Now that more residents have come on board to oppose the Local Plan and its related planning applications It is time to reappraise the whole situation.
It is very evident that with the limited resources of individuals and councillors in communicating with every single resident in the area affected by the Local Plan proposals, the majority of individual residents are still very much in the dark.

The following are points that have arisen during our involvement with the Local Plan:-

1. The public do not understand the connection between the Local Plan and Planning Applications.
2. The public cannot understand how planning applications are being submitted and will be heard ahead of the Local Plan finalisation.
3. No alternative is given to the 'sledgehammer' solution of the Local Plan.
4. Our objections direct to WDC do not seem to be making any headway and no compromise is in the offing.
5. There are inconsistencies in the application of the Green Belt for not distributing the houses throughout the Warwick District. It is favouring one community to spite another. The effects on the community are far more important than small incursions into the Green Belt on 100 small sites.
6. There are now alternatives for the siting of houses being suggested by individuals, that in my opinion should have been included in the Local Plan. The problem that much work would be needed to bring this into a workable plan is no reason for the now much discredited Local Plan. We need WDC to take up the suggestions to alleviate harming of the community.
7. WDC does not show any interest in the reaction of the public that has now arisen. Any meetings with WDC we attend are just to tell us what WDC are going to do, and not to listen to our questions.
8. The public believe when they bother to attend consultations their views will be taken into account. The truth is they are largely ignored, certainly about the important issues.
9. The fact that Landowners and Developers have now jumped the gun and spent considerable resources on preparing planning applications, indicates they have had discussions with WDC that have given them assurance they will be successful.
10. The objections regarding practical issues of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, local services, shops, car parking, disruption to travel, Urban sprawl, Lack of employment in the area, and much more are very real for the community of South Leamington. They are all on top of the foregoing points.
11. For too long WDC have regarded and treated anywhere south of the river as less desirable than north of the river. This final gesture to dump 11,000 houses there is the final straw, and attitudes need to change.
12. A result of this has prompted letters to Chris White MP, who has now replied to the Leader of WDC, and I am sure by now you must have digested this letter.

The only responsible immediate action that could lead to making sense of all the reaction is now to extend the Consultation on the Local Plan and all Planning Applications indefinitely.
This is not abandoning the Local Plan or refusing Planning Applications. It will give time to reconsider the Local Plan and give developers the chance to wait for any alternative solution to be found that could mean the South of Leamington will not be the site for the ultimate 11,000 homes it is now being threatened with.

If one single Planning Application is given approval it will need a Public Enquiry to examine the affairs of WDC and how the Local Plan has been conducted.
WDC should have considered this when they had discussions with Land Owners and Developers.

After all things are considered what is the rush? We have until 2029 to complete this exercise.

I am writing to you to strongly object to the new local plan and I have detailed a number of points below
.
Housing.
Why are the numbers so high? Using projections based on natural growth of the population and an allowance for migration only 5400 homes are required. WDC consultants gave a forecast study in Dec 2012, in their own opinion at only 4405 new homes required. If growing for new jobs is the reason this is not required as Warwick district has low unemployment at only 1.7 percent. The 2012 strategic housing market assessment said that overall Warwick district had a very good jobs home balance.
A major issue is also why nearly 70 percent are being planned to be being built within the same area around Warwick gates and bishops tachbrook.
This will mean that their will be a huge urban sprawl of whitnash, Warwick and bishops tachbrook.
The planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that woodside farm should not be built on now or in the future. This still stands and therefore should definitely not be agreed to.
WDCs landscape consultant Richard Morrish in the landscape area statement in 2009 referred to this area at Gallows hill that this study area should not be considered for urban extension, so why is this being ignored. The beautiful rolling countryside will be destroyed.

The local infrastructure cannot possibly cope with this amount of housing. The roads will guide to a halt, already the Warwick roads cannot cope at peak times. The Warwick strategic transport phase 3 assessment show traffic speeds of only 0-10 miles per hour at large parts of Warwick.

Warwick hospital is already at capacity and cannot possibly take more people using its facilities.

The school system in the local area is already bursting at the seems, priority areas are over subscribed. Particularly a problem is Warwick gates where I am a resident. WDC failed to provide a school for over a thousand homes and this has constantly caused problems within the school system, having a knock on effect to all local schools and families. I am currently having the worrying task of finding a school place for my daughter and know of many people disappointed this year who have not managed to get there child into any of their 6 choices even with being a mile or so down the road from the school. If all these houses are going to be built as well as the gypsy sites, will the schools be in place before the houses are built, or are the current residents going to be forgotten and pushed out of priority areas with new people moving into the area. The schools MUST MUST MUST be built before the houses are occupied to stop any further issues. You cannot allow another mistake like Warwick gates to happen.

A major concern is why before the local plan is agreed are the WDC looking at accepting other applications like wood farm and harbury gardens. These should not be accepted until the local plan is accepted after correct public consultation. WDC should stand up to national government during the appeal process if necessary.

I cannot more strongly object to this local plan and the applications that are trying to sneak in the back door. WDC must take more time to consider the plan and reduce the amount of housing and distribute it evenly over the district and not just penalise our area.
The back door applications must be refused until this process is considered together.

I write to raise my strongest objection to the 2013 Local Plan, and the many planning applications that are associated with it - those that are currently under consideration, and those that are undoubtedly yet to come.

This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash.

Scale and proportion

* massive long term coalescence of settlements,
* loss of significant open space,
* loss of local countryside,
* loss of agricultural land,
* lead to significant urban sprawl,
* excessive bulk and scale,
* significant overdevelopment of the area,
* Increased pollution already above acceptable national guidelines.


The effect of these potential developments on the existing local communities and infrastructure will be devastating, will drastically reduce the quality of life and I believe have been grossly underestimated by both Warwick DC and the developers.


Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched proven by the fact that with roadworks or any accident, the entire local network becomes gridlocked.

* 2 or more cars per household,
* 9000 extra vehicles using the local road network.
* the local road infrastructure is inadequate. (e.g congestion on various local roads)
* traffic heading towards the town centres is already a major problem,
* gridlock, increased pollution etc.
* congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem
* traffic noise,
* potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."

These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.

Effect of local services/amenities

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."

* pressure on local schools
* primary schools already oversubscribed year on year
* increased pressure on the local secondary schools
* effect on catchment areas
* effect on applications from siblings of children already in one school
* new schools not "guaranteed" to be built as part of the developments
* limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates and Myton areas already
* effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals

Flood Risk

* already flood issues in Whitnash and Warwick Gates
* scale and density of proposed housing,
* large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc,

Alternatives to the Local Plan

There are many reasons why the Local Plan represents a disaster for the whole of the South Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash areas, predominantly because of the sheer concentration of most of the districts proposed new housing in one relatively small area.

Alternatives that should be considered include:

* Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied,
* Identifying empty industrial units with a view to use the land for brownfield site housing.
* Identifying an area in the surrounding countryside to use to build an entirely "new town".
* Spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with lots more much smaller developments.
* Smaller developments given to local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy.

Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.

Therefore, I hope you listen to the concerns and suggestions of the residents of your district, and act accordingly. This Local Plan cannot be allowed to come to fruition, and I hope Warwick DC come realize that, withdraw it, and refuse all the various planning applications relating to it, namely:

W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0606 - 720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane
W/13/0603 - 370 homes on land west of Europa Way/South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)
W/13/0464 - large Retirement Community development on Gallagher Land near Heathcote
W/13/0858 - upto 100 homes at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash

I hope Warwick DC would also refuse any new applications relating to the following:

Myton Garden Suburb - up to 1250 homes
Further development South of Gallows Hill - up to 260 homes
Former Severn Trent Sewage Works - 225 homes
Further development at Grove Farm - 375 homes
Whitnash East/South of Sydenham - 500 homes

Consultation Response to New WDC Local Plan Preferred Options Paper

I am writing to object to the proposal for 12,300 houses in Warwick District and nearly 4,000 new houses in Warwick. In objecting I refer to the National Planning Policy Framework which "aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of up-to-date plans".

Population Growth

The NPPF states that there should be a clear strategy "taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities".

Why has the number of 12,300 been proposed which is higher than the 10,800 proposed in the Core Strategy and was strongly resisted by Warwick District Council at that time? The West Midlands Regional Office was vehemently criticised by WDC for producing these flawed and untenable figures. Your figures do not comply with WCC population figures and are therefore unreliable. A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause immense damage to the character of the County Town. Migration from other areas into Warwick's more attractive green environment has produced most of the population growth. The provision of more houses will encourage more migration and Warwick will no longer be an attractive area. The new Plan should cater for LOCAL needs not migration into the area. You have included figures to cover an increase in students but they should be housed near the Universities not in the District, especially in south Leamington. Increasingly high concentrations of students in certain areas is an issue of concern.

Regarding your assumptions on the demand for housing, given that more than 50% of national population growth has been from immigration over the last two decades, and the government has publicly stated it wishes to greatly reduce this future net immigration, why is Warwick District planning for an even greater level of growth over the next 15 years, than has been experienced in the recent past? Warwick District population has increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately twice the rate of increase for Warwickshire, twice the national average increase, and over three times the increase for West Midlands. Warwick Councillors asked that the proposed development should be equitably distributed over the District but half of the homes proposed in the new Local Plan are south of Warwick.
Warwick has had its fair share of development over the years with major estates at Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow (with further development allocated), Hatton Park, along the Myton Road and many other infillings. This is far greater than other areas in the District and history has shown that the necessary infrastructure has never been put in place.

The NPPF (48) states that Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply". 1,224 properties have planning permission or a planning brief at the moment and yet you do not appear to have taken these into consideration. This would equate to a two-year supply of houses. I do not believe our authority has identified and brought back into residential use the 300-400 empty houses and buildings (NPPF 51) to the extent they should have done. Not all empty homes have been identified. New planning laws now allow unused office space to be converted to housing and his should be taken into account in the housing projections.

We have not been given information on where the 'missing' 6,000 homes are proposed to be built. Why not? You have stated at Aylesford School that this has not been decided yet. How can we make informed representations without the full facts being presented in the proposed new Local Plan?

The validity of your forecast projections of housing need has been seriously questioned. Evidence submitted by Cllr. Ray Bullen demonstrates that there is a 5 year housing land supply. The last 5 year housing land supply document is dated November 2012. It is out of date. The NPPF 153 says the " Local Plan .......can be reviewed in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances". Therefore the out of date 5 year plan should be updated immediately to take account of those changing circumstances.

Research by Cllr. Ray Bullen shows that only 5,400 homes are necessary for local need which allows for moving in and out of the area based on what happened in last 10 years (births/deaths/migration). 12,300 includes economic growth but if jobs don't materialise unemployment will rise. Unemployment is low 1.6% currently. We need a homes/jobs balance. If we are looking to build housing you then have to match employment to housing. There appears to be no current evidence of a demand for employment development schemes. Employment land currently available cannot attract employers so cannot justify building 12,300 houses, e.g. the lack of interest in office space at Morrisons. Where will we find employment to match housing? The large office block plan at IBM is now being used for housing (windfall site).

The NPPF requires 'sustainable development'. The three criteria of sustainability are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. The development south of Warwick is not sustainable.

I believe that the only motivation for WDC producing such figures for demand is the income that will benefit WDC in New Homes Bonus, rent, rates, council tax monies etc.

Stratford-on-Avon is currently consulting on the possible provision of some 4,500 houses in Gaydon and Lighthorne and this would impact on the need for houses in Warwick District. Local authorities have a duty to co-operate but WDC have not had discussions as yet with SoA.

Brownfield Sites

The NPPF (111) states "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land."

So why are we not making it a priority to develop brownfield sites first and regenerate poorer housing in urban areas? The Ford Foundry site is a prime example of revitalising an eyesore of a brownfield site to vastly improve the area and bring it back into good use. There are many more examples of brownfield sites in Warwick District which could be regenerated.

Green Belt

The NPPF (79) states "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

An incredible 37% of the 11,000 homes proposed for Warwick District are to be built on the land south-east of Warwick, covering nearly all of the green space between the Banbury Road, Greys Mallory, Europa Way, Myton and the Technology Park. This would mean estates more than three times the size of Warwick Gates, Woodloes Park or Chase Meadow!

The NPPF (76) states "By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances". "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances." (NPPF 83) Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt is that "there is nowhere else to build" (your quote at the Warwick Society Meeting).

NPPF (88) states "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.." The exceptions given in NPPF 89 and 90 do not apply in your proposed Local Plan. Our Green Space is already designated.and I am objecting to this scale of development which will undoubtedly impact negatively on the character of Warwick and the quality of life of existing residents. Why are we facing urban sprawl rather than the housing being spread equitably around the District as you stated was your aim? The previous Core Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. Yet in the new Plan less than 10% of housing is proposed for villages, some of which, such as Barford, would welcome more homes including low-cost housing to build up sustainable communities with schools and facilities and meet the need for affordable rural housing. Those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there would then have the opportunity to do so. I would propose that at least another 1,000 could be spread around the villages and the number proposed for Warwick reduced.

Stratford-on-Avon have said there are exceptional circumstances to develop on certain areas of Green Belt. Why doesn't WDC take same point of view? There is land available north of Leamington and in Kenilworth which is nearer to employment in Coventry and the Gateway.

Coalescence

The area to the west of Europa Way was identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning 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. The current Local Plan states in para 9.11, "It is important to protect the areas of restraint from development proposals that could alter their predominantly open character. Their value and importance lies in their contribution to the structure and character of the urban area, providing open areas in and around towns and preserving open wedges that separate one urban area from the next." The District has 85% green belt but 45% of this is to be built on, thus reducing the gap between conurbations. The green space threatened is valued rich and versatile agricultural land, essential for food self-sufficiency, environmentally precious landscape with many wildlife habitats and biodiversity including owls, uncommon woodpeckers, roe deer and badgers. This green space also prevents coalescence which you declare is one of your aims. Our existing green space provides open space, sports and recreation and such land, including playing fields, should not be built on! The NPPF 109 states "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
* protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
* recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
* minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological netwoerks that are more resilient to current and future pressures."

Alternative Sites

The previous Core Strategy identified several other sites with potential for housing. Local villages where there are good transport links and the potential to improve road access should be developed rather than the urban fringe development of Warwick. The Warwick Parkway area provides a first class rail link. Hatton has a station and easy access to the A46 and Barford has immediate access to the M40 and A46. Two other areas of potential for large scale housing provision are Radford Semele and Lapworth which already have infrastructure to cope with further development, with good public transport, roads and a railway station.

This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Warwick would therefore be required. Although you state that there are three gas lines near Bishops Tachbrook. I can see from the map that there is an area to the west which could take some housing whilst avoiding the gas lines. There are other areas which were identified in the Core Strategy options which have not been considered this time, such as the A46 corridor and further development at Sydenham. The commercial units at Sydenham have mostly closed and been boarded up and would offer an ideal brownfield site for development.

Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt, against the National Planning Policy Framework is that "there is nowhere else to build". This argument is totally flawed and I would expect the Inspector to find this Plan unsound on this issue.

The NPPF (17) states that planning should be "empowering local people to shape their surroundings."

Why has this amount of housing been proposed for South Warwick when the previous consultation on the Core Strategy produced a 97% response in overwhelming opposition to housing here (700 objecting to the Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Banbury Road area.. Why were those results not heeded when you devised the new Plan? These plans do not reflect the aspirations of the community as the Government intended in the Localisation Act.

Flood Risk

The NPPF (94) states that "Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk". Also "Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk....." and (NPPF 99) "When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure." We already have existing green infrastructure to mitigate against water run-off and flood risk but you are proposing to build on it!

The NPPF (101) states "The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test." There are other available sites as already stated. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall." (NPPF 102)

Europa Way and an area to the south of Gallows Hill are in flood zones and at significant risk of flooding, yet housing is proposed in Flood Zone 1, adjacent to Zones 2 and 3. Areas at risk of flooding have always been designated areas of restraint but you are dispensing with these. More concrete on green fields here which currently soak up heavy rainfall must increase water run-off and impact on the areas of Warwick which already suffer from flooding, especially around Myton Road and Bridge End. You have received photographic evidence of flooding from properties in Myton Crescent and the Malins. When the Warwick Technology Park was created, there were severe flooding problems in the adjacent Myton Gardens. The field donated to Myton school as a restricted covenant playing field has proved to be unusable because of water-logging, demonstrating on-going water-management problems. Even more relevant to the Malins and Myton Crescent was the severe flooding in 2007 caused by the re-orientation of the water run-off flows and the disturbance and removal of top soil from the Round Oak School playing fields behind Myton Crescent. It was only after threats to sue the County Council that remedial action was taken. This consisted of a bund to capture excess run-off and a pump situated in the north-west corner to return water uphill into the drain near the Round Oak School. This action has proved ineffective and inadequate as run-off water has periodically flowed into the gardens most recently in October 2012 when the water level reached was only a few inches below the level of the electricity sub-station situated between 26 Myton Crescent and 1 The Malins.

The field at the end of The Malins slopes upwards from The Malins and run-off water from adjacent fields above and to the right and behind also flows towards The Malins and Myton Crescent. When there is a downpour on saturated ground, water flows quickly down, fills up the lower parts of the field and collects in the gardens of nos. 26, 28 and 30 Myton Crescent, and overflows into the gardens of nos. 3 and 12 The Maslins and towards no. 1 The Malins and the electricity sub-station. There is little indication that the seriousness of this flooding is being taken into account.

Ignoring flood risk is contrary to NPPF 100 "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere." The previous Core Strategy decided that this area may not be needed for development in the future being an area of restraint and the worst area for infrastructural needs. Development is not necessary in these areas of flood risk and should be avoided, certainly not put into the first phase for building. Home-owners would also face being turned down for insurance in postcodes where there is flood risk. This problem will possibly increase next year when the agreement between the Government and the Insurance Association ends. This area you have designated for building is vital for flood alleviation and should not be built on at all. At the very least it should be the last designated site.

 
Density

Garden Town suburbs sound admirable but naiïve when you look at the number of buildings proposed and the impact on the environment. This concept did not materialise in Warwick Gates or Chase Meadow and developers will build at high density for increased profit margins. 1,100 houses were first proposed for Chase Meadow and now it is to be 1,600. WDC has no budget for tree maintenance and developers cannot be relied upon to carry this out, as we have seen in other recent developments. Warwick Gates school and Chase Meadow play area never materialised but £1.4m of Chase Meadows developers' contribution was used instead for St. Nicholas Park remediation. They were then allowed to build more houses on the area allocated for sport/play area at CM. After 14 years Chase Meadow still has unadopted roads, only just received its link road to the local school and the prospect of a community centre for sports provision and social interaction. Developers will not be persuaded to build at 30 units per hectare and there is no means of insisting on this. This is just a red herring in our opinion, as are green wedges since you admitted that where these are proposed, you will be reliant on private landowners to permit their development. Once again, funding for this would be dependent on developers' contributions and these monies, being in short supply, would be diverted for other more essential infrastructure.

Coventry Council should also provide more dwellings for Warwick University students which would free up hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes. WDC have recently been forced to change their planning policy because of the problematic increase in HMOS in the District.

Infrastructure

The NPPF (17) states that strategies should "deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet Local needs". Also (NPPF 162) "Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:

* assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands and

* take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."

Yet you confirm that infrastructure will not be put in place before building commences but that you hope that infrastructure will be provided from developers' contributions, whilst admitting that this may not raise enough to cover escalating costs of new roads, bridges, schools, extra health provision, policing, fire service, community centres etc. If left to developers, history has shown this may not happen. Infrastructure needs will then be prioritised and some areas may miss out. You have admitted that infrastructure proposals will be prioritised and there will be a cut-off point when the money runs out. We have seen no architects' proposed site plans showing each area with all the necessary infrastructure in place. You have provided no idea of potential costs at all. You have provided no results of studies at all. Warwick has already lost its police station and fire station, roads are completely congested at peak times, schools are drastically oversubscribed and have no places (particularly Myton which is the catchment area), the hospital is at breaking point and cannot cope with the load, having day surgeries, evening clinics and Saturdays to clear backlogs and lack of parking leads to innumerable late attendance for appointments, and the police haven't a clue how they can cope with more communities. Utilities such as water, sewers, electricity provision will have to be provided at escalating massive cost. The public sewer discharges to Longbridge Water Treatment Works. Severn Trent currently transport sewage from Longbridge to Coventry by tanker several times a day. They do not have the capacity now to deal with sewage at the Longbridge site and it is inconceivable how they will cope with sewage from another 4,000 houses in Warwick. How many more tankers will be required and at what extra cost?

Buses have not proved to be sustainable. The only service for Myton Road is one per hour and no-one uses it.

CIL

The NPPF (175) states "Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place."

You have not provided information on these charges at all. I do not believe that there will be anywhere near the amount of funding available from CIL to cover the above extra infrastructure needs, especially new roads, bridges, schools and hospital. The hospital currently is in crisis and there is no room to extend. Funding for a new hospital is in doubt.

Air Quality/Traffic

The NPPF (17) states that the Plan should "support the transition to a low carbon future" and contribute to "reducing pollution". Also "Local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (NPPF 95)

The NPPF (17) states that policies should "recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality". (30) "Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion". Also (NPPF 124) "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

The Traffic Assessment commissioned states, "Schemes proposed within the modelling at this stage have not been tested to a sufficient level of detail to determine that they are the optimum solution" and "an obvious concern surrounding the implementation of this strategy is that this will result in an increase in the overall levels of traffic travelling through the town centre"!

The traffic congestion that Warwick already suffers will increase by a possible 6,000+ extra cars from extra South Warwick housing alone, let alone the increase from 12,300 new homes, bringing with it increased pollution in areas where air quality is already over the limit. 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. Air quality remains in breach of these regulations and will become toxically high with the 27% increase in traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. There is no management plan to address these levels. The Government says there is a definite link between pollution and traffic causing health problems such as asthma, some cancers, heart problems, etc. The County Council admitted that air quality will suffer as carbon emissions will increase in surburban sprawl. There are schools in the town and in the areas of high traffic congestion such as Myton and Banbury Roads with playgrounds and playing fields and children are already being exposed to nitrous-dioxide above legally permitted levels, risking asthma and all the other health problems associated with pollution. You admitted that you did not know how the carbon emissions could be reduced by the 20% currently necessary. It therefore seems incredible that the large-scale housing developments on the edge of Warwick are suggested with a likely 40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years. This will inevitably add to the congestion and air pollution; so why is it in the plan on this scale?

The 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick shows the very worst area being Warwick town centre and states on page 17:-

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assesse, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. Ass assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

NPPF 124 states, "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

I request that a Health Impact Assessment will be carried out including air quality testing well before any Local Plan in its current form is approved.

The NPPF (34) states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised." "A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan" (NPPF 36). All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan". We have not seen such a Travel Plan.

Myton Road, Banbury Road, Europa Way, Castle Bridge, Emscote Road and Prince's Drive are all highly congested with long queues or at a standstill at peak times including the Town centre and often emergency vehicles cannot negotiate a way through, even via the pavements. If the closed Warwick Fire Station were to be relocated at Queensway, their vehicles would experience increased problems and response times would be worsened. There is a suggestion that Europa Way could be widened but this would exacerbate bottlenecks when the traffic reaches the roundabouts. The County say they can mitigate but not contain the resulting increase in traffic and admit there are places where congestion will worsen. One of the mitigation measures suggested includes a gyratory system at the Castle island which, with its traffic lights etc. will severely harm the setting of the castle in a conservation area. The green space forms the approach to Warwick and views from Warwick Castle. WDC say the area south of Warwick is environmentally sensitive but then put it in for development - why? Traffic would increase at the Butts, the narrowest road in the town and the no right turn plan for St. Nicholas Church Street would impact severely on the economy of Smith Street. Vibrancy of the town centre is important. Think about what the effect will be on people sitting outside cafés in danger of being knocked over and pollution from all the traffic being funnelled through Warwick. People won't want to shop in Warwick because they won't be able to get into the town. It will be the destruction of Warwick and the people who want to shop here. There will be an adverse affect on Tourism.

Parks

In the new Local Plan our parks will not be sufficiently protected from development by the old area of restraint policy we once had.

Historic Environment

Pinch points at bridges cannot be alleviated and the 300-year old Castle Bridge already carries 20,000 vehicles per day and cannot sustain an increase in traffic without threat to its very structure. We should be trying to reduce this traffic to prevent the bridge collapsing, not increase it. We need an impact assessment to ensure its conservation. English Heritage have offered to help with this.

The NPPF (112) states "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional." The precious historic and listed buildings in Warwick are being damaged by traffic vibration and pollution and this problem will only worsen. Increased commuting traffic must not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. Danger to schoolchildren and others is currently problematic on our roads and will be exacerbated near schools such as at Woodloes and Aylesford/Newburgh.. We are given no concrete proposals for new roads, only ideas. A North Leamington relief road suggestion could cost £50million+ and the idea that the A452 could be routed to the Fosse - one of the most dangerous roads in the County is preposterous. The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and on to 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 on to the double roundabout system. The present Plan does not address these traffic problems sufficiently and should be "refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe" (NPPF 32).

Gypsies and Travellers Sites

Why are 15 of the proposed sites south of Warwick and only 3 north of Warwick?

Conclusion

You state that in 2026 Warwick District 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....." In my opinion this could not be farther from the truth.

The above comments demonstrate that this Plan is seriously flawed. It is not specific to the needs or the character of this area and the necessary infrastructure is not deliverable. I believe the Planning Inspector will declare it unsound, especially on the air quality issue. It cannot be justified as "the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence" and it is not "Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework." (NPPF 182)

This Plan should be completely revised taking account of the above, specifically reducing the numbers of housing proposed for Warwick.

We wanted to provide some general feedback on the plethora of information available related to the New Local Plan. Over recent years we have attended two meetings in Hampton Magna. We are aware of some of the issues that residents are concerned about. We will aim to outline the main issues below and also include our own personal thoughts. However, these are not exhaustive and we strongly encourage you to speak to your representatives, who attended all of your meetings, to get their feedback on issues that were raised.

We strongly object to the development of additional housing on land connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115). Please see below for a detailed explanation as to why we oppose this development at site R115: a) Birmingham Road would not cope with the considerable congestion that this would cause; b) transport links are already stretched; c) it would have a significant impact on our wildlife that is established on this land; d) our local primary schools would not have capacity; e) impact on drainage; f) impact of current residents quality of life; and g) impact on child development through added pressure on transportation to schools.

We also object to the development on R125 & R75. Our main reason for this objection is that, although we are highly supportive of finding a suitable site for travellers, being near a main road and locks on the canal worries us, as this presents danger if young children are residing on this site. The Birmingham Road is already highly congested and difficult to cross. The canal has many deep locks and at night the lack of lighting presents considerable danger. A more safe location should be identified quickly for this important community.
.
Evidence base
We are extremely concerned that the available documents are still not fully engaged in "evidence-based" consultation. Specifically, it is our concern that there are limitations in the methodology used to develop the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. This is an important foundation to any research, report and future recommendations. The consultation documents still lack transparency in terms of the employed methodology. We strongly encourage you to document how you plan to utilise the information gathered at meetings across the district. This is a valuable opportunity to gather qualitative evidence on people's acceptability, satisfaction and attitudes towards the plans. There has been a lot of frustration voiced at meetings related to the apparent failure to consider, appreciate, and operationalize people's views. There is a need to inform people how their views are going to be considered and synthesised to inform your decisions. For example, large scale questionnaires have been undertaken with residents by local parishes (Hatton Park and Hampton Magna) which provide valuable information. These state clearly that the majority of respondents strongly oppose any further development on sites connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115). People need to feel listened too. At the meetings in Hampton Magna we were assured that housing development would not take place in Hatton Park. I feel extremely disappointed that our voices and views were not taken on board. It is important to allow people to voice their opinions and acknowledge how they will be considered. You need to empower people. Your research will then be richer and more representative. At present it is not representative and lacks the rigour on which you are planning to make decisions.

We are extremely concerned about the generalizability of your 'research' / 'evidence base' to date. There are clear weaknesses in the rigour and robustness of your methodological approach and evidence base which need to be considered again. How you synthesise the data already collected is crucial. If you have lots of meetings and don't report all the views at these meetings, then your data gathering is confounded and flawed - I am sorry to say, this appears to be the case.

Housing on land adjacent to Hatton Park (R115)
From a personal point of view we need to express our upmost disapproval over expanding housing adjacent to Hatton Park (R115) on green belt land. There is considerable worry and upset among residents who live on Hatton Park and surrounding areas about potential increased housing on this site. This would significantly impact on their quality of life. These small communities are already overburden by through traffic (e.g. Birmingham Road) and schools are at capacity. Please work closely with parishes and residents before considering any expansion in these areas.

Schools and early year care:
There needs to be greater focus on how schools will be expanded. For example, as you are aware, Budbrooke Primary is at capacity and it takes children from Chase Meadow & Hatton Park. The Ferncumbe Primary School at Hatton is over capacity. How much expansion is needed? Further growth in R115 would result in more children having to travel to schools outside the catchment area, resulting in greater pressure on families and impact on their quality of life. If you go ahead with development on R115 you would force people to leave the area and take their businesses elsewhere due to the likely impact on commuting, links to the A40 and transport to schools. This would certainly be the case with my family. Children are already having to set off earlier and earlier to get to school on time - again this is likely to have an impact on their maturational development and quality of life. I cannot take this risk for my family.

Early-year care needs careful consideration at an affordable price. Already many nurseries are at capacity or in considerable demand. The costs are also unmanageable for many parents wanting to return to work after maternity leave. Added housing would place increased demand on these services.

Respecting our green spaces and green belts:
The wildlife on the land occupying R115 needs to be respected and the natural habitats for our wildlife maintained. Housing on this planned site has resulted in considerable frustration and objection at meetings we have attended. Consult with residents please. Please note that Muntjac deers, bats, birds of prey, pheasants, and many small mammals reside on R115. I feel strongly about destroying their habitat. Protecting our natural flora and fauna is important. Adding just a small number of houses will have a high price on our wildlife which will not be repairable.

Transport:
Expanding our road networks is going to be important to deal with the increasing cars on our roads. Birmingham road is already heavily congested. People on the Hatton Park estate are being required to set off earlier and earlier to avoid the congestion which results every morning. We also need to consider the impact this will have on noise and air pollution for residents already residing in places of growth. How will this impact on their quality of life? Consult with residents please.

Public Transport:
There needs to better public transport in areas of expansion. More regular bus services, in particular, to train stations and Universities are needed.

Parking:
More affordable parking in town centres and at train stations are urgently needed,

Drainage:
We are extremely concerned about how the current drainage system will cope with expansion on R115. The costs this could involve should not be overlooked. This small expansion could cause considerable problems (e.g. Hatton Park). Caution is needed and careful mapping of the current foundations is essential.

Employment:
Greater housing expansion requires more employment. Expansion in the health, retail and educational sector presents good opportunities.

Emergency services:
An increase in the population of the District will lead to an increased need for community policing and an increase in the number of local "incidents" to which the policing service will be required to respond. We need to make sure residents are protected from crime.

Healthcare:
Ensuring that GP surgeries and hospitals can cope with the housing expansion will be of upmost importance. GP surgeries are already struggling to cope.

To reiterate, we strongly object to the development of additional housing on land connected to Hatton Park (i.e. R115).

We appreciate your careful consideration of these issues and would like to receiveclearlly communicated feedback on how these issues will be addressed.
We appreciate your careful consideration of these issues and would like to receive clearlly communicated feedback on how these issues will be addressed.

We should also encourage you to think very carefully about how access will be made to any planned housing on Hatton Park (i.e. R115). Accessing directly from Birmingham Road would cause even more havoc and significant congestion. Some people are already considering moving off Hatton Park because of the problems with traffic and the inability to access Birmingham Road. If traffic was intending to enter Birmingham Road and turn right from R115, they would be waiting for a very long time during rush hour periods. It can sometimes take me over 20 minutes to get from Hatton Park to the end of the Birmingham Road. If traffic control measures were implemented, this would result in even longer cues of traffic in both directions on the Birmingham Road (plus greater air polution problems which will impact on our protected rural souroundings). This would create a huge problem for commuters getting to work, accessing schools and in cases of emergencies getting to local hospitals (which for me, is a very significant concern). If there were plans to develop an alternative access via Ebrington Drive, this is simply not possible as traffic parks along this road from neighbouring houses, this has resulted in it being a single lane road during almost all times in the day and night. This would cause extreme difficulties for contractors and for any new residents. I strongly encourage you to retract this ludicrous plan and focus on other larger scale housing developments in other areas. Please refer to our other considerations below.

Please note there is a great deal of concern among residents on Hatton Park that the local government is not listening to our objections. Please confirm that you have received and read this email.

From reading the Revised Development Strategy leaflet and attending The Guy Nelson Hall, Warwick School on Monday 22nd July, I was made aware of the full extent of this plan and the negative impact it would bring to Warwick and Leamington Spa.

I live in Warwick, on Camel Close, off the Myton Road and have lived in Leamington & Warwick over the last 20 years and consider this the most beautiful region in the Midlands.

During my time here, I have seen many changes in the region and with some of the recent developments around the new Morrison's and ALDI stores, I can see that the nature of the surrounding town areas are becoming overly congested and normal day to day commuting becoming more arduous.

When looking at the website for Warwick District Council, I have read the comments from Les Caborn and struggle to understand the points being made, as there is several areas of contradiction:
"Councillor Les Caborn, the lead councillor for the Local Plan said "I believe these proposals set out an approach which will enable the district to continue to grow and thrive, at the same time as protecting and enhancing many of the things that make Warwick district a great place"
Interesting... By exponentially expanding the requirements for new homes, the infrastructure required to support this and socio-economic factors it brings will not protect or enhance our region. On the contrary, it can only been seen that these changes will threat the things that make this a great place to live.

He also says:
"I'm really pleased to be putting forward proposals that provide for some real improvements in housing needs, a new country park, opportunities for employment, as well as transport schemes, schools and community facilities. I look forward to hearing what people think of these proposals."
But what about improving the stock of potential homes we already have available? Would this not remove the issues of additional transport schemes required (which would only worsen the situation), burden on schools, hospitals etc?

When looking at the proposed plans, I have major concerns and therefore need to make an official objection on many levels upon why these plans should be rejected.

1. New Homes and Projected Volumes?
District Council proposal for more than 12,000 new homes to be built by 2030?
This is a staggering amount of new homes to be built. A detailed explanation is required to understand how this calculation has been made?
When looking at the overall census from 2001 - 2011, there has been a steady increase in numbers over that period. When projecting this into 2030, an expansion of 12,000 new homes is an exponential growth. How can this be? With the increase of jobs in the automotive sector, this still does not cater for this growth.
Therefore, it is requested that the calculation of new homes is made available to be verified and cross checked with other external bodies.
See section 158 - NPPF: "Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

2. Empty homes currently within Leamington & Warwick and existing brown field sites
Has the existing stock of empty homes and properties available for renovation within the Leamington & Warwick been considered? Would it not make sense to address the issues in the town to rebuild and improve these properties, which are currently abandoned and derelict? Would it not be advisable on a planning perspective to make good these properties and bring them back into a good condition and build up and improve existing areas given the infrastructure we currently have? Is this not more sustainable?
(See point 17 of the NPPF: "encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high
environmental value"
See point 51- NPPF: "Local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory purchase powers. They should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for
additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate " - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf


3. Empty Office buildings.
In addition to empty residential homes, is it possible to convert existing business / office buildings into a residential properties. Looking around Leamington and Warwick, there are many areas identified that have been unoccupied for several years. Given the economic climate, it is likely that these properties will remain empty and potentially fall derelict.

As per point (2) and (3), it would only be in the council's favour to allow these properties to be converted into homes, such that they can start gaining revenues for council tax!

In addition to this, I see that additional offices are also being suggested within the plan.. Why are the planners doing this? If we can't fill the existing office spaces around Leamington & Warwick, why are we building new offices?
If there is new offices being built, exactly how many people would it support, if all units were occupied..? Would it cover the additional people moving into the area?
Given the current economic state, it is likely for more offices to remain empty. Given this, if the economy took a further downward spiral in the next 10 years, it is likely that the ratio of unemployed to working people would also rise. How does that help the district to grow and thrive?
See point 51- NPPF: - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

4) Green spaces in Warwickshire
One of the many positive aspects of living in this area is the consideration given to green spaces, that makes this region so special.
When looking at the plans of south Warwick, a large area of green fields could potentially be lost due to the unnecessary expansion between Warwick and Leamington.
In addition to this, it is important to consider proper planning and restraint when converting green field sites to urban sprawl. The conservation of wildlife is becoming even more important, but no references has been made to this within the plans for the protection thereof.
Yes, yes.. I see that there is plans for a country park in Whitnash and Sydenham, but lets not forget, this area is already a green field site. How does overstating this on the plan actually improve the wildlife conservation in South Warwick?

In addition to this, one of the biggest assets in our region is Warwick Castle. Why is it that this is the biggest area of expansion.. This can only be described as wilfully irresponsible, which will ruin one of the things that really makes this a great place.
See section 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment of NPPF.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

5) Transport
Currently, the road networks around Leamington and Warwick are barely adequate to deal with traffic today. Most homes will typically contain at least 1 if not 2 cars.
If we draw an average of 1.5 cars per household, that will be an addition 18,000 cars on the road. If only half of vehicles travel through Leamington / Warwick during peak times, that will be 9,000 cars...
Expanding the region to deal with this extra volume will only create havoc during peak periods.
The plans show several 'Grade 1 Junction' improvements. However, the network is fundamentally flawed as there are key bottleneck's. All roads tend to lead through the centre of Warwick or Leamington.
Warwick is not able to further increase the flow of traffic due to the smaller streets. Leamington has several rivers and bridges. Access over these bridges are limited.
Therefore, making better junctions will not improve the situation when adding additional cars on the road.
How can this make our region grow and thrive? What will it do to our open spaces? How would this affect the current lifestyle that we enjoy today? How can our roads be safer with more cars on the road?
Have the planners considered this when building the plan? If so, what is their response to traffic management, other than making roads bigger / wider? (which we suggested does not solve the root cause).
With these issues of traffic build-up within the town, it can be seen that issues along the A46 and M40 will also arise during peak periods, adding to the problem.
See a link to an interesting article published by the Project Manager for Transport and Safety in York.
(http://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=12475)

6) Air Quality
Given the traffic buildup at peak times, the schools and homes based along these main roads, it will be apparent that air quality will be affected. According to tests currently being undertaken, the air quality in certain parts of Warwick are not acceptable and increasing traffic flow by 9,000 - 18,000 cars.
What is the planners response to this? Again, is this responsible planning?
In addition to this, new research proves that air quality is linked to the higher risk of lung cancer and heart failure.
See the following link:
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/10/air-pollution-lung-cancer-heart-failure)

See point 124 - NPPF : "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf


7) Infrastructure - Schools - Hospitals - Water - Drainage
With the added demand placed upon schools, expansion of existing schools is required plus additional new schools to be built. What does this mean to the overall quality of the existing schools today? Are they able to adequately expand to meet this demand? Will they be over subscribed per classroom, such that the quality of education in these schools drop?
I have 3 children in Primary and Secondary education and this is a very important concern that I have. Taking additional demand in existing schools as well as building a new school will incur a huge investment, of which children's education could be compromised. How does the planned respond to this? What assurances can they provide, not only for children in the area, but also children who wish to move into the area?

Added demand to Warwick Hospital. This is a site which is set within a residential area. Is it possible to expand this hospital to cater for any additional 40,000 - 50,000 people? What is the planners response to dealing with this additional demand. Are there enough beds within specialist wards within the hospital to cater for this growth? (As point 6 reveals, with the added pollution in the area, additional demands may be placed on hospital services).

Water and Drainage is already something of an issue, as works have been carried out within the town to repair this. How would the additional infrastructure cope with this increase in capacity?
Also, would the building of these new homes be placed on any land prone to flooding? Is this something that should be avoided?

See point 162. - NPPF : " Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:
●● assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and
●● take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

8) Alternative plans?
Given that the expected number of homes appears to be excessive and not clearly explained within the notes, the majority of these new sites are south of the region.. Why? Has it been explored if some capacity could be shared in the north of the region?
The protection of green belt land has been discussed for the North, but this is something that I believe should be explored further. Is it not already possible for the local authority to change the use of this green belt for the north? Why has this not been explored? Why is the focus of all the development concentrated on the south?

Has the planning office consulted with planners in other regions surrounding Leamington and Warwick?
What other plans have been submitted in Stratford or Kenilworth districts? Are there other developments already going ahead that the planners in Leamington and Warwick don't already know about? Is there some planning duplication being made upon the number of houses being built?


As mentioned before, I am opposed to these plans and have described over 8 separate and individual objections.

I would welcome a response to the issues raised and a chance to meet and discuss further.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the presentation of the Warwick Local District Plan on 15 July but I have had feedback on the meeting and am concerned that the Council are not actually listening to the residents of Warwick in respect of this plan. It sounds as if the meeting was less of a consultation and more of this is what we have decided will happen. I have serious concerns about the consultation process and the politics of the situation but will concentrate on issues that relate to the planning process. I have sent a copy of my concerns to The development Policy Manager at Warwick District council.

My particular concerns with regard to the plan are as follows:

HOUSING PROJECTION AND LOCATION

The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built seems far too high for the area. 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 had the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market. I feel it is inappropriate to forecast so far into the future and to allocate greenfield land now. This will allow uncontrolled growth leaving developers to decide what to build and when.

Also, it has been reported that Stratford District Council have approved a "draft" strategy to build a new 4000 home "town" in the Lighthorne area just south of Warwick. If that goes ahead it would also have some effect on the infrastructure requirements, (as mentioned below), within the Warwick Local Plan; yet no mention is made of that scheme has been taken into account when preparing the Warwick Local Plan.

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.

I feel there are better ways of ensuring there is adequate housing to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford such as gradually releasing land for development as demand grows, giving 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.
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE:
Much is made in the plan of the proposed improvements to road junctions, new traffic lights, etc. to enable traffic to move faster into Warwick & Leamington, but no solution is given to the problems caused when the cars reach the towns. Warwick has natural "bottlenecks" in The Butts, Jury St., High St., Smith St., Nicholas Church St. Friars St., Hampton St., and Theatre St. etc. etc. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and would have serious implications for public transport. No solution to this is offered in the "Plan" and needs to be prior to any approval for new houses.

I feel the historic environment, which attracts so many people to Warwick, would be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places, e.g. Bridge End in Warwick, Castle Bridge, Castle Hill and St John's.

AIR POLLUTION
Pollution from vehicle exhausts in many streets in Warwick 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 and the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened. The revised plan does not address these problems.

HEALTH
Apart from the additional health problems that can be caused by any increased traffic congestion there is no mention of the capacity of Warwick Hospital to cope with a massive increase in population. The present hospital is surrounded by housing and cannot expand, can it cope with such an increase as is projected by the "Plan"?

SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS
The need for such sites is recognised and the concept supported. However, even a casual glance at the Plan shows a marked imbalance of the distribution of the possible sites over the whole of the District. Of the 20 possible sites listed only four are in the northern part of the District with the remaining 16 in the southern part, with the biggest cluster just south of Warwick. This should be re-examined to ensure a more equitable spread of the burden on the residents of the District. Again, it seems so much protection is given to the green Belt and so little to our other green land.
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS
The above points are general rather that specific but clearly indicate a need for a more "in-depth" approach to what the District as a whole needs. From the information provided the people who have drawn up the Plan do not seem to have considered all the facts nor how to overcome, or at least alleviate, the problems that will be created by placing the bulk of the predicted new dwellings into one main location. To gain the support and the trust of the residents of Warwick District more openness and consultation than in the past is now required. In addition, serious consideration should be given to giving equal protection to open land to the south of Warwick and Leamington as that given to the "green belt" area located to the north of the towns so that all the open "greenfield" sites can be considered equally and the load spread more equitably.

As one of our elected representatives, I do hope that you will do all that you can to ensure that these concerns are addressed.

House Numbers :
Whilst I appreciate the efforts WDC has made to protect Greenbelt land in the north of the district , I have significant concern at objection to the numbers of homes being built on Warwick South which now totals 3500+. The project housing need of 12,000 homes is far 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. There are better alternatives for meeting local needs, especially affordable housing, instead of encouraging in migration and gradually releasing land for development as demand groups. Giving priority to using brownfields sites instead of greenfield site and co-operating with other local authorities with the planned 1900 houses at Lighthorne Heath and plans for Stratford District building on the opposite side of the M40, junction 15.


Infrastructure/Traffic
By building 3500+ houses on Warwick South you will have roughly 7000 more cars on the road which will increase traffic on the already congested Myton Road and Europa Way with even longer tail backs. Widening roads and junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places will only serve to push more traffic through bottlenecks at Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way. Whilst WCC are hoping? a big IF! traffic congestion wont be any worse it will mean more cars going slower through Warwick town centre and the surrounding areas leading to extended traffic jams and delays!. . which leads me onto my next point.

Air Quality
With the increased number of cars on the roads due to the size of this development carbon emissions would increase leading to reduced air quality. I attach a copy of the 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick which clearly shows a shocking picture of the poor air quality, with the very worst area being Warwick town centre which is over legal limits. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged. Worse, the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened.

Of particular interest is the comment on page 17:

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

I would therefore request before any development is considered that proper surveys of air quality are carried out and if levels are indicated as being "high" as in this report enclosed which would of only increased in recent years that any housing development would be stopped on the grounds of public safety. I have written to Dr John Linnane, County Medical Officer of Health ,WCC with my grave concerns in relation public health safety.

Environment
The land between Warwick and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural and present policies indicate this is an area of environmental sensitivity which gives Warwick town and Castle some of its finest views. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl, something for which WDC said they would never do, the merging of Warwick & Leamington. The green field land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly. People visiting Warwick come for its natural beauty and historic charm, yet maybe faced with a view of overdeveloped building sites!. I would be interested to know why this area has not been preserved?

Fairness
We would also like to question in the politest terms the transparency and independence of the approval process for the local plan. It seems strange to us the makeup of the executive committee who approves the local plan has no representation from Warwick South with executive members living in Kenilworth, Radford Semele, Cubbington , Lapworth and Warwick North with minimal housing development in these areas.


In conclusion I would like to see a fairer local plan with housing numbers re evaluated and more evenly distributed across Warwick district. Utilising and 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.

Please do not destroy and over develop our beautiful historic town!.

I have been following the development of the latest attempt at a local plan and find the whole thing a bureaucratic nonesense. A lot of very talented council employees have spent an enormous amount of their valuable time trying to create a cohesive and coordinated plan to cover the housing needs for Warick and Leamington Spa for the next generation, with appropriate infrastructure to support a very large number of houses.

However, already over 2,500 (or is it 3,500??) dwellings have had planning applications already placed with the council. These refer to potential schools, provision for health care etc but do not seem to offer the definitive infrastructure that is required. These should not be accepted until the local plan is accepted after correct public consultation. WDC should stand up to national government during the appeal process if necessary.

Why not scrap the whole thing and let a free-for-all sort it out BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING - NOW.

However I do have some specific points:
Housing.
Why are the numbers so high? Using projections based on natural growth of the population and an allowance for migration only 5400 homes are required. WDC consultants gave a forecast study in Dec 2012, in their own opinion at only 4405 new homes required. If growing for new jobs is the reason this is not required as Warwick district has low unemployment at only 1.7 percent. The 2012 strategic housing market assessment said that overall Warwick district had a very good jobs home balance.
A major issue is also why nearly 70 percent are being planned to be being built within the same area around Warwick gates and bishops tachbrook.
This will mean that their will be a huge urban sprawl of whitnash, Warwick and bishops tachbrook.
The planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that woodside farm should not be built on now or in the future. This still stands and therefore should definitely not be agreed to.
WDCs landscape consultant Richard Morrish in the landscape area statement in 2009 referred to this area at Gallows hill that this study area should not be considered for urban extension, so why is this being ignored. The beautiful rolling countryside will be destroyed.

The local infrastructure cannot possibly cope with this amount of housing. The roads will grind to a halt, already the Warwick roads cannot cope at peak times. The Warwick strategic transport phase 3 assessment show traffic speeds of only 0-10 miles per hour at large parts of Warwick.

Warwick hospital is already at capacity and cannot possibly take more people using its facilities.

The school system in the local area is already bursting at the seems, priority areas are over subscribed. Particularly a problem is Warwick gates where I am a resident. WDC failed to provide a school for over a thousand homes and this has constantly caused problems within the school system, having a knock on effect to all local schools and families. My son has currently the worrying task of finding a school place for his daughter and we know of many people disappointed this year who have not managed to get there child into any of their 6 choices even with being a mile or so down the road from the school. If all these houses are going to be built as well as the gypsy sites, will the schools be in place before the houses are built, or are the current residents going to be forgotten and pushed out of priority areas with new people moving into the area. The schools MUST MUST MUST be built before the houses are occupied to stop any further issues. You cannot allow another mistake like Warwick gates to happen.

I cannot more strongly object to this local plan and the applications that are trying to sneak in the back door. WDC must take more time to consider the plan and reduce the amount of housing and distribute it evenly over the district and not just penalise our area.
The back door applications must be refused until this process is considered together.

I write to raise my strongest objection to the 2013 Local Plan, and the many planning applications that are associated with it - those that are currently under consideration, and those that are undoubtedly yet to come.

This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash.
It also suggests an unfair proportion of proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in this area particularly in the Parish of Bishops Tachbrook, despite there being brown field sites in the district, (in addition to the vast amounts of Green belt land in the district that would also be more suitable due to infrastructure already in place).

Consideration also needs to be taken to the proposals by Stratford District Council to build a 'New Settlement' of approximately 1,500 new homes at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and the damaging affects this will also have on our infrastructure and air pollution levels!! From my own experience of living in Bishops Itchington, people in these villages travel to shop in Leamington for groceries, etc, not Stratford. The town will benefit from increased custom without the need to build excessive numbers of houses in our own district that there is no local need for.

Warwick and Royal Leamington Spa are centres for tourism, not just Stratford!
The proposal to build Gypsy and traveller sites on the main tourist routes from the M40 could affect the visual impact.

Scale and proportion


* massive long term coalescence of settlements,
* loss of significant open space,
* loss of local countryside,
* loss of agricultural land,
* lead to significant urban sprawl.
* excessive bulk and scale,
* significant overdevelopment of the area
* increased air pollution in Warwick Town Centre (already at high levels)


The effect of these potential developments on the existing local communities and infrastructure will be devastating, and I believe have been grossly underestimated by both Warwick DC and the developers.




Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched.

* 2 or more cars per household,
* 9000 extra vehicles using the local road network.
* the local road infrastructure is inadequate. (e.g congestion on various local roads)
* traffic heading towards the town centres is already a major problem,
* gridlock, increased pollution etc.
* congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem
* traffic noise,
* potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."

These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.

Effect of local services/amenities

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."

* pressure on local schools
* primary schools already oversubscribed year on year
* increased pressure on the local secondary schools
* effect on catchment areas
* effect on applications from siblings of children already in one school
* new schools not "guaranteed" to be built as part of the developments
* limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates and Myton areas already
* effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals

Flood Risk

* already flood issues in Whitnash and Warwick Gates
* scale and density of proposed housing,
* large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc,



Alternatives to the Local Plan

There are many reasons why the Local Plan represents a disaster for the whole of the South Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash areas, predominantly because of the sheer concentration of most of the districts proposed new housing in one relatively small area.

Alternatives that should be considered include:

* Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied,
* Identifying empty industrial units with a view to use the land for brownfield site housing.
* Identifying an area in the surrounding countryside to use to build an entirely "new town".
* Spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with lots more much smaller developments.
* Smaller developments given to local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy.

Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.

Therefore, I hope you listen to the concerns and suggestions of the residents of your district, and act accordingly. This Local Plan cannot be allowed to come to fruition, and I hope Warwick DC come realize that, withdraw it, and refuse all the various planning applications relating to it, namely:

W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0606 - 720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane
W/13/0603 - 370 homes on land west of Europa Way/South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)

I refer to the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan and write to register my objection to the proposed development of land to the south of Warwick as follows:

Introduction
It is noted that in the Introduction reference is made in para 1.2 to "the need to take in to account what our neighbours and partners are planning to do over the next 15 years."

The Revised Development Strategy appears to completely fail to take in to account the proposal by Stratford on Avon District Council to build 4800 houses at Gaydon/Lighthorne. The effect on Warwick and Leamington Spa of such proposal will be immense in respect of increased traffic, pollution and use of the hospital and other amenities. Such an increase must be taken in to account in preparation of the Local Plan, as it will impact on the local infrastructure.

Para 1.3 refers to "some work regarding the evidence base to support the final proposal for the Local Plan is on going."

We have not been advised as to the nature of the evidence that is not yet available. It is noted that no reference is made to the Environment Agency and the undoubted problem that the area has in respect of flooding. At the present time the Environment Agency places the postcode in which I reside as "moderate risk." What impact is anticipated if the proposals contained in the Revised Development Strategy are implemented? The last Flood Report obtained by the Council appears to have been undertaken in 2008. Since then the country has been subjected to the highest recorded levels of rainfall. The fields upon which the proposed homes are to be built remained water logged for several weeks after the winter storms and absorbed rainfall, which would otherwise have come down in to Warwick. Has there been/will there be any report prepared based on the proposal to build on such a large site situated south of the River Avon and on high ground? Will the District Council provide a flood plan and appropriate compensation should the need arise?

How can a plan be formulated when not all the relevant evidence is available? Surely no decisions should be made until the Strategic Housing Market Assessment has been made, and this would appear to be the view of the Inspector appointed to review Coventry Council's Core Strategy. It is disputed that number of homes proposed are actually required, and there is a suspicion that the wishes of the Developers is being put before actual need.

At the present time it is understood that homes are required to accommodate the proposed employees at the Gateway Project close to Coventry Airport at Bagington. Situating housing for those employees on the other side of Leamington and Warwick, two established and historic towns with existing traffic problems, is totally inappropriate. If the Government's wish to reduce car usage and pollution are to have any credence then the housing should be situated closer to the Gateway Project site.

Para 1.4 confirms that not all topics are included and it is sincerely hoped that no decisions will be made until all the evidence is available.

The Local Plan and Consultation
The issues referred to in respect of process are noted. There is however considerable concern locally that there is now a degree of 'panic' by the District Council as they have radically changed the proposed areas for development from the Preferred Options consultation. There appears to have been a failure to consider changes to the greenbelt to enable the obvious and more appropriate development to the north of Leamington Spa. Whilst the earlier proposal of development to the south of Warwick was not welcomed, the massive increase now proposed appears to be an attempt to do something, indeed anything, even if it is wholly inappropriate. It has is also unfair to the local community, who have now been presented with a significantly increased area of proposed development with only just over six weeks (in the holiday period) to respond.

Strategic Vision
Although certain paragraphs have been included in the Revised Development Strategy that are referred to in the Sustainable Community Strategy, the document itself refers to "A shared vision", and refers at length to the different local groups/agencies with whom it proposes to consult. However, it is clear from the District Council's own research that the local community were hardly aware of the Preferred Options Consultation yet alone the Revised Development Strategy. We are further advised that all Warwick Town Councillors and the two representatives on the District Council have unanimously opposed the proposed development south of Warwick. How then is the proposal to build south of Warwick "a shared vision"?

Page 16 of the Housing Strategic Aim refers to issues including "working closely with Community forums/neighbourhood groups..." and yet the District Councillors responsible for planning have been unavailable to attend meetings with concerned residents.

Level of Housing Growth
Until the Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment with neighbouring authorities has been completed, such a large development south of Warwick should not even be contemplated. The figures the Council intend to rely upon in the interim are not accepted and cannot be until the Gateway Project has been finalised.

It has been noted that the Chase Meadow development in Warwick had not yet been completed and again, no reference is contained in the Revised Strategy to the planned development at Gaydon/Lighthorne.


Broad Location of Development: Housing
The concerns raised in para 4.3.3 remain, and have not been answered by the additional research. Indeed, RMA Consultants recommend in relation to the land south of Gallows Hill and The Asps that "...this area should be protected from development."

The Council's own research in to local issues confirm that traffic and environmental pollution are of concern. The Strategic Transport Plan does not address those issues. The plan for four lanes of traffic along Banbury Road will not produce a solution to the two lanes available over the Bridge. Myton Road is already acknowledged to have excess traffic and the location of two schools in the road will make any increase in traffic extremely dangerous. The same applies in respect of additional traffic funnelled through the centre of Warwick. The existing level of traffic and the delays caused are of grave concern to the residents and inappropriate in a town containing historic buildings. The proposed plans seem to completely ignore the issue of Conservation Areas.

If Warwick is subject to an even greater level of traffic it is inevitable that the existing pavements will have to be reduced in size and safely barriers will have to be constructed. To ignore the location of the schools in the centre of Warwick is to ignore obvious safety issues. Will visitors wish to come to Warwick when it is no longer safe to walk, and pollution levels make it unpleasant and dangerous to do so?

The Overview of Development - Map 2 indicates the completely disproportionate level of building proposed to the south of Warwick. The infrastructure will not be able to cope. The Council refer to 'mitigating' the effects of traffic, but the proposals to do so are totally inadequate. The same applies to their response to the concerns for the historic centre of Warwick and the environmental impact.

I regret that I have not been able to respond in detail to all of the documents referred to on the Council website as the requirement to register my objection on time has been my primary concern. I am however deeply troubled by the Council's approach to earlier concerns raised, and the implications for opposition to the Revised Development Strategy in that problems with infrastructure, environment, traffic, pollution etc appear to have been dismissed with the term "this will be mitigated." There are no solutions to a plan, which places a disproportionately large development on the wrong side of a river, with increased levels of traffic passing through an historic town with inadequate roads and infrastructure to cope.

I write to object in the strongest possible terms about the local plans you are looking to impose upon the district.
After looking into the figures of houses and the locations in which you are proposing to allow construction on I object on the following basis
a) Why are the housing numbers so high
Over 20 years to 2011, population growth was 18% now you propose a further 20% increase in the local plan RDS within only 15 years allowing 12300 to be built. Using projections based on natural growth of the population and an allowance for migration only 5400 homes are required (Ray Bullen paper july 2012 updated using 2011 census data in 2013).
Your own consultans G.L. Hearn gave an economic and demographic forecast study in December 2012 and in their option Proj 5 arived at only 4405 new homes required.
The local area has an unemployment rate of 1.7% so if growth for jobs is the reason for building the new homes, this is not required. The 2012 strategic housing market assessment stated that overall "Warwick District had a very good job-homes balance.
b) Visual Impact
Currently Leamington Spa and Bishops Tachbrook are just visable to one another and these developments would in effect join up the two localities into one sprawling urbanisation. Loosing valuable agricultural land and irreplaceable views. The local planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside farm should not be built on now or in the future. WDCs own landscape consultant Rickard Morrish in the landscape area statement refered to the land south of Gallows hill concluded "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development. Why has the district council now gone against that recommendation.
c) Local Infastructure
The local plan RDS does not contain any evidence that the proposes infrastructure developments can be delivered from the developer contributions through section 106 and community infrastructure levy.
With so much unnecessary housing concentrated to the south of the town centres surrounding roads will end up severely congested causing pinch points of crossings of canal river and railways where there is no realistically deliverable solution to the problem. Will the village of Bishops Tachbrook have to contend with further volumes of traffic using the village as a rat run, with even more potential for speeding and accidents and potential fatalities.

With all this extra congestion and traffic surely the air quality will suffer causing more pollution being badly damaging to health. The local economy could also potentially be damaged by filling the streets with intolerable levels of traffic and fumes and not shoppers and visitors enjoying their qualities.
d) Housing proposed for village settlements
The local plan RDS also proposes new housing around village settlements. The allocation of housing is proportionate to the categorisation of the settlement. Bishops Tachbrook has been categorised as being one of the largest type, this means that Warwick District council proposes 100 - 150 homes to be built adjacent to the village envelope. Our own local housing survey found a local need for only 14 homes, 10 affordable homes and 4 "market homes" again the figures looking to be imposed on the village bear no resemblance to the local communities ACTUAL needs.
To conclude the local plan does not set a level of house building which meets population growth within the district building homes that people want and can afford. It is growth for its own sake not the local communitys. It does not make good use of brownfield sites for as much as possible for these developments but instead looks to use high grade agricultural land which is sheer madness with food production ever moving up the agenda, as a nation how can we feed ourselves if there is no land to grow food on. The local plan would worsen air quality in Warwick where the level of pollution is already illegal. The rapid growth being proposed would put heavy pressure on schools and the hospitals, perhaps even on water supplies and drainage. I srongly object to these plans and am disgusted that the local community might have these poorly thought out plans, forced upon us by faceless bureaucrats and big business with no regards for local wishes. The elected officials would do well to remember who elected them in the first place.
I strongly object to these plans and wish to place my views on record.

see attached

BPC has carefully considered the paper by Ray Bullen, which was supported by Rural Parish Councils, and the response from WDC on 18th July 2013. Budbrooke Parish Council regards the overall estimated residential development growth in the Local Plan to be significantly out of proportion to the local need.

The District Council has failed to acknowledge, address or take account any of the issues identified in Budbrooke Parish Council's response to the first consultation in this second document.

In respect to development in Budbrooke:
* All proposed development is in the green belt and there are no special reasons for using the green belt [reference: NPPF 2012 development in green belt is inappropriate.]
* Taking land out of green belt for development, i.e. re-drawing green belt boundaries, is tantamount to a gross misapplication of NPPF 2012. To do so is not a special reason.
* Loss of green belt will mean a loss of prudent use of land potential loss of value to special/ high landscape value
* Identifying potential sites in green belt, when there is other unused land outside the green belt and outside the local plan, constitutes a breach of NPPF 2012, referenced above.
* Budbrooke Parish Plan has not identified any significant demand for development locally.
* Hampton Magna is surrounded by high grade agricultural land
* Negative effects on strategic siting such as increased levels of traffic
* Air, Light & noise pollution will increase especially in the construction phase
* Presence of Railway will be a nuisance to potential development

People live here because they like the area, any development, and in particular an up to 25% increase, will have a significant impact on the nature and locality. This issue must be considered as it has previously been accepted by WDC in its dealings with other councils.

Capacity of the Infrastructure
Hampton Magna was built on the site of an army barracks in 1960s to the standards that prevailed at that time. Little or no improvement has been made since the site was first built on.
* Minor road improvements were made to accommodate a substantial increase to traffic due to the building of Warwick Parkway Station. Car parking since originally built has increased 3 fold with no change to roads or traffic management.
* Consequently, traffic is already extremely heavy. Approaches - Birmingham Road, Old Budbrooke Road, Woodway, Church Hill and roads to Hatton via Ugly Bridge, and through Hampton on the Hill. Any additional development will have a considerable negative impact on roads and traffic
* Traffic issues have not been addressed or even assessed
* Sewage arrangements is a major concern of the PC - Although adopted prior to privatisation the system falls below the standard normally required.
* The main local electricity supply arrangements area the same as those for the barracks which left nearly 50 years ago. Supplies into the village are subject to frequent fluctuations and outages.

Budbrooke School, with only around 50% children resident in Hampton Magna, already draws traffic from surrounding areas -Hatton, Hatton Park, and Chase Meadow - and the county lanes are increasingly congested and hazardous. Increasing the size of the school to accommodate the 25% increase increases the congestion and hazard, and fails to address the Green Agenda unless additional resource is allocated in the current catchment areas, which idea has been discounted.

Sustainability
The argument that additional development will help address the sustainability of local facilities and services is flawed. There is no evidence that this would be the case.

We cannot find any justification for sites in Hampton Magna.

Having looked at the Local Plan and attended recent public meetings I am writing to you to indicate my many concerns and total dissatisfaction with the revised development strategy for the Local Plan.

Air Quality

In particular, the air quality issue is of great concern. I understand that air quality in Warwick and Leamington is already above the legal limit. The District Council is required to improve air quality. The scale of planned houses will make it worse. I also note that Stratford Council have their own plans for even more houses south of Warwick, has this development been taken into consideration?

Transport

I believe the strategy is car based and will push even more congestion onto the existing road network. It is obvious that building a dual carriageway to the river Avon bridge will just bring increased traffic to a halt. Also the current bridge was not built to take the potential amount of traffic. Parking in Warwick is already difficult enough, this plan will make matters far worse. As for traffic at the Morrisons roundabout on the Myton Road, I shudder to think of the implications there. The proposed removal of parking in Smith Street would adversely effect the viability of the shops in this street.

Projected Housing

The projected 12,300 homes is extremely high and I understand that less than half that number would meet local needs. Also, there are a large number of empty houses in Warwick and Leamington and these should be used to house people instead of just building more new ones.

Could we not build on brownfield and infill sites already within each towns infrastructure.

Should there not be a slower phasing in of housing based on estimated local demand releasing land as demand grows rather than an unjustified estimate so far into the future?

Historic Environment

There is no doubt that the plans will ruin the visual look of Warwick forever. The increase of traffic and people will drive visitors away. We need to conserve the beauty of Warwick, not plan to destroy it.

Parks

I understand that the new Local Plan does not have any policy to protect our parks. When this is adopted there will be no protection for our parks from developers - only National Planning Policy Framework which I believe is insufficient. This could mean that developments could go ahead on exceptional circumstances (which was the basis for the Gateway application).

Funding

With the current and projected Government cutbacks, will Warwick District Council have the funding to expand the needed infrastructure to support 12,300 homes?

National Planning Policy

From the meetings I attended it appears that a realistic forecast of need would mean that we already have the required five year supply of sites when you balance housing with employment growth forecasts vs the housing market. Why has this not been taken into consideration in the local plan?

Gypsy Sites

They seem to have all been crammed into the same area. Could they not have been spread out more fairly within the area?

Consultation Process

I was most concerned to hear at the meeting that these plans had been pushed through by councillors who do not live in the area and that politics were possibly involved in the decision making?

I would be most grateful if you would note my constructive dissatisfaction which is based on my fear that our beautiful town of Warwick will be destroyed in the future.

Please accept this objection in addition to any others as it contains other information that has come to my notice.
1. There is no supporting Local Plan to allow this application.
2. The existing 2007 Local Plan is still in force and is still relevant to this application.
3. This application has been made by the developer knowing that the current Local Plan would not support it.
4. The application by the developer /land owner has been made with prior knowledge that a new Local Plan was under consultation but not approved.
5. The application is for 280 dwellings but makes no reference to the phasing over the next 17 years. As this is common to all applications that have been made and most likely will be made then it should fail on this point and be rejected.
6. WDC should have made this clear in any discussions with developers but failed to do so.
7. The NPPF came into force in 2012 and should not be assumed or considered to be out of date.
8. WDC have identified and recommended this site as being acceptable for development without any consideration of the harmful effects on the surrounding neighbourhood.
9. This application must not be taken in isolation. It is part of a large number of present and future applications to satisfy WDC's poorly researched information on housing numbers. This may be due to numbers they have accepted from the Minister of the Environment or their own numbers from GL Hearn.
10. The 12,300 is the latest number that is now being quoted by WDC. This has been challenged as being pure guesswork without any positive proof. It has been suggested that 5,400 is closer to the truth following work by a local councillor.
11. It is not being truthful or fair of WDC to invite individuals to object only to the application sites adjacent to their homes. They should be objecting to the total applications under the umbrella of the Local Plan. If that is seen as unsustainable then all applications should be rejected.
12. WDC have put themselves in the position of having to consider many applications to build a large number of houses. It is now a rat race by developers as to who can get in first. This should not be run on a 'first come first served basis'. Applications should be in abeyance until after the Local Plan has been properly consulted.
13. Consultation meetings I have attended all have the same theme. That is to give the public details of what has been decided and ask for questions. There is indication that the massive objection that is taking place will stop the intention of the Local Plan.
14. The Local Plan as seen by the public for the first time was in its final and intended form with no facility to consider alternatives. Therefore it is not a consultation document seeking approval. Rather it is a statement of intent.
15. There are alternatives to creating urban sprawl. A - Proportional distribution throughout the district over 90 to 100 small sites in or adjacent to villages, with no increases for Leamington Warwick and Whitnash that have received the bulk of development over many years. B - Two or Three medium isolated sites to the North, East and West of the District with zero housing South of Leamington and Warwick. C - A new town in Green Belt that is completely independent of neighbouring towns and villages. This would be a challenging but exciting alternative that would give established towns and villages a chance to stabilise.
16. It has never been made clear by WDC that they have supported or facilitated the applications by various developers even though they deny this.
17. WDC are aware that the Local Plan now under consultation has not changed from the previous 2007 Local Plan and are now attempting to convince the public it is a viable and acceptable plan.
18. WDC are in full knowledge that this application is just a part of a massive urban sprawl they have recommended as being suitable for the 12,300 houses they have stated are needed to 2029, without any proof of the needs of those houses.
19. WDC have failed to recognise the severe impact on the present incumbents of a very large area South of Leamington and Warwick that the combined applications would have. So this application like all of the others must not be permitted.
20. By encouraging the various developers (including Thos. Bates) to submit applications in order to show that the 12,300 houses are deliverable they have effectively isolated each development application from the residents who are not directly joined to every site.
21. By not carrying out a fair and just consultation on this application and con-joining it as part of the overall intent of the New Local Plan, WDC are minimising the effects on the unwitting public of all the applications when combined under the 'Master Plan' .
22. The consultation period for the Local Plan and this application has been extended after public protest. There is still not enough time to complete an effective consultation because of the large area covered by the Local Plan.
23. This application must only be judged in combination with all other present and known future applications. Each application must be placed in a Local Plan Group and considered as such.
24. If the 12,300 number is successfully challenged and kept within a suggested 5,400 this total can be shown to have satisfied the 5 year and beyond requirement.
25. This application being part of the New Local Plan that is to provide housing needs up to 2029 is for 280 dwellings. That should only permit an application for 17 houses each year. Any application in excess of that should be rejected.
26. The laws of supply and demand should be accepted as being the meter for providing houses for those who not only need them but can afford them. The 12,300 number being quoted by WDC is a mythical number with no proof. Therefore the New Local Plan should have recognised this fact and factored the numbers accordingly.
27. Owning a house is the biggest single commitment anyone takes. It is undeniable that of all those who want a house, there will be many who will never afford to do so. Their only recourse is to rent. The houses in this application (and all others) are not aimed at the low cost rental market.
28. The number of people living in the vicinity of 75% of the 12,300 houses who need or will need a house do not represent the need for this number of houses. The truth is that developers are speculating on selling these homes to anyone outside of the area who can afford them. WDC should have recognised this and should only allow developments that are for the local people
29. A result of the above, is that anyone who lives in the area concerned who will be looking to buy will not be able to do so as they are out of their price range.
30. This application will destroy the protecting green area that protects the ancient town of Whitnash. There is considerable wildlife in the neighbouring woodland and the farmland that will be gone forever. This is important and needs protection.
31. The actual site of this application is on the highest land in the area and houses would be highly visible from approaches from the South and West.
32. The sloping site is not best suited for densely packed houses. Ashford road is known to be a dangerous approach onto Tachbrook Road after winter ice. Cars have been unable to stop in the past. The density of cars leaving the sloping site within the development and then onto the main road would be very dangerous and many accidents will happen.
33. A further proof of supply and demand is that the estate agents are overflowing with houses for sale, but only a few that are affordable.
34. Another fact is that present house owners wishing to move or upsize cannot afford to due to the squeeze from government spending cuts. Their only answer is to extend and even that is very restricted due to the high costs involved and petty restrictions imposed by District Councils.
35. Warwick District Council should not cave in to government demands but should use the ability of elected councillors and the public to protest to the Minister of the Environment.

I dispute the need for over 12,000 houses in the local area as independent evidence suggests that local needs are half this number.

* It is wrong to forecast up to 2029 and allocate green land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing developers to uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build and when.


* This plan is not about meeting local housing requirements but is designed to attract thousands of extra residents into an area where there is not enough work for them or the infrastructure to support the numbers.

* Stratford District Council have announced plans to build close to Gaydon which will provide homes for workers at Jaguar/ Landrover which was part of Warwick's plan, so we already have a double count on housing needs.


* The proposed housing development by Stratford District Council and the Warwick District Council plans could not be supported by the infrastructure in Warwick especially the hospital and roads.

* Such a massive development would turn the historic town of Warwick into an urban sprawl and destroy the view from Warwick's most valuable asset - the castle.


* The already overstretched infrastructure cannot cope with what would be a massive increase in traffic; being an out of town development most people would have a car, working couples possibly two. The road bottlenecks at Castle Hill and the viaduct at Princes Drive cannot cope with thousands of extra vehicles. Turning Europa Way into a dual carriageway would be a large car park at peak times as the traffic tried to filter through the viaduct.

* I object to large areas of farmland being built on as this will have a
serious impact on wildlife with the removal of hedges.


* I dispute that no building can take part on the green belt to the north as the council have already indicated their support for the Gateway project which uses green belt land. I believe that the plan to build in the north of the town was changed when residents of the Blackdown area threatened legal action.

* There also a serious risk of flooding in the Aragon Drive / Saumur Way area if the adjacent farmland is built on.

* Allowing traffic to access any new building behind Saumur Way will increase the risk to the many school children who use the cycle path that runs across the end of Saumur Way.

* I am led to believe that the air quality in Warwick is already worse than the legally permitted levels - a situation which can only get worse with the introduction of thousands of extra vehicles passing through the town.

* This is a developers charter not a plan for the benefit of the citizens of Warwick and as such requires an independent investigation into how this plan was put together, the involvement of all concerned in the council and the Henry VIII trust and the real reasons for stopping any development in the North.

I wish to make the following comments in objection to the new local plan;

* The land between Warwick and Whitnash / Bishop's Tachbrook is rural in nature. This green land is important to the aesthetic nature of the town and any building upon it will destroy the 'feel' of the whole area. Previous developments have detracted from the town rather than improved it. The town thrives upon tourism and anything that detracts from the aesthetic qualities of the town will damage business. Current policies on protecting green land should be maintained.
* The number of houses is too high. Projected population growth in the area does not demand it. It takes no account of other developments, such as at Gaydon, and the pressures that this will place on Warwick and Leamington infrastructure.
* The District already have enough sites supporting sustainable development.
* The increase in traffic will cause many problems, particularly pollution, delay to emergency vehicles, greater danger to children and other road users and added time travelling. It will cost residents more in fuel due to traffic increasing.
* Roads are currently in poor repair and additional use will make this worse.
* Road drainage is very poor at the new Morrison's site, the Lidel site and at Warwick school. There can be no confidence based upon this evidence that any new development will improve road drainage and in fact it will make it worse.
* Development on this higher land around Warwick will have a significant effect upon rainfall run-off and will create a flood risk where none exists today. Residents will face increased insurance costs. Warwickshire DC will face significant legal and damages costs if these developments do cause flooding or other damage. This will ultimately cost the council tax payer.
* Air quality is already poor. Warwick is close to the M40 and A46. It is also very busy with through traffic and local traffic. Local transport services are poor. The new development will bring more cars and more pollution. This is a health risk and is proven to increase respiratory illness. This then costs the health services in additional care. Are these cost factored into the plan?.
* Noise pollution is also a serious issue. The constant hiss of traffic from the M40 is always evident. There is also the noise of traffic on the Myton Road and at night it is very loud coming from the roundabout at Morrisons. Additional traffic will make it worse.
* All these types of pollution will drive out residents and businesses from Warwick. Will the council tax charges decrease to reflect the poor quality of life that we will experience?
* There are many better alternatives on brown-field sites.
* I am deeply concerned over the ethical / political questions raised by this planning process. There seems to be a lack of fair representation. There also seem to be a number of cases of conflict on interest. I feel that it should be raised to your compliance officer and an independent enquiry held.

In summary I feel that the proposed development in Warwick is poorly thought through and of detriment to the community as a whole. We will suffer from higher risk to our safety and health, we will face higher council tax payments, it will cost us more to travel and insure our property and it will no longer be a nice place to live. All of this to develop land for houses that are not required.

Additionally I would like to object to the plans for the traveller sites. These persons are seldom true gypsies. They are usually itinerant Irish travellers who make a living and do not pay tax and do not contribute to society in any way. They also tend to participate in criminal activity crime increases in areas that they have sites. It is also true that they dump rubbish and cause damage to property. This costs the council tax payer, but they make no contribution. Their vehicles are rarely taxed and insured. This places ordinary citizens at risk and insurance cost will rise near their sites. Have the council any plans to compensate residents, or decrease their council tax?. If they must have sites then these should be kept as far away from green land and from law-abiding people.

Apologies for the somewhat rambling nature of my objections, but I think that this is a very serious matter and judging by the feeling of local people it is a matter that Warwickshire DC should give very careful thought about.

a) The projected number of new homes - the forecast date for this is unrealistic and there is no evidence of how this figure realistically reflects other development and infrastructure that will be required locally to serve this increase in the population of this housing.
b) Review the land earmarked for development and identify alternative areas
c) Review the implications such major developments will have on the current transport network and the feasibility of how this will cope and the scope of developing alternative network
d) Compatibility of the proposals against legal requirements for air quality
e) Commitment to maintaining local heritage and historic environments - the proposals are at odds with these commitments
f) Developing employment provision in connection with housing needs is unrealistic - has any data been collected for the current populations to establish the percentage of population who live and work in the same area?

I would urge the Council to reconsider the proposals and set up further in depth consultations to ensure that the Council's approach to localism accords with what is actually required locally and is in the very best interests for all concerned

I object to numerous elements of the WDC Local Plan. I am not a planner and therefore it has taken considerable time and effort for me to draw together a reasoned response - time that many families simply do not have.

In the public meetings I have attended throughout the Consultation I have been astounded at the insistence of Council officers that the Local Plan in its current form is going ahead irrespective of the public response. What kind of Consultation is that?

I have also yet to hear a solid reason why the greenbelt land north of the river, earmarked in the first draft, is no longer being considered. Limited release of this land would create a more balanced and sustainable urban area.

I understand that fairness is not a planning concern. But the concentration of such a high proportion of the proposed new housing south of the river is completely unacceptable. Aside from the coalescence of settlements this will cause, the strain on local infrastructure, the nightmare traffic and corresponding reduction in quality of life for existing residents, it will impact upon Leamington Town Centre, which will cease to be just that, a centre. If the proposed new levels of housing are built south of the river, this will skew the demographic across the District, the Town Centre will become increasingly irrelevant as new residents access retail outlets and supermarkets located south of the river. At a time when Town Centre retailers across the country are struggling, I am shocked at the District Council's blatant disregard for the local economy and their willingness to plan the decline of Leamington Town Centre.

I would like to object specifically to the following areas of the Local Plan:

Level Of Growth
I am not convinced that WDC's required number of houses is based on sound analysis. Recent projections by respected local planners suggest that the District Council has over estimated the need. I am concerned this has been done for expediency, to ensure the Local Plan is passed upon eventual government Examination. Also, I am not convinced that WDC has effectively exercised its Duty to Co-operate with Coventry in cross-boundary housing provision.

Location of Growth
The Local Plan should make more Green belt releases to the north of Leamington. As mentioned above, a spatial rebalancing of the urban form is required away from the southern edge of Whitnash/Warwick/Leamington. This surely would be sound planning practice, creating a more rounded urban area, enabling greater accessibility for the Town Centres (Leamington and Warwick) with them forming two central hubs. If the proposed developments to the south take place, Leamington Town centre will no longer be 'central' to the District's urban area.

Myton Garden Suburb
The proposed development here will result in a coalescence of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington. Additional traffic on Europa Way and north under the railway would pose serious concerns.

South of Gallows Hill
This area of land is highly visible and covering it with houses would impact on the backdrop of Warwick castle, damaging the local tourism industry upon which numerous businesses in the local area rely. In planning terms it is not a logical extension of an existing urban form, but instead would create a peninsula of development to the south.

Whitnash East
In the immediate vicinity of this site there are areas of historical and conservational interest which must be preserved. I am doubtful that the cost of relocating Campion School in order to gain access to this site can be justified by the number of new houses proposed.

Warwick Gates Employment Land
I am concerned at proposals that this land be reallocated for housing when there is no other land in the urban area that offers this amount of high quality land area for employment in such an accessible location. Why is the proposed housing density in this area so low?

Woodside Farm
Access to the development is a major concern. A single access point would isolate the development from the existing community and create such a volume of traffic that it would be simply unsustainable. How can the significant cost of highway improvements to provide two access points be justified even if physically possible? The proximity of Ashford Road and Harbury Lane junctions surely precludes access via Tachbrook Road and access via Landor Road is precluded by the current road alignment and lack of vehicle capacity. Our local road infrastructure simply could not cope with the numbers of new cars this development would bring. Increased air pollution and traffic noise are real concerns, alongside the danger posed to pedestrians (particularly children) of residents from the new development using Othello Avenue as a cut through to access local shops. The National Planning Policy Framework clearly states that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts. I do not see any convincing evidence that mitigation measures will be adequate enough in this instance.

The visual impact of this dense development, 83m above sea level compared with 65-68m for established housing in the area, would be unacceptable, making it highly prominent in the local landscape. Furthermore the fact that some houses will be up to three storeys high raises significant concerns of privacy for existing dwellings. Attempts to mitigate this issue using trees for shielding will likely bring problems with shading and access to natural light.

The area proposed for development has steep inclines, as steep as a rise of 5m in 40 (1 in 8). Flooding from the fields is already a concern for those houses that back on to the Woodside Farm area. Given the density of the proposed housing, I am very concerned about the effect of considerable new water run off from hard surfaces in a new development, and the potential flood risk this would pose to existing housing backing on to it.

Woodside Farm is Grade 2 agricultural land. With growing population rates and domestic food production demand rising, it is fundamentally unacceptable to build on land of this quality when brown field sites are available.

Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane
How is this site going to be accessed? The junctions at Coppice Road/Morris Drive and Whitnash Road/Golf Lane do not have the capacity to cope with the additional traffic these developments would bring, particularly at peak periods.

We have been advised to write to you regarding objections to the Revised Development Strategy Local Plan. Having studied documentation and attended meetings I wish to object to the overall plan to build the number of new homes suggested in Warwick district and in particular the 3420 planned in the south of Warwick (zone 6).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. 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 over recent years, 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.

I have lived in Warwick most of my life and still live at home with my parents. I would like to continue to be able to live in the area with my own family in the future and for my children to have green fields around them and affordable homes, not to be surrounded by and urban sprawl of commuters.

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.

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion being at Warwick Gates which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed.

By only building the amount of houses currently required for Warwick district this will discourage migration from other areas as has happened with past developments.

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 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, including up to 14,000 new jobs speculated 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.

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.

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. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

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 2-3000 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, the area of restraint, 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.

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.

I ask, is developing the ASR a sustainable development? "Much rubbish is talked about sustainability, usually by developers. It does not mean that estates are built near to a bus stop or a primary school or a doctor's surgery; this is just moderately intelligent planning. To get to the correct definition it is necessary to go back to the source of the concept of sustainability which was the United Nations commission chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1980s. This said that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs; in more simple terms it means that we should not destroy something which future generations would find valuable." (www.stortfordcf.org.uk)

Surely if all this land is built on to the south there will be nowhere that the future generations can use in Warwick for recreation other than St Nicholas Park. If the land was made into recreational use, as it was designated to be, that would serve not only our generation but those of the future too.

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.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 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 remained 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 and particularly page 17:

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

It was pointed out at a public meeting in 2009 that part of this area may not be needed for development in the future but we learnt at the recent Warwick Forum that 2,000 homes planned for Milverton had been transferred to zone 6, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly the area of restraint.

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 proposed site at zone 6.

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, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form


entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into 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.

Warwick 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.

Stratford District have now put this area forward as part of their Local Plan. Can District Councils not communicate with each other? To have this large area developed as well as the south of Warwick District will create even more stress on the road structure towards Warwick.

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 Local Plan?

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. I 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 reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, 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.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. 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.



According to http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=15&chapter=4 the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026 will be

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. 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, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with

low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"

If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, it will be far from that.

The Core Strategy also pointed out that the development should be directed towards the south of the urban area and this has been carried forward into the Local Plan apparently to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry. What this is in fact doing is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

If Green Belt land was taken to the north of Leamington and south of Kenilworth, to the east and west, to build the bulk of the houses required for Warwick District and included a supermarket for the residents of north Leamington, Lillington and Cubbington this would alleviate the need for them to travel to the south of Leamington or Warwick to shop and would not cause incursion into the West Midlands and Coventry or encroach on the current residents of those areas.

This Green Belt land could then be reclaimed to the south of Warwick and Whitnash and residents of the new dwellings would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Council to revise the whole plan taking into consideration the views of the residents of Warwick, not allowing any further planning applications to be passed on land within the Local Plan until it is fully agreed and finally to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

Dear Sir/Madam
This letter is my objections to the WDC local plan. My main objection is to the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The area at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area.
Local need
The local need for housing is 6,000 new homes by 2030, why is it proposed that 12,000 new homes be built? From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland and not on existing brownfield industrial sites.
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with new patients. There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the area around the proposed housing. Europa Way and the lead up to Leamington is already a nightmare at peak hours. With the possibility of all these extra vehicles this would just get worse
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this thus creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the increased traffic, exhaust pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.


Flood risk
The area propsed for building between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
The plan states that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. The secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
Will the current catchment areas change? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. The village will become an extension of Leamington with just one field separating it.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are proposed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here.
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is mainly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon? Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities.
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a viable option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of three separate proposals. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions.

1. There is no supporting Local Plan to allow this application.
2. The existing 2007 Local Plan is still in force and is still relevant to this application.
3. This application has been made by the developer knowing that the current Local Plan would not support it.
4. The application by the developer /land owner has been made with prior knowledge that a new Local Plan was under consultation but not approved.
5. The application is for 280 dwellings but makes no reference to the phasing over the next 17 years. As this is common to all applications that have been made and most likely will be made then it should fail on this point and be rejected.
6. WDC should have made this clear in any discussions with developers but failed to do so.
7. The NPPF came into force in 2012 and should not be assumed or considered to be out of date.
8. WDC have identified and recommended this site as being acceptable for development without any consideration of the harmful effects on the surrounding neighbourhood.
9. This application must not be taken in isolation. It is part of a large number of present and future applications to satisfy WDC's poorly researched information on housing numbers. This may be due to numbers they have accepted from the Minister of the Environment or their own numbers from GL Hearn.
10. The 12,300 is the latest number that is now being quoted by WDC. This has been challenged as being pure guesswork without any positive proof. It has been suggested that 5,400 is closer to the truth following work by a local councillor.
11. It is not being truthful or fair of WDC to invite individuals to object only to the application sites adjacent to their homes. They should be objecting to the total applications under the umbrella of the Local Plan. If that is seen as unsustainable then all applications should be rejected.
12. WDC have put themselves in the position of having to consider many applications to build a large number of houses. It is now a rat race by developers as to who can get in first. This should not be run on a 'first come first served basis'. Applications should be in abeyance until after the Local Plan has been properly consulted.
13. Consultation meetings I have attended all have the same theme. That is to give the public details of what has been decided and ask for questions. There is indication that the massive objection that is taking place will stop the intention of the Local Plan.
14. The Local Plan as seen by the public for the first time was in its final and intended form with no facility to consider alternatives. Therefore it is not a consultation document seeking approval. Rather it is a statement of intent.
15. There are alternatives to creating urban sprawl. A - Proportional distribution throughout the district over 90 to 100 small sites in or adjacent to villages, with no increases for Leamington Warwick and Whitnash that have received the bulk of development over many years. B - Two or Three medium isolated sites to the North, East and West of the District with zero housing South of Leamington and Warwick. C - A new town in Green Belt that is completely independent of neighbouring towns and villages. This would be a challenging but exciting alternative that would give established towns and villages a chance to stabilise.
16. It has never been made clear by WDC that they have supported or facilitated the applications by various developers even though they deny this.
17. WDC are aware that the Local Plan now under consultation has not changed from the previous 2007 Local Plan and are now attempting to convince the public it is a viable and acceptable plan.
18. WDC are in full knowledge that this application is just a part of a massive urban sprawl they have recommended as being suitable for the 12,300 houses they have stated are needed to 2029, without any proof of the needs of those houses.
19. WDC have failed to recognise the severe impact on the present incumbents of a very large area South of Leamington and Warwick that the combined applications would have. So this application like all of the others must not be permitted.
20. By encouraging the various developers (including Thos. Bates) to submit applications in order to show that the 12,300 houses are deliverable they have effectively isolated each development application from the residents who are not directly joined to every site.
21. By not carrying out a fair and just consultation on this application and con-joining it as part of the overall intent of the New Local Plan, WDC are minimising the effects on the unwitting public of all the applications when combined under the 'Master Plan' .
22. The consultation period for the Local Plan and this application has been extended after public protest. There is still not enough time to complete an effective consultation because of the large area covered by the Local Plan.
23. This application must only be judged in combination with all other present and known future applications. Each application must be placed in a Local Plan Group and considered as such.
24. If the 12,300 number is successfully challenged and kept within a suggested 5,400 this total can be shown to have satisfied the 5 year and beyond requirement.
25. This application being part of the New Local Plan that is to provide housing needs up to 2029 is for 280 dwellings. That should only permit an application for 17 houses each year. Any application in excess of that should be rejected.
26. The laws of supply and demand should be accepted as being the meter for providing houses for those who not only need them but can afford them. The 12,300 number being quoted by WDC is a mythical number with no proof. Therefore the New Local Plan should have recognised this fact and factored the numbers accordingly.
27. Owning a house is the biggest single commitment anyone takes. It is undeniable that of all those who want a house, there will be many who will never afford to do so. Their only recourse is to rent. The houses in this application (and all others) are not aimed at the low cost rental market.
28. The number of people living in the vicinity of 75% of the 12,300 houses who need or will need a house do not represent the need for this number of houses. The truth is that developers are speculating on selling these homes to anyone outside of the area who can afford them. WDC should have recognised this and should only allow developments that are for the local people
29. A result of the above, is that anyone who lives in the area concerned who will be looking to buy will not be able to do so as they are out of their price range.
30. This application will destroy the protecting green area that protects the ancient town of Whitnash. There is considerable wildlife in the neighbouring woodland and the farmland that will be gone forever. This is important and needs protection.
31. The actual site of this application is on the highest land in the area and houses would be highly visible from approaches from the South and West.
32. The sloping site is not best suited for densely packed houses. Ashford road is known to be a dangerous approach onto Tachbrook Road after winter ice. Cars have been unable to stop in the past. The density of cars leaving the sloping site within the development and then onto the main road would be very dangerous and many accidents will happen.
33. A further proof of supply and demand is that the estate agents are overflowing with houses for sale, but only a few that are affordable.
34. Another fact is that present house owners wishing to move or upsize cannot afford to due to the squeeze from government spending cuts. Their only answer is to extend and even that is very restricted due to the high costs involved and petty restrictions imposed by District Councils.
35. Warwick District Council should not cave in to government demands but should use the ability of elected councillors and the public to protest to the Minister of the Environment.

I'm a resident who lives in Saumur way (off Myton Road) closer to the two farms. We are very concerned on this local plan about building over 800 houses near our street. We moved to Warwick from London over 20 years ago. The reason we loved living in Warwick is pollution rate were very low when we first moved to the area. Within last few years we have felt level of pollution has been increased to unacceptable level. I have been suffering with hay fever for the last few years. Since then every year I suffered very badly. I assume this must be due to increase in car exhaust fumes.
Having attended the meetings regarding the local plan, we strongly object to the proposed site for building 3000+ houses on the farm and the agricultural land between Myton Rd and Europa Way on the following grounds:-

1) Air Quality - due to the constant backlog of stationary and slow moving vehicles on the Myton Rd/Europa Way at most of the time of the day ie school/office hours. Adding thousands of extra vehicles will make the air quality very poor and simultaneously roads will become dangerous.

2)Flood Risk - There had been flooding on Saumur way closer to cycle track and off Aragon drive. Also evidence has been presented to WDC of flooding and standing water in the area of The Malins and Myton Crescent since the development of the Brittain Lane estate on the former Dormer Hall site on the Myton Road. The whole area will be of great risk of flooding if the top soil is removed from the fields/farms. This will give rise enormous burden to the residents around the area.

3) Infrastructure - there is no capacity to widen, extend or improve the over used Myton Road, you are proposing access
to part of this 'garden suburb' via Saumur Way which is a tiny residential road which cannot cope with more traffic - not to
mention adding to our already poor air quality as more cars will queue back from the Myton Road causing more pollution for residents
of Saumur Way.

4)Fairness and quality of life - it is extremely unfair to dump a huge amount of housing on our small area as
we feel it is just viewed as an 'easy' or 'soft' option, showing no consideration or care for the quality of life of residents of Myton.
With regards to quality of life - we will no longer be able to sit outside of a quiet summer's day as you are proposing 15
years of construction at the end of our close, we know from experience - we have had to put up with the construction all of one
summer with Lidl (a big mistake as we told you at the time) then we had constant loud construction noise and road issues with the Brittain
Lane site; just when we thought we might get some peace we had 10 months of misery and upheaval with Morrisons/Aldi and all the surrounding
road chaos.
The amount of houses planning to built in this small area rich land is seriously unfair, and the quality of life people enjoy at present will be diminished.
Further more the land west of Europa way which has always been under careful stewardship of Oken and Henry VIII Trusts and remained until now,
so I wonder why WDC is trying to put a stop to this.

Where is the quality of life for the people of Myton? it seems the planning department of WDC is hell bent on over building and
ruining this entire area.

There is a plan being put forward as you are aware with an alternative proposal spreading the building around the area more evenly
and more fairly to existing residents, this proposal should be considered immediately.

The number of houses 'needed' are not the same as the number of houses 'proposed' and the number of houses you are proposing
should be downgraded significantly; after all, have you taken into consideration the fact that families like ours will consider moving
OUT of the area if you continue to decimate it in this way?

Everyone accepts growth is necessary, but the way WDC is going about this is alienating WDC from the people is it here to present, trust
is very low and the people of Myton feel the WDC is choosing our district yet again as a soft option.

We also object very strongly to the consideration of Planning Applications at this stage for building on an Area of Restraint that has
not been authorised for building on - you cannot grant permission to build on an area which is still an AOR, we are still in the consultation
period at this stage, nothing has been agreed - it is issues like this that make the local residents feel even more strongly that they
cannot trust WDC on the issue of the NLP.

We therefore again call on WDC to reject the New Local Plan in its current form, and for WDC to considered the options presented
to it for smaller housing numbers to be spread evenly and fairly across the whole area.

ps. WDC stands for Warwick District Council, but if this plan goes ahead it might be read as Warwick Destruction Council !!!

I am writing to make my objections to the local plan Revised Development Strategy clear. My main objection is to reference number 6 on the Revised Development Strategy, particularly the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The small pocket at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area. I believe that the area between Europa Way and Oakley Wood road, incorporating Grove Farm should never be built on as it provides a green space barrier between town and village.
Local need
It is my understanding that the local need for housing is for less than 6,000 new homes by 2030, but that it is proposed that 12,000 new homes be built, with the vast majority (4,500) of them being South of Warwick and Leamington Spa. From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland. I would like to know why existing brownfield industrial sites are not being used?
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Warwick District has a low unemployment level of 1.7% and so increasing the housing to meet job needs is not an issue. The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment said that overall "Warwick District had a very good jobs-homes balance.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Utilities
The current water supplies, drainage and sewerage would not cope with an extra 12,000 homes. Will Severn Trent water be upgrading their current systems to cope with the extra demand?
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the immediate vicinity of the proposed housing. Indeed, if the plans were to go ahead as proposed then the major employment area being built near Baginton will require a commute either through the already congested Leamington Spa town or back towards the Europa Way/M40/A46 which again struggles to cope at peak periods already. What are the plans for dealing with the major improvements that will be required for the roads in and around the proposed housing areas? Europa Way and the area around Leamington Shopping Park is often gridlocked at present. With the possibility of an extra 20,000 vehicles being added into the mix this would make it an unacceptable journey. It would in fact discourage visitors and tourists to the town areas as well as people looking to buy property.
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this this creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. I note it states possible park and ride facilities. I would suggest that this needs to be definite park and ride facilities in place prior to any building work commencing. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
What is the cost of the proposed traffic measures? Who will pay for this? The taxpayer or the developers, and if it is the developers is it a condition of sale or just a desirable measure?
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the 'snails pace traffic' pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. Those people that choose to walk or cycle will have to fill their lungs with the increasing pollution levels. Who would want to live next to or in these areas of high pollution? What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
Have any studies been done on the impact the proposed measures will have on local residents health?
Noise pollution from the significant increase in traffic will increase
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.
Flood risk
Areas of Whitnash, Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook are already prone to flooding. The area between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
What about schools? I notice it says that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. I would respectfully suggest that the secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
It does not seem fair that people that live in certain areas to ensure a placement at a specific school should end up with a less desirable option for their children when newcomers to the area will get the advantages that should be provided to the loyal local residents. Will the current catchment areas change? I suspect so. How is this fair on current residents? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
The Catholic Primary school in Whitnash, St Josephs', has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The housing planned between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook would turn a beautiful piece of rolling scenery into a view of a housing estate. The whole character of Bishops Tachbrook will be lost. The unique desirability of the village will be lost. It will merely be an extension of Leamington Spa and Warwick Gates. The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. Have you had a look at the view from Bishops Tachbrook looking towards Warwick Gates, between which some of the planned housing is proposed. The planned housing will be clearly visible leaving just a field between it and Bishops Tachbrook. The visual impact will be devastating.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are propsed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here. For many they will have no option but to stay as their houses will not be worth as much or they may be too old to contemplate moving.
There is a considerable impact on current residents and those people choosing to live in a village with limited facilities.
Country Park
What will this look like? There are few details about this area, will it be secured from future development? Who will provide the upkeep of this area and at what cost? In order to make an informed decision about the proposals we really need to know all of the information. Will a further consultation be conducted with further details of this plan?
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is predominantly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon. Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
I would suggest that these plans need to be scrapped and that the planners should look to set a level of new housing which meets the population growth for local needs. Any homes required should then be built in areas where people will want to live as the infrastructure is in place to meet their needs without impacting hugely on the current population.
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities. I understand that there is a major development proposed around the Gaydon area. If this is to be supported by the correct infrastructure then surely increasing this will help to absorb some of the previously mentioned problems. Has consideration been given to a new town/village similar to that proposed near to Gaydon?
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. What about North Leamington? If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington Spa, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The local plan states that the 22.5 hectares of new employment land is to meet local need over the next 15 years but it would appear that this is not the case as I suspect the vast majority of it will go to newcomers to the area.
It would appear that North Leamington has been largely left alone from these proposals and local concern is that this is due to the wealth of the people that live in North Leamington. It would make more sense to have the majority of the housing in the North of Leamington, Kenilworth and Cubbington areas as they are closer to the planned major employment area and do not have any greenfield areas separating them. They are already a continuous sprawl of housing. This would mean less of a commute and better air quality. The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a sensible option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
Please reconsider the scale of the housing proposed and also the positions. Without the correct infrastructure to support this plan Leamington Spa will become nothing more than a sprawling town with no character, major traffic problems, poor medical and educational facilities and an altogether undesirable place to live.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of what feels like a 3 pronged attack. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I would appreciate a response to the questions raised as part of this letter and hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions on mine and my childrens futures.

see-attached

Barford St Peter's Primary School has a current admission number of 20 places that are consistently fully subscribed with 54 applications made for 2013-2014, of which 29 placed the school as first choice.
The proposed development of 70-90 houses would inevitably generate extra numbers of children to be accommodated by the school. In addition, several areas around the catchment area for the school have been identified as potential sites for gypsies and travellers. The school is already oversubscribed and any additional children from either of these sites would be a great strain on the school.
The Preferred Options identifies the school to become a Single Form Entry school and hence accommodate 30 pupils per year/intake. This is not possible with the current infrastructure and staffing levels. There needs to be a clear strategy to ensure adequate funding to provide essential provision of built infrastructure and staff to accommodate pupils generated from new housing and potential travellers site whilst not disadvantaging current residents, pupils and their families.
Although the School has not been informed of the Proposals directly, it is understood that they have been put out for consultation. This Letter is the School's response to that present consultation. Please note that if the Proposals proceed further, the School needs to be directly consulted at each stage.

I have read the 70 odd page document and I feel it does not do enough to protect the open spaces and countryside that we currently have in the district. I am shocked at the amount of housing that it is said we need and do not believe these forecasts. In addition I do not believe we should build even more homes than is required if neighbouring districts cannot build their quota, I think this is called "cooperation" in the document!

The document also says it wants to avoid coalescence of settlements yet this is exactly what it is doing with almost 70% of this 12,300 homes being in the south. The only justification I can see in the document is that there was opposition to development on green belt in the north, there is opposition to development on all green belt not just in the north. I live in whitnash and we successfully opposed a plan for 250 more homes and there was major transport concerns yet this was overturned by national government who are agreeing to everything regardless of the impact now and in addition your plan has 600 more homes on this site creating even more traffic, in addition to the thousands of new homes in the south. I do not believe that there is sufficient justification that the majority of the homes should be in such a concentrated area.

I would also like more information on the mitigation on traffic issues, information on here is very light and I cannot find any maps etc.
I think the cycle routes should be improved so people can safely cycle from leamington to Kenilworth or Coventry. Usually homes built have the minimum of everything and I expect that safe communting by cycle will not be available in 2026 and once all these changes have taken place the roads will be even busier.

In addition I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been fully explored, there just seems to be these for current planning applications like the fire station there doesn't seem to be anything or much at all in the localplan which is new development on brownfield sites, why is this, can you explain what has been done to review the sites available?

Unfortunately due to the power of national government to blindly agree to any planning application even if it has significant local opposition and a massive impact of the environment, I am not hopeful that any changes will be made as a result of consultation on the local plan, however I do hope that some of the holes in the plan will be addressed and the inbalance will be addressed

We are writing to express out disagreement with the proposed plan for further housing in Hampton Magna which we consider is over development of this area and seems to have been chosen for expediency - there are a lot of areas of derelict land and other places which could be far better utilised. Hampton Magna is a pleasant place to live with a strong community spirit and when we bought our house we did so on the grounds that the surrounding land was green belt and would not be built on and the development would be within the confines of the historic barracks. We recognise that it was originally attended for the village to be bigger but by the time most of the residents moved in these plans had been shelved and we are horrified that 43 years on these are being revived. The effect of the loss of valuable farm land and the damage to all the varied and fascinating wildlife that currently occupies this land is incalculable and once land is built on it cannot be reclaimed.

We do not feel the existing infrastructure and amenities could cope with another 100 houses, the once considerable number of local shops has already shrunk down to just 3. There are frequently problems with drainage and the sewerage system will be put under particular strain, as will other services. Additional housing has already been developed at Chase Meadow, which is ongoing, and at Hatton Park, it is difficult therefore to see the necessity for even more at Hampton Magna. There are also a number of other villages which could better be developed locally, possibly Bubbenhall etc etc

We also have concerns about road safety as the school is at full capacity and the surrounding roads are now an absolute nightmare when parents come to drop off and collect their children creating some very dangerous situations, there is also an impact with amount of traffic using the railway station and people using the road round the village as a short cut which will be further exacerbated. A large number of driving schools use the major roads around Hampton Magna which also adds to traffic problems.

On the subject of the proposed gypsy encampments, we are still bemused that a local farmer at Beausale once offered land for us by travellers which was turned down by the council although it had traditionally been used by Gipsies for years we would perhaps like to see this being revisited and new solutions sort as we cannot imagine the kind of site currently being looked at will be conducive to the safety and wellbeing of travellers. Also the incidence of litter and damage that follows on from these sites is most concerning. Also has anyone consulted with the gipsies/travellers to find out what they think, I don't think we want another fiasco like the one we had when the site that is now the Parkway Station was considered as a gipsy site which was very unsuitable with its proximity to the canal and the railway line and difficult entrance from the road which the Gipsies themselves rejected and did not want. This is also yet another strain on the school.

We would like to think that the views of Hampton Magna residents are fully considered and this is not just a case of 'rubber stamping' something that has already been decided.

Having attended recent local meetings regarding the proposals laid out in the New Local Plan, We strongly object to the proposed
site for building circa 3000+ houses on the farm and agricultural land between Myton Road and Europa Way, on the following
grounds;

1) Flood risk - evidence has been presented to WDC of flooding and standing water in the area of The Malins and Myton Crescent since the
development of the Brittain Lane estate on the former Dormer Hall site on the Myton Road - there has also been flooding at the top of
Saumur Way which has also been reported to WDC; the whole area will be of great risk of flooding if the top soil is removed from the
fields which offer our area some protection from flooding.

2) Air quality - due to the constant backlog of stationary and slow moving traffic on the Myton Road and Europa Way at all times of day,
the air quality is poor, as it is in the centre of Warwick Town, many children and adults suffer with chest and breathing complaints due
to this issue; to even think of adding to this with thousands of additional cars on these roads is dangerous.

3) Infrastructure - there is no capacity to widen, extend or improve the over used Myton Road, you are proposing access
to part of this 'garden suburb' (Please!) via Saumur Way which is a tiny residential road which cannot cope with more traffic - not to
mention adding to our already poor air quality as more cars will queue back from the Myton Road causing more pollution for residents
of Saumur Way.

4) Fairness and quality of life. Speaks for itself - it is extremely unfair to dump a huge amount of housing on our small area as
we feel it is just viewed as an 'easy' or 'soft' option, showing no consideration or care for the quality of life of residents of Myton.

With regards to quality of life - we will no longer be able to sit outside of a quiet summer's day as you are proposing 15
years of construction at the end of our close, we know from experience - we have had to put up with the construction all of one
summer with Lidl (a big mistake as we told you at the time) then we had constant loud construction noise and road issues with the Brittain
Lane site; just when we thought we might get some peace we had 10 months of misery and upheaval with Morrisons and all the surrounding
road chaos.

Where is the quality of life for the people of Myton? it seems the planning department of WDC is hell bent on over building and
ruining this entire area.

Chris White has written to Cllr Doody expressing his concerns on all of these very points and calling for the NLP to be scrapped and
reconsidered; we wholeheartedly agree with and support his views.

There is a plan being put forward as you are aware with an alternative proposal spreading the building around the area more evenly
and more fairly to existing residents, this proposal should be considered immediately.

The number of houses 'needed' are not the same as the number of houses 'proposed' and the number of houses you are proposing
should be downgraded significantly; after all, have you taken into consideration the fact that families like ours will consider moving
OUT of the area if you continue to decimate it in this way?

Everyone accepts growth is necessary, but the way WDC is going about this is alienating WDC from the people is it here to present, trust
is very low and the people of Myton feel the WDC is choosing our district yet again as a soft option.

We also object very strongly to the consideration of Planning Applications at this stage for building on an Area of Restraint that has
not been authorised for building on - you cannot grant permission to build on an area which is still an AOR, we are still in the consultation
period at this stage, nothing has been agreed - it is issues like this that make the local residents feel even more strongly that they
cannot trust WDC on the issue of the NLP.

We therefore again call on WDC to reject the New Local Plan in its current form, and for WDC to considered the options presented
to it for smaller housing numbers to be spread evenly and fairly across the whole area.