The reference to the re-creation of the meer at Kenilworth Castle, although welcome, is optimistic. The viability of this proposal has been looked at for many years, and many problems have been identified.

The meer should not be treated as an addition to publicly available open space in Kenilworth. In fact it might destroy some currently well public footpaths.

The Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines originally identified Enhancement Zones considered to be strategic priorities for landscape conservation and enhancement. In the light of new information, including the regional character area mapping of the Midlands, the Habitat Biodiversity Audit (HBA) and Connectivity/Opportunity Mapping, the emerging GI Strategy may be recommending that these Enhancement Zones be re-assessed in order to identify key priorities for conservation and enhancement. In particular:

1. areas in which the primary aim should be landscape conservation;
2. areas in which the primary aim should be landscape enhancement; and
3. areas in which the aim should be a roughly equal prescription of landscape conservation and enhancement.

An integrated and partnership approach will be required and the National Trust would like to be involved in this process. This will be particularly important in relation to planning for sustainable landscapes in and around the urban fringe, major growth areas and transport infrastructure projects, including HS2.

Inland waterways can contribute towards the provision of significant local and strategic Green Infrastructure, as they provide important wildlife corridors and can support significant biodiversity along their length. The definition of green infrastructure includes "blue infrastructure and blue spaces" such as waterways, towpaths and their environs. We therefore consider that PO15, in addition to identifying river corridors as opportunities for creation or enhancement of green infrastructure, should refer to the canal network and the opportunities it also presents in this regard.

Burton Green Parish Council:
> supports the allocation of the village as a category 2 development village
> recognises that because of the number of homes potentially to be lost because of HS2 that the numbers of houses to be developed in the village are likely to be on the higher end of the development numbers of 30-80
> supports the peri-urban park proposal
> looks forward to working with the District Council to bring forward suggested sites for development
> would like to see the inclusion of a replacement village hall within any proposals (allowing for the potential loss of the current village hall through HS2 development)
> suggests that any development should or proposals should not be brought forward or confirmed until after the final design and mitigation for HS2 through the village is confirmed.

Any large development should include "green channels" such as persists on the Woodloes park. As well as enabling rented apartments and local shops, to facilitate attractive areas to live in, a wide social mix and reduced environmental impact of shopping trips.

Warwick Town should encourage shops, whilst at the District level expansion by the BIG retailers should not be encouraged.

Existing wild places should be kept, particularly the river side walk between Warwick and Leamington. Potentially the path behind Tesco's could be enhanced from a mud track to a gravel path, similar to that in place where the path passes on the South side of the river by Edmondscote running track.

The plan has several areas shown as Confidential. This is clearly unhelpful from the point of view of commenting on specifics. If the land of or around Jephson Farm (between the river and Myton Road) is proposed to be developed this would be a significant diminution of amenity, and more "paving over of Warwick".

Whilst the plan proposes utilising the Regency Terrace opposite the old Council Courts in Warwick, there appears to be no plans for the Courts themselves? Surely there is scope for, say a Museum of Justice to keep these fine buildings and their historic interior, as well as adding to the vitality and attractiveness of Warwick.

Taking the sections in the plan:
P04: am surprised at just how far you plan to expand Warwick South! At this rate Warwick Castle Park will be a green island ? Assuming you are serious then it is behold that the Castle Park be available as an amenity, to enable the expanded population a proportional access to quality green space/park

P05: Affordable housing - agree.

P06/7/9/10/13/15: agree

P08: see earlier comment

P011: see earlier comment re: County Courts

P012: whilst agreeing climate change is real and has to be addressed, I'm unclear on what 20% reduction means. 20% of what ? will this be an annually revised value? (20% in year1, year2 = 20% of previous year etc, presuming each year is an improvement on the previous)

P014: use of public transport is as much a financial decision as access to it. If it's unaffordable to many it won't get used. By ignoring HS2, does that mean any costs associated with it WILL be met by Central Government then? I don't understand (and you don't explain) the risk of ignoring HS2 (or conversely) the risk/downside if you did plan for HS2.

See attached

We feel that the initial process for determining the location for the new housing is fundamentally flawed. Where the housing and employment land is needed and most appropriate should have been decided first and then the land acquired not building where land has been offered. The document states " make sure new developments are in places that will reduce the need for people to use their cars".

PO 12 also states that "transport is the biggest contributor to carbon emissions" yet all the proposed sites outlined in the plan will lead to more car journeys. It is difficult to imagine that there will be enough CIL money to develop the public transport measures needed to tempt people out of their cars.

It would make more sense to build around Warwick Parkway Station and the proposed station in Kenilworth.

In determining the number of houses needed little heed seems to have been taken of the housing stock being released by an aging population. It is difficult to see how anything in this plan has much economic benefit for Warwick. The SHMA says that employment will drive demand for housing and that 526 houses per annum are needed to achieve employment growth of 10% and forecasts employment growth of 11,860 jobs over years 20l1-203l.It is difficult to see where these jobs will come from unless the jobs created by the Coventry and Warwick Gateway scheme are included and what benefit will that bring to Warwick. The document says "need to provide employment land in and around the Districts main towns to meet local needs and encourage creation of jobs". All the employment land options are outside Warwick and there is no mention of employment opportunities within the town centres.

RefP09
*
It is hard to justify "specific support for a major new retail development in Leamington Town Centre" as how will Warwick and Kenilworth prosper? We would like to suggest that the phrase "strongly resist any out of town centre proposals" be replaced with "not allow any out of town proposals" if WDC is serious about ensuring that" our town centres remain successful". There is no mention in the plan of the effect of cyber retailing and where are the plans for Wi Fi in our town centres? There are few firm proposals in this document or the draft infrastructure document for the plan to bring people into the town centre eg public transport, parking and ,particularly for Warwick, coach parking.

RefP017
There is nothing in the plan as to how WDC will "support visitor accommodation
in town centres"

RefP018
We suggest that "ensure that new development can be provided with adequate
water supply" should read "sustainable water supply".

With reference to the Green Infrastructure plan. Why are the four future opportunities not included in the plan.

Warwick Chamber of Trade are disappointed that there appears to be little of benefit to the town and hopes to see some improvements in the final document.