see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

I would like to comment on the local plan,i do realise that more housing is needed the number being suggested however is unbelievable,as a bishops tachbrook resident i attended a meeting recently and when a representative was asked how the roads can possibly cope with such a huge influx of traffic we were assured a study had been done and indeed the roads could cope if improvements are made.Making the the Greys Mallory island larger and making Europa Way into a dual carriage way will help trafic along but it is still all going to finish up at the Ford island where it will back up for miles [has anyone seen the traffic backing up down the slip road to the motor way?]I suspect this is of little interest as the housing cannot possibly be just for "locals"[money for greedy developers]so it wil be for commuters going in the opposite direction ie.towards the motorway.I doubt whther this area would be anywhere near as attractive for development if it was not for the motorway,add to all this the already poor air quality being polluted even more our only hospital bursting at the seams ditto doctors surgeries where are the sick going to go?People live in villages because they want to live in smaller community and avery fine one we have here,we therefore do not want to be joined up to some sprawling suburb.there is something else that seems puzzling why is that it was origionally thought we needed 15 more houses in tachbrook and now it is
100 when there will be hundrds built little more than a mile down the road.to add insult to injury we also learn we are to take the lions share of the traveller sights around here[people are already worring about losing thousands on the value of their homes]it is a shame we cannot decamp to the north end of the town!it appears to be the favoured end.People here are very annoyed that they have been ignored when their way of life could be changed forever.


i am sorry that i ommited my name on my previous e mail however after attending the recent meeting i can only say that my concerns are jutified.There is no possible way that the local roads will cope with the huge influx of traffic,widening and improving will not stop the bottle neck at the fords island,this is not housing for local people we were told 50%is for migration 40% is for afordable housing isuspect few of the people allocated social will be from any where near leamington or warwick they will be people from coventry or birmingham and their councils either cannot or do not wish to house them,the bulk of the rest will probably go to immigrants.tachbrook has always had a wonderful community feel many people have lived here all their lives and enjoy a "village" life this will all end when we are all joined together in the suburban sprawl that is about to come thanks to the parks that will join us all up.I cannot understand the need for 100 new houses in the village when there are thousands being built a mile down the road!even people with family in the village cannot mind travelling that short distance.one of the proposed sites is behind holt ave the field next to it is one of those suggested for travellers!
do the council really believe people wil buy a house next to a travellers sight?
local people feel absolutely impotent-we all know that no matter how much we complain our way of life and peace of mind is about to be destroyed forever; surrounded by housing and land bought up by travellers who pay nothing whatsoever into the system and get everything out for free,the local school will have to keep several places free for their children (the ones they say do not exist)keeping local children out.All in all it is a very depressing future for people who have worked hard all their lives to see the fruit of their toil lose thousands off its worth and live in a very less pleasant and safe place.

4.3 Broad Location of Development Housing
1. The Council's revised assessment of housing need is welcome, specifically the reductions in the need for large developments on green-field sites by an improved focus on the capacities of urban SLHAA sites and likely windfall sites.
2. The Council's proposals to maintain important green areas, such as the Green Belt north of Leamington and the Asps adjacent to the Castle Park, the creation of a 'country park' along the Tach Brook and proposals for other as yet undefined green infrastructure corridors are also welcome. Further work should be done, however, to ensure the establishment of significant areas of connected green space within all major proposed housing developments in order to minimise the unrelieved uniformity that characterises so many modern large-scale housing developments and facilitate healthier alternative forms of transport. In this regard, my comments on paragraph 5.1 of this plan suggest a possible significant enhancement to the current proposal for the Country Park adjacent to the major development area south of Warwick and Whitnash
3. In particular, however, the location of the bulk of the housing to the south of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash is strongly supported, not primarily because it minimises use of Green Belt land, although that is important, but because it does not necessitate the construction of an environmentally destructive new road across the Avon corridor north of Leamington. Significant development to the north of Leamington also makes no sense in terms of transport planning when most of the large retail outlets requiring car access are south of the railway and would increase cross-town car traffic - already at its limit because of the barriers of river and railway.
4. Spurious arguments of 'fairness' should be countered with robust defence of planning logic by officers and councillors - in particular in the area of transport planning. The areas now proposed already have good access to the M40, Leamington station and an existing, relatively easily upgradable transport infrastructure. The key transport problems within Leamington are railway crossings. North of the railway, development is currently fairly stable, while almost all of the new road infrastructure and major-volume retail development (Sainsbury, Lidl, Morrisons and Aldi) has been to the South, with further additions recently announced. Placing the bulk of housing development on land to the South of the railway line, with easy access to the motorway and rail network and to most major retail outlets, will minimise the traffic pressures at rail crossings and across the historic centre of the town.
5. There are, however, legitimate concerns for residents in areas adjacent to areas of large housing developments, particularly with respect to transport issues and to the look and feel of their neighbourhood. It is essential that the Council explores all possible options to ensure that these developments do not assume the character of the Warwick Gates development - a ghettoised housing desert of nearly identical builds relieved by few amenities, little communally useful green space, and almost no integration except by car with other areas of the town. It is essential in the major developments now envisaged, that the total outcome is a high-quality integrated urban development, which significantly enhances the overall attractiveness of the southern areas of Leamington, many areas of which seem to have been accorded 'second-class' status in the past.
4.4 Housing allocations
1. One topic completely missing from the current plan is the allocation of land for self-build properties. This has been raised in one of the consultation meetings and in my opinion should be included into the current consultation and review process and into any future reviews of the plan. The lack of land available for self-build in the district is well-known, so addressing this by identifying areas for self-build properties could provide a significant, practical and popular addition to the plan. Self-builds typically deliver higher quality and more varied housing and could provide an important quality-enhancement both to the housing stock as well as enhancing the amenity and character of the area. This could be ensured by requiring all such builds to meet the highest standards in terms of ecology and sustainability and design. It would also help local employment, because such developments are much more likely to use the services of local professionals and tradesmen.
2. In particular, as demonstrated in my submission to the original plan, there is significant scope for beneficial, larger scale development in both Primary and Secondary Service Villages and - in a more limited way - across the totality of the numerous smaller villages and settlements. This should be explored both as part of this plan and any future revisions of it because it is a way of managing development across the district while also minimising loss of/damage to Green Belt areas. Village residents are right in not wanting to have their environments degraded by significant developments, but this applies just as much in already established areas so real issues of 'fairness' lie here rather than in intra-town disputes fuelled by nimbyism. It cannot be right that inhabitants of major local villages parasitise services in neighbouring towns when many such services (schools, shops, health facilities) could with some extra growth in major villages sustainably be provided locally for themselves and adjacent smaller settlements. Apart from the added convenience for villagers, it would also reduce traffic problems across the district. Making self-build land a significant element in village developments (though not only there) could also do much to encourage developments of an unthreatening kind.
3. A further general comment relates to the uncertainty of some future aspects of housing allocation relating to negotiations with adjoining areas. In particular, with respect to the proposed major employment site around Coventry airport and the outcomes of the Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment undertaken with other councils within Coventry's Housing Market Area, should further Green Belt land be required to provide additional housing in the Warwick District Council area, sites should be identified on the fringes of Coventry adjacent either to the airport development or in the proximity of Warwick University (a major employer located on the border between Coventry and WDC land). In the re-evaluation of the SHLAA presented with comments on the previous plan, a number of suitable sites with potentially significant capacity were identified. As with Kenilworth, there is no alternative to the use of Green Belt land, but all of these were sites where impact could be minimised, especially in conjunction with the development of green corridors similar to those proposed below for the proposed developments south of Warwick and Whitnash.
5.1 Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick and Whitnash
1. While supporting in general the idea of a Country Park to prevent coalescence with Bishop's Tachbrook, the current proposal privileges only Bishop's Tachbrook residents and those in new developments immediately adjacent to it. It does not form part of any green infrastructure useful to the establishment of non-road transport alternatives or create an amenity benefit across the whole of the new development area. This proposal should be amended and extended to the potential benefit of all residents in the proposed new developments and adjacent areas by, for example:
a) Creating a significant green strip all along the north-eastern side of the proposed South Warwick development area (west of Europa Way, south of Harbury Lane and west of Oakley Wood Road) and south of Gallows Hill, which would both improve the green space and amenity areas to many more southern residents, and facilitate an appropriate base for the establishment of linked amenity areas as well as for a healthy, safe non-road transport infrastructure - for walking, cycling, mobility scooters and other sustainable personal transport devices.
b) Compensate for the loss of building land involved by moving the proposed Country Park to the area of 'possible expansion' shown for it south of the Tach Brook. This could extend right up to the current northern boundary of Bishop's Tachbrook, so facilitating the expansion of non-road transport links with it and ensuring a barrier against future coalescence or development north of Bishop's Tachbrook. If the ideas outlined in my response to 4.4 were adopted, there may be no need for further allocation of building land in this area, but if there were, some suitable space exists south of the current development west of Europa Way, which, but if kept close to Europa Way, would not significantly affect the designated protected area of the Asps.
c) This linked amenities/alternative transport infrastructure could form the basis for further enhancements to an alternative transport infrastructure linking the north-eastern corner of these development sites with the town centre and local retail sites to the potential benefit of many more local residents, especially if complemented by the addition of a new alternative transport crossing of the railway line and canal so better linking the north and south of the town and benefitting all town residents, including car users,. In the longer term this could, with the addition of bike hire as in London, also facilitate in the longer term the establishment of a "park and bike" scheme to complement any virtual park and ride facility south of the town.
5.6 District-wide Transport Mitigation Proposals
Note: In the comments made below, reference is often made in terms of cycling, but it is everywhere intended that these are taken to include walking and use of other low-speed personal transportation such as mobility scooters.
1. In the absence of the time or information to rank these proposals in priority order, it is noted that all seem in principle justifiable. This is, however, far from the key issue, which is the continuing lack of attention to sustainable alternative transport in the Warwickshire area and the continued imbalance towards expenditure on car transportation (specifically cars, because no such expensive works would be required even with a significant increase in public transport). A continuing progressive rebalancing is urgently needed.
2. As outlined, the proposed improvements to the cycle network are piecemeal and will result in little more than one significant cycle route - from Leamington to Kenilworth and on past Warwick University to the outskirts of Coventry - a sort of HS2 for cyclists with few linkages to any wider, safe alternative transport environment. All the rest of the cycle transport network consists and will continue to consist of (slightly upgraded) a hotchpotch of routes, sometimes partial, sometimes on roads, sometimes on pavements, usually ending just before a point where real investment is needed to provide safe facilities for cyclists, frequently ignored by drivers, who drive on them or park on them apparently with impunity because infringements are rarely if ever policed. They are also designed with little consideration of the desire (and need) of cyclists to travel efficiently - crossings and road junctions seem designed primarily for car users and to favour smooth flows for cars rather than for cyclists or pedestrians. Against this background of historical lack of delivery, all of the protestations about maximising sustainable travel, reducing the impact of car-based travel in the region appear to be just more hot air, unlikely to be realised.
3. The Warwick District Council plan requires a long-term strategic plan to establish a basic infrastructure (with targets for initial delivery and targets for extensions and improvements) if the health and amenity benefits of walking and cycling are ever to be properly realised and the mobility interests of disabled people to be addressed. The suggestion of enhanced green-corridors outlined in the comments on 5.1 above could be one element, which could be matched in all of the other major development sites. The strategy should then be to establish a network of major routes for personal non-car/motorbike travel within and between the local population areas, which could inter alia include:
a) a continuous tarred riverside pedestrian/cycle route from Warwick to Leamington with a pedestrian/cycle bridge to cross the Avon and the Leam/Avon junction (this route has been facilitated by the proposals to develop the old Guide Dogs for the Blind property and the 8 metre buffer zone from the watercourse to the development boundary) and would be relatively easy to achieve from St Nicholas Park to the Campion Hills, providing a safe alternative transport spine between the two towns. Appropriate long-term targets would be to enhance this so as to provide, in the longer term, an uninterrupted route with no interactions with conventional road traffic.
b) a continuous tarred canal-side route from Sydenham to Warwick Parkway Station created by cutting back growth and works to maximise the width where possible. Appropriate long-term targets would be to explore options for creating more space underneath existing bridges (perhaps as bridges are maintained/redeveloped), a link to Warwick hospital and railway station and towards the town centre, a link to the new southern development and riverside route, a link to Leamington station and on to Whitnash.
c) a south-north route within the town, from the station across the Leam and Pump Room Gardens and to Clarendon Road up Binswood street and Tavistock Street, which should both be made pedestrian/cycle and deliveries only. An extension up Beauchamp Road to Binswood Avenue would create a very efficient safe path for non-car users, especially children cycling to school, through the town with minimal impacts and possible improved footfall for shops, the loss of relatively few parking spaces and mostly positive impact for car drivers (the main town centre parking sites are along this route - all reachable from Augusta Place, Windsor street and Russell Street).
d) the effective extension of the cycle path past Guy's Cliffe to Coventry by identifying the B4115 as a road primarily for non-car use. This would not require the banning of traffic but through/inessential traffic could be minimised by enforcing a low speed limit and making some sections one-way only, so facilitating car and cycle separation. Long-term targets for this route, which could become the major inter-urban link for the area could include a link from Old Milverton to Hill Wootton with a pedestrian/cycle bridge across the Avon, links to Leek Wootton and Kenilworth across existing pedestrian/farm bridges, an extension from Old Milverton to Trinity School/North Leamington School along the backs of the allotments. An extension into Coventry could also be negotiated.
e) Alternative personal transport users, like car drivers, need secure places to leave their cycles, mobility vehicles, and other equipment. At all important destinations (stations, shopping malls and town centre locations, parks, etc.), provision of spaces where such vehicles can be securely parked should also be factored into a strategy with longer-term improvement targets - preferably with a good proportion protected from the weather and -if feasible - some provision for lock-up storage.
These proposals are not intended to favour the existing cycling community, though they would clearly benefit them. They are aimed at the increasing number of people who would like to cycle, who would like their children to cycle, but fear to do so because of the evident dangers of cycling in an environment which is so skewed in favour of cars that cyclists are ignored and resented in equal measure. Equally importantly, they are also aimed at benefitting pedestrians and the less mobile, who would welcome more, safer infrastructure to facilitate their travel. Safer cycling would increase uptake, reduce school-run impacts and other traffic problems, improve air quality, improve health, reduce healthcare costs - and be much cheaper than conventional roads to establish and maintain. The demographics of Leamington undoubtedly favour a progressive policy of this kind and could help to sustain the attractiveness of this area for young, highly-educated entrepreneurs.

If this is not the correct channel through which to do this then please let me know.

I have 3 main objections to the plan for the following area (which I will detail later)

1) The assumption of the need for growth
2) The disproportionate new development to the south of Leamington and Whitnash
3) Particular objections to the development East of Whitnash

1) The assumption for the need for growth should be challenged by those within the authority because
a) There are areas of the UK (Including parts of the West Midlands) where proposed new employment and associated housing could be easily facilitated on brown field sites giving a positive impact on neglected communities and infrastructure. These sites may well prove less profitable for developers - but private company profits must not come first
b) Students Housing - A considerable and increasing number of houses in Leamington have been converted into student accommodation. If student accommodation was built nearer to transport hubs (or indeed the university) these houses could be converted back into normal residential use. The district should consider stopping all future conversions of housing into student housing if it genuinely believes all of the proposed homes are actually needed by local communities
c) Shops - with the rapid rise of internet shopping the conversion of shops on the fringe of the town centre into residential use should be considered as a step towards solving the perceived housing issue
2) The disproportionate new development to the south of Leamington and Whitnash
The character of the Whitnash area has already been greatly scarred with the development of Warwick Gates, Dobson Lane, recent Chesterton Heights/Sydenham encroachment on the countryside and extension of the South Farm development. It is time that other areas of district share in the development (if indeed it is truly necessary).
May be we should wait until the HS2 decision is finalised and place housing in the areas close to the line which those to the north of the town seemingly consider will be blighted beyond use anyway.
3) Particular objections to the development East of Whitnash
a) This development is a typical 'Sprawl' brought about purely by the fact that a developer is already in ownership of the land.
b) The development of Warwick Gates has already led to issues surrounding the shortage of primary school places in the local area. These new houses will be even closer to Briar Hill and St Margaret's Primary so there will be even more parents chasing few places.
c) Some of the fields in question are often subject to flooding. Any work to reduce their flooding risk could lead to increased risk elsewhere.

I OBJECT to the proposed Local Plan on the following basis:
1) To propose that approximately half the total news homes in the plan should be built off
Europa Way and Gallows Hill is simply incomprehensible. No realistic plan would
concentrate so much green field development in a single area of Warwick.
2) The identified need for 6,630 dwellings in the plan period is highly spurious - based on the
premise that the more homes provided, the more people want to move to Warwick. How
does that stack up with road building ‐ the more road space provided, the more traffic is
generated and the original problem is back again.
3) Suggesting that homes cannot be built on the greenbelt is not satisfactory. Not even a child
studying basic geography would draw urbanisation in one area of a city. If the greenbelt is a
no go area (which I don't believe it is) then the number of dwellings in the plan should be
reduced. The greenbelt is an arbitrary line and the A46 goes right through it. The A46 would
provide plenty of existing infrastructure to accommodate new development adjacent to
existing interchanges.
4) WDC squandered the Ford foundry site, a real brown field that could have accommodated
250 dwellings when Morrisons was approved. This site really did meet the requirement for
sustainable development with a rail station 250m away and walking distance to Leamington
town centre. Furthermore, WDC has allowed increased density of the existing south west
Warwick development after outline permissions were granted - what is to stop developers
and WDC agreeing the same for locations proposed off Gallows Hill and Europa Way? The
track record of WDC is poor.
5) I have reviewed the transport assessment accompanying the plan and it appears to simply
involve modifications to existing roads, trying to get more cars per hour over existing
tarmac. No town in mainland Europe the size of Warwick would allow future development
to put such additional pressure on a mediaeval town road network. The town does not even
have a by‐pass since the M40 was built. Adding signals and widening approaches to every
junction and roundabout on the A425, B4100 and A425 is like building an elevated
motorway in the 1970's. It is wishful thinking to assume the new developments will not be
car dependant and traffic will not make Warwick town centre worse.
The development allocation for the south of Warwick town should be reduced by 2/3rds. Why
doesn't the plan include something useful like another fuel filling station in the area? The fuel
station at Sainsbury's is the 2nd busiest in the country (2nd only to a site with more pumps). This is
the most prevalent fact summarising the impact of development over the last 25 years in south
Warwick - the town simply can't take any more development due to physical constraints.

see attached

Please see below my representations to WDC's Consultation Programme on the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan. I object to the proposals on the following grounds:

* The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the local hospitals and schools.
* The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the amenity services such as water and drainage.
* There would be increased traffic congestion on all the roads in this area (for example: Banbury Road, Bridge End, Myton Road, Europa Way etc. and the knock on effects beyond). These roads do not cope well with current levels of traffic and any improvements to traffic flow would only improve it for that traffic and not for the vast increase in traffic flow associated with the proposed developments. All car and bus journeys in these areas would become much slower and the increase in the need for town centres car parking would be put under yet further pressure.
* The District Council has proposed the need to provide about 12,000 houses of which nearly half are to the south of Warwick and Leamington, even though the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by 2030.
* The combined sites result in a large loss of agricultural land when there is a need for more and cheaper food and the local farming community losing jobs from the rural economy.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed sites and exploit those properly first.
* WDC should combine its requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should designate large areas of land the south of Warwick and Leamington including Warwick Castle Park and its surrounds, The Asps and proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to protect the natural beauty of this part of the county (as it is to the north of the county) and to retain the identity and boundaries of the villages by surrounding them with Greenbelt to include proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 12, 16 and 20. This will spread the pressure around the county for new developments rather than focus it to the south.
* The proposal to build 70-90 new houses in Barford (a "Secondary Service Village") would have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children. The school would not be able to accommodate more school children associated with this additional housing and is therefore not sustainable.

see attached

General Observations

WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would enable better integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are all being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses. WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as a school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

Ecology and Environment - all of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.

WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object to the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy & wish this to be recorded formally & my further comments passed to the ultimate decision making authority

In summary,I believe the proposal is not sustainable on environmental, economic and social grounds

1. Housing needs - the assumption of business growth & housing needs are unrealistic given that there are already over 5,000 empty homes in Warwickshire, 5 business units on Smith Street in Warwick unlet, land next to Morrisons supermarket unsaleable to business & many business units in both Leamington & Warwick that have become unlet or charity shops because businesses are not viable, given the economic conditions. Furthermore, there are already a number of residential developments that have recently been built or started within close proximity of the proposed developments & they are still not sold or occupied. With the proposal for housing to be built near Lighthorne Heath, any possible increase in jobs for Jaguar Land Rover is already covered. As a result, the likelihood is that the number of commuters would increase as a result of more houses South of Warwick - putting more pressure on roads in & around both Warwick & Leamington train stations which is already high at peak times.

2. Car parking - there is already a shortage of adequate car parking space in & around Warwick. Despite the building of the Warwick Technology Park & the plan for adequate car parking spaces, currently over 40 cars are parking on the verge of Gallows Hill. Increasing numbers of cars because of extra housing will result in an even bigger car parking problem unless attractive alternative means of transport are provided. The current provision of a cycle path on both Myton Road & the Banbury Roads are not fit for purpose as they are not continuous & likely to lead to more accidents.

3. Environment - one of the main generators of income to the local economy is the success of Warwick castle. The views from Warwick castle would be significantly disturbed if the Local Plan were to be approved. The proposal to build houses on the land South of Warwick on Gallows Hill off Banbury Road would mean the green views from Warwick Castle would be destroyed - any proposal needs to be environmentally sensitive.

4. Gas emissions - the air quality is already over the guidelines in both Smith Street & Jury Street, Warwick. The Local Plan would result in a significant increase in car journeys & traffic congestion in & around Warwick (particularly on St Nicholas Street, Mill Street, Banbury Road, Myton Road & Bridge End) - what action is being taken to ensure the resolution of known & forecast air quality problems ? The significant detrimental effects on health & buildings as a result of the increase in gas emissions is unsustainable.

5. Traffic mitigation schemes - the proposed mitigation schemes will only result in complete chaos given that the Avon bridge can only have 2 lanes & so this will result in a bottleneck, particularly at peak periods & when there is a major incident such as a crash on the M40, roadworks, need for Emergency vehicles to pass. The accuracy of the the assumptions used to predict traffic flows need to be checked.

6. Safety of pedestrians (particularly the young, old & disabled) & cyclists are not properly considered in the revised local plan when taking into account their needs to cross roads & access shops, services such as doctors, schools & businesses. This applies particularly to Myton Road, Banbury Road, St Nicholas & Smith Streets - especially, given the significant number of residents & visitors & road users requiring access to Warwick Castle, St Nicholas Park, Warwick School, Myton School & Coten End School.

7. The importance of the Conservation Area south of Warwick, including Bridge End. What special measures are being taken to mitigate the impact of traffic & consequence noise & pollution on the conservation area in the light of its architectural, historic, tourist & environmental importance.

8. Infrastructure - the pressure on local services such as the hospital, education, social services & education is too great. They are already suffering. Furthermore, the drainage systems of South Warwick near & around the river already appear to be inadequate for current users.

Overall, the main practical problem seems to be the likely bottleneck of traffic on the bridge over the River Avon on the Banbury Road, Warwick. What is needed is a plan in which traffic is actively managed away from the bridge on Banbury Road - why is this not included in the revised plan when it is clearly needed ? and all traffic needs to be diverted away from the centre of Warwick. A super highway bypass is needed which would enable the plan to be sustainable & a major re- think of if & where new houses are really needed then perhaps land closer to Coventry or even North of Leamington would be a better balanced fit for a plan to be more sustainable on environmental, economic & social grounds.

Please will you acknowledge safe receipt of these comments & confirm they will be passed on to the appropriate decision making authority.

My first concern is why the need for all the new build in the area.
I suspect it is NOT for our future generations but for the EU allowing any tom - dick or harry into the UK.
This situation will obviously get worse with the New Year intake from Romania and Bulgaria.
Why has any build been diverted from the North side of town? Is that where money talks?
The influx of Eastern Europeans has already down graded the area I live in. Worked hard, bought a house, improved it, street now 'buy to let'.
We have paid into the system all our lives and seen all the hard work of generating a property to the value of £200,000 plus drop to 170,000 due to the buy to let factor.
Who do we claim compensation from due to EU regs allowing what is happening to the UK.
Mr Cameron & Co do not have to live with all this type of change to their community, but they allow it.
I think I speak my concerns on behalf of more people than you realise.

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

Air Quality

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

Transport

I believe the strategy is car based and will push even more congestion onto the existing road network. It is obvious that building a dual carriageway to the river Avon bridge will just bring increased traffic to a halt. Also the current bridge was not built to take the potential amount of traffic. Parking in Warwick is already difficult enough, this plan will make matters far worse. As for traffic at the Morrison roundabout on the Myton Road, I shudder to think of the implications on the bridge overlooking the most beautiful view of the castle in Warwick.

Projected Housing

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

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

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

Historic Environment

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

Funding

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

National Planning Policy

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

Gypsy Sites

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I am writing to you all to register my strong objection to the Warwick District Council New Local Plan.

I appreciate there will be a need for a certain amount of new housing over the coming years but believe that this plan it enormously biased and unfair. The scale of proposed building sites encircling us is unbelievable.

Almost all of the proposed sites are 'South of the River' with barely anything in North Leamington or elsewhere. Why is this? Is it felt that the south is not as rich and therefore the people are not as important? Is it believed that the residents in these areas don't need green spaces and views, areas to 'breath'? Is it felt that the children living here shouldn't have the option of attending a single form intake school? Or do you believe that we just don't care what you do to our home towns?

I live in Whitnash, and I love Whitnash. I have an active role in community life and I am raising my two children to love and respect their town. I have many concerns with your poposal.

Firstly the HUGE loss of green fields, the trees, wildlife, the views, the areas to walk to with the kids and just stand and be peaceful and look at the view. This is enormously important to people, their wellbeing and their health. Too many people and not enough space leads to a reduced quality of life. And the damage to our local wildlife should also be of great concern to you all.

Please can you tell me why planning permission was granted to have THREE new supermarkets built within spitting distance from a huge Sainsburys? We do not need this much choice for our weekly shop! Why were these areas of Brownfield land not used for housing? And why isn't a greater effort being made to bring back into use the many derelict homes in warwickshire?

I am also very concerned that this amount of housing would bring THOUSANDS of new families and children to our area. Where will they go to school? After Warwick Gates was built, Briar Hill school became a three form intake. I DO NOT want my children to be one of 90 four year olds starting school. I want the option of a single form intake as it currently is at Whitnash Primary. Please can you tell me what plans there are to cope with this or if our local schools will be forced to increase in size? And what will our secondary schools do? Do you plan to cram more kids into there too?

The volume of traffic is lightly to increase to a level that makes travelling in the area unbearable. No matter what new road traffic management systems you come up with, you cannot make a potential 22, 000 cars disappear. What will life be like? Ages spent on the road just to 'pop' into Warwick and misery brought to all those who commute to the area. The area leading from the M40 up to Europa Way is already a nightmare. Will this make the area attractive to workers and employers? Let alone residents.

Pressure on our ONE busy hospital, doctor's surgeries, children's nurseries, potential flooding, loss of agricultural land and the misery, sadness and anger brought to so many Warwickshire residents. Just a few more of my concerns.

Please do not destroy the very things that make living here so great. I, like so many others, love this area very much and am proud to live here. If you allow these developments to go ahead I believe that there will be a great number of voters that will never forgive you. I hope that you have the intelligence, decency and humility to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new 'Plan'.

The housing boom proposed in the latest W.D.C. Local Plan is unacceptable to the residents of Warwick, and is demonstrably against all government (local and central) and European Union policies.
The perceived demand for housing is based on false data and the aspirations of, and pressures brought on the Council by developers and central government, with no regard for local needs or the wishes of residents. The number of new houses proposed is twice that required to meet local demand. The demand data used is an extrapolation of past housebuilding in a boom period when mortgages were easy to obtain, and bears no resemblance to actual demand in the current economic climate.

Half the sites proposed for development are on greenfield land to the south of the built-up areas of Warwick and Leamington, and would thus require the new residents to travel through these two towns to the new expected employment sites south of Coventry. The resulting air pollution in the centre of Warwick, already above the legal limit, would increase even further, endangering the health of residents and visitors alike. No ameliorating proposals are being considered.

The infrastructure required for development on this scale is substantial - health services (including Warwick Hospital), schools, leisure and community facilities - but all are ignored in the Local Plan. From past experience of similar developments the provision of adequate infrastructure after the completion of the housing has not materialised.

I ask you to bring pressure to bear on the District Council to rethink the strategy and
1. revise downwards the quantity of new housing proposed;
2. reconsider the location of new housing to take into account the location of employment;
3. insist that the requisite infrastructure is completed before the housing is occupied.
4. make public its proposals to ameliorate the damage to health of residents and visitors alike by the increase in traffic pollution inherent in the suggested location of new housing.

For the attention of the Development Policy Manager

I have attended recent planning meetings and have read the documents relating to the Local Plan and I am writing to you to object to the revised development strategy for the Local Plan.

Housing estimates

The projected demand for new houses is 12,300. This is a huge number of houses and would equate to 8 times the size of Warwick Gates. The Revised Development Strategy gives no justification for this demand either in terms of demographic changes or more importantly the future assessment for employment in the district.

From the recent local meetings, it appears that a realistic forecast of demand would mean that we already have the required five year supply of sites to fulfill the employment forecasts.

The National Planning Policy Framework specifically states that councils should take into account neighbouring schemes and yet no mention is made of the proposals by Stratford District Council to build a new 'village' of 4500 homes near Gaydon, which would be nearer to Warwick than Stratford. This is another 3 x Warwick Gates. There must be some overlap in the assumptions made for the demand in such a small area and the plan should not proceed until that demand is justified by realistic assumptions.
Any housing demand should be satisfied by smaller developments spread throughout the district, not huge developments located in the area south of Warwick. Since over 70% of the district is Green Belt , the future expansion of the whole district is forced into the relatively small area South of Warwick. This is a ridiculously unfair proposition and is within the power of the Council to change.

Transport

Warwick currently has major traffic congestion problems. The development of a huge number of new houses, equivalent to 11 x Warwick Gates, will create massive congestion around Warwick and there is no evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure changes will provide any significant improvements to ease that congestion.

Air Quality

The air quality issue is of great concern. I understand that air pollution levels in Warwick and Leamington already exceed the legal limit. The District Council is required to improve air quality. The expansion of the population and cars in the town will increase the levels of pollution and could well bring risk of significant health issues.


Warwick Hospital.

Continuing on the theme of health, Warwick hospital is a relatively small hospital just about coping with the needs of the current population. Add 8 x Warwick Gates (plus the likely effect of the Gaydon 'village' - 3 x Warwick Gates) and it is clear that the demands will exceed the capacity of the hospital to cope with the increased population. The national press is currently highlighting the damage to communities around the country where hospitals cannot cope with the local demand.

Historic Environment

There is no doubt that the plans will ruin the visual look of Warwick forever. The increase in traffic and people will deter visitors and affect the local economy. We need to conserve the beauty of Warwick not plan to destroy it.

Gypsy & Traveller Sites

Whatever the criteria used for the selection of sites, it appears that over half of the sites have been allocated to the relatively small area south of Warwick. (the same area which is proposed to take all the huge new housing developments ! ). Does it not seem inequitable that there is only one site near the north of Leamington; similarly inequitable that there are no sites at all in Kenilworth, Leek Wooton, Lapworth, Rowington and Shrewley. The identification of sites should be fair and equitable.

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

I write with reference to the Proposed Revised Development Strategy for Warwick and Leamington as proposed by the local Council and my concerns in this regard.

As a local resident I have grave concerns regarding the proposed plan for our town and the effect this will have on the local environment and more importantly the historic and wonderful town of Warwick.

I understand the overall plan proposes over 12,000 new homes in Warwick and Leamington and in particular the overly proposed allocation of 6,630 new homes south of Warwick town. I have been advised that based on the last 10 years births and marriages a truer reflection of our needs would be 5,400 new homes. I am gravely concerned that the over populating of our town with in excess of 12,000 homes will have adverse effects in many ways and am not convinced that this proposal is a true reflection of our requirements.

I believe this proposal will be the ruination of historic Warwick which should be protected at all costs. This proposed plan is not a sustainable development and is not in the interest of Warwick but favours the feathering of developers pockets only.

The loss of agricultural land and green space is appalling and the plan saturates the south of Warwick with over development whilst the North of Warwick is spared. Whilst the North of Warwick is allocated as Green Belt land the South is equally if not more important to retain as green land and the Council should have protected this by applying for Green Belt status for this area.

I remain concerned that the increase in traffic that such a development would cause has not been properly considered and whilst dual carriage ways are proposed for all main routes from the M40, the volume of traffic trying to cross over what can only ever be 3 bridges over the river will bottle neck and cause Warwick to come to a complete stand still during peak hours. I am particularly concerned that the Bridge over the river by the castle simply cannot cope with this level of traffic and will be destroyed. It is considered that 76% of traffic will be through traffic crossing to the North side of Warwick towards employment in the Coventry area. To develop the South instead of the North is simply ridiculous.

The Air Quality in Warwick is at illegal level already, and as my husband is a sufferer of asthma since we moved here we know the importance only too well of this problem. It has recently also been linked to cancer and as such I would request the Council to provide information regarding the Health Impact and a commitment to what plans they have to resolve what will be already illegal and unacceptable levels.

No commitment to what impact this excessive development will have with regard to if the local facilities such as the Hospital has been provided.

As a resident of Saumur Way, I am absolutely horrified that not only will our wonderful Warwickshire views be destroyed but that our quiet cul-de-sac is to become a through road. A key factor in our purchase of our home 15 years ago. The cycle path that is frequented by school children and is a safe passage way for their journey to school will become a danger spot. Whilst we are assured that only a section of the proposed estate will access from Saumur Way and bollards will prevent other cars from using this access, it is obvious that motor cycles will use this route as a rat run to the Myton Road.

Not only is this development proposed but an additional 1,900 homes at Light Heath currently being applied for which will add another 4,000 vehicles crossing through Warwick. It would seem that Warwick Council and Stratford Council have not liaised regarding this development and therefore this additional traffic is not considered in the Warwick Plan.

The proposal allocates a certain amount of land set aside for business development. Currently allocated business assigned land cannot be sold for this purpose and is in the propose of being re-allocated for housing. An indication that this proposal will not be sustainable and will increase the unemployment of Warwick.

I am concerned off the flooding indications of such a development. In the recent winter the fields of the Henry VIII trust land currently farm land were flooded and I know that in previous years this land has flooded onto the properties within the Saumur Way site. I do not believe the area can safely accommodate such a development without flooding risk to the houses already here.

I strongly object to this proposed development plan which I believe to be the ruination of a wonderful historic town destroying and altering forever the landscape and views from our wonderful Castle which can never be undone.

As a Kenilworth resident, I am writing to express my concerns about the Local Plan.

I outline a number of concerns below, which are not clarified sufficiently, or have been conveniently side-stepped, in the 'preferred options summary'.

My main concern however, is infrastructure planning, and in particular, sixth form education in the Kenilworth area. There is a lot of talk about the need to provide additional school places, but not enough focus on 16-18 education places. What plans are there to increase 16-18 education infrastructures within the local plan, which, coupled with government plans for children to stay on in education until the age of 18, will be crucial in the very near future? Kenilworth School Sixth Form is already oversubscribed and won't be accessible to large numbers of Kenilworth children if the proposals for new housing in such large numbers go ahead.

In addition:
* Where is the predicted growth in housing coming from? Is there really statistical evidence to show that Kenilworth specifically will need additional housing at such a growth rate?
* How will the plan be funded? I'm particularly interested to hear why tax payers will be expected to fund sites for non-tax paying communities which the current proposals suggest.
* The plan may be adopted in 2014 - but what are the timescales for implementation?
* What exactly are the employment opportunities that these developments will bring, beyond the build phase?
* Road and rail networks will be key. Traffic in the Thickthorn area is already heavy at peak times.

I am writing to object to the draft Local Plan that has been proposed by Warwick District Council on the following grounds:

The estimates for the demand for new houses are based on very unclear evidence and assumptions. Many other districts make some attempt to justify their housing demands based not only on the change in demographics but more importantly the estimates for growth in employment in the area (and what the plans will do to stimulate that growth). The Revised Development Strategy adopts an interim level of growth of 12300 homes between 2011-29, and quotes various studies but there is no hard evidence in the document to substantiate the huge growth contained within the estimate.
To get an idea of the scale of the demand, I drove around Warwick Gates with its own community centre, health centre, and shops serving around 1500 houses. This is a big development. The local plan estimates the Warwick District will need the equivalent of 8 x Warwick Gates to satisfy the housing demand. We need some hard evidence to substantiate that scale of development!
The National Planning Policy Framework specifically states that councils should take into account neighbouring schemes and yet no mention is made of the proposals by Stratford District Council to build a new 'village' of 4500 homes near Gaydon, which would be nearer to Warwick than Stratford. This is another 3 x Warwick Gates. There must be some overlap in the assumptions made for the demand in such a small area and the plan should not proceed until that demand is justified by realistic assumptions.

The plan defines the location for about 6000 of these homes. It proposes to put the vast majority ( nearly 3 x Warwick Gates ) in a small area south of the Warwick. The rationale for the location of the major developments in this area seems to be that the Green Belt protects development elsewhere in the county. When the Green Belt land was established, north of the towns of Warwick and Leamington, it was intended to stop urban sprawl. There is no difference in practical terms between the 'green' land to the north of the district and the south of the district. They are both green and they both should be protected from urban sprawl. The council has the powers to use the Green Belt land for development and not use it as an excuse to condense all future development into a small area south of Warwick.

The subject of transport is the most baffling part of the plan. We live on Myton Road and we chose to live there because of the difficulties of commuting to the centre of the town. Everyone who has to get into or through Warwick knows of the huge traffic problems around the town. The proposed infrastructure improvements seem to ignore the fact there will always be 'pinch points' where roads cross the river. These cannot be overcome by improvements to junctions and dual carriageways. There will be much more congestion as a result of the proposed massive increase in housing in the area (11 x Warwick Gates ). The house occupants will be reliant on cars, usually with more than one car per family. There has been no clear data ( from traffic simulations ) to show the effect on traffic congestion in the area. It is not realistic to estimate an increase of over 12000 homes ( most of which will be in the area south of Warwick ) and have an infrastructure plan which simply improves traffic junctions. This is not a sound basis of a sensible plan for a town that is already experiencing huge traffic problems.

Warwick already has air quality issues, which will be exacerbated with the increase in pollution caused by the introduction of additional large numbers of cars crawling through the streets of the town. The residents of Warwick should not be exposed to this additional risk and the school children of Warwick School and Myton School rely on sensible adults to protect them.

The demands on the infrastructure for schools and hospitals will greatly increase. In particular, the demands on Warwick Hospital have not been adequately assessed. This is a relatively small hospital just about coping with the needs of the current population. Add 8 x Warwick Gates (plus the likely effect of the Gaydon 'village' - 3 x Warwick Gates) and it is clear that the demands will exceed the capacity of the hospital to cope with the increased population.

In summary, this is not a plan that shows how Warwick District will grow and change over the coming years. It is simply a charter for house developers. The demands for housing are speculative and excessive. They have no declared employment projections and no mention of the effects of adjoining developments in Gaydon. The concentration of development into one area conveniently relies on green belt rules, which could be easily overcome. The effects on Warwick in terms of traffic, pollution and health are not adequately addressed and I hope that the plan will be reconsidered before we go down a route, which will ruin such a beautiful town. As a newcomer, my sense is that the outrage shown by the people of Warwick is not a NIMBY reaction but a genuine desire to oppose a plan, which would have such an adverse affect on their town. The Council's stated vision is 'to make Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit'. It is inconceivable that this plan can fulfil that vision and the plan should be rethought, involving the people of the district to satisfy that vision.

Concerning your proposals, I would like to raise the following objections:
>
> The excessive targets for new homes would ruin the historic county town of Warwick. There is no evidence for this requirement and no mandate from the community to support it.
>
> The proposed development is unbalanced, meaning that the south of Warwick will be overburdened. This would be especially detrimental given the proposed development by Stratford District Council to have 4800 new houses at Gaydon/Lighthorne. Many of the 20,000 new residents would be travelling into or through Warwick town centre for work, shopping or use of the medical facilities.
>
> The resulting huge increases in traffic would lead to severe congestion within Warwick. The historic town centre is not capable of accommodating this to allow traffic to flow in anything resembling an efficient manner. These proposals are totally inappropriate for the Conservation Area of Warwick and would damage its fabric, environment and its businesses.
>
> The resulting increases in traffic congestion would also lead to significant increases in pollution, which we know is already likely to be breaching Air Quality Regulation (England, Wales, 2000). This would be detrimental to the health of our community.
>
> In Bridge End and the surrounding area there is already a very real risk of damage to properties from flooding, particularly from drains. The 6,630 proposed new dwellings would put the drainage system under severe strain and subject many of us to damage from the inevitable flooding.
>
> We in Warwick are very proud of the heritage of Warwick castle which is vital for the town's economy. The landscape to the south of Warwick should be protected, otherwise the historic nature of the town, including views from the castle ramparts will be irrevocably damaged.
>
> Therefore we are strongly opposed to the Revised Development Strategy and hereby register our objection to this local plan.

I wish to object to the local plan on these grounds:
The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built is much too high. Half this number will be sufficient to meet local needs. It is a complete nonsense to suggest to forecast a housing need as far into the future as 2029. It is wrong to allocate greenfield land now based on this wildly inaccurate projection. Once used the greenfield land cannot be recovered.
The National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of sustainable development which meets an established housing need, but planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of housing need would mean that the District already has the required five-year supply of sites, enabling economic growth and matching the housing market.
The agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is an 'Area of Restraint'. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, turning them into a single suburban sprawl. This green space is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and it should be safeguarded just as strongly.
Transport: sprawling development is inevitably car-dependent. The transport strategy is car-based, just squeezing more congested traffic on to existing road network.
Air Quality: the already illegally dangerous pollution in streets in centres of Warwick and Leamington would be made worse by the increase in traffic. Noise and vibration would be constant, business would be damaged
The historic environment would directly be damaged by the increase in traffic and by building wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places: in Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, on Castle Hill, and at St John's; and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way, destroying the first impression of the spa town.
Other Infrastructure: I understand that development would be conditional on it funding schools, and healthcare facilities. I am concerned that the funding and provision would be inadequate. There would also be risks to water supply, sewage and drainage.
There are better alternatives. Lower housing numbers which meet local needs, especially for affordable housing, instead of encouraging in-migration; the gradual release of land for development as demand grows; giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites; building homes close to jobs and not mainly within 20% of Warwick District.

As a Kenilworth resident, I am writing to express my concerns about the Local Plan.

I outline a number of concerns below, which are not clarified sufficiently, or have been conveniently side-stepped, in the 'preferred options summary'.

My main concern however, is infrastructure planning, and in particular, sixth form education in the Kenilworth area. There is a lot of talk about the need to provide additional school places, but not enough focus on 16-18 education places. What plans are there to increase 16-18 education infrastructures within the local plan, which, coupled with government plans for children to stay on in education until the age of 18, will be crucial in the very near future? Kenilworth School Sixth Form is already oversubscribed and won't be accessible to large numbers of Kenilworth children if the proposals for new housing in such large numbers go ahead.

In addition:
* Where is the predicted growth in housing coming from? Is there really statistical evidence to show that Kenilworth specifically will need additional housing at such a growth rate?
* How will the plan be funded? I'm particularly interested to hear why tax payers will be expected to fund sites for non-tax paying communities which the current proposals suggest.
* The plan may be adopted in 2014 - but what are the timescales for implementation?
* What exactly are the employment opportunities that these developments will bring, beyond the build phase?
* Road and rail networks will be key. Traffic in the Thickthorn area is already heavy at peak times.