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.

I congratulate your officers if they survived the heat, in all senses, in Aylesford School Hall last night

Living on Emscote Road overlooking Coten End, I see daily traffic congestion.

I once drove to Scotland and the worst traffic jam on the whole route was in Coten End.

More houses are bound to lead to more congestion.

I understand the need for more houses but think the numbers in the Draft Local Plan are excessive.

With reference to the new draft Local Plan, we wish to express our objections as follows:
Wildlife
Increasing the size of the sprawl of Leamington/Warwick is going to have a detrimental effect on the local wildlife as it will push out the wildlife further away from the towns having a negative effect on the eco-systems and peoples enjoyment of the wildlife. The proposed plans do not include enough of a green buffer between the existing developments and the proposed developments.
Potential Flooding Risk
We share the concern that the existing drainage/sewerage infrastructure will not be able to cope with such a high number of additional households. With current climate predictions indicating increased frequency and level of rainfall the risk of flooding to existing and new properties will only be exacerbated. To date Warwick Gates development has not experienced flooding, but if predicted strain on existing drainage results in flooding in this area and is attributed to the new developments, then who will bear the cost of any damage to properties - the Developers or the Council?
Areas of Restraint
The proposed plan is to build on Areas of Restraint. Whilst this may be understandable if it were to be a low number of properties, the proposal of some 4500 new properties makes a mockery of the very concept of an Area of Restraint. Why were these areas of proposed development designated as Areas of Restraint in the first place?
Infrastructure Improvements
If this plan goes ahead, there would need to be improvements made to the existing infrastructure in terms of roads and provisions of services such as schools, hospitals, doctors, shops etc. Who will pay for these improvements? We believe these costs should be borne by the Developers and not left to the tax-payers to fund. The Council must ensure that any commitments given by the Developers are delivered in full.
With the Warwick Gates development the local infrastructure has already had a massive strain placed upon it which it has still not recovered from. Traffic/congestion levels have risen to an almost unacceptable level.
Adding yet more people and cars living in this area will make these so much worse - quality of life is sure to suffer. Any new Development of the size proposed must include a school, Doctors surgery, Post Office and shops, Community Centre and Leisure Centre which are within walking distance of the new properties. It is not acceptable to expect the residents of the proposed developments to have to resort to motorised transport to reach such facilities.
Legal Challenge
The number of houses required that has been proposed by Warwick District Council should be legally challenged immediately so that tax-payers money is not wasted on plans that are likely to be legally challenged themselves on the basis that the number of houses proposed is based on unrealistic forecasts.
Commercial Buildings Land
There are vast amounts of land which has been designated for Commercial Property which have been lying fallow for many years now. Any proposal must address this waste of land by re-designating it for Residential Properties. Where necessary, Compulsory Purchase Orders should be made. More housing should be built on land closer to where businesses are located to reduce commuting by motorised transport.
Schools
Because Warwick Gates doesn't have its own school, this has resulted in children from here going to lots of different schools which has led to increased travelling, congestion and pollution. Another problem is that it has had a negative effect on the sense of community on the estate. Any new development of this size or more would need its own school so these problems are not repeated.
Air Pollution
Levels of air pollution in Warwick are appallingly bad. The proposed plans offer nothing to reduce this and the increased congestion would only make it worse because the proposed plans are just adding to the sprawl with Warwick and Leamington as the nuclei. The existing proposals are unimaginative and simply ratchet up the pressure on two towns which are centuries old and ill able to support more traffic. Warwick District Council should reject the proposed plans and give the developers the challenge of creating new towns or villages within Warwickshire which are self-sustaining, forward looking and fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Please take our comments into account when considering this application.

see attached

I am writing with regard to significant concerns we hold in relation to the Warwick DC's new Local Plan document.

The development of an enormous number of new homes, schools and facilities in the area has been proposed, as I am sure you are aware. While we fully support the idea that more housing is required nationwide, and absolutely appreciate that this must be spread across a number of counties, but we feel that the sheer number of new dwellings earmarked for development in this document is far in excess of what is requires locally, and also would irreparably damage Warwick.

More specifically, our concerns are:
* Coalescence is a real risk if the bulk of development is to take place in the land south of Gallows Hill. This would mean that Warwick, Heathcoate, Whitnash and Leamington Spa would form one continuous sprawl of conurbation, therefore losing the specific identities of the separate areas.
* Air pollution: Warwick town centre has already illegal levels of air pollution. This has an impact not only on existing residents, but how is it justifiable to develop new housing and expect new residents to live in an area which has already unacceptable levels of air contamination? This is all before taking in account the fact that the development of new housing and the arrival of significant new dwellings, along with the associated car travel, will hugely increase this problem even further.
* There is currently congestion on all routes to and from the site south of Gallow's Hill at peak times; this will be made unbearable.
* This potential increase in residents would put pressure even further on already stretched facilities such as healthcare, schools and existing infrastructure. Warwick hospital is already very confined, and serves a huge area of the locality. How much more patients can it cope with? I suspect not enough.
* The town centre economy would be massively adversely affected by an increase in traffic and pollution, as the areas earmarked for building would be highly car-dependent for residents. Local public transport is awful; more buses etc would simply increase congestion and pollution even further. This would all adversely affect Warwick's appeal as a tourist destination and could have catastrophic effects for local residents and business owners.
* Quite simply, too many houses are being proposed, and in the wrong areas.

Ways we believe the Local Plan could be improved are:
* Set a new level of housebuilding consistent with the needs of population growth, not growth for growth's sake.
* Spreading development into areas already with established communities and places of work, for instance Heathcote, Hatton Park and areas north of Leamington Spa instead of creating new sprawls of housing which people will need to commute from.
* Making new homes in small developments integrated into existing areas of infrastructure, therefore creating sustainable, environmentally acceptable housing solutions.

We look forward to hearing your views on this matter.

I object to the the proposed local plan on the grounds that;
There has not been sufficient evidence put forward on the requirement for 12,000 new homes and there is contradictory evidence for this requirement.

The plan to only build in the south of the district is unfair to the local residents and will has a serious impact on there quality of life.

I do not believe the reasons given for not building on greenbelt land in the north given that the same council has given permission for greenbelt land to be used in the Gateway project.

The local infrastructure cannot support such a massive development with the schools would be overloaded the local hospital and GP,s could not cope with up to 20,000 extra residents.

The road infrastructure could not cope with the extra volume of traffic, being an out of town development most of the new homes would have a car with professional people probably having two which would be an extra 16,000 plus cars on the roads. Many of those new residents would have to travel though the Viaduct or Castle Hill to get to work, two areas that are already congested.

There will be a serious risk of flooding if the farmland behind Saumur Way is built on.

School children using the footpath that runs past the end of Saumur Way will be put at risk by the extra traffic crossing it.

With regard to the Revised Development Strategy, the District Council Plan has a number of flaws:

1. It encourages more people to move into the District, which I want to avoid;
2. the housing forecast is more than double what we need;
3. too many houses are planned on being built on greenfield sites;
4. more brownfield sites should be used;
5. it makes the area more car-dependant;
6. there is already too much traffic congestion in Warwick and the District needs a plan to alleviate the Warwick and Leamington traffic - not increase it
7. Warwick needs a pedestrian crossing on Jury Street;
8. more houses will worsen the already illegal levels of pollution in Warwick and surrounding areas;
9. it does not provide the necessary infrastructure to meet the development needs.

1
WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN Helping Shape the District
REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Consultation response July 2013.
BISHOP'S TACHBROOK PARISH COUNCIL'S RESPONSE
Section 1
The Proposed Housing Numbers and the Assessment of the Availability of Housing Land.
1. Assessing the housing number to be included in the plan.
1.1 Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council, having studied this issue in great detail, is of the opinion that the 12,300 new homes proposed in the RDS, 1500 more than the number proposed in the May 2012 Preferred Options consultation, is not an objective assessment based on the latest projections for the population expected by 2021 and 2029. It is noted that it is more than the number that Coventry thinks it needs (11,373) and this is a city currently with population of over 316,000.
Although the high number might be aspirational it is not realistic, as it is beyond the physical capacity of the usable part of the district to provide it, the infrastructure to support it and the local economy to provide related employment. Because of the large amount of Green Belt in the district (80%) and the limited capability of the urban area to take very much more development, such a large amount of new housing is being allocated to the rural part of the district using greenfield land of equal or better value than the Green Belt. To compare with Coventry again, its area is 9,864 ha and has 132,700 dwellings giving an average of 13.47 dwellings per ha. Warwick has 28,288 ha but 80% is in Green Belt and 9% is part of rural Warwickshire. The remaining 11% or 3,111 ha has 60,427 dwellings, giving an average of 19.42 dwellings per ha. The Warwick figure needs detail adjustment to take out dwellings in the green belt but it shows that the Warwick urban area density is at least equal to or more than a densely populated city.
The district wide community cannot see this is going to achieve the Strategic Vision of the Authority "to make Warwick District a great Place to Live, Work and Visit," but can only conclude that it will be much worse at a range of levels.
The consensus not only within the Parish, but across the district is that this level of population growth, put simply, does not feel right. With census data showing that there has been an 18% population increase over the last 20 years (1991-2011), can a further 20% over the next 15 years really be required? Is a population growth increase from 0.9% p.a. to 1.33% really
2
likely, particularly with the economy where it is at the moment and a long slow recovery ahead? How has the district arrived at this unrealistically high growth estimate?
1.2 We know that NPPF47 requires the number of homes to be provided to be objectively assessed using a proper evidence base. It is therefore important to make sure that the evidence base is up to date. The NPPF6 states that "The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system." Therefore, NPPF 54 and 55 regarding housing in rural areas should be part of that objective assessment as well as NPPF 109 regarding the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes.
The Local Plan will have to be sustainable in these terms otherwise it will not be accepted by the Inspector. In our view the current consultation plan is not sustainable as so defined.
The proposed aggressive levels of housing growth proposed will require the loss of large areas of outstanding Warwickshire landscape. The unique value placed upon of this natural environment by previous planning inspectors and the District's landscape consultants as well as the inhabitants that live in and pass through it, is high and is discussed in Section 3.
1.3 It is also a question of the level of housing and population growth that the district can reasonably absorb, without undermining the quality of life for those that live here and irreparably damaging the historic context of Warwick district. In this regard, NPPF 10 requires "Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas."
1.4 Estimates of housing numbers for the future must be based on ONS statistical projections. These are based on historical data, medical records and estimates for migration.
The May 2012 consultation was based on the SHMA dated March 2012. In fact it was finalised in November 2011 and was based on 2001 census and ONS actuals and migration estimates up to mid-2010. The SHMA gave a range of example projections. They were all based on the trend based projection anticipating an average annual increase of 914 in the population over the 20 year period with 2031 population estimate being 156,959. The report showed the ONS 2008 based projection for 2031 as 165,852, a 19.6% increase, (2021 estimate being 152,742), based on the period 2003 - 2008 migration estimates.
1.5 The BTPC study took place during July 2012 (see Paper A, appended to this response). It resulted in an average annual increase of 590 estimating the
3
census result as 136,093, with a 2021 projection of 141,904. When the 2011 census 1st release was available it became evident that ONS projections were high, as they predicted the 2011 census as 138,680, whereas it was 136,000. The statistical data needed review and this was done by ONS in September 2012, reducing the ONS projections to some degree. ONS Sub-regional population estimates and projections only go as far as 2021 and the 2021 projection is now 148,414.
1.6 In December 2012, G L Hearn produced an Economic & Demographic Study. This was able to use the mid 2011data and now the trend based projection was an average of 473 rather than 914 (as para 1.4). The 2021 projection is now 143,270 This study included Coventry but was not the joint study thought necessary by the Inspector of Coventry's proposed local plan, who considered that there was a duty to cooperate over a wider area.
1.7 BTPC are monitoring their study in the light of later data as it becomes available. The original study included for a 20year plan to 2031 with a full 5% contingency, (not a buffer brought forward from later years) rounded up to give 5,400 homes. If the 5,400 homes is kept as a target, spread over 18 years this gives 300 homes a year or a population growth of 695 and a 2021 potential population of 144,686. In the first monitoring year the actual growth was 451, assuming ONS estimates for migration are right. This is 244 less than predicted but is only a 1 year result.
1.8 The ONS projections will be updated in due course using the latest data, If Hearn's trend continues, a comparative fall is to be expected in the ONS projections. BTPC estimates that if the latest Hearn rate of change is applied to the last set of ONS figures, then the 2021 estimate will be 145,422.
1.9 The conclusion is that since 2011, the statistical data shows a reducing population projection which is hovering around the BTPC study result of 5,400 homes. Given the economic position, the increased control over migration by government, the levelling out of increased births due to mothers delaying families for career purposes and a similar slippage in deaths as people live longer, ONS projections for 2021 on which the District's plan must be based to satisfy the inspector, have come down from 152,742 in 2011, to 148,414 in 2012 and is estimated to fall further to 145,422 in 2013. For comparison, the ONS mid-2011 estimate was 137,736.
Taking the plan period of 2011 to 2029, for a trend based projection, Hearn's Dec 2012 estimate will require 3,708 extra homes for a 146,243 population, BTPC study providing 5,400 homes will give a potential population of 148,356 and the current ONS projection adjusted to Hearn's rate of change would need 5,970 homes for a total population of 151,431 all compared with the 2011 population of 137,648. In terms of housing numbers this reduces the ONS projection from the 2011 estimate of 12,150 homes, to the 2012
4
estimate of 6,500 homes, which is anticipated, if it falls in line with Hearn's estimate, to drop to about 5,970 homes.
1.10 ONS estimates for internal and international migration are based on the best statistical data available. Because there is no count at point of entry to the UK, inward and outward movements can only be estimated from very limited data. The major indicator is the doctors register as it covers both groups, but this tends to take time to catch up with changes and is not complete. It was reported on 28th July 2013 by The Public Administration Select Committee that it had found ONS migration figures are "not fit for purpose". So although it is necessary to work to it, caution must be exercised. The joint SHMA should come up with the most up to date guide.
2. How was the 12,300 target arrived at?
2.1 The 12,300 homes target is not adequately explained in the RDS. The conclusion in RDS1.10 suggests that it may be due to the 2011 ONS data (12,130) but it may also have other objectives.
But for very many people in the district it is not believable. They remember that the existing local plan was adopted in 2007 following a Public Inquiry during 2006 into objections to the proposed plan. The Inspector produced a 562 page report. Some of the issues are relevant to the new local plan proposals.
2.2 Some senior Planning Officers seem to be of the view that because the current local plan was adopted in 2007 under the 1990 Town & country Planning Act Part II, it is of less value than a plan adopted since 2004. It needs to be pointed out that the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which came into force on 13th May 2004, did, by virtue of Schedule 6 of that Act, amend the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to take into account changes made by the 2004 Act. So, for the purposes of NPPF214, it was in accordance with the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 when the current local plan was adopted in 2007. If it were not so the Inspector would have said so.
2.3 The local plan, which is still up to date except where the NPPF is not in agreement with any particular policy, was adopted only 6 years ago. It settled many questions of concern for the community, in effect setting a contract with the community, up on which many people made decisions about their lifestyle arrangements. The Revised Development Strategy, with it's dramatic change to the size of the district and the concentration of very large amounts of new housing on land that is currently subject to Rural Area policies, is seen by many as a breach of that contract. As a result there is much concern and indeed, anger, at the proposals being consulted on and in the way that the door has been left open by the District Council for planning applications to be made that negate the purpose of any local plan and the consultation process to establish it.
5
2.4 Since the Inquiry was only 6 years ago, BTPC would like to draw your attention to certain key findings of the inspector, particularly where he talks about the plan after 2011.
In paragraph 11.3.8, in respect of the housing land supply position and of the need to allocate sites for housing, he finds "This Local Plan only covers the period to 2011 in the absence of firm housing or employment figures for the period beyond. The housing figures derived from the RSS for 2011-2021 are indicative only. Nevertheless, the District Council is able to show that there is no need to identify further housing sites. The balance of 2,210 dwellings to be provided between 2005 and 2021 equates to 138 dwellings per year. The District Council's estimates of windfall sites (based on past trends and emerging Local Plan policy) equate to an annual average of 282 dwellings in the urban area and 11 dwellings per year in the rural area. On the basis of these figures, I am satisfied that the District Council is justified in not identifying sites to meet the requirement to 2021. "
In paragraph 11.3.10, in respect of whether the Plan should identify a 10 or 15 year supply of housing, he finds that "New Table 5 of revised Appendix 2 shows how the residual housing requirement for the period 2005-2021 can be met. This particular objection is therefore satisfied. "
Table 5 in appendix 2 of the 2007 local plan states the following
source
Dwellings
RSS housing requirement 2001 - 2021
8,091
Dwellings completed 2001 to 2005
3,324
Remaining dwellings to be provided
4,767
By the end of 2011/12 the dwellings completed had increased to 6,084. Deducted from the original requirements this leaves 2,007 remaining to be provided by 2021.
If 2,007 is the plan for 10 years, then for 18 years until 2029 it might be 200x18= 3,600.
The December 2012, the Economic and Demographic Forecasts Study prepared by GL Hearn states that for the 18 year plan period a population increase of 8,500 persons is expected (see para 5.52 below) or 3,705 dwellings, so it looks as though we should be getting back the anticipated plan.
5.52 The projection based on past population trends (PROJ 5) indicates modest population growth of 6.2% over the 18-year plan period - an increase in population of around 8,500 persons. Comparing the trend-based projection in this report with that contained in the SHMA we see that population growth would now be expected to be lower. This projection suggests an annual increase in the population of 473 people which compares with a previous estimate of 914.
6
This ties in with the census findings
Census
House
holds
% increase
Homes built
Running % increase
population
% increase
Running % increase
1991 (to 1995)
48,202
856
116,522
('96 - '01)
3,537
2001 ('01 - '05)
53,356
10.69%
3,324
125,931
8.07%
2011 ('06 - '11)
58,679
9.98%
2,760
21.74%
137,648
9.34%
18.13%
The 21.74% increase in households compares with 15.32% over the whole of England for the same 20 year period. So The District has not been lagging behind but has done more than most.
2.5 So how did 2,007 become 12,300 when it may have been expected to be about 3,600? The 2012 Preferred Option document was based on a need for 10,800 homes. We understand that 87% of respondents considered this to be too high. The RDS 4.1.1 describes it as an interim level of growth dependent on the joint SHMA. This should also take into account employment need.
When plan-making, NPPF155 requires "Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made." A wide section of the community is engaged and would wish that it was proactively so. But this requires a listening district council.
2.6 NPPF156. Local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities for the area in the Local Plan. This should include strategic policies to deliver the homes and jobs needed in the area.
Homes and jobs go hand in hand.
In December 2012, the Economic and Demographic Forecasts Study prepared by GL Hearn updated the forecast for population growth.
4.5 "The District has a jobs density of 0.95 - this means that for every person of working age (16-64) living in the District there are 0.95 jobs in the District. This is significantly above average for the West Midlands or England (0.75 and 0.78 respectively). Overall there is a relatively good jobs-homes balance currently."
7
The conclusion drawn is that until the joint SHMA is received, the 12,300 household cannot be considered as a valid consultation. Across the neighbouring authorities, jobs ought to follow unemployment so far as it is sensible to do. Since our unemployment count is very low, and job availability is still very fragile, then building a larger volume of homes than we have ever done does not seem to be a good strategy. It could give us a dramatic employment problem.
2.7.1 Why are significant new jobs required? The June 2013 figures for Warwick District Indicate that there is only 1.6% (or 1,472 persons) of the working population claiming Job Seekers Allowance which is a very low figure. It should be recognised that there will always be a small number of people who are between jobs, or who are long term unemployed.
In other parts of Warwickshire there are significantly higher levels of unemployment. In June 2013, Coventry had 4.42%; Rugby at 2.27% and Nuneaton and Bedworth at 3.53% & North Warwickshire at 2.04%, totalling some 14,345 people, some being due to the closure of the Daw Mill Colliery after a disastrous fire and the winding up of UK Coal. New jobs in the region should be directed towards these more deprived areas.
2.7.2 Coventry's employment problem is that in the 1980's/90's it increased housing but changing circumstances meant that its manufacturing base declined dramatically. Although it has reinvented itself quite well, it now does not have enough jobs to support its population. We must not go down the same road by getting incomers living here and then hope new jobs will be generated. That is not a good plan
2.7.3 The Parish Council was concerned to witness a statement made by a Warwick District Council planning officer at the Planning Committee Meeting on 23rd July referring to planning application W0607 that house building is a good thing because it generates jobs in construction. Of course employment in construction is a good thing, but it cannot be a justification for approving unnecessary house building, besides which the jobs only last as long as the construction period.
2.7.4 On 29th July, the proposed Coventry Gateway Development was called in by the Minister of State for his determination, due to concerns regarding conflict "with national policies on strategic matters". Even if this development is approved at Coventry Airport it would only produce about 1,270 jobs for Warwick district residents and some of those may not be new jobs, just a transfer of location.
2.8 If 5,400 homes are built, at least one person in that home will require employment. It is possibly closer to 2 persons than one. So jobs for getting on for 10,000 people will still be needed and that is at a time when we may have the employees, we may have the land, but we still need the employers.
8
2.9 Duty to cooperate implications may be two fold.
2.9.1 In the Examination of the Coventry Local Development Plan - Core Strategy - Concerning the Duty to Cooperate the Inspector found Coventry Council has not engaged constructively with neighbouring local planning authorities on the strategic matter of the number of houses proposed in the Plan and consequently it has not sought to maximise the effectiveness of the plan making process.
Coventry had a Core Strategy which made provision for some 33,500 dwellings (26,500 of which would have been in Coventry, 3,500 in Nuneaton & Bedworth and 3,500 in Warwick). That plan was withdrawn and a new plan( now being examined) made with a provision for 11,373 houses - a significant reduction in housing numbers. (para 5 of the report). Was this 3,500 in Warwick included in the then 10,800 consultation exercise? If so, it was not obvious in the consultation documents.
In the "Statement of Common Ground and Cooperation for the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Sub-Region (SOCG)", Paragraph 4.2 states that the current interpretation of evidence shows that all member authorities are capable of meeting their housing requirements within their borders and there is no requirement for any local authority to meet any part of its housing requirements in another area. & 4.3 states that local planning authorities in the sub-region will continue to plan to accommodate their own needs. However, if an authority cannot accommodate its own needs (because of an increased housing requirement and because of strong evidence of constraints on the provision of housing sites within its boundaries) then, and only then, would the shortfall be addressed through discussions with neighbouring authorities within and beyond the sub-region. Since the outcome of this situation was indeterminate, the Duty to cooperate was not demonstrated.
It seems that this housing arrangement did not take into account employment need either. Coventry may be right to limit their increased housing requirement because they already have a housing/ jobs imbalance and it would also reduce the risk of not being able to make their provision within their boundary. BTPC would have thought that an essential part of the joint SHMA consideration was establishing the capacity of each area to meet its own need and limit expansion to that capacity. This makes it all the more important to make a realistic assessment of need rather than an aspirational assessment that cannot be made to work.
2.8.2 The joint SHMA is now being carried out. In the last few weeks, Stratford has announced a new Gaydon development to serve JLR. This will have a significant effect on Warwick district and will reduce demand on it for housing but will be the nearest centre for shopping and other services.
Stratford are not in the SHMA and do not seem to have cooperated with its neighbours. It would seem that there is a danger that when their plan is examined, it will be similarly rejected. The same could happen to our plan, even though attempts were made to cooperate.
9
2.8.3 Coming out of this, if there was an initial inclusion of 3,500 housing in the Warwick target to serve Coventry and this remains in the 12,300 then it should be removed to comply with the SOCG agreement.
3. Housing Land Supply
3.1 This consultation concerns the proposed number of houses to be built in the plan period of 12,300. Last year it was 10,800. The BTPC study last year was 5,400 and emerging population projections from the ONS are similar to that and from G L Hearn, are something below it.
The RDS identifies a range of sites to for new housing. The May 2013 HLS document uses the current consultation figure of 12,300 which is not substantiated by the joint SHMA yet and the consultation is not yet ended. Therefore, 10,800 is the figure that has been consulted on and this was objected to by 87% of the respondents. BTPC's calculation shows that the objectively assessed requirement for the locality is 5,400. This gives us 3 options in terms of the housing increase.
This table sets out site allocations for the plan period 2011-2029.
A
B
C
D
Housing provision by 2029
RDS
based on Jun 2013 5yrhls
a
Target
12300
12300
10800
5400
b
sites completed between 2011 & 2013
447
447
447
447
c
Dwelling sites with permission (not started)
1681
1084
1084
1084
d
Dwelling sites with permission subject to S106
0
0
0
0
e
SHLAA sites
300
514
514
514
f
Less 5% non-implementation
-80
-80
-80
g
Windfall allowance (@116 per year)
2800
2808
2808
2150
h
Poseidon Way
50
50
50
i
old town regeneration
750
750
j
Warwick town regeneration
500
500
k
Add dwelling sites under construction
506
506
506
l
add since April Sydenham
209
209
209
m
Consolidation of employment +urban brownfield
830
inc
inc
inc
n
Warwick Gates employment land
220
220
220
220
o
add vacant dwelling return 250 @ 50 /year
500
450
250
p
East of Kenilworth
700
700
700
q
redhouse farm
250
250
250
r
Villages
1000
1000
1000
300
s
Myton garden suburb
1250
1400
1000
t
east ofwhitnash AoR
600
400
400
u
Greenfield
2230
1050
Total
12308
12308
10808
5433
10
3.2 Column A sets out the site allocations made in the RDS as closely as possible. The target provision is 12,300. Lines a to g are from RDS 4.2 Table 1.
Line m comes from RDS 4.2.5 Table 2 for consolidation of existing employment areas of 450 homes and urban brownfield sites listed in RDS 4.4 Table RDS5 giving 380 homes.
Line n comes from para 5.1.2 that was approved in july 2013.
Line p east of Kenilworth RDS 4.3.15 Table RDS4.
Line q comes from RDS 5.3 Table RDS5 Red house Farm , Cubbington
Line r villages are as Table RDS5
Line s Myton garden Suburb is from RDS 5.1.2
Line t is Whitnash East of 500 plus Fieldgate Lane of 100
Line u is the greenfield sites in 5.1.2 being land south of Gallows Hill (430), land at Lower Heathcote Farm ( 720), Former Severn Trent Sewage Works (225), Grove Farm (575) and Woodside Farm (280).
Sites p to u are in Green Belt, villages or in rural areas and Area of Restraint. It illustrates that to get to the very high target, very controversial sites have to be listed all of which should not be selected if the NPPF is to be complied with.
The selection of sites mainly to the south of the District because Green Belt covers the land between Coventry and Leamington and Warwick is addressed in Section 2.
3.3 Columns B, C, and D select sites to match the 3 option levels of 12,300, 10,800 and 5,400 but adds in other ways of meeting those targets to try to avoid the use of greenfield rural area agricultural land. It is based on the 5yr HLS.
3.4 Column B is the 12,300 option. It attempts to improve the plan by identifying other brownfield sites and reducing the amount of greenfield to be taken.
Lines c to g and k are taken from the 5Yr HLS.
Line h is a change of use of a small piece of employment land off Poseidon Way , south of the AP factory, which has not been taken up and could take 50 affordable homes.
Line i introduces a regeneration scheme to improve the land south of the railway and north of the canal from Tachbrook Road in the east to the old market square providing multilevel mixed use shopping, entertainment, apartments, fit for the 21st century whilst respecting the remaining pieces of the past. It would improve the poor aspect of the town from the railway line.
Line j includes an allowance for residential arising from the recent Warwick Town plan document.
Line l is the housing scheme at Sydenham when the appeal was allowed for 209 dwellings.
11
Line n is land north of Harbury lane that was recently approved as a change of use from employment land to residential with outline approval for 220 dwellings.
Line o is the inclusion for the return of long term vacant dwellings to residential use. In the past 5 years 300 dwellings have been brought back in to use but there still remains 1,452 vacant properties. The intention is to bring 500 back into use over the 18 year plan period.
The Kenilworth, Red House Farm and villages requirements are retained in the list.
Line s increases the dwellings to 1400 on land west of Europa Way to increase the number of affordable homes at a higher density.
Line t is reduced to 400 because of line l subject to the appeal decision.
Line u reduces the requirement to use greenfield land for 1,180 dwellings equivalent to the sites south of Gallows Hill and Lower Heathcote Farm.
This option still takes Grove Farm, Woodside Farm, the remainder of land east of Whitnash and Fieldgate Lane as well as Kenilworth, Redhouse and the villages and so is still an unacceptable option.
3.5 Column C is an option for 10,800. The differences to the 12,300 option are -
Line o reduces vacant dwelling return from 500 to 450.
Line s reduces the dwellings to 1000 on land west of Europa Way
Line u omits all greenfield land subject to rural area policies.
This option still takes the sites at Whitnash, Fieldgate Lane, Kenilworth, Redhouse Farm and the villages and still requires substantial regeneration schemes lines I & j.
So the option is better but still difficult.
3.6 Column D is an option for 5,400.
It omits Kenilworth and Redhouse Farm, Green Belt sites, Lines p & q.
It omits lines s to t - Myton gardens, East of Whitnash and all greenfield sites.
It reduces line 4, villages to 300 across all villages.
It reduces windfall allowance to 2,150
It reduces the requirement for vacant dwelling return to 250 over the 18 year period.
It omits Old Town regeneration & Warwick Town regeneration.
This is an option with the maximum support of the community, provides the level of new homes that will be needed, and is achievable in the time scales available.
12
4. The Five year Housing Land Supply
4.1 The District has to have a 5 year housing land supply of specific deliverable sites. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.
4.2 The June 2013 5 year housing land supply shows that the District does not have this supply identified. Of 12,300 said to be required, the 5 year supply is calculated as 4,550 giving a 2.8 year supply. This creates a problem because NPPF 49 states that, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites".
4.3 It is essential to choose a strategy that the district can justify and which provides the 5year supply required. BTPC has found that
a. The calculation of the 5year supply required for 12,300 is incorrect and
b. If the 12,300 option is chosen, not only is it way beyond that which an objectively assessed need requires, it is almost impossible to ever get a 5 year supply because of the time allowed for implementation.
4.4 The 5year housing Land Supply for each of the 3 options is calculated as follows -
Requirement 2011 - 2029
12,300
10,800
5,400
Completions 2011 - 2013
447
447
447
Requirement 2013 - 2029
11853
10353
4953
Annual requirement for 16 years
741
647
310
5 year requirement 2013- 2018
3704
3235
1625
Plus buffer of 5%
185
162
77
The 5 Year Requirement 2013-2018
3889
3397
1625
Total deliverable sites as Table 2 in May 2013 5yr HLS
3474
3474
3474
Number of Years Supply
4.47
5.11
10.69
13
In the list of Components of Supply, the deliverable sites including sites under construction are as follows -
 The dwellings with permission not started, the SHLAA sites and windfall allowance are as the Districts list, but in this calculation, the 5% non-implementation deduction is not applied to the windfall allowance because it already contains a final phase discount.
 Adding the sites not started to the SHLAA sites the number is 91 short of the 1.681 quoted elsewhere. This is added back into the calculation.
 Approvals given since 1st April at Sydenham and land west of Warwick Gates are added in.
 Provision is made for the vacant dwelling return at 50 per year based on past performance and known lists of properties to be brought up to standard. The district has arrangements in place with a Housing Association to implement properties identified as ready to be brought up to standard and with new homes bonus incentives and meet the tests to be included. In addition NPPF51. Requires that "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." This makes it a relevant issue as a component of supply
 Studies have been ongoing with villages for the last year as to where the 1000 village sites might be possible. With some application, sites to give 20 dwellings per year for the 5 years can be identified.
COMPONENT OF SUPPLY
12,300 dwellings
10,800 dwellings
5,400 dwellings
Dwelling sites with permission (not started)*
1,084
1,084
1,084
Dwelling sites with permission with S106
0
0
0
SHLAA sites*
514
514
514
Less 5% non-implementation
-80
-80
-80
Windfall allowance (@116 per year)
580
580
580
SUB TOTAL
2,098
2,098
2,098
Add dwelling sites under construction
506
506
506
Add missing commitments (1681- * items)
91
91
91
Add approvals post 1Apr Sydenham May 2013
209
209
209
Ditto Gallaghers triangle 10.7.2013
220
220
220
add vacant dwelling return 250 @ 50 /year
250
250
250
add villages at a nominal 20 per year
100
100
100
Total (deliverable sites + sites under construction)
3,474
3,474
3,474
The 5 Year Requirement 2013-2018
3889
3397
1625
Number of Years Supply
4.47
5.11
10.69
14
4.5 If the correct actions are taken, then the 12,300 still does not give a 5 year supply whereas both the 10,800 and 5,400 options do give a 5.11 and 10.69 year housing land supply. In order to protect the District's ability to produce a plan-led Local Plan by complying with NPPF49, the 5 year plan should be brought up to date without delay.
Section 2
The Balance and Distribution of the Proposed New Housing across the District presents real problems.
1. In addition to the increase in housing numbers the Parish Council is deeply concerned that, because of the unnecessarily high numbers of housing, the focus of new house building has shifted further to the south of Leamington and Warwick, further skewing the balance in the location of new housing. The reasons for this deep concern is as follows.
a. Such an imbalance of housing to the south will lead to significant congestion from traffic trying to access the town centres, particularly at the canal, railway and river crossings where there is no practical and economic mitigation option.
b. It places significant pressure on the southern landscape and the historic setting of Warwick in particular. These matters are dealt with in more detail elsewhere in this response.
c. It adds to the pressure on the coalescence of settlements and in particular threatening the rural identity of Bishop's Tachbrook.
2. Therefore, the high housing numbers proposed must be reduced in order to address this in balance and to meet the NPPF 54, 55, 109..
3. The principle reason for this shift and the discounting in the RDS of significant housing sites to the north of the towns is because of the large amount of green belt (80% of it's area) in Warwick District.
4. The additional status afforded to the green belt has the effect of saying that one area of rural Warwickshire to the north is more precious than another area of at least equivalent landscape worth to the south. This is unreasonable and unfair. Further, it comes as a result of an application of the Green Belt principle that was not intended when green belt was established. Town & Country Planning legislation used rural area policies to control development in designated rural area locations. These were intended to be strong enough to prevent such arguments arising.
15
5. The Parish Council fully supports Green Belt policy. At the same time we expect that rural areas and landscapes close to urban areas should be controlled by strong rural area policies. The contrast between town and country is important to the well-being of everyone and provides a high value recreational benefit for all, whether they drive, cycle or walk through it - or even take to the air and go by double decker bus to see over the hedges.
6. Green Belt was established to prevent Cities expanding in a uncontrolled way and according the NPPF it serve 5 purposes:
o to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
o to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
o to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
o to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
o to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
7. The West Midlands Green Belt was established to prevent large urban areas such as Birmingham and Coventry expanding uncontrollably into the surrounding countryside. So the fact that the Green Belt touches the north of Leamington and Warwick is incidental because both at that time and now, the real threat of expansion on landscape and coalescence comes from Coventry.
8. The New Local Plan proposals have potentially far reaching affects for the district, with the potentially vast numbers of new homes being proposed. BTPC considers that you have 2 choices, either you distribute the housing through all parts of the district including green belt to satisfy large number of inmigrants or you reduce the number of houses to that which the locality needs to meet sustainable objectives and respect the long standing purposes of green belt and rural areas.
9. Therefore if the District Council considers that it should ignore the views of the electorate and decide to plough on with an overlarge number of new houses because of a subjective assessment concerning hopes for economic expansion that the market is unlikely to support, it should take a strategic look at the Green Belt to see if the exceptional circumstances prevail to justify redrawing green belt boundaries to distribute the new housing in a balanced way around the district. The NPPF reference is Chapter 9: para. 83 "Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period."
16
The Local plan Review is the only time when Green Belt boundaries can be changed. New Green Belts can only be established in exceptional circumstances.
10. In considering the impact of increased traffic due to the expansion of the population by some 30,000, a 21.5% increase, officers have concluded that those exceptional circumstances do not exist to develop in greenbelt. It therefore follows that the exceptional circumstances do not exist either to disregard the NPPF112 in its requirement to maintain protection of rural and agricultural areas because the subjective judgement on the level of economic growth cannot be substantiated and therefore demonstrated to be necessary.
112. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.
11. If the Local Plan eventually decided includes the Myton Gardens as a major urban extension, then the Parish Council urges the District Council to establish a new green belt from Castle Park, along the Tach Brook valley south of Harbury Lane and Gallows Hill too provide long term protection of the landscape from urban sprawl as provided for in NPPF 52. The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities. Working with the support of their communities, local planning authorities should consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development. In doing so, they should consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining any such new development.
.
17
Section 3
Rural Area Policies and loss of landscapes and agricultural land.
1 The planning Inquiry in 2006/7 looked particularly at sites both in Areas of Restraint and subject to rural area policies. The decision made then needs to be seen in the context of the NPPF54, 55, 109 to 125. In particular, NPPF54 agrees with the existing local plan rural area policies by requiring that, "In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs."
NPPF55. Would extend those policies " To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby." To do this, the local plan should have specific rural area policies. It may be that neighbourhood plans would customise such policies for particular reasons relevant to that parish.
2. In relation to proposals to select rural areas for development, the NPPF requires the following clauses to be taken into account.
2.1 NPPF109 requires that "The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
 protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
 preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and
 remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
2.2 NPPF110 requires that In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.
2.3 NPPF111. 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
18
may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land.
2.4 NPPF112. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.
The sites selected for development to the south of Warwick & Leamington do not appear to meet these requirements.
2.5 In particular, the district has not demonstrated that housing at the 12,300 or the 10,800 levels is needed to support the local community. Indeed, as housing projections are updated, the amount of housing needed for both objectively assessed natural and migration projections is reducing. 5,400 homes in the plan period is the best projection available.
2.6 NPPF156. Requires that Local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities for the area in the Local Plan. This should include strategic policies to deliver: climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.
The councils own Landscape consultant in 2009 has some very strong recommendations that should be taken into account. The 2012 "Considerations for Sustainable Landscape Planning" also advises in paragraph 8.8 that
"This landscape is important in perceptions of Warwick and Leamington - especially as it provides a rural buffer between the towns and the M40 and the setting to Castle Park. Future planning must sustain overall landscape character and viable agricultural units whilst creating appropriate portions of multifunctional public landscape. Development design must aim to avoid wider visual impacts (including 'secondary' impacts such as might arise from service infrastructure provision and night lighting). It should also be a primary planning goal to avoid creating barriers to non-vehicular movement - e.g. with the increasingly busy local road system."
And further, it concludes, in paragraph 9 that
"The scale and extent of development presently being considered in Warwick District is possibly unprecedented and will undoubtedly have major implications for the character and appearance of the towns and parishes affected for many decades to come. There is presently considerable pressure on local authorities to act quickly and to facilitate development. However, it is essential that good decisions are made for the long term. There is extensive contemporary guidance highlighting the importance of landscapes, ecology,
19
historic fabric and all ecosystem services in creating sustainable development. "
3 Looking at the particular sites the inspector at the 2006 Public Inquiry reached the following conclusions.
3.1 Woodside Farm should remain in an area of restraint. In a lengthy and detailed consideration he concluded that
10.11.41 The AoR designation has been carried forward from the adopted Local Plan. It was established to maintain separation between Bishops Tachbrook and Whitnash. When preparing the earlier Plan the District Council successfully argued that any extension of built development to the south of Whitnash, beyond the ridge line that defines the present edge of the town onto the south facing slope, would create a major incursion into the countryside that would be highly visible and intrusive. Since that time a number of physical changes have occurred in the locality. Extensive housing development has taken place at Warwick Gates on the opposite side of Tachbrook Road. Although anticipated through a Local Plan allocation, this has affected the character of the area by bringing development to the west as far south as Harbury Lane. In addition, playing fields, open space and woodland have been laid out to the east of the objection site giving enhanced public access, and overhead electricity lines have been put underground. The objector argues that in light of these changes the objection site should be excluded from the AoR. The request is supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and a Development Principles Plan.
10.11.42 I consider that the AoR still performs essential functions. It helps safeguard the character and setting of Whitnash, prevents urban sprawl and assists in maintaining the integrity and separation of Bishops Tachbrook as an independent settlement. The objection site is an important element of the broader AoR. It occupies an elevated position with views of it obtaining from certain directions. They include limited views driving northwards along Tachbrook Road from Bishops Tachbrook, from Harbury Lane to the east and long distance views from public locations on the northern edge of Bishops Tachbrook. From each of these positions housing development would be clearly visible for many years while structural landscaping matures. This would intrude into the rural surroundings and noticeably reduce the open gap that remains between Bishops Tachbrook and the urban area.
10.11.43 I conclude that this land should remain open as part of a more extensive AoR and that it should not be allocated for housing development within the Plan period or be identified for longer term development.
BTPC concur with the Inspectors view. It is an essential part of the distance between Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook and an important part of the valued change from town to country along the Tachbrook and Oakley Wood
20
Roads and in particular their junction with Harbury Lane going east rising up through the trees up a double incline hill some 15metres high as the road reaches Mallory Court on the right hand side. Housing on Woodside would be completely counter to the NPPF
3.2 Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane should remain in an area of restraint. In a lengthy and detailed consideration he concluded that
9.4.16 I take a rather different view. Looking first at the boundary of the AoR, I acknowledge the previous Inspector's uncertainty about whether the golf course and land to the east contribute to the AoR objective of preventing Whitnash from merging with Bishops Tachbrook. However, the south-western part of the golf course is highly visible from Harbury Lane where it forms a backdrop to the new playing fields and pavilion such that any development there would significantly close the gap between these settlements. Moreover, while the rising nature of the ground at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane from north to south means that development would not be visible from Bishops Tachbrook, it would be clearly seen from southern parts of Whitnash where the land contributes to the rural setting of the town. It would also, I feel, be intrusive in long range views from east of the railway line. I find that the whole of the area (that is, the golf course and the land at Fieldgate Lane) contributes to the objectives of the AoR. The land has a role to play in the structure and character of this part of Whitnash, provides open areas in and around the town, safeguards its setting and helps prevent urban sprawl. In addition, the south-western section of the golf course maintains separation between Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Consequently, I see no case for excluding the golf course or the Fieldgate Lane site from the AoR. As regards land south of Harbury Lane, this land forms part of the sensitive gap between Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. But I believe it to be less at risk of development because Harbury Lane/Gallows Hill provides a strong boundary to the urban area. In my view, there is no need for AoR designation to extend south of Harbury Lane.
9.4.18 Finally, the objector considers that as the Fieldgate Lane site is bordered by housing to the north and south it should be considered as part of the urban area, rather than one where the Plan's Rural Area Policies apply. I do not agree. As the District Council points out, all rural areas have an urban edge. In my opinion, that boundary is properly set by the suburban housing to the north of Fieldgate Lane.
9.4.19 The objector's proposals were subject of the Omission Sites Consultation undertaken in January/February 2006. Responses received from Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook residents, CPRE (Warwickshire Branch) and Whitnash Town Council were against any removal of the golf course or Fieldgate Lane site from the AoR, any residential allocation at Fieldgate Lane and any exclusion of the proposed development site from the application of Rural Area Policies. I note that 251 responses were received against the Fieldgate Lane
21
site and 496 objections in relation to the golf course (of which 240 were by way of a petition from members of the Leamington and County Golf Club). This is a clear indication of the strength of local feeling.
Residents of Whitnash agree with the inspector that the site is part of the Golf course, Woodside Farm Area of Restraint set out by paragraph 9.4.19 of the inspectors report. BTPC agrees and objects to this proposal.
3.3 Grove Farm (called Harbury Gardens by the developer) should remain in the current rural area. It is an expansive piece of Grade 2 agricultural land on the northern top of the Tachbrook valley, south of the Harbury Lane & west of Oakley Wood Road.
In the 2012 consultation, this site was described as a green wedge, protected by rural area policies to be considered as part of a possible peri-urban park. Keeping it as a green wedge as part of the separation of Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook was welcomed. Dismay ensued with the current 2013 proposal for 200+ homes. It is noted that the land allocated for development in the current consultation is much larger than the application currently being considered and takes the whole of the northern side of the Tach Brook reducing the separation of the settlements to an unacceptable low level.
Reacting to an objection seeking this land be included in an area of restraint, the inspector found that
9.4.4 I agree with the District Council that a cautious approach needs to be taken in respect of the AoRs in order to avoid their devaluation and to ensure that they perform a specific function. Unlike the other AoRs included in the Revised Deposit Plan, much of the land identified by Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council (even with the reductions in area put forward at the hearing) is relatively remote from the urban area and not under immediate threat from urban expansion. The gap between Harbury Lane and Bishops Tachbrook is about 1.4km compared with only 300m or so between Leamington Spa and Radford Semele. Although there are objections before this inquiry that seek to allocate or designate sections of the land in question for other uses, and anecdotal evidence of options taken by developers, this is by no means unusual when a Local Plan is under review. I consider that this extensive tract of open land south of Gallows Hill/Harbury Lane is sufficiently well protected by the Rural Area Policies of the Plan, which are stronger than those in the previous Local Plan, without the need for additional protection. It is not the function of AoRs to give an added layer of protection to open countryside where appropriate policies already exist to control development. Should land have to be released in the future for urban expansion then the District Council says that this exercise would be done by a review of options on all sides of the urban area including sites subject of Green Belt and AoR designation. Land south of Harbury Lane outside an AoR would, it is argued, be placed at no disadvantage.
22
9.4.6 I conclude that while additional development has taken place to the south of Leamington Spa during the last 10 years or so since the previous Local Plan Inspector reported, his findings remain pertinent. Given the strength of the Rural Area Policies of the Plan, the current housing and employment land supply position and the degree of protection afforded to the most critical areas by the AoRs already identified in the Revised Deposit Plan, there is no need for a further AoR south of Gallows Hill/Harbury Lane. To designate such an area in the absence of any serious threat would be premature at least and at worst a misuse of policy.
The Inspector clearly considered that rural area policies were strong enough to prevent such development. Nothing has changed that alters the communities view. Housing in this location will be very visible across the Tachbrook Valley from the south, being on the ridge line as can be seen from this photograph. Housing will be prominent half way down the field in the distance. The top of roofs to Warwick Gates can just be seen behind the hedgerow on the horizon and stretch from the coppice of trees on the left side of the picture to Grove Farm buildings to the right of centre of the photo. The photo was taken from the public footpath to the Asps from St. Chads Church and this is a prominent view along most of the path. The suggested country park to the south of the housing, because it is on the slope down to the brookstray will not hide the housing as it will be the same height as the trees that can be seen running along the Tach Brook from left to right. The NPPF paragraphs quoted at the head of this section are intended to conserve, protect and enhance landscape such as this wonderful piece of Warwickshire.
It is essential that this piece of landscape is protected as there is no credible case for housing in this location. So we object to the proposal in the 2013 consultation and support the 2012 consultation to keep this area as a green wedge. In BTPC's view, however, it does not need to be converted into any sort of country park, at considerable cost no doubt, as it is perfectly acceptable as it is. This would retain a valuable piece of agricultural land, meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
23
3.4 Lower Heathcote Farm should remain in the current rural area. It is an expansive piece of Grade 2 agricultural land on the northern top of the Tachbrook valley, south of the Harbury Lane & east of Europa Way.
In the 2012 consultation, this site was also described as a green wedge, protected by rural area policies to be considered as part of a possible peri-urban park. Keeping it as a green wedge running from Castle Park in the west through to Radford Semele, incorporating paths along the side of the Tach Brook, presents recreational potential for village and urban walkers. Dismay ensued with the current 2013 proposal for 720+ homes.
The photograph shows the view north across the Tach Brook Valley from New House Farm. Housing will come down from the hedgerow on the horizon along the Harbury Lane covering the top half the field between that hedgerow and the trees along the brookstray, the tops of which can just be seen. The undulating form is a 'trademark' of the rolling Warwickshire countryside that is part of the tourist attraction experience on the approach to Warwick Castle from the south and is seen as a backdrop along the Banbury Road. It is highlighted in the Morrish Landscape consultants report of 2009.
4.4 Paragraphs 109-125 of the NPPF outline conserving and enhancing the natural environment. They state that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting / enhancing landscapes; by recognising ecosystem services; by protecting/improving biodiversity; by avoiding pollution or environmental degradation and by remediating degraded land. LPAs should set criteria-based policies by which to judge potential impacts to wildlife, landscape, etc. and set out a strategic approach to green infrastructure in local plans.
This requirement expects that the new local plan will have such policies and implement them.
The landscape consultant also advises
24
5.1 Some of the elements that contribute to landscape character include the shape and scale of topography, the presence and pattern of natural geology, outcrops, water bodies and vegetation and, the patterns and features of man's intervention - including land management and settlement.
How and from where the landscape can be viewed greatly influences how it is perceived - so that the availability of access becomes influential in determining landscape character. A variety of views (long vistas, wide panoramas, framed focal points) generally adds to our enjoyment of a landscape. Landmarks are of particular value/interest in any landscape - even if they have disputed amenity value (e.g. Eden Court flats at Lillington).
This paragraph describes exactly the situation with this site. The landscape value of this area is very high. It has a large variety of views, long vistas wide panoramas and framed focal points. It shows an interesting shape and scale of topography. The brutal insertion of the development proposed is totally insensitive, tantamount to municipal vandalism. The existing landscape is an asset that everyone in Warwick District can enjoy and is part of the package that makes Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit.
The Inspector "consider(ed) that this extensive tract of open land south of Gallows Hill/Harbury Lane is sufficiently well protected by the Rural Area Policies of the Plan, which are stronger than those in the previous Local Plan, without the need for the additional protection of an Area of Restraint. This set of policies should be included in the new local plan to meet the NPPF clauses referred to above.
11.4 The former Severn Trent Sewage Works between Lower Heathcote Farm and Grove Farm to the south of Heathcote Park is listed in RDS 5 and shown on Map 3. It claims to provide 225 homes.
This photo shows the site from the site across the Tach Brook Valley. It is the central greener area. At the top of the hill on the skyline there is a mature area of trees which provides a wildlife oasis to a number of mammals including deer, birds and woodland insects. The former sewage tanks are, according to old plans, many and closely aligned. The tank depths and ground
25
contamination is likely to make this a difficult site to develop for housing and add to that the steep fall as the ground slopes down towards the brook it is unlikely to provide any practical housing land at all.
The site would however be an ideal site to develop as woodland as part of the low carbon environmental sustainability objective of the Councils Corporate Development Strategy. Carbon dioxide sequestration of woodland is calculated on the basis of 25m2 absorbs 1 tonne of CO2 per annum. If a normal house produces 4 tonnes of CO2 per annum, this provides sequestration for about 1000 of the homes to be built. Bishops Tachbrook Neighbourhood Plan is seeking sites of this nature within its boundary and will be including this site in discussions with neighbouring towns and parishes as part of its duty to cooperate with them. AS far as the NPPF is concerned paragraph 109 requires development to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
11.5 Land south of Gallows Hill between Europa Way and Banbury Road, north of the Tach Brook.
The northern section is the other half of the Tachbrook Valley and to build upon it would detract from the southern part which it has been accepted should be kept. Given that the RDS does accept that the Asps is an important part of the Warwick Castle approach, so is this northern section. it can be seen from the Warwick Castle Towers and the mound. Any development on this site will have a direct impact on the views available to visitors to the castle.
This photograph was taken from the top of Guys Tower in Warwick Castle, looking south-east, earlier this year and shows the site south of Gallows Hill in the foreground with two oak trees in the centre of the field and the hedgerows running along Europa Way. Behind the hedgerow there are fields of yellow oil seed rape which is the site south of Harbury Lane in 3.3 at Lower Heathcote Farm. To the right of the poplar tree on the left of the photo is the farm cottage to the former Heathcote Farm with, to its right, the roofs of the bungalows in Heathcote Park, mostly hidden in the trees. Beyond that are the trees bordering Oakley Wood Road with the hill rising behind them, through the Grove Plantation rising to Highdown Hill Plantation on the skyline. This is a view that has been available to Kings, Earls and visitors since 1395 when the Tower was constructed, so is significant for Tourism and should not be lost to development. No amount of landscape 'mitigation' will compensate.
26
The 2009 Landscape area statement by the councils Landscape Consultant Richard Morrish clearly concludes that
This study area is principally well preserved farmland that creates an attractive rural setting for the south side of Warwick and should be considered an important part of the setting for Castle Park. Any development that 'jumped' the Heathcote Lane / Gallows Hill frontage would set a major landscape precedent in extending the urban area so far south. Although it is considered that the Warwick Technology Park has possibly diminished the value of the Area of Restraint north of Heathcote Lane, its general style of low density development in a strong landscape setting makes for a reasonably successful transitional environment on the urban fringe - as do the adjacent school sports fields. To extend the urban area beyond these sites would make for a disjointed urban structure and possibly encourage intensified development at the Technology Park and around the schools. Smaller blocks of isolated development are also likely to be incongruous in this landscape.
Our conclusion is that this study area should not be considered for an urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development.
The Inspector at the 2006/7 Public Inquiry considered this site for employment purposes. In a lengthy and detailed consideration he concluded that
27
10.3.49 The objectors maintain that the Gallows Hill site would provide continuity in the forward supply of employment land beyond 2011. However, I believe it would be inappropriate to identify such sites now when the future employment requirements of the District are uncertain pending completion of the sub-regional employment land review and the partial review of the RSS. Until then, the RSS requires that greenfield sites, like this land at Gallows Hill, should only be released when there is no alternative previously developed land available. The WMRA, commenting on the Omission Sites Consultation, remarked that new sites being promoted involving the development of greenfield land "appear to be inconsistent with the principles of the RSS" and requested that the Inspector rigorously scrutinise such proposals. I agree with the District Council that as and when further greenfield land releases are necessary this should be done through a DPD where a full comparative assessment of all potential sites can be made in the context of a sustainability appraisal and following a process of public consultation. In this regard, I note that the objection site is classified as very good (Grade 2) agricultural land and that a full Transport Assessment would be required in respect of development on this scale. I believe that the ad hoc release of a large greenfield site like this located on the urban fringe and currently in agricultural use would not be in the best interests of the District. The Council's Local Development Scheme commits it to begin preparation of a Core Strategy DPD immediately following adoption of this Local Plan. That will tie in with completion of the partial review of the RSS, enabling up-to-date employment requirements for the District to 2021 to be accommodated.
10.3.50 I conclude that land at Gallows Hill should not be allocated under Policy SSP1 for employment (Class B1) purposes, nor should the site be excluded from the rural area defined on the Proposals Map. To do so would result in an over-provision of employment land relative to the Structure Plan requirement, at the expense of the surrounding countryside.
The site is shown in the RDS as residential and employment but this we believe is wrong because all the advice is that it should be retained as agricultural land with a high landscape quality, hidden for the most part behind hedges on Harbury Lane but with occasional glimpses through it at gates and breaks in the hedge. It is on the only high quality approach road to the Castle.
12 Separation of settlements.
The District Council to date has rigorously resisted any development that reduced the gap between Bishops Tachbrook and Whitnash/Warwick. We believe that the NPPF requires the district to continue to implement those policies as part of the social role within sustainable development, supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities.
28
Section 4
Traffic and pollution
BTPC has serious concerns that the 12,300 homes proposal the largest part of which is in one concentrated area to the south of the urban area of Warwick and Leamington will have serious traffic implications. This must be correct because the traffic engineers advise that 24 or more large junction improvements must be made to reduce the effect of this proposal estimated at this stage to cost £39,000,000 but likely to exceed that when all the problems are known.
Even then, we are advised, at peak periods due to the high traffic volumes, the myriad traffic light junctions are unlikely to speed things up very much. Traffic is bad now and will continue to be so.
The problem is the historic road layout and the combination of rail, rivers and canals requiring bridges that give a very limited number of north south routes for road traffic and because of concentrated development in the towns it is not possible to find a new route through, the problem is difficult to resolve.
But Warwick is an old town most of which was built for horse powered traffic. Many roads are narrow and restricted and the buildings are close to roads some with narrow pavements. The paraphernalia of signalled junctions, multiple lanes and traffic signs for every purpose, as well as the high levels of road lighting do not fit well with the elderly buildings and character of the town. The increased traffic arising from developments south of the town will have a severe and unacceptable impact on the town, which can be avoided by accepting that the objectively assessed level of local housing need amounting to 5,400 homes. As these will be better distributed around the district, major traffic concentration would be avoided. Depending on where development are located, some traffic junction improvements may be required but not on the scale being proposed.
Air pollution is also a concern, particularly for those properties that line the roads and ventilate into the narrow streets. No reassurances, with independent continuously measured air pollution levels, have been provided by the District to indicate whether this is a real concern or not. It must be assumed therefore that such measurements would show that the problem is real and from time to time at unacceptable levels. If that is shown to be the case, then any development as included in the consultation would not be in compliance with NPPF 109*4 "The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability."
29
Section 5
Housing and Rural Settlements
We reject the proposed Settlement Hierarchy because it uses the wrong criteria to decide what each village might be able or want to do. Careful change to the Limited Growth Villages policy, could identify sympathetic housing developments in rural areas which the local community would support.
The tone of the suggested policy is contrary to the spirit of the Localities Act and seeks to impose from above rather than be formulated by the residents who live there.
1 RDS 5 categorises 5 villages as Primary Service Villages and another 5 as Secondary Service Villages. But, apart from a checklist of facilities, nowhere is the logic set out to explain the distinction. Many residents would argue that Barford is better served with facilities than Bishop's Tachbrook, and other awkward comparisons can be made.
2 Nor is it clear why a further 14 Smaller Feeder Villages could not be included in the first 2 categories.
3 It is not necessary or fair to exclude Smaller and Very Small Villages from having the opportunity to grow organically. All might benefit from some new housing, provided it is built in small numbers of units and phased over the period of the plan; and of course sensitively designed to harmonise with the existing settlement in terms of topography and landscape. We agree with points made in 4.4.5
We recommend that new housing in rural areas should be dispersed evenly across the District.
4 We agree therefore with the tenets set out in 4.4.3, but these should be applied to all rural communities equally. We reject the concept that villages in Green Belt have different needs and ambitions to villages in other rural areas. Village life needs to be nurtured and allowed to evolve in an even handed manner, across the whole District.
5 WDC Planning should encourage parish councils, with the support of their community, to suggest to property owners where they might bring forward plots within and adjacent to village envelopes. Confidence in the process will be established provided policy states that schemes should be no greater than for, say, 20 units (this would enable up to 8 affordable dwellings).
6 Green Belt policy does not debar some new housing, because it is possible for the green belt to " wash over" a settlement. There is some land in the green belt which does not contribute to the quality of the environment or landscape, where appropriate schemes would be beneficial and would improve unkempt parts.
7 "Sustainability" is a prerequisite not just for villages with shops and pubs. Most smaller settlements will have WIs, allotments, churches, and a range of groups and activities which ensure a thriving community life. Planning policy should underpin this.
30
8 As per 4.4.3 most PCs and Neighbourhood Plan teams will respond positively to close working with WDC Planning. Stephen Hay has started the process well.
We reject the proposal that Bishop's Tachbrook has to have 100-150 new houses.
9 No clear reasons are set out why PSV's should have 100-150 new houses and SSVs 70-90. If it is based on population it could as well be argued that smaller and medium sized villages should be allowed to grow more in order to balance up with larger villages. There is no intrinsic merit in large villages getting much bigger whether absolutely or in proportion to their existing size. It cannot be the intention that large villages become the size of small towns.
10 Bishop's Tachbrook village consists of about 750 houses, so that the additional number would represent a 13 - 20% increase. Such incremental growth would be excessive and dilute the village atmosphere.
11 Time and again residents have stressed that their reason for choosing to live in BT is that they wish to enjoy village life. In our Parish Plan survey residents emphasised that they are passionate to retain the rural setting of the village; and in this regard consider the agricultural land that currently separates us from the southern edge of Leamington and Whitnash as critical. (Happily people living in Warwick Gates and Whitnash share the same view!)
12 The aerial photo shows clearly the compact form of the village. There are no obvious spaces to accommodate 100 plus new houses. New residents living on a
31
periphery estate would feel remote form the village centres and may find it difficult to integrate with existing residents.
13 The community's view is that the school, shop, club and pub do not require sustaining by population growth - and given the propensity of estate dwellers to jump into their cars, our shop and hairdresser would not expect to derive much additional turnover.
14 The Housing Needs Survey conducted in 2008 resulted in 14 new dwellings being required to meet local needs - on the basis that 10 of these were affordable and using the 40% norm that infers a top line figure for new housing of 25.
15 We were able to test this figure in June as part of our Neighbourhood Plan engagement. Of 189 residents responding at a public exhibition, 68% felt that the village need was for 0-14 houses, with the balance of respondents suggesting higher figures, but declining markedly over 100.
16 We urge WDC Planning to trust this community via its on-going Neighbourhood Plan process to arrive at a realistic figure; and to continue its discussions with owners of property both within the village boundary and adjacent to the envelope.
This less rigid approach is essential if the Council's Strategic Vision "to make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit" is to be achieved.
Section 6
Sustainability
The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The broad principles of sustainable Development are to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future set out five 'guiding principles' of sustainable development:
1. living within the planet's environmental limits;
2. ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
3. achieving a sustainable economy;
4. promoting good governance; and
5. using sound science responsibly.
In plan-making it is essential to ensure that plans meet all the relevant NPPF requirements and in particular
150. Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities. Planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
32
151. Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. To this end, they should be consistent with the principles and policies set out in this Framework, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
152. Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, measures to mitigate the impact should be considered. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate.
So, is the consultation plan sustainable in the terms laid down by the NPPF?
Is the assessed housing need at 12,300 assessed objectively for the District?
Are the sites selected for development acceptable in principle and compliant with the NPPF?
Is the effect on the environment, taken as a whole, of enlarging the population by another 20% in 15 years necessary and acceptable?
Does the development require associated infrastructure other than provided in the housing development and are the costs of their provision covered by the proposed developments?
Are there any significant adverse impacts from the development?
What are the social impacts of the plan?
From the content of this response, it is clear that BTPC consider that none of these requirements pass the test of the NPPF and that the plan is non-compliant. The base problem is the housing number which is excessive for the needs of the population and the recent trends in migration. But the additional 30,000 if they were to arrive as planned would change the District dramatically and reverse the strategic vision promoted by the Council. The plan will result in making Warwick District a less good place to Live, work and Visit.
Nor do we think that the District will become known as a place of sustainable "Garden towns, suburbs and villages". It will still, if we don't ruin it, still be famous for its castles, history, spa town regency layouts, and rolling countryside but we don't think these developer led estates are likely to join them .
What would make the plan better? The single most effective way to take all the communities forward together, without splitting north from south, green belters from rural folk and making happy people sad to see the place destroyed, would be to adopt the objectively assessed number of new homes as 5,400 as it would
 be achievable within the terms of the NPPF and so get an examiners approval rather than rejection
 use sites that are uncontroversial and fit in from the outset
 provide all the housing requirements needed by the people in the locality and give a reasonable margin to allow trend based migration to occur
 Provides a good set of affordable homes more quickly into urban locations with existing services and communities giving organic growth of the towns
 Reduce car travel miles by using urban locations closer to facilities
 allow a 5year housing land supply to be established forthwith and remove the impediment of developers usurping the local Plan process
 Be economically viable for all the public bodies that would otherwise be left with having to find the costs of additional infrastructure from the 12,300 plan, as with the 5,400 plan the effect would be spread wider and be largely met by existing provision. This is an important point since public sector funding is set to get less and less and CIL (the WDC paper acknowledges will leave a funding gap unspecified but an educated guess indicates something in the region of £100,000,000) and 106 agreements will be insufficient to meet all the costs that the 12,300 proposal will engender. We have not found a business plan for the Local Plan yet.
 Retain rural area policies intact into the new local plan, retaining agricultural land and high visual quality landscapes, which tend to get taken for granted but are only there because previous council members have ensured the right policies to do so
 Retain green belt which is so valuable in differentiating the character of Warwick district from the surrounding conurbations
 Retain the attractiveness of the district that is basis of our thriving tourism industry
 Retain the good jobs homes balance that we have, despite the continuing economic situation, which although it is gradually improving, is thought to be a long repair job
 Be aspirational but also realistic because 5,400 homes still produces 10,000 employees that will need employers, which, short of a miracle will be hard to find.
 Be better to grow more slowly and controllably than rashly and eratically
 Regain the trust in our elected representatives which in the last few years has suffered due to the assault that people feel has been made on their lives by threatening circumstances.
Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council hopes you find this response helpful. If there are any aspects that you would like further information about we would happy to work with you.
02/08/2013
Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council
Planning Lead : rRay Bullen

see attached

I am a resident of Hatton Park and I would like to object to the scale of new development planned by Warwick District Council for the next eighteen years.

The infrastructure of the area will simply not sustain such development. The amount of traffic on our roads already causes huge problems on a daily basis. I refer in particular to the possible building of between 70 - 90 new homes in the Hatton/Hatton Park area.

The A4177 is gridlocked in the mornings with the queue of cars attempting to get into Warwick often starting at the Hatton Arms. Under these circumstances leaving Hatton Park is nothing short of a nightmare. To introduce a significant increase in the number of cars joining the daily commute is short sighted and ill thought through. The 4177 in the last few years has already seen many accidents, some with fatalities. This raises the questions of how the emergency services are going to cope with busier roads? How the local schools which are already full to capacity will cope with extra children? How doctors' surgeries, some of which already cannot offer routine appointments for up to two weeks are going to cope with extra patients?

The possible sites identified in Hatton Park and other sites across the district lie within the Green Belt. On July 2nd a ministerial statement was released reiterating that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It also states that it is becoming apparent in some cases the Green Belt is not being given sufficient protection. This clearly shows that even if WDC cannot meet their need on non Green Belt sites, it doesn't necessarily outweigh the loss of Green Belt.
The Warwick area does need and cannot cope with the amount of new homes that the council are proposing. I urge the council to review their figures and to adopt a plan for fewer homes which can be accommodated on non Green Belt sites.

I would also like to add that I do not feel that traveller/ gypsy sites in the Green Belt fall into the category of special circumstances. I therefore strongly object to the possible siting of a traveller/gypsy site at Oaklands Farm. That particular area like the existing traveller site in Kites Nest Lane is prone to flooding. It floods from water which runs from fields on the opposite side of the A4177, including the two fields shown on your map of proposed sites as R115 and R126. My understanding is that there are a myriad of pipes and also balancing tanks in these areas from the old psychiatric and chest hospitals. Are these therefore really suitable areas for new homes?

There is also the matter of the loss of wildlife habitat. Smiths Covert is the home to Muntjac deer, badgers, foxes, pheasants and many others wildlife species and birds.

see attached

see-attached

see attached

Having attended the meeting at Guy Nelson Hall on the 22nd July, I am writing to express my great concern with the W.D. Local Plan.

Warwick is a special medieval town with places of interest for locals and tourists alike. There are hostelries and cafes and people are encouraged to sit out in the open air and enjoy the atmosphere of the town.

Already the air quality in the main streets in the town centre is reduced by pollution from car and other motor transport exhaust emissions, as is also the case in Leamington Spa. Measured pollution on occasions already exceeds that permitted by law.

This plan together with the resulting Transport Strategy would only worsen the situation considerably. The strategy is patently car based and would squeeze more traffic onto an already overstretched road network.

As a medical practitioner, who has over the years, dealt with the effects of poor air quality on health, in particular asthma, bronchitis, C.O.P.D. and of course cancer, I am greatly concerned.

There are school with playgrounds and playing fields, parks and sport and recreation areas all within the area which will be affected by this strategy. Parents are advised to encourage their children to walk or cycle more. With the likely levels of pollution this would be entirely counterproductive for health benefits.

So overall, the projected housing need for 12,300 new build homes is much too high.
The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook is rural and agricultural. Building on this scale would result in an urban sprawl. Gone would be the greenland which is just as important as the green belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick.

This green land must be preserved.

see-attached

see-attached

see attached.

see attached

see-attached

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.


Part B

Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.

In response to: Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick & Whitnash. Map 3, pages 32 & 32.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposed development of approximately 3,500 houses in this area. The key reasons for objection are:

The volume and number of properties is disproportionate to the local road infrastructure in and around Leamington and Warwick. There is no evidence to support the sustainability of road junctions and traffic hours in the local area without severe congestion and impact on the public transport system.

The new proposals make no provision for allocation of Gypsy and Traveller sites into these developments. Any new housing area should seek to include ALL Gypsy and Traveller sites into those new developments so that they offer better quality of environment, local services and integration into community. Such schemes have been




successfully implemented near Watford and Milton Keynes areas. This would ensure better forward planning of proposed G&T sites with land developers rather than splitting G&T sites up and around the county.

There is little evidence to support the production of the total overall requirement of over 12,000 houses in the overall Local Plan.

Dear Cllr Doody
Revised Development Strategy 2013
I consider the Revised Development Strategy (RDS) is unsound due to the excessive allocation of employment land and the inclusion of the sub-regional employment site which in turn put further strain on the provision of housing within the District. This creates problems rather than solutions and makes the Development Strategy unsustainable and undeliverable.
Within the consultation document it identifies a need for 36ha of employment land for the period 2011 - 2030 and there already exists 48ha of available employment land, therefore there is in fact an excess of employment land already available in Warwick District. The unadjusted numbers show an excess of employment land of 12ha. This excess provides ample contingency.
Warwick District Council's approach turns a substantiated excess of employment land into a claimed deficit of employment land, resulting in a 66 hectares unsubstantiated need for employment. By a combination of land re-allocation and unreasonable 60% contingency it is claimed that "it is reasonable to provide an additional 22.5 hectares of employment land".
The misleading claimed deficit is then used to try to justify development of new employment land in the open countryside and in the Green Belt:
* Thickthorn (8ha) between Kenilworth and the A46 and; [Green Belt]
* Part of the Gateway site (6.5ha) around Baginton and Coventry Airport; [Green Belt]
* And Southern sites (south of Warwick and Whitnash) (8ha) [Greenfield]
The RDS goes on to allocate a "Sub-Regional Employment Site". The Regional Spatial Strategy has been abolished but the justification still relies on its policies such as the Coventry & Warwickshire Regeneration Zone. This is directly in conflict with Government policy on the abolition of the RSS and makes the proposed strategy unsound.
The "Sub-Regional Employment Site" described in the consultation document, which written before the planning application for Gateway was considered in June 2013, demonstrates clear pre-determination of that application. The development would have a detrimental effect on many existing employment sites throughout the region that remain largely undeveloped. These provide perfectly adequate alternatives and the Gateway would undermine their redevelopment. This would be contrary to NPPF policies on urban regeneration and "brownfield first" another reason why the Strategy is unsound.
It was estimated by GL Hearn that around 8,200 jobs might be created by the development around Coventry airport of which 6,000 might be new jobs. Of the total, it is estimated that 1,200 jobs will be taken by people living in Warwick District, the remainder from elsewhere.
Warwick District has low unemployment and by contrast, Coventry, North Warwickshire, Rugby, Nuneaton and Bedworth have high unemployment. Therefore, the Gateway site is clearly remote from the main areas of unemployment. In considering employment need and in cooperation with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities WDC and those neighbouring LPA's should seek to direct employment land allocation where it is most needed. By protecting existing employment land and by making more reasonable assessments of buffers and flexibility, there is ample employment land available without development in the Green Belt.
Instead WDC projections provide space for 10,200 new jobs to be created. Warwick District has a low unemployment claimant count of less than 1,500 people. Therefore, in order to fill these employment places, it will be necessary to import people from outside the District. This in turn results in equally inflated housing requirements in order to accommodate these expected immigrants to the District. Housing numbers in the RDS have risen from 10,800 to 12,300 dwellings where natural growth within the District would require only 5,400. This is not planning for the objectively assessed needs of the District and it is therefore unsound.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) summarises sustainable development principles including "avoiding coalescence". But the RDS fails to achieve this principle. The so-called Sub-Regional Employment Site would cause coalescence of Coventry and Baginton and the proposed Thickthorn developments would erode significantly the separation between Kenilworth and Leamington. The Core Planning Principles in the NPPF require planning to "take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them". The false employment land requirements put additional strain on housing numbers are not justified and would irrevocably damage the local environment.
The NPPF requires that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to change, unless any adverse impacts would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies taken as a whole, or where specific policies indicate development should be restricted. For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. These are commonly referred to as areas of 'development restraint' where the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. The RDS should be completely revised to reflect the actual needs of the District.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

I am dismayed by your plan for wholesale development on greenfield sites. I note the areas of brownfield development which are planned but because the total is so large and the Green Belt land to the north is apparently sacosanct in law, your plans will swallow up acres of farm land. Develpoment in that area will also destroy the setting of Warwick Castle and the views over the countryside which are currently obtained from its towers. I am sure tourism is in theory high on your agenda but such development will detract from the tourist experience.
I have already written to Dr.Linnane to express my disquiet over the illegal levels of pollution which we currently endure in the town centre. Your development plans will exacerbate the problem. The assurance that junctions will be modified to increase the flow of traffic is as much a threat as a promise. The widening of junctions, the greater use of traffic lights, the addition of wider lanes can only make the historic centre of Warwick appear to be just a few buildings in the middle of a traffic-centred sprawl.
Will you dare to tell tourists and local shoppers just how dangerous the conditions are if they walk down Jury Street and Smith Street?
I understand that the promised green spaces in the Warwick Gates area did not materialise, what guarantees are there that green space in the new plans will actually come into being?
Modern development ought to have green transport solutions built into it from the start but the plans for new houses as they appear to be set out at the moment seem to asume high car usage.
I understand that it is difficult to expand as you are required to do by the government but I do not understand why you appear to be planning for a higher number of houses than required by central government on the specualtive grounds that it will bring new jobs to the area. There is also the pressure on local infrastructure to be considered which will be genreated by the Stratford District Council's plan to build 1500 new houses in the Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath area.
I very much hope that the plan will be modified in response to submissions such as mine.

I visited the display/exhibition of the Local Plan in The Priors some weeks ago and spoke to one of the staff who were answering questions from members of the general public on the Local Plan. I was told that there would be "employment and schools as well as housing". My point is that none of those already exist so why should this huge swathe of development be in one area and not more evenly distributed within Warwick District Council. Whitnash isn't even marked on the map on Page 25 of the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy brochure although development of this size would have a huge impact on the area.
Local schools and doctors' surgeries are already at capacity and local roads grid-locked at times when people are going to and from their schools and workplaces.
The number of proposed properties to be built seems excessive. There is empty property both residential and office/industrial and property currently for sale within the Leamington area. All this should be taken into consideration. The housing should be primarily for local people and people working in the area not people moving into the area and commuting to their place of work.

see attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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