmingham or London and if people are prepared to work in London and commute from the Warwick district this will do nothing to help keep the prices affordable for the locals who want to continue living here.

Warwick District population has in fact increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately 2x the rate of increase for Warwickshire; 2x the national average increase, and over 3x the increase for West Midlands. (PO1 Level of Growth).

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion of which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed. (PO1 Level of Growth).

As it stands, we wish to object specifically about the development zone 2 in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area was identified as an area of restraint at the time of the agreement of planning for the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa, to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl.

There is likely to be considerable job creation towards Coventry (PO3 Broad Location of Growth), including up to 14,000 new jobs at the Coventry Gateway scheme. Therefore several extra thousand people per day will want to drive through Warwick, morning and evening, which would lock up the highly congested Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way at peak times and also the road layout of historic Warwick. (PO14: Transport).

The suggested improvement to the junction to the end of Myton Road and Banbury Road is redundant. The bottle neck of the narrow historic Avon Bridge, constrained road layout and traffic


calming in the Town centre, means such provision would not ease the current backlog along Myton Road at peak times. (PO14: Transport).

The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and onto the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road with the addition of Morrisons and the proposed trading estate and Aldi supermarket all exiting out onto the double roundabout system.

Development of this particular site will have a profound impact on the area where the roads are already gridlocked for a considerable period every day during school term, not to mention the excessive pollution that would be caused. It is currently possible to queue from the M40 into Leamington and the length of Myton Road in both directions with queues heading down the Banbury Road and Gallows Hill. Narrow side roads off Myton Road, in particular Myton Crescent, are blocked by parking making it difficult to negotiate these roads as the schools come out.

There is no capacity on these roads for another 1,500-2,000 cars to exit from this triangle at peak times and join the current traffic load plus, extra traffic from other proposed developments needing to use these routes at peak times. The access to Warwick and Leamington from the site would be queued back even at a fraction of the proposed development.

There is no capacity for extra cars at the stations in either Leamington or Warwick town centres for commuters. This means additional traffic driving through Warwick at peak times to Warwick Parkway.

Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way is an area of rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken and Henry VIII Trusts. There are wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc. (PO11 Historic environment, PO15 Green Infrastructure).

This is the type of area that should be being protected for recreation and education and healthy food to have a positive impact on the quality of people's lives with the traditional land-based activities such as agriculture, new tourism, leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. By building dwellings on this land, we will have no countryside left in the urban areas to make use of to support healthy lifestyles through ensuring sufficient land is made available to all for play, sport and recreation without travelling out of the area.

Development on the area of restraint threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the runoff is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields. At these times both ends of Myton Crescent become flooded with the current drainage system being unable to cope.

Property in Myton Crescent was flooded when development was carried out on the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road. (PO18 Flooding and Water).

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of sites 2 and 3 is the danger to Public Health as a result of exposure to dangerously high Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) levels. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. In 2012, air quality remains in breach of these regulations, and will become toxically high with the increased traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. Please see weblink: http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/action-plans/WDC%20AQAP%202008.pdf. (PO12 Climate Change; PO14 Transport).

It was pointed out at the public meeting in 2009 that the areas designated to phase 3 at that time may not be needed for development in the future so why is this area, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly an area of restraint put into the first phase for building?

This should, with immediate effect, be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found.

The further urban fringe development of Warwick is unsustainable with respect to saturated infrastructure, constrained historic town layout, and the existing Public Health danger that exists today as a consequence of high traffic volume.

Current infrastructure including town centre rail stations, schools, GP surgeries, sewage, water, drainage are at capacity with the current population, and will not sustain the proposed increased numbers within the Myton proposed sites 2 and 3. (PO2 Community Infrastructure levy).

Numbers have reduced drastically in schools over the years with those such as Trinity and North Leamington moving to smaller sites and a number of primary schools having given over part of their accommodation for other uses whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton in whose catchment area the whole of that site would fall.

There are suggestions that schools would be expanded or new builds created but a new primary school was in the plans for Warwick Gates which never came into fruition.

The hospital is completely surrounded by housing and has no capacity for expansion so how will they cope with another 25,000 people based on the figures of 2007 with 71% in a traditional family set up with 1.8 children.

Why do district councils have to accommodate a certain amount of housing? Should the government not just be looking for appropriate sites for building? At that same meeting in 2009 the suggestion of a perfect site around Gaydon was mentioned for a new town but the response was "It's not in Warwick District". Not only would road improvement be possible where air quality is not already in breach of regulation but this site is perfect for links to the M40 and there is also a rail station already at Kings Sutton on the main Birmingham to London line so commuting traffic would not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. To build one whole new site would be more cost effective in the long run. There is also the possibility of more use being made of the land around Warwick Parkway, which is in Warwick District and again perfect for rail and road links to both Birmingham and London.

So what can be done to accommodate the Core Strategy?

How about looking at sites already within the towns and regeneration areas? The infrastructure is already in place and could take out a large number of the dwellings required. We know this would not be chosen as great big swathes are cheapest but not necessarily the best option.

Build student accommodation near Warwick University in Coventry and return the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes.

Villages could be given their communities back - expand them with affordable housing. Let those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there, stay there. Let them support the village schools and shops, some of which have closed over the past few years due to lack of numbers or use.


The original Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. The paper work shows that the whole of the 8,100 houses still required are to be built in the urban areas. This will take the figures to 95-96% living in urban areas compared to 3-4% in the rural areas as there appears to be no allocation of any of this building to take place in villages.

The 90% of the district's population currently living in the urban areas occupy 10% of the district's land whilst the other 10% of the area's population live within the remaining 90% of the land.

The Core Strategy stated that there should be limited development within and adjoining villages so that they can be protected and the character of the villages kept. This is also the case within the towns. It is not that long ago that Whitnash was a village but is now a town along with Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth. These towns want to remain separate towns. They do not want to become joined and eventually become part of Coventry as the way Edgebaston, Hall Green, Moseley and Sparkhill are to Birmingham.

Although the Core Strategy points out that the development will be directed towards the south of the urban area to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry it is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

It has been said that Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being "A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities, ..." If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, it will be far from that.

We also urge Warwick District Council to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at the last consultation 2-3 years ago.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Scanned Letter

Scanned Response Form

Attached to original email.

scanned submission

2:2 - Why is the environment not listed as a key priority: without it, all manner of planning applications can be granted which are anti-environmental

Is leisure included in "Health and Wellbeing". If so, this should be made clear.

2:5 - As there is no way the economy can be predicted, there should be a commitment to responding to new opportunities and needs which arise

Can the areas mentioned as requiring regeneration be identified?

I am concerned about the second bullet point under Emphasis on infrastructure, as most areas of the countryside and of importance for wildlife need only a very light touch, if a touch at all. There should be a clear distinction between the approach to parks and managed open spaces, and to wilder areas (e.g. Welch's Meadow would be ruined by heavy handed management).

3:7 - there are elements referred to in this draft plan which need to be prioritised and policy made before March/April 2012; in particular a policy on the concentration of HMOs.

4:6 - the protection afforded to conservation areas should be strengthened, particularly as these cover apparently only 4% of the district

4:8, point 2 - It should be noted that one major contributory factor to the current lack of affordable properties relates to HMOs. The house next door to mine is an example of this. It was owned by an elderly lady who went into residential care. There was a large amount of interest in the property from people who wanted it as a family home, indeed so much interest that it was decided on sealed bids. Because the property needed some updating, and I met several potential purchasers who wanted to restore it to its former self, the highest bidder was, almost inevitably, a landlord who could easily find the finance and would easily recoup the investment by turning it into an HMO. I have seen this repeated time and again in my area of south Leamington where the gains from HMOs has pushed up prices beyond affordable for an individual or family: indeed a local couple I know has not been able to find an affordable small period house and, despite wanting to stay in Leamington, is having to move to Cheltenham to find such a property. In addition to the price problem, most often the conversion to HMO is the cheapest possible and degrades the period property.

4:10.2 - It is right to accommodate university students, but not at the expense of other "settled" residents. South Leamington is at a tipping point where the area could be completely dominated by students The advantages of a large student population tend to benefit the few - landlords and places selling cheap food and drink, whilst the cost and disadvantages are picked up by Council tax payers and local neighbours. It also means that businesses not directed at students tend to stay away. One south town resident recently pointed out that because Leamington is only a student dormitory town rather than a university town, we have generally ended up with all of the problems of a large student population and none of the advantages of the university culture which takes place on campus. I can see no reason why special consideration should be afforded to the University of Warwick in providing accommodation for its students.

4:11 - I agree with all these points, particularly endorsing numbers 7, 9 and 10. It is particularly important in any development not to let the developer be the tail which wags the dog, as the developer will inevitably want to take the easiest and cheapest route in contradiction to the area's best interests.

5-7 - Level of growth:
As forecasting population growth is a very inexact science, the Council should constantly monitor what is actually happening. If the expected population growth is not materialising, planned development should be scaled back accordingly. It makes sense therefore to insist on development of the brownfield sites before eating into Green Belt.

P04:D - Loss of green space should also be taken into account when assessing development of garden land. This space may not be directly accessible to the general public, but if it contributes to the overall feeling of green space which is enjoyed by the general public (e.g. with trees that can be seen from neighbouring streets), it is very important that it is maintained. It is also important for biodiversity and the environment, as gardens are now understood to be extremely important habitats for wildlife.

P06.D - It is most important to identify the locational criteria and to carry out a thorough survey of all HMOs and their residents, not just those which have previously had to get Council approval.

7.59 - We need this policy now!

P08 - We also need a firm policy now regarding the protection of existing employment buildings from change of use, as in my area I can think of several schemes either applyng for or already granted planning permission to change from commercial to residential use. The Plan already points out that f the area population is going to increase, then employment will need to increase as well and it is short-sighted to be allowing commercial property to disappear.

8:21 - Does the projection of additional job requirement take into account that the growth in the older population will automatically mean the release of the jobs these people were doing?

9: Retailing

It is a mistake to be led by the retail "experts" who push for constant retail development schemes in order to compete with neighbouring towns. There is a fine balance between having enough "High Street names" to serve shoppers and having so many that Leamington becomes indistinguishable from any other shopping centre - in which case, why would any non-residents want to come here? The success of the last major retail development - which seems dubious to me - (Parade to Regent Street) should be assessed before rushing into another similar development. Outside shoppers will travel to a shopping centre to find something different and it is this difference which needs to be identified and promoted. These major developments also seem to push up rents for retailers.

13: Inclusive, Safe and Healthy Communities

Developments should not be permitted which will downgrade and produce associated problems to an area, e.g. SEVs.

14: Transport

I suggest WDC promote a car sharing scheme.

P014: How can you plan a retail development in Chandos Street whilst aiming to maintain sufficient parking in town centres. Chandos Street is a much more popular car park than the multi-storeys.

15: Green Infrastructure

A relevant issue is that Network Rail is destroying, and has been for a long time, the natural environment and wildlife habitat along railway lines by felling all the trees and killing undergrowth every year with weed killer.

15:14 - Yes to urban tree planting; concern about messing with the River Leam borders unless already in a well-used managed area.

P017 - I agree with the continued support for the development of a cultural quarter

I believe that existing visitor accommodation should be protected from change of use.

18: Flooding

Planning permission should be sought by someone wanting to pave/concrete over a front garden, as I believe this trend has contributed to flooding problems.

Summary of major concerns

* Restrictions needed on HMOs
* Light-handed touch needed on non-parkland open spaces and riverside
* More creative study of retail demands and opportunities needed
* Although the Plan does seem to recognise this, the expansion of the district must avoid segregating areas into a single use, e.g. residential, employment, etc. Areas are much more interesting and attractive if they include a mix of residential, employment, cultural/leisure, etc. properties.