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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object to the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy and wish this to be recorded formally and 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 s significant 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 and disabled) and cyclists are not properly considered in the revised local plan when taking into account their needs to cross roads and access shops, services such as doctors, schools and businesses. This applies particularly to Myton Road, Banbury Road, St Nicholas & Smith Streets - especially, given the significant number of residents and visitors and 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 and consequence noise and pollution on the conservation area in the light of its architectural, historic, tourist and environmental importance.

8. Infrastructure - the pressure on local services such as the hospital, social services and education would be too much. They are already suffering. Furthermore, the drainage systems of South Warwick near and 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 and a major re- think of if and 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 and social grounds.

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

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

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. Imposing massive growth on an area with little expansion of employment would create greater numbers of people who would have to commute to work, much to the detriment of the area and a poor location of people.

Warwick District has already seen much development over recent years, much of it to accommodate those moving from the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham into a less dense area. Many of those still commute into Birmingham or London and if people are prepared to work in London and commute from the Warwick district this will do nothing to help keep the prices affordable for the locals who want to continue living here.

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

Warwick District population has in fact increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately 2x the rate of increase for Warwickshire; 2x the national average increase, and over 3x the increase for West Midlands.

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

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

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area was identified as an area of restraint at the time of the agreement of planning for the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an


untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa, to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl.

There is likely to be considerable job creation towards Coventry, including up to 14,000 new jobs speculated at the Coventry Gateway scheme. Therefore several extra thousand people per day will want to drive through Warwick, morning and evening, which would lock up the highly congested Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way at peak times and also the road layout of historic Warwick.

The suggested improvement to the junction to the end of Myton Road and Banbury Road is redundant. The bottle neck of the narrow historic Avon Bridge, constrained road layout and traffic calming in the Town centre, means such provision would not ease the current backlog along Myton Road at peak times.

The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and onto the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

Development of this particular site will have a profound impact on the area where the roads are already gridlocked for a considerable period every day during school term, not to mention the excessive pollution that would be caused. It is currently possible to queue from the M40 into Leamington and the length of Myton Road in both directions with queues heading down the Banbury Road and Gallows Hill. Narrow side roads off Myton Road, in particular Myton Crescent, are blocked by parking making it difficult to negotiate these roads as the schools come out.

There is no capacity on these roads for another 2-3000 cars to exit from this triangle at peak times and join the current traffic load plus, extra traffic from other proposed developments needing to use these routes at peak times. The access to Warwick and Leamington from the site would be queued back even at a fraction of the proposed development.

There is no capacity for extra cars at the stations in either Leamington or Warwick town centres for commuters. This means additional traffic driving through Warwick at peak times to Warwick Parkway.

Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way, the area of restraint, is an area of rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken and Henry VIII Trusts. There are wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc.

This is the type of area that should be being protected for recreation and education and healthy food to have a positive impact on the quality of people's lives with the traditional land-based activities such as agriculture, new tourism, leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. By building dwellings on this land, we will have no countryside left in the urban areas to make use of to support healthy lifestyles through ensuring sufficient land is made available to all for play, sport and recreation without travelling out of the area.

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

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

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

Development on the area of restraint threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the runoff is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields. At these times both ends of Myton Crescent become flooded with the current drainage system being unable to cope.

Property in Myton Crescent was flooded when development was carried out on the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 is the danger to Public Health as a result of exposure to dangerously high Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) levels. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. In 2012, air quality remained in breach of these regulations, and will become toxically high with the increased traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. Please see weblink: http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/action-plans/WDC%20AQAP%202008.pdf and particularly page 17:

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

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

This should, with immediate effect, be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found.

The further urban fringe development of Warwick is unsustainable with respect to saturated infrastructure, constrained historic town layout, and the existing Public Health danger that exists today as a consequence of high traffic volume.

Current infrastructure including town centre rail stations, schools, GP surgeries, sewage, water, drainage are at capacity with the current population, and will not sustain the proposed increased numbers within the proposed site at zone 6.

Numbers have reduced drastically in schools over the years with those such as Trinity and North Leamington moving to smaller sites and a number of primary schools having given over part of their accommodation for other uses, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form


entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into whose catchment area the whole of that site would fall.

There are suggestions that schools would be expanded or new builds created but a new primary school was in the plans for Warwick Gates which never came into fruition.

Warwick hospital is completely surrounded by housing and has no capacity for expansion so how will they cope with another 25,000 people based on the figures of 2007 with 71% in a traditional family set up with 1.8 children.

Why do district councils have to accommodate a certain amount of housing? Should the government not just be looking for appropriate sites for building? At that same meeting in 2009 the suggestion of a perfect site around Gaydon was mentioned for a new town but the response was "It's not in Warwick District". Not only would road improvement be possible where air quality is not already in breach of regulation but this site is perfect for links to the M40 and there is also a rail station already at Kings Sutton on the main Birmingham to London line so commuting traffic would not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. To build one whole new site would be more cost effective in the long run.

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

There is also the possibility of more use being made of the land around Warwick Parkway, which is in Warwick District and again perfect for rail and road links to both Birmingham and London.

So what can be done to accommodate the Local Plan?

How about looking at sites already within the towns and regeneration areas? The infrastructure is already in place and could take out a large number of the dwellings required. I know this would not be chosen as great big swathes are cheapest but not necessarily the best option.

Build student accommodation near Warwick University in Coventry and reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, homes and family homes.

Villages could be given their communities back - expand them with affordable housing. Let those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there, stay there. Let them support the village schools and shops, some of which have closed over the past few years due to lack of numbers or use.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. The 90% of the district's population currently living in the urban areas occupy 10% of the district's land whilst the other 10% of the area's population live within the remaining 90% of the land.

The Core Strategy stated that there should be limited development within and adjoining villages so that they can be protected and the character of the villages kept. This is also the case within the towns. It is not that long ago that Whitnash was a village but is now a town along with Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth. These towns want to remain separate towns. They do not want to become joined and eventually become part of Coventry as the way Edgebaston, Hall Green, Moseley and Sparkhill are to Birmingham.



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

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attached

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


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

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

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.

The 2001 UK census, Warwick had a population of 23,350, increasing a decade later to 30,114 i.e., approximately a 50% increase. A further 12,300 homes will increase the population by approximately 29,520 i.e., doubling the size of Warwick from the last census. 12,300 houses will also increase the number of cars on Warwick roads by approximately 14,760, with this number set to increase as a proportion of households.

These two facts alone (and these are facts not forecasts) says that the Roads, Hospitals, GP Surgery, Ambulance, Police, Schools, Water supply, Sewage and general infrastructure cannot possibly cope with this volume of change, without a substantial investment. Not to mention the impact on local communities of such an increase in population. Particularly as this increase is in the main as a result of people moving into Warwick (as stated by the WDC at a recent public meeting) i.e., the local need is estimated at less than half the number proposed.

There has already been a substantial impact to the local community of the village of Barford from the dramatic increase in the volume of cars now racing through the village at peak times as a result of the increased employment in and around Warwick. These are commuters who come from outside the area and drive in via Junction 15 of the M40 and cut through the village of Barford, with the new traffic schemes in the village giving them right-of-way through the village. The impact of placing a further 4,000 cars within a mile of the village can only increase the number of cars along the already congested Barford High Street/Church Street way beyond anything that could be considered safe. This volume of cars will lead to pedestrians (most of whom are children at these peak times) being injured or killed; increased driver frustration trying to navigate through Barford and over the already weakened bridge across the Avon; navigating onto the A429 (at a junction that has already seen a fatality) and a resulting increase in road rage which will last long after they leave the village.

It is likely that many of the new houses will be occupied by people working at Sir Peter Rigby's new Gateway scheme that the WDC planers are so keen on, in which case they will either drive over the Grade II listed bridge into and through Warwick, a bridge that is already crumbling as the 7.5 tonne weight limit is regularly ignored, or, as is most likely they will attempt to navigate their way to work and back home again over the Barford bridge and into and through Barford.

Warwickshire County Council's record in traffic management schemes is not one to have confidence in considering the mess they made of the recent 'improvements' to the High Street and Jury Street. Indeed if these plans come to fruition then many of the streets in Warwick and surrounding environs will be just be arteries to and from places of work. It has been suggested that the junctions become traffic light signal controlled. If they are anything like the new scheme that has been put in place at Princess Drive and the Recycling Centre then they will be an accident waiting to happen; this adds nothing to the traffic flow and is far too complicated.

If the Gateway scheme is to be the major employer then again it is naïve on the part of the traffic planners to say there will be little impact on traffic flows. Most people will therefore be making their way to the A46 Trunk Road and either Avon Bridge or Europa Way will become very congested indeed. It is already indicated that traffic at the morning peak will be moving at less than 5mph. This means maximum pollution for very little reward.

Developers will only build houses if they can sell them. Do people want to buy them and are they affordable. However once planning permission is in place then it is very difficult to stop it; resulting in blight on the local community.

The village of Barford is already trying to come to terms with the 70 - 90 homes being discussed for the village itself. This is too much change for the village of Barford and indeed Warwick to cope with; 12,300 houses are excessive, unnecessary and totally unacceptable.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

I wish to respond and object most strongly to the Revised Local Plan. The first point I would make is that the process seems hopelessly flawed. In 2009, before the last election, the fields between Myton Road and Europa Way were earmarked for development and residents in the area objected formally in their hundreds. (Please check records. ) Yet in 2012 the Preferred Options once again earmarked this area: this time for far more development. Last year again we objected. Why is the consultation process not taken seriously?
Level of Growth
It is my understanding that during the last 12 or 13 years Warwick has undergone a large increase in population, indeed 12% since 2000, which is approximately twice the rate of increase for Warwickshire and twice the national average, and indeed three times the increase for the West Midlands. I would therefore strongly question the need for this level of growth and object to it.
Broad Location of Growth and Transport
I object to the urban fringe development of fields to the West of Europa Way. As no doubt you are aware Warwick has geographical limitations because of the river and the historical centre. Traffic from the Myton Road area is funnelled onto the Banbury Road Bridge and through the constricted town centre. The Revised Local Plan would necessitate that perhaps an extra thousand cars per day would need to cross Warwick in order to reach the A46. As someone who lives and works in Warwick and takes the children to school in Warwick, I foresee massive irresolvable problems with traffic by increasing the number of cars on roads which cannot be improved or widened.
I object to the proposed development of this area with relation to traffic on Myton Road. Myton Crescent is impassable for half an hour at the beginning and again at the end of the day due to Myton school traffic. Similarly, the Banbury Road end of Myton Road suffers in the same way when Warwick Preparatory School and Warwick Senior School begin and end.
If new employment is being created in Coventry and Gaydon, surely the sustainable planning option would be to build dwellings there? Alternatively, local villages where there are good transport links and the potential to improve road access should be developed, rather than the urban fringe development of Warwick. Hatton has a station and easy access to the A46 and Barford has immediate access to the M40 and A46.
Historic Environment and Green Infrastructure
I object specifically to developing the area west of Europa Way. It was designated an area of restraint when building work on the Technology Park took place. The notion that the Myton area will be some sort of 'garden suburb' seems to be nonsense when you look at the number of buildings proposed and the impact on the environment.
Climate Change
I try to walk my children to school when I can and I am horrified by the discovery that the entirety of Warwick town centre road network is in breach of Nitrogen Dioxide levels. This problem has been in existence long before the Preferred Options have been set out (Warwick District Air Quality Action Plan 2008), and remains in breach of these regulations today. I object to the increased public health risk which adding more cars to the centre of Warwick at peak times will certainly contribute to. Slightly outside the centre of Warwick, anyone who lives in Warwick knows how congested Myton Road is for 1.5 hours at the start of each day and again from 3.30pm until about 6pm at the end of each day. I walk past stationary vehicles and noxious fumes as I walk my children to and from school. The new Morrisons has increased congestion further. The idea of adding thousands more houses to this area and cars to this road network is desperately poor planning.
Myton Crescent floods whenever we have heavy rain, even if only for a short period of time. Houses in Myton Crescent and The Malins are at serious risk of flooding if the relief offered by the fields on the area of restraint were to be removed by building on these fields. The Revised Local Plan would seem to me to be negligent in that it is not future-proofing residents against our increasingly erratic weather patterns. I attach a photograph taken this week to stress my point.

write in response to the consultation period currently in operation with respect to the "Local Plan Revised Development Strategy."

I firstly write to support the removal of planned development on greenbelt land to the North of Milverton. Development here would be totally unacceptable and in direct contravention of the NPPF. The fact that Warwick District Council has now developed both the "Core Strategy" and "Local Plan Revised Development Strategy" without development on this greenbelt land effectively proves no exceptional circumstances exist.

To U-turn to a plan which does involve development on the North Leamington Greenbelt would be unacceptable because there would be far too great a risk of coalescence with Kenilworth and Coventry. There is a very well used public footpath running through the greenbelt land there providing an excellent leisure and exercise resource for the local people of all ages and free of cost. Trying to incorporate this into development there would not be successful and would result in a loss of that resource. Furthermore the transport assessment the council has produced/published shows that development in this area would result in greater congestion and therefore pollution than development in the South. There has quite clearly been immense local opposition in the previous consultation to development on this greenbelt land and all the points raised opposing development there that were raised in the previous consultation must be carried forward to this consultation, I will not be able to list them all here but expect them to be noted in the summary of consultation responses to this consultation, to not do this would be a lack of joined-up thinking by the council. In short development on the North Leamington Greenbelt would be in direct contravention to the NPPF in terms of not meeting the exceptional circumstances requirement, would be unsustainable for the future of the district and would require an entire new consultation process which the district does not have time to do because of the serious delays that have already been incurred in getting this plan out and the subsequent knock of damaging effects of not having a plan.

I realise that a Joint Strategic Housing Need Assessment has occurred or is on-going, it is essential that the council put together a strong argument as to why Warwick District cannot accommodate any of Coventry's housing needs. However if they fail to do this it is imperative that any additional development is not located on the land to the North of Leamington - indeed there are further development opportunities on non-greenbelt land and on brownfield land that must be brought to bear first. For example the removal of development from "The Asps" is bizarre. The argument is that development would be seen from the castle and therefore would change the historic setting of the castle. Castles were traditionally built on hills in order to look over the towns they were charged with, if there was to be a heritage loss by building on land that can be seen from the castle/can see the castle then development around almost every castle in the entire country would be, according to these principles, incorrect! Indeed there have been many developments in view of the castle/viewing the castle in recent times. This argument is null and void, the heritage value is within the castle itself and it's immediate surroundings (which the Asps does not qualify as). Should you want to preserve a view of the castle from the Asps then this could easily be incorporated by use of a linear park. The Asps is just one example of many non-greenbelt sites that should be built on before greenbelt land.

Furthermore should more housing be needed, a proper, formal assessment of a new village to the South of the district has not been completed, there is ample space to build one of these and this assessment must be completed before development is considered on greenbelt land. This assessment should be started from the position of "Is it possible to build a new village in the South of the district?"

Finally the council has identified a huge number of potential gypsy sites, the requirements needed to make each site suitable to be selected are very similar to the requirements needed to make sites suitable for housing developments. Therefore all proposed gypsy sites that do not accommodate gypsys could accommodate housing development before greenbelt land. This particularly includes land to the West of Warwick Racecourse that is conspicuous in it's absence from planned development - whilst some of this site floods the majority of it does not, and can therefore be built on. The allocation of the site as a potential gypsy site includes the "racecourse spur," unless the council has been disingenuous in it's inclusion of the site as a potential gypsy site then this spur should thus not create a barrier to development, finally there is already road access to this site and it has been offered up for development by it's owners.

There are therefore many options for development of housing on land that is not greenbelt land to the North of Leamington and these must be built on before development on the greenbelt. Were the plan to develop on the North Leamington Greenbelt be re-ignited then so would the immense local opposition and the plan would be fought right through to the inspectorate and judicial review beyond that, based on the sound knowledge that the plan would be the wrong plan for the future of the district.

There are positive aspects to the current plan, which is why it should remain in place; by placing development in the South then accommodation can be near existing employment facilities and the M40. Concerns raised by people across the county about pollution and congestion clearly demonstrate that development should be in the South. The transport assessment shows that development in the South reduces pollution compared to building in the North. This goes not only for the current plan, but also should any more development be needed - this too should be located in the South. If development was not located in the South then people would have to travel to supermarkets, employment land and to the motorway and there is no convincing guarantees whatsoever that this could be mitigated.

A further advantage to the development in the South is that public services can be targeted to that particular area, with new schools etc, that are purpose built to meet the needs of that population, spreading development over the district with bits here and there would mean a make-do-and-mend approach would need to be taken, with worse outcomes for the current population, future population and the education of the next generation.

At meetings regarding the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy there have been arguments that the plan is 'not fair.' These and other simply emotional arguments should be ignored, the plan is fair - there remain plans for development in North Leamington, including on the greenbelt eg at Thichthorn and Lillington and significant development in villages including Milverton . Emotional arguments should be ignored and politics should not intervene in planning the future development of our district. Planning should be based on planning principles. Indeed the reason that these emotional arguments have arisen, I believe is not due to the plan itself, but the way it has been presented to residents by the council. For example development in direct-contravention to the NPPF should never have been proposed in the North Leamington Greenbelt in the first place, doing this has caused the South to see "a change" this should never have happened, furthermore there has been no attempts to demonstrate the attractive nature of development to the South. For instance better and bigger provision of schools, pollution mediation methods, or the advantages of the Community Infrastructure Levy. Perhaps the greatest failing is the failure to properly use the proposed country park to the South of the Town to mitigate development and improve that area for local residents, rather than build it on the outside of the town so far fewer people can benefit from it. I will now discuss this in greater detail:.








Proposed Country Park to South of Town

The proposed country park demonstrated in the image on the left is totally in the wrong place. It has I believe been put there not for planning reasons, but for political reasons. It has been put there to appease the tiny minority of people who live in Bishop's Tachbrook. Interestingly the county councillor for Bishop's Tachbrook is the district councillor who seems to be in charge of the local plan.
I agree that a park in this area is absolutely essential to development in this area, but rather than being placed on the outside of the new development it should be placed bordering the existing housing. This would mitigate the quality of life impact of the new development for people living in existing housing. It would also act as a green lung and therefore help to mitigate the pollution impact of new development. In effect locating it next to existing development it could mitigate the concerns of the many existing local residents have and what will no doubt be their responses to this consultation. This should be the council's response to their concerns.
In it's current form this park is in direct contravention to the NPPF - it is not sustainable as the plan states that is would create a permanent boundary to the South of the town. This is unsustainable. Development cannot happen to the North of the town due to risk of coalesnce with the major urban areas of both Kenilworth and Coventry. However the next major urban area to the South is Banbury many miles away. Therefore in the future the town must develop Southwards and this park prevents that and is unsustainable because it fails the NPPF's economic test of sustainability - "ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation;" it contravenes it's social test for sustainability "meet the needs of present and future generations;" and it fails the environmental test by not maximally "minimis(ing) waste and pollution" as a park adjacent to existing development would act as a green lung and reduce pollution.
The park also contravenes the NPPF because building this park adjacent to existing development and not where currently planned would contribute to "improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure" as this land would be more accessible to more people and would thus be more of a "creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives." By having walking and cycleways across this park this would encourage sustainable activity again meeting the NPPF's demand to "actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling."
Using this park in this way would also take account of point 66 in the NPPF "Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design nof the new development should be looked on more favourably."
It would also meet paragraph 69 "safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas" as this land would be more accessible and better used.
It would further meet paragraph 73 "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities." because a park between existing and future development would be more accessible to local people.
Therefore in conclusion to this section there are very many reasons why this park should not be located in it's current unsustainable location as a Trojan horse to force future unsustainable development on the Northern Greenbelt, risking the future of this district out of a seemingly politically motivated desire to provide a quite excessive level of protection to Bishop's Tachbrook, which is still quite a way from the proposed development anyway. Many people feel very strongly on this issue and it would certainly make representation to the inspectorate regarding this element of the plan and indeed it would be a shame for the plan to fail on something which could be a great opportunity but is currently being mis-used. A much better location for the country park is shown on the right:

Dear Mr White
I read with interest on your web-site your letter to Councillor Doody regarding the local development plan for Warwick.
Having been dismayed and depressed at the obvious lack of concern for the quality of life of current residents displayed in the 'Local Plan', I am much cheered by your vigour in defending our interests.
A plan that will allow for balanced growth and growth that is compatable with, and responds to, local needs is surely all that is required. Why is there a need for more than that.
For myself a great concern is the air quality in the streets of Warwick. Traffic exhaust make it worse than is legally permitted, and the District Council is charged with improving air quality, this plan will make it so much worse. The children of the future have a right to expect us to act responsibly and protect the world that they will inherit.
A plan that envisages more than 12,000 new homes in the area will have such an impact on every aspect of daily life, from health-care to the sewage system, that I can only describe it as ill-conceived and reckless.
I am consoled that younger, better and more talented minds that mine are now working to protect the area that we know and love.

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

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached