sensible locating housing and business will reduce the need for transoport in both urban and rural areas.

Norton Lindsey has no viable public transport to services in either Warwick, Stratford or Leamington. It is inappropriate to designate the village for 30 to 80 new houses.

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 enable access to services and minimise the nedd to travel

The proposal to permit housing development on the north side of Leamington is incompatible with managing traffic and transportation within the town as existing national road and rail connections, retail areas and areas of employment are located south of the historic town centre. Developing land to the north of the town centre would generate intolerable traffic congestion in the town as the additional traffic generated would journey across town to reach these amenities.

Category 2 village, Norton Lindsey:



Norton Lindsey has no services or facilities and very poor public transport. To enable access to services there would be an increased need for travel. The roads in and around the village would not be able to safely take an increase in traffic (due, for example, to the narrowness of some of the roads, the lack of pavements for pedestrians and cycle paths for cyclists, and the number of horses and riders on the roads), whether the increase in traffic be buses or cars.
Norton Lindsey, therefore, does not meet the requirements of PO14.

Norton Lindsey only has 4 buses a week. The roads and lanes are very narrow in places and to have more houses would hugely increase the dangers. We have no cycle lanes. We already have a huge amount of cyclist racing through the village which in itself causes a danger.

The plan does not seem to consider the effect of the proposed development on the areas between kenilworth and leamington. The traffic problems currently faced would be greatly exascerbated by the proposed designation of green belt land. The infrastructure is simply insufficent as exemplified by the current sewerage problems. The HS2 scheme will cut through much of these areas and cut current transport routes increasing transport problems. The cyclepaths are not safe enough to use

See attached

As a resident of the district I am against any significant new housing development that will put an increased strain on the infrastructure, especially the roads. In the feedback on the plan options that the Council has gathered it is clear that the majority of residents do not support the level of housing that is planned. In theory at least, the Council exists to represent the best interests of the residents, so I fail to understand why the Council is ignoring them.

The proposed figure of 600 new houses per year appears like a rabbit out of a hat - I've failed to find where this figure comes from or how it's justified. In the Preferred Level for Growth, section 5.6, figures of 250, 500 and 800 are offered, and 90% of respondents were against more than 500, so where did 600 come from and why is it being considered when it is contrary to residents wishes?

Arguments revolving around population increase and increased housing are somewhat circular - the two are linked and neither drives the other. What drives the need for new housing is the desire for growth - the plan refers to the "Government's policies of encouraging local authorities to embrace growth and that housing growth would support economic growth". It is assumed that growth is good, and desirable.
But perhaps the community doesn't want this. I for one value less traffic, less noise, less pollution, less housing built on agricultural land, less water run-off causing potential flooding, less light pollution. This is already a prosperous part of the country, we need only minimal growth to support our existing population (PROJ 4 of the Warwick District Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment).

In relation to the proposed Gallows Hill developments of 2700 homes, while this is an obvious location for new housing (whilst of course, not agreeing that it's needed), the route into Leamington is at a standstill twice a day already, as is the Myton Road which I live near. I cannot imagine how much worse it will be as a result of this development.

I studied the Strategic Traffic Assessment - Modelling Results document. 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 information received from WDC Planning Dept) - 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 have sent these observations to the WDC Planning Dept.

Secondly, 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? 1/2 mile queue? 30 minutes wait? There must be a point where the amount of traffic becomes unacceptable in terms of delay, quality of life, pollution etc, such that it would be irresponsible to put plans in place knowing that this limit would be exceeded. What is this limit? In the absence of such a limit, it would seem that new developments can generate new traffic in a completely unconstrained way, potentially to the point of gridlock. Such unconstrained growth would appear to contradict the National Transport Policy's goal "To improve quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment."