I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Flooding and impact of climate change
Given the projected increased severity and frequency of storms and flash flooding due to climate change in the area the following are potentially inappropriate development site.
a. the area marked up S. of Sydenham to the East of the railway which is a further breach of the boundary between Whitnash and Radford Semele. The impact of such a development on drainage from the site itself and from the proposed development at Fieldgate Lane will probably lead to increased frequency and depth of flooding in both areas.
b. Similarly, the recent and extended winter flooding of the areas bordering the A452 south of Harbury Lane and the restricted drainage in that area would raise the question of whether it is wise to propose building in such areas.
Lack of planning for modal shift in travel behaviour

In 2012 the Council has adopted a Low Carbon Action Plan, but this is not reflected in the local plan document.

Throughout the plan there is a clear bias towards supporting and increasing travel by private motor transport. Park and Ride is a great idea for out of town visitors but will do nothing to reduce car traffic and use within the urban area from an increased residential population. Moreover, the lack of integrated provision for enhanced cycling, walking and bus travel is a major deficit in the whole plan.

There is now good evidence from other areas that have adopted a sustainable travel strategy that a modal shift in travel behaviour can be achieved.
The local plan should ensure that housing, employment and community facilities are planned in such a way to be in line with the Low Carbon Action Plan Appendix V point 4.1 - Walkable communities, which the District has adopted:

"The council through its responsibility for planning, including the local development plan for the area...has a very major influence on development in the district. The way in which new neighbours are set our and existing ones are developed has a critical impact on transport sustainability. The extent of the relationship between planning and sustainable transport has in the past been overlooked, with the motor car being viewed in the twentieth century and the universal solution. More recently the negative impacts of the motor car have come to the fore, including noise, pollution, accidents, congestion, deterioration of the natural and build environments and not lease carbon emissions..there is now the realisation that there needs to be a new paradigm not just for transport but addressing the causes for the need for transport. This type of neighbourhood [walkable community] enjoys...improved health, reduced crime, improved social contract and being an inclusive community."

The local plan does not recognise need for walkable communities outlined in its own adopted document and demonstrates a total lack of ambition in looking to influence travel patterns.

In particular the location of primary schools, the siting of which appears unrelated to proposed housing density and distribution.Similarly, there is no mention of where the required GP practices would be sited. The positions and nature of the proposed 'community centres' where such practices might be sited again do not appear to relate to the density and distribution of the housing. Employment locations are being planned as far away as the gateway and relying on people travelling to work by the motorway network.

Housing Efficiency
Housing on green field sites should be at level 5 of the code for sustainable homes to reduce carbon emissions.


Affordable Housing

The Council has an overall target for affordable housing of 40%, but green field developments, should have a higher percentage of affordable homes - 50% than brownfield sites, to encourage brownfield development. This would strengthen the hand of the Council in negotiation with construction companies.

The council's own Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) suggests that
if all affordable housing needs are to be met, about 77% of new homes
should be affordable. Therefore, the council's lack of ambition regarding
affordable housing is disappointing and suggests greater concern for
developers than local residents who are in desperate need of suitable
housing. The Council risks building housing simply to increase inward migration without solving the housing problems in the district. The Council accepts the Affordable Housing Viability Assessment
(AHVA) assessment that it is possible to have up to 50% affordable housing,
yet it is not willing to take a flexible approach and categorise sites by
level of viability i.e. insist many sites have more than 40% affordable
housing. This is despite good work of the AHVA in setting out 3 categories
of site. The Council should work harder to maximise affordable build and
therefore should:
* Categorise each site by viability to maximise the number of affordable
houses which it recognises are so badly needed
* Increase density of housing which will reduce the cost per home and
therefore enable more affordable properties to be built
* Follow the advice in the AHVA, 7.49 and reduce the threshold for
affordable properties to 7 properties in urban areas
* Seek independent opinion regarding the 20% of Gross Development Value
(GDV) return figure in the AHVA upon which viability figures are based.
This figure is not justified in the document and expected GDV returns are
falling in the property industry e.g. see
http://www.thepropertyspeculator.co.uk/tag/gross-development-value/ which
suggests 15% is more realistic. LDZ who wrote the AHVA also work for
developers and so potentially they have an interest in inflating this
figure to the benefit of developers at the expense of local residents


SUMMARY

The SHMA suggests 77% of new homes should be affordable. The AHVA says up
to 50% affordable housing is possible, so the council must insist many
sites have more than 40% affordable housing. The Council should:
* Categorise each site by viability to maximise affordable housing
* Increase density of housing so more affordable properties are built
* Reduce the urban threshold for affordable properties to 7
* Seek independent opinion regarding the 20% of GDV return figure as 15% is
more realistic

Housing density and release of land

The District is justly proud of the excellent rural areas surrounding for
our small towns. Therefore it is scandalous that this local plan seeks to
build recklessly, and largely, on green field sites. This is
entirely unnecessary for the following reasons:
* There is not a clear link between economic growth and housing
* Housing should be focussed on brownfield sites within urban areas
* More effort should be made to use currently vacant homes and retail/
office spaces, especially homes above shops
* Excellent residential schemes of up to 200 homes per hectare are quite
common, so there is absolutely no reason to advocate 30 homes per hectare
(note section 4.23 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment,
SLHAA). As household size is tending to reduce, the need for small homes
continues to grow, enabling much higher housing densities than proposed in
this plan


Even if the council does not accept the full force of the above arguments,
it should still be acknowledged that there is uncertainty in their
prediction that so much housing is required. Therefore, it is imperative
that there is gradual release of land for housing over the timescale of
this plan, with the most suitable land released first e.g. only brownfield
sites usable for the first few years, then selective low-grade agricultural
land. Only when all other sites have been built upon, should the rest of
the allocated land be released for development.

SUMMARY

Building mainly on green fields is largely unnecessary because:
* Economic growth and housing aren't linked
* New housing should be on brownfield sites
* Vacant homes/ offices should be used
* 200 homes per hectare are common, so advocating only 30 homes per hectare
is wrong. Small homes are needed due to smaller households, enabling much
higher housing densities.

Uncertainty in predictions means land should be released gradually; most
suitable first e.g. only brownfield sites, then low-grade agricultural.

I am writing to object to several aspects of the current version of the Local Plan. The points set out below are not necessarily interdependent, but in the context of the south of Warwick and the impact on Warwick itself are additive.

The number of homes put forward is far too great. 12,300 is a drastic increase from the number in the previous draft / version of the plan. There is evidence in the paper from Ray Bullen Dipl Arch RIBA that 5,400 homes would satisfy the likely demand.

The location of the vast bulk of the homes south of Warwick is drastically unbalanced and inappropriate, and would have damaging effects on Warwick and also Leamington, for quality of life, traffic, pollution and tourism.

In respect of balance, the previous plan used land north of Leamington, albeit in the Green Belt. This should be reinstated; the location of the Green Belt many years ago is no longer appropriate, especially given the ridiculous situation that 80% of this district is designated as Green Belt. It is inappropriate both to expect the District to take a full District's worth of new housing and to attempt to cram the new housing into the remaining 20% of the District.

The location of the housing is also inappropriate. The new developments by Coventry Airport, as well as the economic centre of gravity north and northwest of Warwick will attract travel north from Warwick and Leamington, so putting homes south of those towns would generate traffic trying to go through them both, making both towns busier.

The concept that economic development near Gallows Hill and the increasingly inappropriately named "Science Park" will be attractive to businesses and provide employment for people in the new developments is not credible, and has already been disproved by District Planning officials and the Committee at the meeting on 23rd July. The justification for granting permission to Application W13/0607 to build houses on the land north of Harbury Lane was that there was not sufficient demand for the economic use which had been promised when Warwick Gates was built. People from that development already have to travel into and through Warwick (and Leamington) for work and other purposes, adding to the volume of traffic.

One gets the impression that the plan has put housing where developers want to build to maximise profit, not where it is best for the district.

The District Council's report by RMA consultants states re land south of Gallows Hill & The Asps that "The largest part of the study area is prominent in approaches to Warwick, is valuable in the setting of the town and provides the historic context for Castle Park. The recommendation remains that this area should be protected from development."

The concentration of houses south of Warwick would not only increase pressure on sewerage but also increase the risk of flooding. In the last two or three years since further development in the area a new occasional pond / lake has appeared in the field at bottom of Gallows Hill. The effect of replacing more earth with concrete and tarmac and of concentrating rainwater run-off could only to be exacerbate this situation and put the area at the bottom of the hill heading north into Warwick at greater risk of flooding.

The impact of increased travel in the plan, particularly motor but also other forms (albeit not adequately provided for), has been significantly understated. The modelling shown is just not credible. The current experience is much worse than shown in the misleading Ove Arup diagram, which covers future flows "AM" and shows an average of 40mph from the Asps. In the rush hours nowadays the traffic jam starts at The Asps and continue right down to the Warwick Bridge, along Europa way and the road to it from junction 14 of the M40.

The word "Mitigation" is an almost Orwellian misnomer. It does not do what it says - it just tempts traffic into Warwick and spoils the quality of life for those living near the new busy routes. Evidence for this is in the paper from Dennis Crips.

Not should also be taken of the probable increase in vehicle pollution in Warwick, which is already at illegal levels.

The increased volume of traffic and the traffic measures proposed to speed more traffic through Warwick would make the quality of life much worse for people living on or near the roads affected, and would lessen the attractiveness of Warwick as a destination for tourism, shopping and dining, damaging the economy of the town.

There are already massive traffic bottlenecks between Warwick and Leamington and the south - the bridges over the Avon; Warwick Bridge, Prince's Drive, and Leamington Town Bridge. They are already struggling with the volume of traffic from housing south of the towns, total overload if development happens. The Warwick Bridge is historically important, narrow, and increasingly busy. There are already frequent illegally heavy loads using the bridge; these would increase, and are already going to cause a serious problem when the bridge is damaged and will be out of action for a significant time.

The whole road system of Warwick and also Leamington becomes gridlocked now if there is any problem on either A46 or M40. The situation would be even worse with more traffic needing to use it.

Relief via Longbridge roundabout is unlikely. It is already jammed at busy times - rush hour and schools.

The plans show a lack of provision for pedestrians and other forms of transport - especially cycles. Removing pedestrian crossings on the Banbury road may speed traffic, but would increase accidents to pedestrians and schoolchildren.

I have lived in Myton all 20 years of my life and spent many years walking along Myton Road to school and have noticed big changes over the years in traffic and pollution.

We have been advised to write to you with reference to serious concerns over the potential impact upon our health and wellbeing if Warwick District Council's preferred options within the New Local Plan are allowed to go ahead.

Some 3420 dwellings will be built on the greenfield land to the south of Warwick between Myton Road and Europa Way which is currently an Area of Restraint and will join up with Warwick Gates. The green land around the edge of the town will be lost along with the fresh air that it provides, creating an urban sprawl.

This, along with extra pollution caused by more than 6000 additional vehicles using the area can only result in an increase in respiratory diseases and contribute towards lung cancer which it has been shown to do in recent reports.

It was shown by Warwick District Council in 2008 that the air quality for Warwick was poor and that the worst area was Warwick town centre. Warwick is the area in the district that has been the most developed over recent years which has caused more pollution in and around the town centre.

As it stands the Local Plan must be opposed if it is found to be detrimental to the health of residents and I urge you to do this from a public health point of view for the people of Warwick.

I am a concerned local resident who is worried about the future of Warwick and the surrounding area. Although I do appreciate that there is a need for a plan for the future and there is no option of doing nothing the current proposed plan sighting the majority of development in one area does appear to be flawed.

It is projected that the housing needs to 2029 should be 12,300 new homes; where the need to meet local requirements based upon previous expansion plans suggest that this figure should be 5,400.

There is a question mark over why are the houses proposed are nearly all on the south of Warwick when a large number of new residents will have to cross one of only the four river crossings every day to the north of Leamington. There are no proposals to improve these crossings and this can only cause bottlenecks. If half of the proposed developments were to the north of Leamington this would easy the problem and reduce congestion in Warwick. The land to the south of Warwick does need to protected as much as the land to the north of Leamington.
I am also concerned to hear that Warwick District Council has not consulted Stratford upon Avon District Council on its plan. It appears that Stratford are planning a village around Junction 12 on the M40 which again would add to transport problems in and around Warwick. Also with the proposed village are we in a position of double accounting for the number of homes that are required in the south. Has this been taken into account when estimating the Districts needs?
I strongly believe that the current plan is a developer's charter and it would be more logical to release land when there is a demand. There still needs to be a better balanced plan with building being allowed to be built in the north Leamington area.
I hope that public opinion is listened to and that the plan can be revised to meet the needs of the community and not that of the developers.

I have already expressed my views on the proposed new local plan but would like to emphasise the problems which someone like myself would have to face. I live on Theatre Street, Warwick which is already very polluted with traffic - for instance during the recent hot weather I have tried to get a decent airflow through the house by opening windows at the front and back but the amount of really dirty dust coming in has appalled me - I am elderly and should not be breathing such polluted air. Has anyone checked the pollution levels in Theatre Street recently? Any more traffic would adversely affect my health because of pollution but would also adversely affect my ability to get out and about.
I am also concerned at the proposed development on green field sites rather than using brown field sites - encroaching on our countryside has adverse affects on agriculture as well as appreciation of the countryside.
I have only lived in Warwick for the past ten years but have seen deterioration in the environment due to poor planning and even worse implementation. I can only urge those responsible for the environment to think very carefully before destroying all that is good about Warwick - even more than already done.

We have been advised to write to you with reference to serious concerns over the potential impact upon our health and wellbeing under Warwick District Council's preferred option within the New Local Plan. This plan includes over half the district's development to take place to the south of Warwick between Myton Road and Europa Way which is currently an Area of Restraint and to join up with Warwick Gates, some 3420 dwellings on the greenfield land.

This will cause an extra 6000+ additional vehicles and 3000+ at peak times on roads which are already at their capacity with stationary and slow moving traffic at peak times. The result of this would be even more traffic at a standstill causing additional pollution and a decline in air quality which is already poor.

This can only result in an increase in respiratory diseases.

The 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick district clearly shows a picture of poor air quality, with the very worst area being Warwick town centre, Warwick being the most developed area in the district over the past 20 years or so and it points out that development will not be permitted if adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels.

The Local Plan, in its current form, must be opposed if it is found to be detrimental to the health of residents.

I support the revised plan has it removes the threat to the green belt to the North of Leamington Spa around Milverton and Blackdown. It removes the joining up of Leamington and Kenilworth which I wrote about in my objections to the original plan.
I would urge the District Council not to concede any green belt land to Coventry during the SHN analysis. If more land is needed it must be from non green belt land
I also objected to the original plan because it did not comply with NPPF in North Leamington Spa. the revised plan does.

I am writing to you, as Director of Public Health for Warwickshire, with reference to serious concerns the residents of Myton have over the potential impact upon our health and wellbeing under Warwick District Council's preferred option within the New Local Plan, for a large concentration of around 3420 dwellings on the greenfield land to the south of Warwick between Myton Road and Europa Way, presently an Area of Restraint, and the joining up with Warwick Gates.

Such a development would have serious health impacts upon local residents, in view of the conservative estimate of 6000+ additional vehicles introduced to the local roads which are already in excess of capacity and will be unable to support this additional traffic resulting in additional pollution and further decline in already poor air quality.

This will result in an increase in respiratory conditions such as asthma, chronic lung diseases and of course be a contributory factor to lung cancer as implicated in recent reports. As more traffic is introduced even more will become stationary and slow moving causing an increased concentration of pollution in the Myton area.

We are extremely concerned about the potential health impact upon our families.

The 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick district clearly shows a shocking picture of the poor air quality, with the very worst area being Warwick town centre, Warwick being the most developed area of the district over the past 20 years or so.

Of particular interest is the comment on page 17:

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on ...., air, ..... 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 therefore seek urgent confirmation that the issue of air quality is being thoroughly investigated as an urgent matter of Public Health.

I urge that this Local Plan, in its current form, will be opposed in its entirety if it is found to be detrimental to the health of residents.

I would also welcome your assurance, as the Director of Public Health, that this will be done in good time so that the results can be published for local residents to consider, well in advance of any decision on the Local Plan itself.

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.

Dear Sirs,

Thank-you for your consideration of local residents views over development on Green Belt land in and around Leamington Spa.
I hope and trust that future draft plans will be treated with such due diligence.

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 write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.
The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

I have read the Revised Development Strategy and attended the public meeting at Aylesford School and am writing to object to the current plan and request that it be revised again to take into consideration the serious detrimental impact it will have on Warwick for both its community and business life.

Please take into account the following points:

The plan is unbalanced placing too many houses in south Warwick where the infrastructure and beautiful, fragile bridge cannot cope with traffic that this huge development will create.

Land north of Leamington and Warwick in the previous plan should be used as well as brownfield sites. It seems the plan is to develop land where developers can create easy profits and not in the best areas for Warwickshire as a whole. Jobs are in Coventry and Birmingham, as stated by the council's representative at the Aylesford meeting, so south Warwick does not make economic sense for this development.

The proposed business area is completely unnecessary. There is currently unused space at Tournament Fields and Warwick Technology Park. Also the proposed business area in south Leamington was not taken up by developers and is now to be developed for housing.

The entrance to Warwick from the Banbury Road is one great beauty and a magnificent setting for Historic Warwick, the castle, churches, river, riverside park and vibrant shopping areas. This would be destroyed by the current development plan.

The field at the bottom of Gallows Hill currently floods, the proposed development would create more concrete and more flood risks.

There would be a massive increase in air pollution for the town which is already at illegal levels.

The traffic plan is not sensible creating difficulties for tourists on whom the town and all Warwickshire rely for livelihoods, residents and businesses. There is a lack of provision for parking, access and pedestrians.

Many people have said that this plan will be a disaster for Warwick and Warwickshire and I have to agree. Please reconsider to take into account all objections.

Dear Sirs,
I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Dear Mr Barber

I write on behalf of the members of the Parochial Church Council of St Chad's, Bishop's Tachbrook to respond to the proposals for our new Local Plan.

The PCC have considered the objective of building over a 15 year period some 12,000 houses, of which 70% are planned to be constructed south of Warwick and Leamington Spa and noted that:
* This level of development represents the equivalent of building a new Bishop's Tachbrook village every two years in the vicinity over the life of the Plan.
* The local need for new housing requires less than half this level of development (i.e. less than 6,000 houses).
* Little consideration appears to have been given to the difficulties in fostering community life on the recently completed Warwick Gates.
The PCC wholeheartedly objects to this Plan, because:
* This level of development will fundamentally change the rural character of the area, including the setting of Warwick, Leamington and the historic surrounding countryside. This is not just a question of aesthetics, our concerns is that communities in this Parish will loose identity and cohesion as they become subsumed within a wider conurbation.
* These proposals do not appear to be supported by local residents, who are still working to build a sustainable community on Warwick Gates. It takes time for an estate of this size to become a viable community, with vibrant groups and networks that help sustain a decent quality of life. To plan to build almost the same number of houses every two years adjacent to Warwick Gates, does not allow for normal community life to be nurtured.
* It is unfair. To lump so much development on the southern reaches of Warwick and Leamington is punitive. It places a significantly disproportionate amount of stress and dislocation on just one part of the District, on the supposed justification that this area is not part of the Green belt. While this solution may work politically, it unfairly burdens one area for the benefit of others.
It is easy to forget that each of the proposed houses, will need to become a home. That is not achieved by facilities alone, but many years of growing a shared spirit that engenders support and fellowship across all ages in a community. It is our considered view that this Plan fails to support this vital endeavour.

The Chamber of Trade objects to the Local Plan in its present form as we feel this will have a very detrimental effect on the town and economy of Warwick.
The strategy says it "will facilitate the growth of the local economy" but this will not apply to Warwick.
The level of housing proposed for the Southern Site is unrealistic and we feel that amount of housing is unjustified in proportion to the jobs being created.The 7-8 hectares of employment land on that site may yield 2000 jobs but that will not be enough to satisfy the number needed for that level of housing. If the other jobs being created are at the proposed Coventry Gateway then the houses should be built there otherwise any claim to building sustainable developments is false.
Whilst appreciating that more people in the vicinity mean more potential customers ,those customers have to be able to access the town centre. This plan admits that the level of traffic will increase and the narrow streets of Warwick will see much more congestion which will only serve to send our customers elsewhere.The traffic mitigation measures involving traffic lights everywhere will ruin our beautiful town. The proposal to stop the right turn at the bottom of Smith Street into St Nicholas Church Street will be a disaster for the traders in Smith Street and the rest of the town. If you are a stranger in the town and find yourself going down Smith Street and want to get back into the centre where do you turn round? Or do you give up and go elsewhere.
The proposals for improvements to public transport do not favour Warwick and we are not convinced they will be funded. We know there is little likelihood of any park and ride scheme being developed as there will be inadequate funding and other local schemes have not proved to be sustainable.
The levels of pollution in the centre of Warwick are already at above the permitted levels.These proposals will only worsen that situation. WDC has a legal obligation to reduce those levels,it is difficult to see how that can be achieved by the development proposed in this plan.
The Chamber of Trade recognises the need for more housing but on a scale and geographical spread that benefits all the towns in the district not discriminating against one.

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Dear Sirs,
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: CONSULTATION 14th JUNE TO 29th JULY 2013
I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

I am writing to express my objection in the strongest possible terms to your plans to concrete over a large area of land to the South of Warwick.

Warwick has attracted both residents and visitors alike for hundreds of years because of its proximity to rural areas. Indeed for many years it was christened "Leafy Warwickshire" because of its variety of trees and green areas.

The new local plan appears to be intent on destroying the vista and the atmosphere of Warwick by promoting the large scale destruction of a large tract of land by mass-market house builders, whose main aim appears to be to cram as many houses onto each acre of land as possible. Fairly recent developments near to Southam and on the former Potterton site illustrate the lack of forethought of local planners. The Southam development is so cramped that one poorly parked vehicle can obstruct the entry of emergency services to the whole site and the flats at Portobello are so awful that many were offered at peppercorn rents to housing associations in order to get them off the developers books.

I do not believe there is such a pressing need for housing that such a large area needs to be blighted by more houses. There appears to have been very little thought given to the impacts of this number of new houses on the environment, drainage and quality of life of existing residents. But there are large numbers of sub-standard houses in Warwick and Leamington that could and should be improved. HS2 will already blight a large area of Warwickshire, there is no need - in my opinion - for Warwick DC to destroy even more of our county.

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.
The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.
The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.

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

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

Scale and proportion

This represents a massive long term coalescence of settlements, and one that will result in the loss of significant open space, local countryside and agricultural land, and lead to significant urban sprawl.

As with any significant individual development, a suitable ground for objection includes excessive bulk and scale, or overdevelopment of the area. Placing the majority of proposed housing on such a confined part of the Warwick District as this is surely overdevelopment on a massive scale.

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

Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched. Most households have 2 cars in this day and age, so for up to 4500 houses, you could expect there to be over 9000 extra vehicles parking in and around the various developments, and using the local road network. This does not account for any visitors or other extra vehicles.

With potentially 9000 extra cars, the local road infrastructure is inadequate. Tachbrook Road, Tachbrook Park Drive, Princes Drive, and junctions with Harbury Lane, Europa Way, Gallows Hill, Banbury Road, Whitnash Road and others into the centre of Leamington and Warwick, are already significantly congested at peak times, and even at weekends. At peak times, there are several places where the traffic heading towards the town centres via these few available routes is already a major problem, leading to gridlock, increased pollution etc.

However, the congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem, and again, adding a load more vehicles to the traffic will make this worse. I refer to out of town junctions such as:

the Harbury Lane/Fosse Way crossroads (itself an accident blackspot),
the Oakley Wood Road/Banbury Road junction beyond Bishops Tachbrook,
the Mallory Road/Banbury Road junction beyond Bishops Tachbrook,
the Harbury Lane/Gallows Hill/Europa Way roundabout
the Europa Way/Banbury Road/M40 feeder road roundabout at Tachbrook Mallory.

The increase in vehicles will compound this further, causing increased pollution, traffic noise, and potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

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

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

Effect of local services/amenities

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

The pressure on local schools in the Whitnash area is already well known, with the primary schools to this being oversubscribed year on year. The development of Warwick Gates without the provision of a new school put added pressure on the existing schools, and the addition of all the various Local Plan related developments will further increase this pressure.

So too will it increase pressure on the local secondary schools. School places are limited, and
adding extra housing will increase the number of applications to schools from this inflated
catchment area, and could mean that some existing residents will not be able to get their children into schools that they could have done previously. The school catchment area may be one reason why many people moved to Whitnash/Warwick Gates/Myton in the first place, but the total number of schools has not changed.

Although there are supposedly schools provisioned for in the various plans, these are not guaranteed to be built, and following the building of Warwick Gates with no schools, local residents are already sceptical.

There is limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates areas already, and adding several thousand extra people around Heathcote and Whitnash development will place further undue pressures on those existing surgeries, as well as any in the South Warwick/Myton areas. The effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals should also be taken into account.

Flood Risk

There are already flood issues in the back gardens of houses on Landor Road and Ashford Road in Whitnash, where water runs off the fields. There have also been previous drainage issues at Warwick Gates, and the land in the surrounding areas is probably not much different, given its proximity to Warwick Gates. Given the scale and density of proposed housing, and potentially large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc, this problem could get worse for existing residents, and for those on the new developments.

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

* Identifying existing housing that is either derelict or currently unoccupied, and ensuring those houses are brought back onto the market for people to buy and live in.


* Identifying empty industrial units that have been empty for some time, with a view to use the land they occupy for brownfield site housing.


* Identifying an area in the surrounding countryside to use to build an entirely "new town". This town could incorporate the entire 12,500 houses in on development, and be placed somewhere such as around the A46 or M40 to the west of Warwick, which would mean much of the traffic would use these roads to by-pass the towns of Warwick/Leamington. If such a town was built with its own schools, doctors surgeries, shopping areas etc, it ought to be relatively self-sufficient.


* Spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with lots more much smaller developments. Smaller developments mean a severely reduced impact on the local area where they are located, and spreading it evenly around the district would mean a similarly reduced impact on the road network, schools, health care services, etc. It would also mean the loss of open space/character of individual areas would not be lost, and urban sprawl would be minimized in all locations.
* Smaller developments could then also be given to local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy.


I believe this 2013 Local Plan is ill conceived, especially given the large land area that the whole district covers. To concentrate most of the total development in one area of the district is not only wrong, but it is also disastrous.

It is disastrous not only for those that currently live nearby, but also for the whole of South Leamington/Warwick and Whitnash, and for those who use the road networks into the town centres.

When there are seemingly many existing houses lying empty around the district, or rented on an ongoing basis rather than being sold to prospective dwellers, or industrial units unoccupied on brownfield sites, then these things should be looked into before large swathes of the local landscape are destroyed forever.

Effective use of existing housing and industrial sites in this way, coupled with the spreading of new developments evenly around the district, or further out in the countryside to create a new town, would make far more sense than to just force excessive numbers of new houses on South Leamington farmland merely because it isn't Green Belt.

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

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

W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields
W/13/0858 - upto 100 homes at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash

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

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

As a resident and business owner in Warwickshire I have been forced to put pen to paper to object strongly to the proposed plan.

Having attended a recent meeting held for residents and also being present at a Chamber of Commerce Briefing I am very concerned that the local council is not listening to the views and needs of its residents and business owners.


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

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

Scale and proportion
The size and scale of the proposed developments will result in there being a substantial loss of open spaces, which is currently characteristic of this beautiful area. There is a huge threat to the existing residents day to day living given that current homeowners have specifically bought property in this area due to the magnificence of our countryside and its agricultural land.

Whilst new employment is greatly needed in this county the identification of potential employers and their necessary workforce needs to be determined BEFORE the significant urban sprawl is planned and subsequently built. The existing infrastructure is already under great stress and so acceptable plans have yet to be determined as to how the proposed expansion of residential and indeed employment build will be supported.

The south of the county is not the only area urgently requiring new injections of employment and talent and so a fairer spread of new builds across the whole of Warwickshire would be preferable. To ignore this would be blatantly biased to specific geographical areas instead of others. To over development certain areas seems absolute folly and very short sighted given that we have a moral duty to protect the county for future generations.

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

Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure
The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched. This is due to the fact that there are currently already 2 or more cars per household. The roads could not cope with 9000 extra vehicles using the local road network. This completely highlights that the local road infrastructure is inadequate. (E.g. congestion on various local roads). With the newly built super stores traffic heading towards the town centers is already a major problem. No plans have been detailed as to how the gridlock and increased pollution will be dealt with. To avoid the town gridlock congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem. How do the council propose to deal with increased traffic noise pollution and potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

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

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

Effect of local services/amenities
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
* pressure will be further placed on local schools
* primary schools already oversubscribed year on year
* increased pressure on the local secondary schools
* effect on catchment areas
* effect on applications from siblings of children already in one school
* new schools not "guaranteed" to be built as part of the developments
* limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates and Myton areas already
* effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scale and proportion


* massive long term coalescence of settlements,
* loss of significant open space,
* loss of local countryside,
* loss of agricultural land,
* lead to significant urban sprawl.
* excessive bulk and scale,
* significant overdevelopment of the area
* Added pollution levels
* Significant additional road congestion
* Destruction of local community feel and wellbeing

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







Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Effect of local services/amenities

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

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

Flood Risk

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

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

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

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

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


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

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

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

Dear Sirs,
I write to provide my support for the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is refreshing and valuable to see politics in action that has listened to the concerns and Planning Objections based on fact, that has seen the removal of development in Milverton/Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. It must not be permitted.
I base my support on the fact that the Green Belt in the area mentioned meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. I note and draw attention that development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington has already taken land from this essential Green Belt. Further development on it would not be sustainable.
I would also like to make the following points in this letter of support:
1. If the Joint Strategic Housing needs analysis currently being performed with Coventry City Council identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. I recognise there are rejections to the plan based on "Fair Distribution" of housing - however point out as I hope you will to those objectors that the Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District - there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages. This makes it entirely fair.
3. Commuting, polution and infrastructure (roads) development can be minimised by the Revised Development Strategy as it now proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick). This also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life.
4. Development in South Leamington does not face the border proximity issues of North Leamington - there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
5. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. I don't believe the plan could respond to an alternative distributed proposal for housing across the district as there will be smaller but threshold breaking impacts on schools, health, policing and council services spread around the district which can't be appropriately responded to with focused investment - just patching up of stretched services.
6. The original Plan involving development of Road Infrastructure in North Leamington to meet the needs of that original plan was unaffordable and waste of tax payers funds and still without issues. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and will be opposed to as no exceptional circumstances exist. I believe the council has a responsibility to protect this vital resource for which many people chose and will continue to chose to live in Leamington Spa. I insist that positive politics continues to work, managing by fact and planning accordingly.
I support the new plan entirely - Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Dear Sirs,
I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Dear Sir
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT
I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.
The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.