Why is all the development in the south of the district which is already the more developed part. You say that the north part of the district has more green belt but how do you expect to have a balanced district in terms of housing, infrastructure and employment if that is maintained and you continue to develop the south part of the district. As you state in your information a major employment site is going to be built in the north, where development would be more appropriate.
Whatever you say about improving the infrastructure, with this amount of new housing, it will in no way compensate for the massive increase in traffic. Have you ever travelled around Warwick and Leamington in rush hour (anytime between 8 - 10 and 4 - 7). It is like one big car park. Warwick will in no way be able to cope with this.
Why don't you and other local councils work more closely to ensure that all of your local plans work in harmony with each other to improve the larger Warwickshire area. 2,000 homes near Gaydon will just add to the problems I have already stated.
Why aren't you utilising more brownfield sites and regenerating existing populated areas.
Why are all of the gypsy and traveller sites within a relatively small area again, within the south of the district. Regardless of there being a lot of green belt in the North of the district it must be able to accommodate some of the sites. Again you are putting all of the pressure on the south.

I am writing to you in objection to the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy, which is currently the subject of public consultation. I am extremely concerned with these proposals and believe them to be wholly inappropriate and an unfair burden on the small areas of Warwick district that will be affected by these developments. I expect you to respond to all of my concerns in detail, justifying your "Revised Development Strategy" with factual and appropriate data. My concerns can be summarised as follows :-

New Housing


Number Of Houses & Impact To Local Infrastructure.

In the 20 years to 2011, the population growth in our area has already been unnaturally high at 18% due to the high level of new housing. This has seen a significant number of new people migrating to the area, many of whom do not work in the vicinity. This is already placing an unacceptable and unmanageable burden on the local infrastructure which in turn is having a negative effect on the local inhabitants. To propose a further increase of 20% over the next 15 years is not only inappropriate but also irresponsible toward all of the existing residents. It is quite clear that the local infrastructure will not be able to manage as it is already failing to cope with the existing levels of traffic resulting in congestion ranging from long slow moving queues to complete grid lock Monday to Friday during rush hour and also on much of Saturday. Significant data is readily available in the public domain that proves this to be the case (Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment). Typical proposals of widening and adjusting existing roads and junctions will not resolve this problem as is clearly evident around the site of the old Ford foundry which is already a traffic congestion black spot since its completion a few weeks ago. Unless major new roads are built with additional crossings over the natural barriers of the River Avon, River Leam and the railway then your proposals for improving the road infrastructure to cope with these extra homes will fail. Such major developments to break these traffic bottle necks will not only be inappropriate in the areas of Warwick and Leamington due to their aesthetic and environmental impact but will also not be financially viable.

All of the major amenities (shops, hospital etc) are located on the opposite side of the river in either Warwick or Leamington. This means that the existing bridges will become a major bottleneck due to the increase in traffic. For example, Castle Bridge in Warwick has a capacity of 900 cars per hour, a figure which is already exceeded on a regular basis, indicated by the subsequent congestion that occurs. The capacities of the other river crossings in the area are likely to be similar. In addition, the adjacent roads leading to and from these river crossings are also restricted and regularly congested.

The siting of 4000 houses between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook will also result in large amounts of traffic using the M40. The roads that link the two M40 motorway junctions with this area are not capable of coping with this extra traffic capacity.

I therefore challenge you to demonstrate how the current road infrastructure can cope with an extra 12,300 houses or state in detail what changes to the infrastructure you plan to make in the same timeframe to support these additional dwellings.

In addition to the road infrastructure problems, there is also no indication as to how other key infrastructure improvements will be delivered in the same time frame. An increase in population of circa 40-50,000 that 12,300 homes will bring will require additional capacity for the hospital, doctors surgeries, schools, public transport, police and fire services etc. How will these be delivered in the same time frame as 12,300 houses and how will these be funded ?

Housing requirements based upon the natural growth of the population indicates that only circa 5500 new houses are required and not the 12300 being proposed. A recent housing needs survey in Bishops Tachbrook identified a total housing need of 15 additional properties (from a response rate of 500 homes from a total of 750 in the village). So based upon this, why are so many houses being proposed in the locality of the village ? Building an artificially high number of houses will simply encourage more migration to an area which is a nicer place to live than many inner city urban areas. There is also little need to create more local business and industry in the area since the unemployment rate in Warwick District is only 1.7% so if this is reason being used to justify the number of new houses proposed this is also inappropriate and flawed. Building an excess of new houses will promote more commuting which is something that is already causing a major problem in the area through traffic congestion.


Location Of Proposed Development

It is wholly inappropriate for a few small areas of Warwick District to shoulder the entire burden of the number of houses being proposed. This will guarantee that a small amount of the current population of Warwickshire will be significantly and unfairly affected by the building of these new homes while the majority of the district will not be affected in any way at all. Warwick district is a large and diverse area and the burden of extra home requirements should likewise be shared across all of the district's towns and villages calculated by conducting simple housing needs surveys as already completed in Bishops Tachbrook.

The visual impact of 12,300 houses in the rural area of Warwick District will be very significant, particularly those being proposed on the higher greenfield lands south of Harbury Lane. To back this up, during the previous round of proposals to build new houses in the area, a government planning inspector stated that "no build now or in the future" should occur at the site of Woodside Farm. WDC's landscape consultant, Richard Morrish also referred to the land south of Gallows Hill that "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development".

The building of these extra homes in such few areas will decimate two historic villages, Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory. Your previous "Preferred Vision For Warwick District to 2026" contained quotes and statements which are clearly breached by the proposals now being made one of which related to the importance of retaining this rural area, an example as follows :-

"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."

This is a rural community. The building of 12,300 additional houses in this area will result in significant parts of it ceasing to be rural !

My personal view is that you have proposed to build these houses in such a few areas to reduce the overall cost of the project and to limit the number of people that are affected (and hence those likely to object). This then makes it easier for you to secure developers whilst limiting the amount of "fallout" and "challenge" you receive from the residents of Warwick District. Spreading the number of required houses across all of the District's towns and villages would significantly reduce the impact of those houses on the local infrastructure. This is therefore an example where cost and ease of execution have taken priority over what would cause least impact to the District as a whole and therefore be in the best interests of the Warwick District residents.


Location Of Proposed Development Near To Bishops Tachbrook.

Whilst I am in favour of retaining green space between Bishops Tachbrook and the houses proposed South of Harbury Lane, there is little point in this if it results in a major development being within a few hundred yards of the village and being on an elevated site. This will have the affect of dominating the village both aesthetically and from a noise perspective. This area of restraint should be from the Harbury Lane which already forms a natural juncture between the development of Warwick Gates and the "green field" areas surrounding Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory. Any breach of this existing boundary by large housing developments will challenge the criteria of a village and hence negate the green space acting as an "area of restraint" It will also make future development of what will be a smaller area of undeveloped land between the new development and Bishops Tachbrook more likely. I consider the current distance between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook to be a minimum of that required to protect and maintain Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory as villages. The area of restraint also does not give any protection to the existing mobile home park off Harbury Lane. This is destined to be completely engulfed. Why is no area of restraint being afforded to this existing development. Again, maintaining the current natural boundary of the Harbury Lane as the edge of the area of restraint would also protect these local inhabitants.

The filling in of the various vacant areas around the Warwick Gates site would provide sufficient extra housing in this area if the overall burden of the required increased housing is spread across the whole of Warwickshire as I have previously suggested. The village of Bishops Tachbrook could also accommodate its own requirement for new houses which has already been determined through a housing needs survey.

The reason why I am so passionate about Bishops Tachbrook remaining a real village and not just by name is that it enjoys all of the benefits of an English country village. The local children go to the local school, this then ensures that the adults mix and communicate with one another. The local parents help out at the school, they also run Brownies, Rainbows, Youth Club etc. These organisations then support the local church and vice versa. All of this ensures that the village is a safe, happy and rewarding place to live. This is not something that can simply and easily be created but it can be very easily lost. All of these things will gradually fade away if the village loses its identity. The development of Warwick Gates is a good example where, due to a lack of up front planning and foresight, there is precious little sense of community and engagement between the residents.

The Bishops Tachbrook local history group recently wrote a complete history of the village and sold over 700 hundred copies. I encourage you to read it. You will then get some indication of the depth of feeling towards the village and the number of people who consider it something worthwhile that should be protected. It has developed as a village since before the Norman Conquest (1066) and should not be allowed to disappear into a mediocre suburb of Leamington Spa as Warwick Gates has become.


Use Of Green Field & Brown Field Sites.

In light of the current need to protect the environment as much as possible, it is essential that brown field sites are used for future housing development prior to the destruction of further green field areas. Your plans do utilise a proportion of brown field sites however, as you are planning to build houses in such few areas of the county this is therefore limited. There are also significant brown field sites that have not been proposed. The now defunct Coventry airport site is of significant size which could be utilised to build houses. There are also several smaller areas in the Leamington and Warwick areas such as the Leamington "Arches" area.

I challenge you to confirm the total area of brown field sites within the county and explain why all of these cannot be utilised to provide the necessary building land for the extra houses required to avoid further use of green field areas. Unless it can be shown that there are insufficient brown field areas in Warwickshire and the surrounding West Midlands, it is wholly inappropriate and irresponsible for you to be proposing the use of any green field sites whatsoever.


Gypsy & Traveller Sites.

With regard the proposed gypsy and traveller sites around the Bishops Tachbrook area (Nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 15) I have the following objections based upon the fact that they do not comply with the Travellers Consultation Document :-

* Sites 3, 4 & 6 are very remote from major amenities.

* Sites 5 & 9 only have access onto a busy road, have no pedestrian access and could result in unacceptable visual impact to Warwick and the listed buildings also on this side.

* Sites 6 & 9 have no pedestrian access.

* Site 10 is close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre and so any site could interfere with their sensitive breeding activities ref noise, site contamination (due to business activities) etc. It is also remote from major amenities and has no pedestrian access.

* Site 15 is located on the banks of the Tachbrook so there is a risk of contamination from the site (ref acknowledgement that business as well as domestic activities are likely to occur on the site.

In addition, the school in Bishops Tachbrook Parish is only a single form entry and is fully subscribed in many years. It is therefore not capable of providing schooling for extra 10-30 extra children from local traveller sites.

One area that has not appeared on the list of suggested sites is the caravan / camping site that was installed on the Banbury Road south of Warwick near to Temple Hill Spinney. This area was developed into a campsite / caravan site some years ago and has been unused ever since. A suitable junction and pedestrian access has been provisioned for and its location is close enough to the amenities of Warwick to make this an appropriate site. I don't know if this is a private site or if it was developed by the local authorities. If it was the latter then it is a disgrace that this site has not been used since its creation and demonstrates a total waste of local tax payers money. Its use as a gypsy / traveller site would provide at least some value from the monies already spent. As a brown field site it would also constitute a lesser impact on the development compared to some of the other proposed sites.

In the same way that I expect brown field sites to be used for the proposed 12,300 houses, I also expect you to do the same for the gypsy and traveller sites. There are sufficient sites available for this (Nos 17 & 18 for example). Until all the brown field sites in the district have been used, it is irresponsible and unacceptable for you to be proposing green field sites as an alternative. The environment is coming under increasing pressure and by proposing green field sites you are maximising the amount of this pressure.

Overall I expect you to only propose and develop areas that comply with the Travellers Consultation Document and that have a minimal impact to the environment and those existing residents of Warwick District. Any that don't comply should be removed from the proposal list.


I look forward to your response to my challenges and questions.

I am writing to strongly object to the Development Strategy planned for Baginton Village.

1. Gateway

The Gateway is an unsustainable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt land with no very special circumstances. It will have a very great affect on the quality of life within the village and cause an unnecessary increase in traffic through the village particularly Mill Hill. The bridge in Mill Hill will certainly not be able to cope with the increase number of buses proposed to service the commercial businesses planned. There is plenty of commercial land around this area that could be used for commercial development without impacting on our rural community.

2. Housing

Although, I welcome the development of new housing within the village particularly affordable housing, I totally disagree with the proposal put forward of 70-90 houses, a more realistic number would be 20. The Local Pan must not dictate the type of housing development to villages, but should take into account individual village desires under the Localism Act. Outcomes of Baginton Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey should be used in preference to the proposals in the consultation document.

3. Gypsy & Traveller site Options

The proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (ref G101 & G107) are an inappropriate Development of the Green Belt. The consultation documents identify major negative effects as to the sites being located on Green Belt land and being adjacent to Coventry airport, the industrial park and in the vicinity of several sewage treatment works, with the associated noise, light and air quality effects.

The proposed sites are not within easy reach of local facilities such as doctors, schools, hospitals etc and there is poor public transport provision. Access from the sites to the village along the grass verges are unsuitable for pushchairs, wheelchairs etc.

There are already three sites within a few miles of Baginton at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. Therefore, the proposed sites do not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of "distributing development across the District".

The proposed site in Stoneleigh Road is on private land, which includes part of the local nursery. It is unacceptable to adversely impact on a rural business by forcing them to give up part of their land for such a development, when there are more suitable sites.

The alternative sites proposed to the south of Warwick district are preferable options to the two proposed in the Baginton parish as they are outside the Green Belt, they also have better access to facilities, would not have an adverse impact on a rural businesses and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

I moved to Baginton with my family nearly 3years ago at considerable financial costs so that I and my family could enjoy the benefits of living within a rural community. Since moving here the village of Baginton has continually had to fight Warwick District Council over a number of proposed developments. Can you please take into account that this is a village and not an overspill from Coventry and I would very much like to enjoy the rural setting we now enjoy!!!

Revised Development Strategy.
The increase in housing estimates from 10,800 to 12,300 is excessive and needs to be challenged. A knowledgeable source has put the figure at 5,400. It is important to have the estimate done accurately taking into account the estimates of adjoining District Councils since so much of the Plan is based on this estimate.
Given the estimate is nearer the 5,400 estimate, there will be no need to consider additional homes in villages and thereby protect the Green Belt.
In the case of Hampton Magna there is a proposed increase of 100-150 homes. This will mean an increase in the population of some 300 people. The existing amenities and infrastructure could not absorb this increase. Budbrooke School is already at capacity; the single road through it and Hampton-on-the-Hill is used as a "rat run" by speeding traffic to Warwick Parkway railway station and the M40. It is essential to preserve the rural character of both villages and they should be removed from any further consideration in the Plan.
Sites for Gypsies & Travellers.
From having no sites available in the 2012 Plan, there are now twenty. The selection of sites appears haphazard and unrealistic. Kites Nest Lane (GT13)is the subject of an Inquiry the outcome of which will not be known till October 2013. Land near J15 M40/A46 (GT20) was offered to the WDC for Gypsies before Morrisons returned it to farming use. It was refused on the grounds that it was too far from essential amenities. That being the case how can it now be considered in the Plan?
Since there is to be a development for many thousand homes, consideration should be given to accommodating Gypsies & Travellers within those communities where the amenities they require will be at hand.

I object to the proposal to build houses as set out in the June 13 Revised Development Strategy document within Hampton Magna:
The green belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt land in "exceptional circumstances". The plan does not reflect this last resort position given the continuing uncertainty over housing needs. The green belt open character of the village should not be compromised.
The scale of development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population.
The plan is contradictory. It portrays a want to consider Green Belt and protect the open spaces and countryside yet villages "washed over" by green belt may have their village envelopes redrawn. I do not agree with this policy.
The village has already suffered it share of green belt erosion and growth/development on all sides in recent years. Warwick Parkway Station (built on green belt land and subsequently expanded considerably), Hatton Park Estate to the North, Chase Meadow to the south, IBM side development to the East. Further erosion of green belt and the village character must stop. Once it goes it can never be regained.
Contrary to the plan, services in the village are fully utilised and do not need further "sustaining" through population growth. The school is expanding but this is needed to resovle current stretched classrom numbers. The train station and its facilities are fully utilised. Existing infrastructure capacity should not be stretched further.
Another large influx of families will create more traffic congestion particularly given the single file traffic light controlled road under the bridge being the main access to/from the village. There will be more dangers with traffic volumes through the village day to day and more rat running through country roads and other neighbouring villages. Houses will be purchased by London commuters creating more pressure to expand Warwick Parkway further.
Land suggested for Gypsy sites should not take precedence over house building on them and I am against the compulsory purchase of private land to facilitate Gypsy sites.


The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural and present policies respect this. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. The green land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly.

The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built is much too high. Less than half that number would meet local needs. It is wrong to forecast as far into the future as 2029, and to allocate greenfield land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build when.

While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already has the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market.

Transport: sprawling development is inevitably car-dependent. The transport strategy is car-based, just squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network, bridges over the River Avon, and parking. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and could not have good public transport. It has long been obvious that the current road infrastructure within the Warwick South Area does not cope with present levels of traffic and so to propose this level of additional build would appear reckless and ill considered. It is fine saying that this will be addressed, but how? This area does not lend itself to the building of large arterial road networks. Please protect the history of our area.

Air Quality: pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than is legally permitted. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would also be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged. Worse, the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened.

The historic environment would directly be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places: in Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, on Castle Hill, and at St John's; and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way, giving no impression of the beauty of the spa town.

Other Infrastructure: While in theory development would be conditional on it funding schools, and health care facilities, the Council's predicted funding and provision has a woeful shortfall and is not enough. There would also be risks to water supply, sewage and drainage.

There are better alternatives: lower housing numbers to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford, instead of encouraging in-migration; gradually releasing land for development as demand grows; giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations; building homes close to jobs; and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development. Every area of Warwickshire should take it's share of these new houses however, currently, these proposals would appear to be being bullied through by an Executive committee who are acting as Nimby's. It is time that fairness was considered. Current proposals are not fair!

The possible Gypsy and Traveller sites are concentrated in the same area, again because such strong protection is given to the Green Belt and so little to our green land. Again, not fair.

The consultation process and the politics of the situation also give rise to concerns, but these are matters to be pursued by other means.


Question:
Where would all the people moving to this proposed build work? Concentrating the majority of these new houses in one area is wrong. The old "local plan" was ludicrous but this is worse, please reconsider before it is too late.

I would like to enquire as to what the plans are for the infrastructure surrounding your planned increase in housing stock in Hatton Park. My feeling is that to add 70/90 more homes will overload the A4177 to an intolerable level. If each of the new homes has two cars or more that is approximately another two hundred cars trying to get onto the A4177 during the rush hour when it is already extremely difficult to get on to this road right now.

I am also concerned about the schools, surely they are already full, we read in the papers that Warwickshire does NOT have a policy of siblings taking preference when joining a school. Perhaps Warwickshire District Council can explain how a parent can split him/herself into two to collect young children from more than one school? I assume Warwickshire District Council are aware both parents need to work in this day & age to enable the payment of such bills as the Council Tax etc; so how are they meant to cope with the safe collection of their children?

I am also concerned about the capacity in our GP surgeries, will they be able to cope with the added load. Same applies to Warwick Hospital.

All of the above concerns also apply to the plans for Travellers Sites. Will they actually be paying Council Tax? Will part of their contract ensure that each site is constantly cleaned up or do we have to live with the mess AND pay for the cleaning up? If the sites are near a main road into Warwick will this affect how visitors view this lovely country town?

I do hope Warwickshire District Council are really, really thinking about this thoroughly. It would be good not to have another High Street/ Jury Street debacle because that has caused a great deal of trouble to traders & shoppers alike not to mention the dreadful cost to tax payers, & it still isn't finished! Please, please be very careful in your decisions as we will have to live with the end result for a long time.

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached

Objection to Warwick District Council's Local Plan
I strongly object to the proposed local plan, please withdraw it and reconsider what is best for the town and its residents.
There is no need to build so many houses on green field sites south of Warwick for current predictions of the town's population growth. If the plan was to be adopted the countryside would be lost for future generations. The proposed transport mitigation plan would destroy our historic town and crucially the increased pollution would put at serious risk the health of the town's residents.
I have detailed my objections in full below.

1. Proposed development of 3,195 houses on Greenfield land from Gallows' Hill to Europa Way.
Building on green field land south of Warwick would remove the green approach to the town and the green area that divides the town from other conurbations. Proposing 3,195 homes here implies that there are spare resources and facilities for the new inhabitants. Warwick does not have the spare capacity in hospitals, medical facilities, schools, leisure amenities and employment. Therefore a development of this size would require its own independent infrastructure.
2. The extra homes will generate thousands of extra vehicles on the road.
This proposed development is not within walking distance of the town centre so immediately requires inhabitants to drive to access the town's facilities.
The traffic in Warwick is already producing high levels of pollution and congestion in the town especially at peak time, which will be exacerbated by the addition of extra traffic.
Nowhere in the plan are there provisions for extra pedestrian and cyclist facilities within Warwick.
Increased pollution will have a negative effect on residents and visitors to the town.
From personal experience, the average speed of traffic on the Banbury road through to Jury Street and Smith Street at rush hour is often at walking pace or static not 19 miles per hour as stated in the plan.
3. Proposed changes to roads in Warwick to help cope with the additional traffic
The historic bridge over the river Avon from the Banbury road is only able to carry two lanes of traffic and will always be a bottleneck entrance to the town whatever proposed widening of other roads is suggested. This bridge has a weight limit and structurally needs to be protected from excessive use to ensure it remains open at all times.
The main roads to this bridge, the Banbury road and the Myton road, both have large secondary schools on them and the speed limit should be reduced to 20 miles per hour and children's safety increased travelling to school on foot or cycle by proper crossing points. It should not become more dangerous with faster moving traffic, additional lanes and distracting signs.
Increased pollution levels outside the schools also have a negative effect on children's health and ability to learn.
Off the Banbury road there is Bridge End which is a very narrow road in a conservation area with many historical buildings that would suffer from increased pollution. It is essential that both entrances to Bridge End be retained for access particularly of emergency vehicles for the safety of residents and the many timbered buildings.
Beyond the bridge, where many tourists stand to photograph the Castle, is St Nicholas' Park and car park. Safe pedestrian access between the park and castle is essential to encourage visitors and residents of the town. The road here needs wide pavements and slow traffic to keep the pedestrians safe, not the proposed widening, and addition, of traffic lanes. Also vehicle access turning right to and from St Nicholas car park needs improving which would be impossible if the road had extra lanes of traffic.
Adding traffic lights to the Castle Hill Gyratory would not improve the flow of traffic but would destroy the beautiful, historic, view of Mill Street and the Castle entrance.
The right-hand turn from Smiths Street to St Nicholas Church Street ought to be retained as it enables vehicles to re-enter the town if need be.
To improve the flow of traffic in Warwick, all traffic with further destinations needs to be diverted around, and not through, the town.
Free extra parking on the edge of the town with frequent, (every 15 mins) minibuses to the centre of town would also encourage less traffic.
4. Diverting traffic from the new developments away from Warwick town centre
Any large new developments should have new roads built to encourage traffic away from the town unless it is the final destination.
The plan refers to employment being available north of Warwick so priority should be given to taking traffic from the proposed new housing development south of Warwick to this area. Emphasis should be given to taking traffic around Warwick not through it to reach the major networks of motorways and dual carriageways. (M40, A46, M1, M6, M69, etc.)
5. Proposed Traveller's site by Warwick town racecourse
The Warwick town racecourse is already a busy tourist attraction and the leisure area around it is regularly used for walking, golf, etc. and the entrance to the historic Hill Close Gardens. A nearby traveller's site would have an adverse effect on the area making it less attractive to visitors.
A preferred area for the traveller's site suggested in the plan would be the site by the M40 junction which would also benefit the travelling community with good access to the national road network.

See attached

see attached

see attached

Most of the plan is focused in the south west of the warwick district. I question the integrity of the executives in focusing so much of the plan in this area. The green belt excuse is exactly that an excuse. It has been overridden in the case of Hampton on the hill and it seems it is acceptable to build on the greenbelt as long as it is not in the north of the district.

The Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park has already added burden on the pre existing infrastructure a burden than is barely sustainable now. I recently had to wait 3 weeks before the doctors surgery could fit me if or blood tests. These tests were for something potential very serious and the delay caused me much anxiety. One of the councils documents on the councils website sites health needs of travellers as paramount and of concern when locating sites. This then is likely to add yet more pressure to the doctors surgery as is the Hampton on the hill development.

In addition to this roads are already overburdened. Purser drive would be the route travellers would take to the motorway, cars already speed down this road in great volume. A road which has over 10 primary aged or younger children living on it. The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites is therefore being contrevened as the local infrastructure can not support the travellers site.


The historic nature of warwick seems to have had no baring over plans. The town is already effectively gridlocked at parts of the day and these plans will extend this gridlock. Tourists will simply stop coming to the town hence destroying local business.


The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plain. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain. In addition to this it is planned on part of the only remaining green land on this side of the town. Much green land has already been sacrificed in SW warwick, if this site was built there would be hardly any left. It appears we will sacrifice the living standards and attractive nature of the south of the district but not the north of the district. In relation to flooding chase meadow is built on a flood plain, the council acknowledged the risk by repeatedly refusing to adopt the roads on the estate due to flood risk. Only after much argument has an agreement to adopt the roads been reached. Additional hard standing will certainly increase the risk further.

I am writing to object to the draft Local Plan and to the RDS.
I have major concerns about the proposals. My points are as follows:

1. Widening the roads opposite Warwick School and down Myton Road will not prevent severe congestion as a result of an additional 7-10,000 cars; the approaches to Warwick will be spoilt and the views from the castle will be detrimentally affected. The pollution will directly impact on school children when walking to school and when playing sport on the sports fields which are immediately adjacent to these proposed dual carriageways.

2. The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built is much too high. Less than half that number would meet local needs. It is wrong to forecast as far into the future as 2029, and to allocate greenfield land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build when.

3. While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already has the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market.

4. Transport: sprawling development is inevitably car-dependent. The transport strategy is car-based, just squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network, bridges over the River Avon, and parking. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and could not have good public transport. I am very concerned as to the impact on Avon Bridge. This bridge is beautiful and the view from it to the castle, which is enhanced because it is from an old bridge, is priceless and key for Warwick.

5. Air Quality:pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than is legally permitted. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would also be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged. Worse, the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened.

6. The quality of the historic environment would directly be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places: in Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, on Castle Hill, and at St John's; and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way and down the Banbury Road, giving no impression of the beauty of the town.

7. Other Infrastructure: While in theory development would be conditional on it funding schools, and healthcare facilities, the Council's predicted funding and provision is not enough; and there would also be risks to water supply, sewage and drainage. I am particularly concerned that Warwick Hospital cannot cope with increased demand for its services and it is not realistic to expand it sufficiently to cope with eth numbers proposed.

8. There are better alternatives: lower housing numbers to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford, instead of encouraging in-migration; gradually releasing land for development as demand grows; giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations; building homes close to jobs; and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development.

9. The possible Gipsy and Traveller sites are concentrated in the same area, again because such strong protection is given to the Green Belt and so little to our green land.

10. The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook and near Gallows Hill is rural and agricultural and present policies respect this. Building on it would merge the built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. The green land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly.


I feel strongly that anyone responsible for managing Warwick and anyone who has the residents and traders of Warwick's interests at heart, would see how obvious it is that the Town will be spoilt because it simply cannot cope with the extra transport and pollution, even with the proposed road changes. You cannot realistically avoid the issues that the narrowness of the Avon Bridge, Smith Street, Jury Street and The Butts cause. These are part of the Heritage of Warwick, a unique historic town; the heart of Warwick and its approaches should not be sacrificed.

Please ensure my objections and sincere concerns are passed on to the appropriate and to the highest levels.

Thank you for your letter of June 19th inviting responses to the above consultation documents.
Unfortunately the Steering Group has not been able to carry out a comprehensive consultation of residents in the time available, but the Parish Council has held a public meeting to discuss the revised Plan and will have forwarded its views to you separately.
The Steering Group itself, however, welcomes the revised proposals which seem to be better balanced and more appropriate to the needs of the District and the wishes of its residents than the original ones.
In particular we welcome the reduction in the number of settlements proposed for development along the A4177/B4439 corridor, which would have threatened the integrity of the Green Belt through pepper-potting.
The concerns of the Parish centre primarily around four issues, namely:
1) The Level of Housing
As you will be aware from the Parish Plan, those who expressed a view were strongly opposed to further housing at Hatton, though a minority were in favour of more affordable development. For its part, the Steering Group recognises that the Local Plan is required to contribute to the national housing shortfall and recognises that the Parish cannot stand still. Assuming Hatton Park meets the criteria for a secondary service village (which some people question), then 70-90 houses over a 15 year period does not seem unreasonable. Most of the views expressed at the Parish Council's public meeting were concerned with whether the infrastructure could cope with more development and the likely environmental impact of individual sites, rather than with the numbers per se. We would also like to know what measures, if any, are proposed to ensure that the 70-90 houses is all that the Parish will be required to provide in the plan period, as past experience suggests that the homes will be built quickly, necessitating a further allocation in the next review of the Local Plan in five-years or so time.

2) Infrastructure Provision
The principal issues here are travel and education. Despite the recent, very welcome safety improvements, the geometry of the A4177 and B4439 make these inherently dangerous roads. Congestion is also a problem at peak periods and whenever there are problems on the M42 as they are then used as a diversion to the M40 at Longbridge. Further development and future traffic growth will naturally increase the dangers and we would like to know what improvements, if any, would be sought by way of developer contributions to make these roads safer.

As regards education, all children from Hatton Park have to be bussed to school (or taken by parents in cars). The excellent Ferncumbe School at Hatton Green is over-subscribed and its catchment area at Hatton Park has had to be redrawn (hopefully only temporarily?), with more children being directed to Budbrooke School, which is also at capacity. We would like to know if the District Council has carried out any population profiling to see whether either school is likely to have spare capacity in the future and, if not, whether developer contributions would be sufficient to pay for any necessary improvements. It should be noted that both on-site and off-site improvements would be required at the Ferncumbe School in Hatton Green, where parking congestion is a particular problem. Indeed, the school has initiated a voluntary one-way system through the village to try and alleviate this problem, which is further exacerbated by the number of vehicles left on the road outside Hatton Autocare near to the dangerously blind junction of Hatton Green and the B4439.

Some residents also referred to the inadequate shopping facilities at Hatton Park, though it has to be acknowledged that a modest increase in the number of houses is unlikely to produce sufficient trade to change the situation.

3) Environmental and Social Impacts
As the Parish Plan demonstrates, there is strong support for retaining the Green Belt. The Grand Union Canal is also a highly valued environmental asset and these two features figured prominently in the discussions about the four proposed housing sites within the Parish (Ref. Nos. R114, R115, R117 and R124) and the three adjoining its boundaries (Ref. Nos. R75, R125 and R126).

All seven sites fall within the Green Belt, the primary function of which is to prevent urban sprawl and the coalescence of settlements. This principal would be strongly prejudiced by development of Sites R117 and R124, which would extend ribbon development up Hatton Hill and so join Hatton Park with Canal Lane. It would also be prejudiced by development of Site R126 and, to a lesser degree by Site R115, both of which would extend development along the Birmingham Road and so reduce the gap between Hatton Park and the A46 Warwick By-pass. Development of Sites R114 and R75/R125 would impact least on the Green Belt. Six of the seven sites front the A4177, creating a strong risk of ribbon development, which would be contrary to sound planning practice.

Four of the seven sites (Ref.Nos. R117, R125, R75 and R126) are also adjacent or close to the canaI. The flight of locks at Hatton, descending through a rural landscape towards Warwick with the tower of St Mary's Church in the distance, is an iconic feature of the British Canal network that brings many tourists to the area. Whilst it would no doubt be attractive for developers to exploit the waterfront, it would be a tragedy to lose this priceless approach to the county town.

With regard to social impacts, sites R117/R124, R125/R75 and R126 are all severed from Hatton Park by the busy A4177. For them to become an integral part of the community on the other side of this road and avail themselves of the shop, village hall, school bus pick-ups, children's play area and sports area, would be fraught with difficulty and added danger.

We appreciate that some of these views contradict one another and we apologise for not being able to express a preference for any particular site, but we have no mandate to do so. We would, however, ask that all these points are taken into consideration in finalising the Local Plan.

4) Traveller Sites
Our fundamental concerns are the impact that any site will have on the environment and people's lives.

We are particularly opposed to sites (except perhaps brownfield ones) that are in the Green Belt, since this would be give travellers a privilege denied to ordinary people. We are aware that travellers claim special dispensations because of their lifestyles, but once a site is established it becomes a permanent feature just like any other housing development and the transient nature of its occupants are no different to ordinary people moving house, albeit perhaps more frequently. Clearly the recent decision of the Communities Secretary to intervene in appeals involving traveller sites in the Green Belt because "in some cases the Green Belt is not always being given the sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers" must be a relevant consideration.

We are especially concerned that acquiescing to the Kites Nest Lane site would be an open invitation for anyone to flout the planning laws and then seek retrospective permission, citing this as a precedent.

We would also be opposed to development of the Oaklands Farm site as this would serve to narrow the Green Belt between Hatton Park and Warwick, impact on the rural setting of the Hatton lock flight, introduce turning lorries and caravans onto the A4177 at a dangerous location where there has been a fatal accident. It would also adversely affect neighbouring properties and detract from the approach into Warwick along one of the major routes into the town.

see-attached

Dear Sir or Madam

I wish to make the following comments on the Local Plan bearing in mind the significant development that has already taken place in Warwick over the last two decades, namely Hatton Park, Chase Meadows, Benfords site, Warwick Gates and Myton Road (old school site).

The local plan is suggesting significant further development of the town, which would potentially increase the size of Warwick by approximately 40% and yet little attention seems to have been taken into consideration the already poor air quality experienced in the town centre, which would be further adversely affected by the additional traffic generated by such development, which seems to suggest that traffic would be concentrated on the Castle Hill area of the town. The proposed changes to the infrastructure of the town seems to be based solely on providing additional traffic lights and by reducing access to a thoroughfare at the St John's end of Smith Street. The traffic congestion which already exists in the town, particularly at peak times is an issue now, let alone having potentially more traffic directed through the town in future years. I understand that a report is due shortly on the air quality of Warwick town centre, and so I think it regrettable that the District Council would put forward such development without having first knowledge of the outcome of that report.

Development on the scale proposed would have significant impact on services such as schools and hospitals. It was suggested at the public meeting held at Aylesford School that the District Council were in discussion with Warwick Hospital and the County Education Department about the provision of additional services. We have all read in the press about problems at Warwick Hospital A & E Department being able to cope with current demand, and as the hospital site has already been developed to its maximum potential, I fail to understand how it can be suggested that the hospital could cope with the impact of providing care for potentially a 40% increase in the size of the town and surrounding district. It was suggested at the Aylesford meeting that to cope with the additional demand for school places, that Myton could expand, and yet you only have to attempt to travel along the Myton Road now between the hours of 8.15 am and 9.00 am and 3.15 pm and 4.30 pm to see that the current road is frequently blocked with long tailbacks of traffic caused by school traffic both from Myton and Warwick Schools. Any such expansion of Myton School would have an impact on the infrastructure and yet this does not seem to have been taken into account.

With regard to the plan for the proposed traveler sites, it strikes me that all the proposed sites are predominantly around Warwick, and this seems an unfair distribution, bearing in mind that there is a long tradition of using the Thickthorn site in Kenilworth for the annual traveler horse fair. That site is close to transport links (A46), close to schools, doctors, shops etc and would appear to meet more of the criteria that a lot of the sites suggested for Warwick. I fail to understand why that area of land at Thickthorn would be designated for employment use, when there is no history of employment use in that part of Kenilworth, and there would not appear to be a demand for employment land in Kenilworth when you take into consideration the change of use around Common Lane, Priory Road, Kenilworth from employment to residential.

All in all I think the proposed local plan reflects badly on the Council as an ill-conceived document, and officers and Councillors need to go back to the drawing board and start again, and come back with proposals which residents of the area would find acceptable. It is clear from the local press that there is strong opposition to the plan, and as a democratic country, Officers and Councillors should respond in line with local wishes.

see attached

1. I object to the proposals to allocate 70-90 additional houses on Hatton Park set out in the Revised Development Strategy June 2013.

2. In the document, Hatton Park is defined as a Secondary Service Village. Para 4.3.13 states that information on the approach to demonstrating a robust and justifiable approach to the establishment of a settlement hierarchy is contained in the technical paper Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report 2013.

3. Secondary Services Villages are defined in that Report as ..."offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities.."

4. I do not consider that Hatton Park is sustainable in terms of offering a good range of services/facilities or good accessibility to services/facilities - particularly by public transport and no evidence is provided in the Revised Development Strategy nor the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report and Appendix 5 of that Report. I do not consider, therefore, that this is a fair, transparent and accessible consultation. I also have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly given the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed additional houses.

5. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

6. I consider that the proposed 70-90 additional houses will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network and particularly when there are options for two Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity as set out in Warwick District Council's document Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (June 2013).

See Attachment

WDC should provide sites for G & T families with the provision of small sites of 8 pitches which would lessen the impact.

We suggest that the plot or pitch size should never be bigger than the average housing plot. This provides equity of provision in accommodation to be used as the occupant thinks fit.