see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

I oppose the above for a number of reasons, 1)Amenities are already stretched to the limit around here
2) traffic is already awful, the roads around here can't cope with the traffic now! I haven't seen plans to build more major roads
3) you are planning to build on green belt land!
4) most of the houses are to be built around whitnash, this is unfair and the plans should show proportional representation
5) too many houses proposed full stop!
6)are there not too many gypsy sites proposed - how will this be managed? this is a concern for us as generally when a small amount of gypsies camp up in whitnash there is a police presence, which we would expect! Are you planning on a constant police presence? How much is this going to cost? Is there Enough resource To cope with this increased police presence? Council tax is already too high Rise in crime Anti-social behaviour

Whitnash has always been a nice place to live, if this proposal goes through we will look to move!

I wish to commend the new plans for housing and development.
Having made clear my objections to the plan of 2012 I find it encouraging that you have reconsidered and found that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify building in the Green Belt North of Leamington.
The new plan to build on land which by and large infills areas of the town where there is already industrial and retail development makes good sense as people can live nearer to employment opportunities and to some extent obviate the need for longer commuting journeys. Transport links are also better here with easier access to the M40 and the trains.
However, I am still very concerned that the necessary additional infrastructure is put in place as and when the houses are built. It is vital that sufficient schools, medical centres, community and sports facilities are put in to the plans at an early stage and not added in later( as in the bad example of Warwick Gates)
Transport issues also have to be dealt with in the early planning stages; to avoid congestion it will be essential to factor in cycling and pedestrian routes of a high standard, built to National guidelines. These should provide ways of getting to schools, employment, the town centre and railway station and not just for leisure cycling/walking. Bus routes should also be a top priority. All these measures would help to reduce car travel which is vital if the towns are not to be swamped with traffic and multi -storey car parks.
I commend the long term plan to have a new country park to the South of Leamington.
I am still concerned that there is to be consultation with Coventry City Council on their housing plans. It is essential that the proposed Gateway development near Baginton and the new developments at Stoneleigh Park do not result in a new threat to the Greenbelt countryside North of Leamington. We must keep Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth as separate towns and not allow them to be swallowed up in Coventry's overspill.
I recognise the very great difficulties the council has in planning for the major expansion required by the government, and feel that you have come up with a plan which could work if the points made above are taken into account.

We are writing to express our concern at the level of proposed new housing in south leamington. We live in Bishops Tachbrook which has long fought to maintain its village status and we feel this is slowly slipping away. We feel very strongly that the amount of proposed new housing will have a tremendous negative impact on the area - the road system will not cope and nor will local facilities. Also we feel that North Leamington is escaping any of this upset and we feel the housing should be more evenly distributed - we also feel the amount of housing is far too high. How many houses in the area are let to students that could be used for the housing market. More purpose built accommodation could then be built for students ,which would greatly reduce the amount of land required.
There are also great concerns about the sites that are being looked at for traveller sites - alot of these are around Tachbrook and again north leamington is not to be inconvenienced!Why do the council have to supply 25 out of 31 pitches in the first five years and how do they expect local schools to cope with this? We hope you will listen to our concerns and think again about this plan.

see attached

Dear Sirs/Madams,

Whilst we appreciate the need for some new houses the draft plan for more than 12,000 is totally over the top.
The North South division is unfair and even the mooted traffic
lights and road widening will not ease the problems that such an enormous increase in traffic would cause.. ( We refer you to the ridiculous set of traffic lights at the Princes Drive tip entrance
which causes gridlock on a regular basis )

Further afield there are yet more worries as we note that Salford University has done a survey of the warwick Castle Bridge and found it wouldn't cope with the extra burden of traffic.
Apart from pollution and associated health issues, the free flowing of services such as fire and ambulance would also be under threat.

We have not even covered the subject of employment for the expected masses etc. but will close with an expression of profound disappointment that the estates are being designed with no thought for neighbouring communities.
No-one with an ounce of consideration and decency could vote for this massacre of the Warwickshire countryside.

Gypsy & Travelers sites

I have considered this consultation and agree that Warwick District Council needs to address the matter and identify suitable sites. Rather than consider all the available sites, because each will have a local context I have considered the 6 sites that WDC has identified that are nearest to and that would impact on my parish and its residents.

These are our views:

* Budbrooke Lodge [Site gt11] although this area sometimes floods, it has particularly good access to local shops and Warwick town centre, by public transport [bus stop adjacent to Budbrooke Lodge] and reasonable access to the main arterial roads. Servicing the site will be potentially low cost. Not sure if this is green belt site.
* Norton Lindsey [site gt14] is green belt, outside main development, dangerous location on a busy road, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities.
* A46 [sites gt17 & gt18]- green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities
* Oaklands farm [site gt19] access is an issue identified by Warwickshire Highways Authority on numerous planning applications, proximate to canal so would impact on tourist, walkers and canal users, dangerous access on Birmingham Road and Ugly Bridge Road, both busy roads, loss of greenbelt, previous refusal because of business needs & hazardous sites.
* Watery Lane [site gt20] is green belt, outside main development, particularly dangerous location on bypass A46, M40, and Junction 15, considerable air and noise quality issues, no public transport, not easy access to infrastructure /facilities it floods.

The Local Plan
I have carefully considered the paper by Ray Bullen, which was supported by Rural Parish Councils, and the response from WDC on 18th July 2013. I regard the overall estimated residential development growth in the Local Plan to be significantly out of proportion to the local need; unrealistically high and untenable.

The District Council as failed to acknowledge, address or take account any of the issues identified in Budbrooke Parish Council's response to the first consultation in this second document. [1]

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

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

Capacity of the Infrastructure
Hampton Magna was built on the site of an army barracks in 1960s to the standards that prevailed at that time. Little or no improvement has been made since the site was first built on, and none since I came here in 1979.
* Minor cosmetic road improvements were made to accommodate a substantial increase to traffic due to the building of Warwick Parkway Station. Car parking since originally built has increased 3 fold with no change to roads or traffic management.
* Consequently, traffic is already extremely heavy. Approaches - Birmingham Road, Old Budbrooke Road, Woodway, Church Hill and roads to Hatton via Ugly Bridge, and through Hampton on the Hill. Any additional development will have a considerable negative impact on roads and traffic
* Traffic issues have not been addressed or even assessed
* Sewage arrangements is a major concern of the PC - Although adopted, prior to privatisation the system falls below the standard normally required.
* The main local electricity supply arrangements area the same as those for the barracks which left nearly 50 years ago. Supplies into the village are subject to frequent fluctuations and outages.

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

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

Without the publication of specific sites. I can make little assessment of the local internal impact of any development other than to state that in my judgment all development will have a significantly high negative affect on the community and community facilities. I challenge the council to draw up any development plan that doesn't have a negative effect on residents.

I hope you will still consider this feedback even though it has been submitted after the deadline. I am currently visiting family in Finland and have had to cope with two unexpected collapses of my father this afternoon which necessarily distracted me from responding before the deadline. I did, however, want to share my thoughts on the new local plan hence sending this email. Please would you confirm whether you will take my email into consideration as part of the new local plan consultation.

I am concerned that the number of new houses proposed within the new local plan appears to greatly exceed the projected housing demand in this region. I agree that the plan should aim to meet projected housing needs but, particularly given the pressure that the proposal already puts on the local environment, exceeding the projected need will only exacerbate these problems.

The location of the possible locations of housing developments deeply concerns me. I strongly believe that greenfield sites should not be built upon where there are brownfield options. Our natural environment is a rare resource and once sacrificed it is lost for good, and 'garden' housing developments proposals simply do not mitigate the loss. If brownfield sites cannot meet the housing needs the location of additional housing must be sympathetic to the existing settlements and infrastructure issues. I am concerned that a significant area of farmland to the north and west of Bishops Tachbrook appears to have been offered by the owners for development. Whilst this may be economically attractive to the land owners, the impact of further development in this area would have a serious negative impact on existing residents. The development of Warwick Gates has already increased the number of cars that travel through Bishops Tachbrook which use it as a rat run to access the M40. Given the location of the village it is reasonable to assume that further development to the north of this village will exacerbate this problem. I appreciate that increased populations will result in increased car traffic, however the main road running south through the village goes through one stretch (close to Savages Close) where it is extremely narrow and the visibility of traffic heading north along this road is already very poor when at the junction by The Leopard pub. If the housing in south Leamington Spa area is to increased it must be in a location that is further west such that traffic is more likely to use the major roads such as Europa Way.

The British countryside is characterised by villages and rolling fields. We have a duty to preserve the rural character of the area and prevent towns such as Leamington Spa to sprawl further and encroach on existing boundaries with local villages.

My recommendation would be that the new local plan should seek to only meet the projected housing demand for the area and that any development takes place next to major roads which do not run though small villages. The rural character of the area around Bishops Tachbrook must be preserved and road safety should be prioritised.

I hope you will consider my feedback.

I strongly believe that the assumptions about housing need for the district are still flawed.
I support the concerns raised by Ray Bullen of Bishops Tachbrook and which are supported by many of the Parish Councils. I urge the Council to take full heed of this work and to revise proposals accordingly, and significantly reduce the proposed number of new houses.

Proposals for new infrastructure are simply not adequate for the level of development being suggested.
However, the correct level of infrastructure development would totally damage the district and ruin the historic market town of Warwick and the rural communities and countryside.
Ferncumbe School at Hatton is full and oversubscribed, yet the proposals are for further housing development around Hatton !
The A4177 is already gridlocked at peak times yet the proposals will generate further traffic!
It is understood that air quality in the district is already failing EC health limits and it is unacceptable to advance plans that will make this situation worse.
There is hard evidence of traffic accidents on the A4177 noted in Hatton Parish Plan.

Proposals to develop housing at Hatton Park are simply not in keeping with the heritage site of Hatton locks and canal. This site is an important tourist and historic site and all steps should be taken to prevent any adverse impact on or around this site. Housing development adjacent to the canal would be seriously detrimental.
The same argument would also apply to the siting of a traveller site anywhere in the environs of Hatton Locks or canal. Such a site could lead to anti social behaviour and security issues for boaters, walkers and cyclists using the canal and towpath. The District Council objected to the wood business at Oaklands Farm on the grounds of adverse visual amenity. It would now be perverse to consider a traveller site at the same location.

The Green Belt is as important now, if not more so, than when it was first introduced.
Urban sprawl is significant in the proposals, and there is now an even greater need to preserve the existing level of Green Belt land.

There is wide opposition to the Development Plan and I understand that the local MP's have raised serious concerns.
The Governments requirement for Localism seems to have been ignored, with this plan having little or no regard for the views and needs of local communities.

I wholeheartedly agree with the ambition of making WD "a great place to live, work and visit" but I am not convinced that this Local Plan addresses the issues in such a way as to achieve that vision.
I therefore wish to raise my concerns regarding the new local plan. I am extremely conscious of the position WDC finds itself in but am very worried that this solution is driven by an urgent need for a strategy in the face of developer pressure against the backdrop of the NPPF.

1. Assumptions

I am not convinced by the ONS's forecasts for population. There should be a forecast for 2030 and another for 2050. Most economists agree that UK population will start to fall away mid-century.
There are only 4 options presented and each is exclusive of the other; there are no options presented which are simple or complex hybrids. This is narrowing the choice unnecessarily when a hybrid plan may present the best compromise / optimum mix for all.
The options do not fully consider the needs across district or borough boundaries. The RSS Core strategy in 2007-10 looked at the wider picture and sought to find regional, more balanced solutions. By looking at numbers individually by District or Borough, our choice of options is dramatically reduced and does not consider the impacts on surrounding areas. These artificial political and authority boundaries are not considered by business or residents. As a parallel, in the past Fire Services looked only at the provision of service within a County boundary...clearly this is inappropriate when best planning a reactive service, particularly in rural areas, to avoid duplication eg N Warks / Sth Leics.

I see that there is now a Joint SHMA following the intervention of the Planning Inspectorate. Surely a Local Plan cannot be fully considered through consultation until this has met and made broader, more fully fledged proposals that meet the needs of the wider area and so avoiding duplication and ensuring more joined-up thinking? And what is the "new information" that has come to light?

Finally, when the Plan refers to 'Sustainable Communities', what is is meant by this? Very seriously, a definition is required to know what is being spoken of. Does it mean a community feeding itself, travelling within its own confines, providing its own energy and water needs? Please provide.

2 Housing

The primary determinant for the preferred option seems to be to avoid building on the Green Belt even though elsewhere WDC and Coventry CC will allow industrial development on the Green Belt. This is surely not a principle. Whatever guides the decision-making should be consistent and coherent. If one is permissible, then so should the other.

The notion of the primary employment site being planned at Baginton / Coventry Airport whilst 70% of new housing is proposed south of Warwick and Leamington doesn't seem to make sense

And "The apportionment of housing was guided by the principle of....avoidance of coalescence of settlements". The option proposed for suburban peripheral development to Warwick and Leamington would guarantee that the two in fact would become symbiotic twins with no green buffer separating them.

I would like to have seen a 'HYBRID 5' option being proposed that included elements of options 2, 3 and 4.
I believe in particular that the development of a new town, in the mould of the Eco-Town once proposed near Ettington a few years ago, in South-central Warwickshire would be the best solution to our collective needs. Sites such as the former Royal Engineers depot at Long Marston would have been perfect. I also believe that further expansion of Southam would make sense regionally.
Other villages such as Leek Wootton and Hatton should be expanded more than proposed given a) their size, b) their available land c) their current lack of village services and d) their proximity to the A46 corridor and Warwick and Warwick Parkway train stations. Hatton currently has next to no services and amenities: how was it allowed to be so?

Despite the huge impact on the area, the matter of HMOs and students seems to get little coverage or perhaps I have missed something in the documents. Given the sale of the issue, the Local Plan should address how in future it expects to balance the town between long-term residents and students etc. I would advocate more block development and place a moratorium on the conversion of existing housing stock: there has been a great surge in the number of terraced houses converting to student occupancy which has reduced the availability for young home-makers and families. Surely this is placing an additional burden on the housing shortage being faced in Warwick District. I would urge that WDC considers the conversion of Riverside House and the Fire Station to student blocks with the Council retaining 51% ownership of the sites for future revenue generation.

3. Economic considerations and Employment

I cannot see where in the document it speaks of the additional employment lands other than at the Gateway site.

In fact, worse still, the mention of a Reduction in employment land on industrial estates in Sydenham, Cape Road, Montague and Common Lane would be to the detriment of low skilled work forces throughout the area. Currently such workers are able to walk / cycle to work. this will not be the case in the future as these sites are sold off for housing. By insisting on maintaining the land as industrial, the land value will fall and then become viable for future industrial use; if the land value rises then this will be impossible in future.

The document speaks of " a need to provide new employment land in and around the District's main towns to meet local needs and encourage the creation of new jobs". Completely agree with this but have serious reservations about the viability and robustness of the Gateway project to deliver the number and quality of employment it is promising. In fact, the notion of a business park by the airport would suggest that this is really a giant logistics park by stealth when the former Ryton car plant site is a ready made brownfield location for such business. If I recall, such an application was made some years ago but turned down by Rugby BC. Using Green Field and Greenbelt land to provide such business seems wrong on all counts therefore.

I do not see how the expansion of the Warwick Technology Park is going to help low-skilled workers find jobs. It does not make sense.

Further, the document details the need to "support the rural economy"; this is really important but only touched on. The entire viability of villages is threatened in future with the withdrawal of services from them (the closure of post offices / pubs, small village stores, even primary schools etc..)

4. Infrastructure

The document speaks of an emphasis on infrastructure - "the development of sustainable communities with strong local centres / and or community hubs". As above, the rural economy is very fragile and villages need greater support if they are to remain viable. Rural bus services will become more and more threatened unless the villages served have sufficient mass.

I don't understand how having the major employment site to the north of the district and the housing tithe south will not lead to massive congestion in the town centres of Warwick and Leamington. This does not make sense.

5. Sustainable

See point 1) above. To re-iterate, what is really meant by sustainable communities. It is important to be clear on this point to avoid accusations of 'Greenwash', but it is similarly important to ensure the best, most durable and sustainable communities are created, it just for 2029 but for 50-100 years from now.

The coalescence of Warwick and Leamington does not seem to support a better environment.
The document states that "..ensuring new development is based on principles of sustainable Garden Towns, suburbs and villages" is key however it is not fully explained how this may be achieved. Urban centres have an optimum mass but this is not explored. Likewise, their interdependence is not explained; creating an hierarchy of primary and secondary villages is welcome but this needs to be examined in depth as to implications for the main settlements.

Section 3.4 para 17 talks of contributing to conserving the environment by "....reducing pollution" yet this is not supported with any evidence or data. The development of south Warwick and Leamington would surely have quite the opposite effect.

The document speaks of "caring for our built, cultural and national heritage" which is laudable and right. But the strain on Warwick and Leamington town centres by the addict all 'peripheral residential development would be at odds with this aim.

There is no reference to Building Regulations or the greatest ambition of all, namely, to build 'Passivhaus' dwellings for all new developments between now and 2029. It is possible and should be our goal.
Cycle routes are mentioned only on passing. They should be a key factor in new transport planning to / from town centres and stations / transport hubs.

In summary I have major reservations about this Plan. It appears fundamentally flawed in its assumptions, its siting of housing and its assumptions for employment in the north of the District and not in the south. Foremost, I have grave concerns about the lack of infrastructure, in particular for roads and transport in general to support such number sof homes around the periphery of Warwick and Leamington.
These two towns are very unusual in that they have three barrier to the passage of people and traffic. From north to south and vice versa: a railway, a river and a canal. As such, in Leamington, there are just three narrow single carriageway routes joining the two halves. They will not be able to support any increase in traffic. And in Warwick their is the medieval town and castle to navigate around. What is already a nightmare for pollution will only become worse.

This is not a plan to deliver "Sustainable Communities and Development".

I urge you to reconsider urgently before these towns are forever destroyed by the short-termism forced on WD by developers and the NPPF and the Localism Bill.

COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY OF THE WARWICK DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN - 2013
INTRODUCTION:
Because of having to be away from Warwick for the latter part of June and into early July it was only at the presentation at Aylesford School on 15/07/2013 that I was able to find out more about the "Revised" proposals. Unfortunately the presentation by WDC personnel on that night was less than impressive, the acoustics were bad resulting in part of the presentation not being fully audible and the attitude seemed to be, "this is what you are going to get so you will have to put up with it". It was certainly not a "consultation" process. However, having now been able to read the documents issued I will at least comment on the "revised" plan and the potential problems it will create if implemented. Also, as the forms provided for comment do not seem to give enough space to fully comment I am using this format to cover a range of points.
HOUSING PROJECTION AND LOCATION:
The projected figure of an additional 6.600 new houses seems excessively high and with a very large concentration of the same in the area immediately south of Warwick. That, in turn will produce problems with congestion and transport. Also, there does not seem to be any mention in the "Revised Plan" of those sites which have previously had planning permission but have not been developed. (There are a number in Warwick still not started). Nor is there any mention of the number of empty houses available for sale or for rent. Until all those numbers are included in the figures the true need for "new Build" cannot be fully assessed.
Also, it has been reported that Stratford District Council have approved a "draft" strategy to build a new 4000 home "town" in the Lighthorne area just south of Warwick. If that goes ahead it would also have some effect on the infrastructure requirements, (as mentioned below), within the Warwick Local Plan; yet no mention is made of that scheme has been taken into account when preparing the Warwick Local Plan.
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE:
Much is made in the plan of the proposed improvements to road junctions, new traffic lights, etc. to enable traffic to move faster into Warwick & Leamington, but no solution is given to the problems caused when the cars reach the towns. Warwick has natural "bottlenecks" in The Butts, Jury St., High St., Smith St., Nicholas Church St. Friars St., Hampton St., and Theatre St. etc. etc. Unless those roads are widened, (by demolishing listed buildings!), or a new road around the town is built, there will be a massive congestion problem, (there already is). No solution to this is offered in the "Plan" and needs to be prior to any approval for new houses.
AIR POLLUTION:
Where we live at present, (on Friars St. and by Hampton St.), is already at, or above, the recommended levels, as is parts of the Warwick Town Centre. The revised Plan does not address this problem.
HEALTH:
Apart from the additional health problems that can be caused by any increased traffic congestion there is no mention of the capacity of Warwick Hospital to cope with a massive increase in population. The present hospital is surrounded by housing and cannot expand, can it cope with such an increase as is projected by the "Plan"?
SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS:
The need for such sites is recognised and the concept supported. Indeed it is needed to stop the current problems that occur when car parks and public parks are used unofficially and left in a mess. However, even a casual glance at the Plan shows a marked imbalance of the distribution of the possible sites over the whole of the District. Of the 20 possible sites listed only four are in the northern part of the District with the remaining 16 in the southern part, with the biggest cluster just south of Warwick. This should be re-examined to ensure a more equitable spread of the burden on the residents of the District.
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS:
The above points are general rather that specific but clearly indicate a need for a more "in-depth" approach to what the District as a whole needs. From the information provided the people who have drawn up the Plan do not seem to have considered all the facts nor how to overcome, or at least alleviate, the problems that will be created by placing the bulk of the predicted new dwellings into one main location. To gain the support and the trust of the residents of Warwick District more openness and consultation than in the past is now required. In addition, serious consideration should be given to giving equal protection to open land to the south of Warwick and Leamington as that given to the "green belt" area located to the north of the towns so that all the open "greenfield" sites can be considered equally and the load spread more equitably throughout the District.

I am writing to express my dismay and horror at the numbers of new houses that WDC proposes to allow in the county over the coming years.
To my knowledge this is almost twice the number needed to sustain local requirements, and will fuel the ever accelerating expansion of the County's population.
If you merely respond to market forces, you will simply continue to build houses for as long as people wish to buy them. Once the housing density reaches the point where the area is no longer attractive, people will stop wishing to move here.
Why must you continue to spoil the County until nobody wants to live here?
Halve the number you propose to allow!

Conservation Advisory Forum
Comments on Local Plan Consultation Housing Sites

CAF Meeting 18 July 2013


* Scale of development. Concerns expressed about impact on Warwick . There will be a 40% increase in the population of Warwick which will have a dramatic effect on the existing settlement and on traffic passing through both Warwick and also Leamington along Europa Way.

* Sustainability. It is not considered to be a sustainable development rather suburban sprawl.

* Traffic impact . Significant concern expressed about the impact of traffic on the Conservation Areas in particular the increased use of Banbury Road and the need for upgrading of the road system and the impact on Castle Hill roundabout and the bridge over the River Avon which is a Listed Building.

* Increase in car usage .This type of development reverses the trend over the past 20 years a small scale infill and the reduction of car usage. These proposals will increase car usage which will impact upon the historic Town Centres, as all the sites are only accessible by car. This will have a roll on effect in terms of the transport infrastructure and will make everyone else use cars.

* Impact on cycling . It was felt there was no scope for cycling because of the intensity of traffic.

* Release mechanism for sites .The release mechanism of sites was questioned. It was felt that the present system will lead to sites being built on regardless of whether there is any infrastructure to support them. A staged approach is needed for any sites within the district.

* Impact on historic buildings .The impact of traffic entering the Town Centre will impact upon all the major junctions and will impact upon the Historic Buildings themselves and the setting of them.

* Thickthorn , Kenilworth .It was pointed out that Kenilworth did their own consultation and have come up with the Thickthorn site as the best of the options if we have to meet the five year housing supply.

* Infrastructure for Kenilworth . Kenilworth needs to have adequate infrastructure of eco houses and appropriately relocation of the various clubs that use the Thickthorn site before development commences.

* Integrated transport system. Kenilworth needs an integrated transport system with a proposed new station, each house being provided with two parking spaces.

* New Hospital .It was felt that to support the level of development a new hospital would be needed in Warwick.

* Transport mitigation measures .The impact of transport mitigation measures on Warwick would include a 3-4 lane Banbury Road development, traffic signals at Bridge End roundabout, effects on Listed Castle Bridge, gyratory system at the Castle Hill roundabout and traffic lights. All roads will have a greater amount of traffic; there will be significant effects on air pollution and the quality of air in the Town Centre. Congestion charges were suggested. It was felt that if traffic was removed completely the High Street shops would suffer.

* Station Approach site - it was felt that it should follow the SBD for that site.

* Student accommodation . It was felt that if more students were to be housed on Warwick and Coventry University sites this would release more houses in Leamington Spa for use by families and would reduce the housing need overall.

I was pleased that you decided to attend the Forum meeting at Whitnash this evening. I have thought for some time it would be good if you could sense the public feeling face to face.

What you witnessed was the outcry of the public against the Local Plan. Unfortunately because the speakers used the majority of the time lecturing the people on the merits of the Local Plan there was insufficient time for many more questions. Many people left because of this. We consider this is all part of the very poor consultation that has been the norm at the public meetings.

If you personally had given a brief introduction then invited questions you would have received the same information that the independent objectors have been bombarding you with since the start of the Local Plan. Together with my colleagues we speak to the people and understand their feelings. They are frustrated because WDC have not consulted them effectively.

The sadness of this Local Plan is that the sheer amount of work that has gone into it by WDC (and no one is denying that) means it has become their baby and they are now trying to defend it and will not listen to any criticism. That clearly needs to change. You have now seen the reaction and hopefully listened to the voice of the people.

If I can now remind you of the exchange of speech's in 'The House' by Chris White MP for Leamington and Warwick, and The Leader of the House - Mr Lansley, that I read out in the meeting.

Mr White: "Residents in my constituency are becoming increasingly concerned about the local plan being developed by Warwick District Council. They feel that their voice is not being respected and I believe that the Council needs to rethink its ill-conceived proposals."

Mr Lansley: "My Honourable Friend makes a specific point relating to his constituency and his local council. I hope that his local council will listen to what he says. The Localism Act 2011 sets out to give power to local authorities and neighbourhood plans, and tries to ensure that they take account fully not only of the simplified national planning policy framework, but do so in the context of local decision making by local people. He is right to stress that point".

The questions you now have to answer are
1. "Are you going to rethink WDC's ill-conceived proposals?"
2. "Are you going to take account of the simplified NPPF but do so in the context of local decision making by people?" On this point and to make it abundantly clear, the local decision making by the local people is they are totally against the Local Plan and are demanding it be scrapped and altered to follow a sensible alternative as has been suggested.

You and your officers have constantly made the point that you would have to have very special circumstances to build the houses in the Green Belt. Now you have very special circumstances. Spelling that out, there is almost total opposition to the Local Plan despite the attempts to sell it to the people. Personally I do not know anyone who is in favour except those who stand to make very considerable financial gains. Their wishes should be the last thing you consider. WDC should not show any allegiance, consideration or support to developers and land owners. Additionally the current planning applications are premature and should be treated as such. There is no proven need for these aggressive plans so they should be rejected totally if they are supporting the Local Plan.

The local people are telling you that the Local Plan is extremely bad planning and is unacceptable, so WDC need to withdraw the Local Plan, reject all planning applications and then listen to the people who are willing to spend their time in order to get an acceptable solution. The reasons given in objections are all very real arguments but have been rejected by WDC as if they were irrelevant. Or officers have tried to convince us of vain attempts to prove that mitigating measures will be taken. The general con-census has sunk to the accusations that someone is living in a dream world.

Ray Bullen spoke last on the 12,300 number of houses that is the core problem that WDC are using to support the Local Plan. We know there is no hard evidence to support the number of 12,300. As we understand, this is not a figure demanded by government so it must have been invented by WDC. The information used is understandably risky and will not stand up to the test of time.
When setting out the framework of the Local Plan, WDC should have made it their aim to satisfy housing needs to satisfy the needs of the local people. That is why it is called a Local Plan. They should not have set out to place the great majority in one densely packed area so the new residents would need to commute to their work place. As there is relatively little unemployment in the District compared with neighbouring Coventry, then it follows that very little new housing is necessary.

It has been shown that by adopting a much lower prediction of 5,400 homes or thereabouts there will be no need to allow any of the batch of applications now being processed.

Furthermore, to be planning now for what will extend as a plan for the next 18 years is foolhardy and extremely irresponsible. It is seen as bad planning at its very worst. When approved in its acceptable form, the Local Plan should only be allowing a phased number of houses each year. Most importantly the Local Plan should be catering for the needs of Local People and it is not doing so.

WDC should have used a more sensible lower figure to cover for the next 5 years. Then proposed to update this on a rolling basis without the commitment to provide infrastructure for the higher number they have adopted. As I have pointed out in earlier correspondence, and supported by my colleagues this would not have needed the concentrated brown areas on your maps as it could be contained by existing housing stock that needs upgrading, together with brownfield sites.

Further to this and even if we did need the 12,300, and we do not, the houses could be spread through the District by either proportional distribution or the creation of a single new site to the West of the District or a number of smaller ones. Leamington, Whitnash and Warwick have been used extensively in recent years for the majority of housing developments with negative effects on that area. These alternatives have been put forward but are not being examined seriously.

Now it is time to stop this rude attack and think again. WDC do not have to hide behind the NPPF or the Green Belt. These are not set in stone and can be relaxed to stop the intentions of the Local Plan. The Green Belt excuse was used to appease North Leamington protesters but we still seek further information on how this occurred and if members of the Council were involved. There must inevitably be a time when the Green Belt will need to be relaxed. That time is now to avoid great harm to the area South of Leamington and Warwick

There must now be acceptance of the reaction of the public and accept that the Local Plan should not proceed.

WDC have constantly defended the support of and allowing the current planning applications that are tied to the Local Plan. Their excuse has always been that if they do not approve them they will go to appeal by and be judged by a government inspector. This excuse has been traced down to the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP allegedly threatening to tell his inspectors to approve any such plans. This is a really serious turn of events and is being challenged. If that threat exists it must be removed to allow democracy to decide.

Regarding this point, WDC would be expected to do the right thing regardless of such fears they may have. Failure to do so will be an injustice. They are assured the people who are opposing the Local Plan and its planning applications will support them in that regard.

Finally the representative from WCC was considered to be rude and arrogant in the manner he spoke to the audience. He could not see that no one was listening to his ridiculous and dismissive comments about the road network. It would be appropriate if this comment was passed on to the leader of WCC as relevant to the opposition to the Local Plan..

1. Infrastructure must be the primary consideration of any Draft plan and this appears to be ignored by the current proposals. The thoroughfares of Warwick cannot cope with the addition of further traffic. We already have a situation whereby all traffic from the north (Coventry), north-west (Kenilworth) and north-east (north Leamington) is funnelled into Coten End and St. Nicholas' Church Street. The facilities for traffic wishing to turn right into Coventry Road from Coten End are such that, earlier this week, the traffic lights had to change four times before traffic could proceed from Coten End into St. Nicholas' Church Street because of buses and heavy vehicles trying to turn right.
All of this traffic then meets up with further traffic at the southern end of St. Nicholas' Church Street. This further traffic represents all traffic from south Leamington and traffic from the south including traffic leaving the north-bound traffic of the M40.. This already creates major delays during the morning rush-hour and at school times. Traffic is frequently 'backed up' on Myton Road beyond Myton Crescent and on the Banbury Road beyond the Barford turn. To increase the amount of traffic entering Warwick without major road building would be criminally negligent. Having regard to the existing development, the only possibility appears to be a feeder dual carriageway between the A46 running parallel to the M40 between Junctions 15 and 13 with a dedicated access to Gibbet Hill.

2. I believe the population of Warwick currently to be about 32,000 but the construction of 12,300 new homes could well increase that population by more than 75% based on a family unit of 2.4.
What facts and information exist to show that industry, commerce and services can expand to provide employment for such an increase in population? If the sources of employment do not increase by such a factor then even more pressure will be placed on roads and public transport as these new residents commute over longer distances to and from work. Surely the sensible plan is to proceed far more slowly matching residential construction to employment needs.

3. The whole concept of community is being eroded and will be worsened by the proposed development. Certainly provision is envisaged for new schools but far more is needed in the provision of community facilities such as leisure centres, youth clubs, creches, churches, shops and services. I watched the development of the Clifton estate on the south-west side of Nottingham and the development of the Amington estate on the north side of Tamworth. These were disastrous with husbands having to use the sole family car to commute to work, being absent for long hours because of commuting time and not facilities for the wives and families left at home. Infrastructure and such facilities must be provided before land is released for residential development.

House Numbers :
Whilst I appreciate the efforts WDC has made to protect Greenbelt land in the north of the district , I have significant concern at objection to the numbers of homes being built on Warwick South which now totals 3500+. The project housing need of 12,000 homes is far too high. Less than half that number would meet local needs. It is wrong to forecast as far into the future as 2029, and to allocate greenfield land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build when. There are better alternatives for meeting local needs, especially affordable housing, instead of encouraging in migration and gradually releasing land for development as demand groups. Giving priority to using brownfields sites instead of greenfield site and co-operating with other local authorities with the planned 1900 houses at Lighthorne Heath and plans for Stratford District building on the opposite side of the M40, junction 15.


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

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

Of particular interest is the comment on page 17:

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

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

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

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


In conclusion I would like to see a fairer local plan with housing numbers re evaluated and more evenly distributed across Warwick district. Utilising and giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations; building homes close to jobs; and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development.

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

We are attaching our objection to the Warwick District Council Local Plan Revised Development Strategy published in June 2013.

We are also forwarding a copy of our objection to Chris White MP.

The objection applies to two addresses in Warwick as we currently live at 172 Emscote Road and will shortly be moving to 50 Myton Crescent.

I spent a significant time studying the documentation including a couple of the consultant's reports, attending meetings and discussing various parts of the proposed plan with several people with sensible, professional views and whose opinions I respect.

I am against the loss of amenity that the proposed Thickthorn development would incur because it will degrade seriously the visual character of this entrance to the town forever. A view of new commercial buildings on rising ground with traffic lights on the roundabout, a new road and multiple traffic lanes will look like the approach to a large city suburb rather than a small town. This is not necessary and is not acceptable.

Thickthorn developed as all housing - ie without commerce is not acceptable either. The town is already too big for its infrastructure and facilities and a huge new housing development would make it even worse for everyone than it is now.

I am horrified at the quantity of new housing proposed in Warwick district overall when the expected need is much less.

I deplore the loss of significant areas of greenbelt at Gateway and Thickthorn when alternative options are available locally elsewhere. When it is gone, it's gone forever - as they say. This is not good planning.

see attached

General: We submit our comments on the above with heavy hearts and pessimism that no account will be taken of the points that are made by a very concerned community, who believe our chosen way of life in this lovely Warwickshire area will be destroyed.

Estimated Needs: I question the need for 12,000 new homes in the WDC area. The proposed concentration of 4,5000 homes (1/3 of the total) south of Warwick/Leamington amounts to destroying the green belt - an attractive rural area of the County. This will create an urban sprawl and almost join up Whitnash, Bishop's Tachbrook with Warwick and Leamington. A distribution of houses among all the villages/towns would be fairer and more pleasant for everyone. Is account taken in the draft plant of proposed developments of 1,400 new homes south of Leamington? More use of brownfield sites, such as Ramsay Rd derelict industrial area in Leamington, would be an ideal site for attractive development; bordering on Sydenham estate it would benefit from the existing facilities. It is currently a disgraceful tangle of empty units and overgrown environs. I understand that new homes are proposed for newcomers from cities and towns. Will the idyllic prospect of a rural life be less attractive when it is no longer rural or attractive.

Warwick and the Castle are the jewels in the crown of the area. Motoring to the Castle from M40, J 13 or 14 presents an outstanding journey past an agricultural landscape; this will be destroyed by a development of the size envisaged and detract from the Warwick experience.

Pollution: The air and noise pollution in Warwick centre itself (already at very high levels), will become a health hazard - and added to pollution from the M40 in this village area, will destroy a peaceful, attractive environment of which the District Council should be proud.

Traffic: Congestion of roads already causes severe problems, consequently we avoid going into Warwick and Leamington at peak times. To drive across the Banbury Road from this village to travel to M40 north, Warwick and Leamington, we sometimes have to journey south to join the convoy of cars from Leamington, Warwick and M40 and then find a turning area before proceeding north!

Access into Warwick and Leamington involves crossing one of the five bridges. The delays even now deter us from shopping in these towns to support local businesses, which WDC should be encouraging. Greenfield development would make residents car-dependent and would further increase the traffic flows into and out of the towns.

Provision of extra traffic-light crossroads at such junctions as Bridge End, Castle Hill, Smith Street would destroy the appearance of these unique historic areas.

Urgent attention should be given to providing a Park and Ride facility from near Greys Mallory Island/A46/M40 to Warwick and Leamington. Other towns, such as Shrewsbury, Stratford, provide successfully this useful facility to maintain the environs of their town centres.

Amenities: The impact of a substantial increase in population on the local hospital facilities and services, including car parking, is a matter of grave concern. Journey times to the hospital are erratic, dependent on traffic flows, and can lead to being late for appointments.

Schools: Some Local schools have already reached their full capacity - particularly if, like our village school, they have worked hard to produce excellent standards, Recently a new family to the village could not get their child into the local school and have to transport him by bus elsewhere, thus aggravating road congestion.

Agricultural: The destruction of good arable land into housing estates is a very worrying effect of the Plan. The country needs to encourage and develop farming to provide food for future generations.

Water Supply/Sewerage Can Severn Trent provide adequate services for such a vast development?

see attached

see attached

In general I support the policies set out in the revised strategy booklet "Local Plan Helping Shape the District".

I am pleased to set that the 2012 proposals put for extensive building in the green belt north of Warwick and Leamington have been dropped. Going ahead with it would have made a nonsense of national and local policies on green belt land.

I wish to make the following observations on particular sections of the booklet;-

Paragraphs 4.1.6 -4.1.9

This section contains a major logical flaw. Paragraph 4.1.6 argues that the District cannot achieve economic growth rates in line with national forecasts without inward migration. The following paragraphs go on to forecast how many dwellings will be required to sustain this level of economic growth. However it is impossible for every planning authority to achieve the level set out in the national forecast. Some areas will be above the average, and an approximately equal number will be below it.

The policies in paragraphs 4.1.6 to 4.1.9 appear to be based on the principle of "beggar my neighbour". Apparently Warwick District Council aims to achieve the national forecasts for economic growth by stripping other areas of their populations of working age.

Warwick District Council should be aiming to achieve for it citizens extra wealth and wellbeing per head of population. Simply importing extra people does necessarily do this. In fact it can result in the reverse through pressure that it puts on the environment and the infrastructure.

Map 6: Thickthorn

I accept that some green belt land at Kenilworth will have to be designated as a development site in order to enable the town to grow, and regard Thickthorn as the most suitable area. I also support the statements in paragraph 5.4.23 regarding the need for new employment land as part of the development.
Although there is a commitment to the provision of open space in this area, no hectares are given. Kenilworth as a whole has less publicly accessible open space per head of population than the level recommended by the WDC's SPD on Open Spaces. Provision in southern Kenilworth is particularly poor. Therefore the amount of publicly accessible open space at Thicktorn/Glasshouse lane should not only meet the needs of the new development but also address the shortfall in the south of the town. The land north of Rocky Lane would be suitable for this purpose.


Section 5.6.4

I fully support the policies regarding the Kenilworth to Leamington Spa (K2L) cycleway and the provision of a shared foot/cycleway alongside the Warwick Road between Leek Wootton and Kenilworth St Johns Gyratory.

see attached

Whitnash Town Council would like to see a plan for the development of Warwick
District which meets the real future needs of its people, enhances the environment
and improves the quality of life.
Whitnash Town Councillors understand the need for more housing in Warwick
District. However, Councillors are opposed to the density of the development sites
which have been identified in the Revised Development Strategy and the fact that
they are all located in the south of the district. There should be a more equal
distribution of development sites across the district. The impact on Whitnash Town
and its residents is great. Such an excess of proposed developments will be
detrimental to residents as well as the environment, and does not adhere to the
specific principles relating to the key elements of Sustainable Development as per
page 8 of the Revised Development Strategy.
Furthermore:
1. The level of housebuilding proposed may exceed the actual population growth
and demand within the District. The projected housing need of more than
12,000 new homes is too high. We are not convinced with the methodology
that has been used to predict the level of growth needed for the area. We also
feel that forecasting so far ahead cannot possibly give accurate numbers.
2. Building on yet more land around Whitnash will leave little green land left. The
current proposals would just merge our built-up areas and create a single
suburban sprawl. We don't want to lose our green fields. Green land here is
just as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick,
and should be safeguarded just as strongly.
3. The increase in traffic on our roads will have a huge detrimental impact. With
so much development planned, there will be a phenomenal rise in cars and the
existing road network will be unable to support such an increase. This includes
the bridges over the River Avon which need to be crossed to get to the town
centres of Leamington and Warwick, as well as Warwick Hospital and many
other services. With so much housing concentrated to the south of the town
centres, roads will be severely congested. Access from this area is already
becoming extremely difficult due to already congested bottleneck river bridges.
4. Following on from the previous point, there is a need to improve the air quality
around Warwick and Leamington as it currently exceeds Government
standards. With the proliferation of cars, pollution will increase and air quality
will continue to decrease. This will have an impact on the general fabric of the
area and the long-term health of residents will be affected.
5. Infrastructure needs to be in place sooner rather than later when any
development has been agreed, in order to putt less pressure on already
stretched resources.
6. Whitnash Town Councillors object to the proposed development of land at
Woodside Farm:
a. In the current Local Plan, this is an area of restraint and we would like it
to remain so.
b. Woodside Farm is the highest point in Whitnash and any development
will have an adverse visual impact and also affect the character of the
area.
c. Woodside Farm is the last remaining green area attached to Whitnash
and the loss of this would have a significant impact on the rural
landscape when approaching Whitnash from the south.
d. The high volume of traffic will impact on entrances and exits in Whitnash.
Traffic access from Tachbrook Road is impractical due to the already
high volumes of traffic.
e. The steep incline of land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean
flooding of Tachbrook/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite it
being a modern junction.
f. Local schools and medical centres are already full.
7. Whitnash Town Councillors object to the proposed development of land south of
Fieldgate Lane:
a. In the current Local Plan, this is an area of restraint and we would like it
to remain so.
b. Development of the Fieldgate Lane site was refused before following
objections from the County Engineers about access from the Whitnash
Road/Golf Lane junction. Nothing has changed at the junction but the
traffic is now greater so the problem is worse.
c. Additional housing will have an impact on schools, medical centres and
local amenities in Whitnash.
d. Access to this development and increased traffic on Golf Lane and
surrounding areas is a major concern.
e. Flooding in the area is also a concern.
f. The Leamington and County Golf Club, has been in Golf Lane for over
100 years and part of the course runs alongside the Golf Lane extension
(a single lane track). If residential development is to go ahead, this track
would need to be widened which would have a negative impact on the
historic golf course. There is also the danger of wayward golf balls on
nearby residential properties.
8. The proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers are also heavily concentrated in
the south of the district, giving little consideration to our environment and to the
impact on infrastructure. Referring specifically to the proposed site on Harbury
Lane (GTO4), its location does not meet the criteria:
a. It has no convenient access to public transport - it is not on a bus route
and there is no footpath.
b. It is adjacent to a site earmarked for development (Woodside Farm)
which is an area at risk of flooding.
c. Harbury Lane is a fast and busy road - cars often have to be guided off
the football ground site by a person standing across the road checking
when it is safe to manoeuvre.
d. None of these sites are within close proximity of schools, doctors or a
post office for them to change their benefit cheques.
Whitnash residents strongly oppose the Revised Development Strategy and have
voiced their opinions to the Town Council. They are also very concerned about the
severe impact the proposed developments will have on our town. As a Town
Council, we listen to our residents and do our best to support them and represent
them.
Referring to the letter we sent on 27 July 2012 in response to the preferred options
consultation, the comments we made in that letter are still applicable. Please find
attached a copy of that letter which we would like you to include as part of our
response to the Revised Development Strategy.
We feel that more consideration should to be given to views raised by Whitnash
Town Council, Whitnash residents and our neighbouring towns before the Local
Plan is finalised.

see attached