NO detail about how road congestion will be addressed other than some vague idea about out of town parking which is not appropriate. Suggestion of 15% increase in vehicles seems agross under estimate. Congestion on Myton Road, Europa Way and Princess Drive already a major issue. Propsals will not solve this. If any of the proposed development takes between Euopa Way and Myton sChool it should NOT exit on to Myton Road.

The suggestion of a new road across Green Belt north of Leamington (Map 5) is totally unacceptable and is incompatible with the principles embodied in the Local Transport Plan and other County and District policies.

The idea of a Park and Ride in the Blackdown area will only increase pressure on the Kenilworth/Leamington road. The bus service will need to be improved as presumably they will be taking commuters to ther jobs in the centre and sout of Leamington. If so why not develop the houses and park and ride on the non green belt land already there?
The acces road though Old Milverton will destroy the whole character of the are, bring noise and air pollution and destroy the green belt.

Norton Lindsey has very limited public transport and cannot provide adequate services for the current residents - additional housing would severely increase the problem. An increase in vehicles in and around the village would be inevitable which would add to the dangers for pedestrians, children and animals. Additionally, the increase in traffic would be a further danger due to the frequent moving of livestock and farm machinery and exercising of horses. The village has only limited (and in many place no) pavements or cycle paths.

Norton Lindsey has very limited public transport and cannot provide adequate services for the current residents - additional housing would severely increase the problem. An increase in vehicles in and around the village would be inevitable which would add to the dangers for pedestrians, children and animals. Additionally, the increase in traffic would be a further danger due to the frequent moving of livestock and farm machinery and exercising of horses. The village has only limited (and in many place no) pavements or cycle paths.

Norton Lindsey has no employment opportunities, no shop, no school and virtually no public transport services. It cannot therefore support the PO14 Transport option that states that new housing should have close access to a range of key facilities either within the development or within a short walk (e.g 15 minutes) or focusing the location of new housing neighbourhoods on the fringe of existing urban areas; or within/adjacent to villages that have key services such as a shop, school and are served by public transport

Norton Lindsey has a poor narrow rural road structure that is already beyond capacity. Any additional homes will further add to the existing congestion and lead to a more dangerous road environment

the parish is alreadyis already under great pressure from traffic, from commuters who speed along our only road through the area. Adding roads to the village would only make that road less safe.

Providing transport facilities for rural areas is supported - but to provide the level needed to enable residents to use public transport to get to work will be far too expensive. It will be better to ensure that either housing is provided near employment opportunities or employment is created in rural areas as a condition of development.

Norton Lindsey has inadequate public transport and limited services meaning private vehicles are essential. Additional houses would mean more vehicles leading to increased dangers for pedestrians, children and animals. The roads around the village and leading out towards Warwick, Snitterfield and Claverdon are narrow with tight bends . There are a series of well known "accident spots" on the edge of the village.

No cycle lanes / tracks, dangerous to cycle out of the village.

Rural location with frequent moving of livestock, farm machinery, and exercising of horses.

Main Street is very narrow with no pavements or safe areas for pedestrians

Norton Lindsey has inadequate public transport (4 buses leaving the village per week - 2 to solihull & 2 to Stratford) and cannot provide adequate services for the current residents - additional housing would severely increase the problem.

Increased use of vehicles would be essential and this would add to the dangers for pedestrians, children and animals.

The roads are narrow (with a number of tight bends) around the village and leading out towards Waewick, snitterfield and Claverdon. There are a series of well known "accident spots" on the edge of the village.

This is a rural location with frequent moving livestock and farm machinery, and exercising of horses - increased traffic would be a further danger.

Main Street is very narrow with no pavements or safe areas for pedestrians.

No cycle lanes/tracks, dangerous to cycle out of the village.

Norton Lindsey has inadequate public transport (4 buses leaving the village per week - 2 to Solihull & 2 to Stratford) and cannot provide adequate services for the current residents - additional housing would severely increase the problem.

Increased use of vehicles would be essential and this would add to the dangers for pedestrians, children and animals.

The roads are narrow (with a number of tight bends) around the village and leading out towards Warwick, Snitterfield and Claverdon. There are a series of well known "accident spots" on the edge of the village.

This is a rural location with frequent moving livestock and farm machinery, and exercising of horses - increased traffic would be a further danger.

Main Street is very narrow with no pavements or safe areas for pedestrians.

No cycle lanes/tracks, dangerous to cycle out of the village.

It is great that the plan claims to advocate reducing the need to travel and promoting walking, cycling and public transport. Unfortunately the plan actually does the direct opposite:
* Extra homes will increase the number of commuters out of the district and so increase travel
* Locating extra houses on greenfield sites necessitates more travel: homes should be built in urban centres, instead
* Promoting 'park and ride' increases travel (and usually is financially disastrous!)
* The proposed highway 'improvements' are designed to increase the volume of traffic and hence carbon emissions.

Serious money to improve facilities for walking and cycling are required, instead of this plan to increase motorised transport.

No transport plans have been provided to local inhabitants apart from inappropriate suggestions such as 'park and ride'. This means that inhabitants asked to consider the sites are not sufficiently informed at this point. Roads likely to be affected by the housing plans already suffer from congestion at busy times and these problems will just be worsened with an increase in housing and commuters between Warwick and Coventry.

Roads in Budbrooke already under pressure from Commuter rat run to station. I Request that council do something to reduce this traffic

The Leamington Society believes that the stated aspiration - to minimise etc - is admirable but the proposals elsewhere in the document do not merely fail to advance that aspiration; in several particulars they are in direct contradiction to this stated objective:
"Ensuring that new housing neighbourhoods have close range of access to a range of key facilities either within the development or within a short walk (e.g. 15 minutes)"
Low density development is proposed by Garden Suburbs (GS) in PO 14.

We do not have suitable transport facilities now, let alone adding more to a lean, possibly uneconomic model

The roads within and leading to Norton Lindsey incorporate very narrow sections and unsighted bends. There have been a series of accidents immediately adjacent to the village and an increase in traffic will create additional dangers for not only pedestrians and drivers but also the many horse riders, as well as livestock on nearby farms which have to be moved regularly for milking and transferring to other pastures.

Norton Lindsey has no significant public transport services. Residents rely upon the extensive use of private transport placing stress on narrow roads with unsighted bends and dangerous hazards. There has been a noticeable increase of traffic in the village following the construction of recent additional housing, placing pressure on the road system and creating dangers for road users. Reducing the reliance on private transport is a key aspiration of Warwick District Council plus creating sustainable communities and decreasing green house gas emissions. The proposal to build up to 80 houses in Norton Lindsey runs contrary to all of these policies.

The transport strategy and provisions set out under Policy PO12 are broadly supported. We agree with the importance of locating development in locations which both minimise the need to travel and help promote sustainable forms of transport (such as walking, cycling and public transport). Land north of Gallows Hill/west of Europa Way represents such a site. Not only is land at this location within easy walking distance of existing schools, shops, and employment opportunities but also lies adjacent cycle paths, bus-based public transport corridors and is within easy access of both Leamington and Warwick railway stations, and town centres.

The principle of park and rides are supported provided such schemes are well conceived and well designed. Unfortunately we do not believe that is the case with regards the proposed "virtual" P&R on land in the vicinity of the Harbury roundabout as graphically illustrated on Map 5. It is our considered view that a P&R in this general location would be unsuccessful. To have any chance of being effective, a P&R needs to be located either on the very periphery of the urban area/ or beyond it to capture 'customers' before they are caught in the very traffic they wish to avoid. During preparation of the current adopted District Local Plan, on technical grounds the County Council favoured land around Greys Mallory for a P&R site over land on north side of Heathcote roundabout and to the west of Europa Way. In his report on the Inquiry into the Plan, the Inspector endorsed this view agreeing that Greys Mallory had distinct advantages in transport terms over possible sites at Heathcote roundabout (Inspector's Report, paragraphs 10.7.13 to 16).

We reserve the right to comment on other identified '"possible transport infrastructure" proposals, as illustrated on Map 5 and presented in the accompanying Draft Infrastructure Plan, once these proposals have been further developed in line with the a refinement of development proposals in the emerging new Local Plan.

WDC needs to go MUCH further to maximise the use of public transport, particular railways (eg Kenilworth station)

I agree with your proposals in the main but my only concern is the potential impact on traffic going along Europa Way - particularly in view of proposal sites 2 and 3. From experience this road can become very heavy with traffic, particularly at rush hours.
How do you propose to deal with this issue if you intend to build circa 2,700 houses along its way?

King Henry VIII Endowed Trust supports the objective of focussing new housing close to a range of key facilities in order to minimise the need to travel and to promote sustainable forms of transport (walking, cycling and public transport). The Trust's site at Hampton Magna (Land South of Arras Boulevard) is in a highly sustainable location, with very good public transport links being in close proximity to Warwick Parkway (rail) and the x17 bus service linking the village with Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry. In addition, a number of key facilities are within walking distance of the site, including Budbrooke Medical Centre, Budbrooke Primary School, Post Office and local shop, café and community centre. This is why the Council has rightly identified Hampton Magna as a Category 1 village suitable for new development 2011-2029 under policy PO4: Distribution of Housing.

The reason for my inquiry is related to the traffic modelling (re.
> Strategic Traffic Assessment - Modelling Results in your plan). I
> noted that the input to the analysis (figures applied to all housing
> sites) was based on the housing distribution of the Cape Road
> development in Warwick. I'm concerned that the mix of housing types
> for this development does not reflect what would be found in
> out-of-town developments, specifically those at Gallows Hill. A quick
> calculation based on the figures given on page 7 of the report gives
> an average per-household trip rate of 0.39 (for both AMPeakHour &
> PMPeakHour) - based on the housing distribution of the Cape Road
> development. However, for the proposed housing distribution for
> Gallows Hill, based on your figure - and I'm assuming all housing and
> no apartments (you didn't mention any) - then the average
> per-household AMPeakHour trip rate rises to 0.69, and the PMPeakHour
> rate to 0.79. These figures are an increase of 62% and 100%
> respectively over the figures used for the modelling exercise. When
> you take into account that this discrepancy applies to the largest
> development in the area, which connects to roads that are already at a
> standstill at peak times, it questions the validity of the whole
> modelling exercise and I would say renders it meaningless. I'd like to
> hear what your view of this is.
>
> One thing I've not found in the whole traffic strategy is any sort of
> limit to the traffic on a road. The traffic modelling exercise seeks
> to minimise traffic queuing but places no limit on it. I see queue
> lengths of 50 to almost 100 in the modelling results, but what does
> this mean? There must be a point where the amount of traffic becomes
> unacceptable in terms of delay, quality of life etc, such that it
> would be irresponsible to put plans in place knowing that this limit
> would be exceeded. Can you tell me if such a limit exists, or is it
> assumed that new developments can generate new traffic in an
> unconstrained way?
>
> I appreciate that traffic is the responsibility of the County Council;
> however, you base your plans on their input so my points are relevant
> to this process.


You say that the difference between the figures used in the model and
those that should have been used according to the housing distribution
for Gallows Hill "is not as significant as you suggest". I'm
interested in why you think my figures are inaccurate, so let me
elaborate.

As I stated previously, my calculations are based on the values
published on page 7 of the report. The average peak hour trip rate per
dwelling will be (IN + OUT rate) x % population of that housing type,
summed across each housing type present. So for Private Housing the AM
figure will be (0.19 + 0.50) x 0.16, for Private Apartments this will
be (0.02 + 0.29) x 0.54 and so on. Thus the average AMPeakHour trip
rate used in the model is (0.19+0.50)x0.16 + (0.02+0.29)x0.54 +
(0.18+0.37)x0.15 + (0.08+0.12)x0.15, which gives a result of 0.39.
Similarly the PMPeakHour trip rate is (0.57+0.27)x0.16 +
(0.17+0.05)x0.54 + (0.40+0.32)x0.15 + (0.14+0.08)x0.15 is also 0.39.

Using a distribution of Private Housing 60%, Private Aparts. 0%,
Social Housing 40%, Social Aparts. 0%, the AMPeakHour trip rate is
(0.19+0.50)x0.6 + (0.02+0.29)x0 + (0.18+0.37)x0.4 + (0.08+0.12)x0
which gives 0.64, while the PMPeakHour trip rate is (0.57+0.27)x0.6 +
(0.17+0.05)x0 + (0.40+0.32)x0.4 + (0.14+0.08)x0 which gives 0.79.

0.64 compared with 0.39 is an increase of 64%
0.79 compared with 0.39 is an increase of 102%

Perhaps you can explain what you find wrong with these calculations.
I'm also very confused over the figures you say the County Council use
in their assumptions - these are different from those in the model.
Why on earth would the model commissioned by the County Council not be
using the Council's figures?

Even if we assume that the discrepancy between the figures that were
used in the modelling were closer to yours than mine, the complexity
of the model (which is modelling an already overloaded network) is
likely to be such that you just cannot predict the consequences. Only
remodelling could show this. The Gallows Hill site is the largest in
the area, so even a small change in traffic rates is likely to have a
dominant effect on traffic. I don't think this can be so easily
dismissed.

I'm also concerned that I see no estimation of accuracy in this
modelling. As someone who started life as a scientist and then spent a
lifetime in software development, I've often tried to persuade
colleagues, particularly management, to be cautious of output of
computer calculations. At University, experimental results would be
discarded by tutors if you were not able to provide accuracy
calculations. Business computing never seems to apply this discipline,
input and output accuracy is often unquantifiable but still there is a
wish to treat the results with an accuracy that is unwarranted.
Beautifully crafted computer output can be very compelling. We used to
say GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out, and all the sophistication of a
complex model doesn't change the fundamentals of this; the output may
be highly crafted, fantastically accurately calculated, but still
ultimately of little value.

I also don't really understand your point where you say "Despite the
trip rate difference, we are of the view that the study is still valid
as a number of other factors will balance against the difference".
Surely the factors that balance against the difference are
independent, and have nothing to do with the validity of the study.
These other factors do not make the study valid. Additionally, while
the factors made be true, you have no idea what they are balancing
against if the model is invalid. The actual weight of traffic may
completely swamp these mitigating factors, rendering them ineffective.

Lastly, as to traffic congestion, I agree this is subjective. I still
think it would be helpful - to you guys at least - to have some
threshold to be able to judge against. Something for the future
perhaps.

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.

The Abbey Fields in Kenilworth is an small oasis of tranquility in a busy town and enjoyed by many. It is not a urban park,but a historic area and was the grounds of St. Mary's Abbey. The proposal to run a cycleway through this valley will destroy the feeling of safety for members of the public especially those with very young children and the elderly,who are not so nimble. It would be naive to think that cyclists will stay on the designated paths; at present despite a byelaw which forbids the activity no-one to our knowledge has ever been prosecuted for doing so. It would be far better to improve facilities along the A452 Kenilworth to Leamington Road if there is money available from Sustrans instead of ruining Abbey Fields for ever.

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.

, I am voicing my thoughts on the proposed Cycling Track around Abbey Fields to link up with the existing Greenway.
I am totally against the proposal as a Friend of Abbey Fields Association. We have worked hard at creating a place for wild flowers and areas of unspoiled beauty for the people of Kenilworth and others to enjoy at their leisure. A place to relax without being bothered by young people tearing around on bikes. That is what the area would become---an opportunity for madness on bikes without a care for other people's enjoyment and peace. Many visitors remark on how lucky we are to have this area in which to walk, picnic, play and to sit and stare.
Do not go through with this proposal!

With regard to Warwick District Council's New Local Plan and Preferred Options: I support the numerous objections of the residents of Old Milverton, Blackdown and the views of Jeremy Wright MP in the Courier of July 20th. The source of WDC's evidence for future population growth was successfully (and evidentially) challenged at the Parish council meeting on 16th July. The NPPF is referenced by WDC's new Proposed Local Plan regularly but the content is selectively ignored:
Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy
* The development of this area will keep infrastructure developments in urban areas and ignore the employment and housing requirements of more rural communities.
Section 4 - Promoting Sustainable transport
* It will increase private traffic through areas used by families and schoolchildren and ignores the requirement for sustainable well-placed transport networks.
Section 5 - Supporting High Quality Communications Infrastructure
* It ignores the need for public transport and high-speed broadband in smaller rural areas.
Section 9 - Protecting Greenbelt Land.
* It dismisses the high value of greenbelt land directly in contradiction of the NPPF.

I refer you to the foreword in the NPPF and its Core Planning Principles. Please follow the requirement of consultation by acting upon the objections of members of the local community with as much vigor as you have done with landowners and development firms. Most of the developers and landowners, particularly in Old Milverton, do not live locally. Financial gain on their behalf does not come with a qualitative cost.

Contrary to Councilor Doody's apparent advice of the 16th of July this year, I will be sending copies of this letter and its objections to my local Members of Parliament. I do not share his alleged opinion that my elected political representatives and their governing processes are a waste of time. I have attached further explanation of my objections below.
Section 9 - Protecting Greenbelt Land.
The area of greenbelt on which development is proposed was identified as such in the last local plan. It was confirmed as of high value by WDC's study of greenbelt not very long ago.
To develop this greenbelt area is to poorly site several thousands of residential houses at the opposite end of town from their road and rail links, main shopping sites and other amenities.
The proposals are contrary to the National Policy Planning Framework's Guidelines on Protecting Greenbelt Land. 'Very special circumstances' do not exist. More suitable land with better transport and amenity links has been identified in south Leamington, closer to most of the aforementioned developments (including new development at the old Ford foundry) which is not green-belt.
The proposed local plan would destroy greenbelt land which for the most part is currently good, economically productive farmland with public access for recreation and provision of views, wildlife habitat, and a barrier for the protection of further farmland that currently prevents urban sprawl.
I hope that the council does not consider the financial gain proposed by development firms more important than the social, environmental and economic needs of its future residents or the benefits derived by current residents from the green-belt land.
Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy
The smaller villages surrounding Leamington Spa have become commuter dormitories due to lack of infrastructure development and withdrawal of services. The proposed plan will set in motion their complete assimilation into the greater urban area.
The proposed development areas in Warwick University, Coventry Airport and Stoneleigh Park would afford the opportunity for local employment to some of these villages and negate the need for a large, counter-productive block of development to service them. This has obvious economic and ecological benefits.
I agree with the NPPF that there is a need for controlled rural development, it is needed in order to arrest the decline of rural communities, not to write them off completely and leave them years behind their urban cousins in order to maximize on private industry profitability.
Section 4 - Promoting Sustainable transport
Traffic on the Old Milverton and Kenilworth roads is already significant. The proposed northern relief road will do nothing but compound the poor placement of houses and park-and-ride by increasing traffic from north Leamington, through Old Milverton and through housing estates in Milverton where it already conflicts with pedestrian traffic of school children. Flow the other way will increase traffic from north and west Leamington to transport links off the A46 through the same areas.
Expanding the existing Kenilworth-Leamington road to dual carriageway will have a massive impact on long-standing greenbelt and increase traffic from the A46 through Blackdown towards Stoneleigh-park and the routes above.
Development should be concentrated to the south of Leamington keeping the destinations of park and ride nearer to the rail links in Leamington and Warwick, motorway links, shopping, amenities and better transport links which all exist to the south.
This approach would support the NPPF's aims whilst allowing for the larger developments to be focused on land to the south of Leamington and other already brown-field sites. It would also add to the revitalization of Leamington's old town.
Section 5 - Supporting High Quality Communications Infrastructure
The proposed plan states that it has chosen to concentrate development in areas where transport, amenity, communication and recreation already exist. This is clearly not the case as the infrastructure developments in the greenbelt area are huge. They are designed solely to support the proposed expansion of the urban area.
The proposals contain no mention of improving transport infrastructures such as bus, and cycle routes outside of their urban expansion; no mention of high-speed broadband in outlying villages (particularly in green-belt) and only a slight nod in the direction of community led housing - without attempting to include affordable rural housing.
Green-belt in this case is a rural environment; one which is protected for the good of the character, appearance and health of the towns it surrounds. It also contains a working populous who are to be penalized for the sake of convenience and private company income.
One of these villages is now home to 3 generations of my family. I feel that providing a future for my children offering variety and opportunity rather than conurbation and limited options is something worth discussing properly.
Developments over the last 30 or so years have changed the face and character of this area completely. Their continuation is detrimental to the character, nature and vivacity of the area. I would hate to see The NPPF ignored to further add to the urban/rural division and creeping conurbation of the area inflicted by previous planning strategies.

I am a keen cyclist, cycling circa 100km per week and I live within 200m of Abbey Fields.
I do NOT support a cycle path though.
There is simply no need, its bad enough with cars entering, especially at the entrance.
Lets keep it civilised and in keeping with the surroundings please