see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

I am writing to you to strongly object to the new local plan.
I have a number of points detailed 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.


The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural and present policies respect this. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. The green land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly.

The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built is much too high. Less than half that number would meet local needs. It is wrong to forecast as far into the future as 2029, and to allocate greenfield land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build when.

While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already has the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market.

Transport: sprawling development is inevitably car-dependent. The transport strategy is car-based, just squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network, bridges over the River Avon, and parking. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and could not have good public transport. It has long been obvious that the current road infrastructure within the Warwick South Area does not cope with present levels of traffic and so to propose this level of additional build would appear reckless and ill considered. It is fine saying that this will be addressed, but how? This area does not lend itself to the building of large arterial road networks. Please protect the history of our area.

Air Quality: pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than is legally permitted. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would also be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged. Worse, the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened.

The historic environment would directly be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places: in Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, on Castle Hill, and at St John's; and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way, giving no impression of the beauty of the spa town.

Other Infrastructure: While in theory development would be conditional on it funding schools, and health care facilities, the Council's predicted funding and provision has a woeful shortfall and is not enough. There would also be risks to water supply, sewage and drainage.

There are better alternatives: lower housing numbers to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford, instead of encouraging in-migration; gradually releasing land for development as demand grows; giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations; building homes close to jobs; and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development. Every area of Warwickshire should take it's share of these new houses however, currently, these proposals would appear to be being bullied through by an Executive committee who are acting as Nimby's. It is time that fairness was considered. Current proposals are not fair!

The possible Gypsy and Traveller sites are concentrated in the same area, again because such strong protection is given to the Green Belt and so little to our green land. Again, not fair.

The consultation process and the politics of the situation also give rise to concerns, but these are matters to be pursued by other means.


Question:
Where would all the people moving to this proposed build work? Concentrating the majority of these new houses in one area is wrong. The old "local plan" was ludicrous but this is worse, please reconsider before it is too late.

see attached

Dear Sirs/Madams,

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

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

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

see attached

see attached

See attached submission and:

I have very late in the day, been advised that the lower end of Smith Street is to have traffic control such that vehicles coming down Smith Street or Priory Road will no longer be able to turn into St Nicholas church Street and so back into Warwick and south on to Banbury Road.
If this is correct may I urge to think again about this as it would cause endless frustration, and extra traffic in the Emscote and Coventry Roads as vehicles seek somewhere to turn aroun to access St Nicholas Ch St.
I have been unable to locate this proposal on the plan,however may I urge to think again.

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

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

Scale and proportion

* massive long term coalescence of settlements,
* loss of significant open space,
* loss of local countryside,
* loss of agricultural land,
* lead to significant urban sprawl.
* excessive bulk and scale,
* significant overdevelopment of the area.

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




Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Effect of local services/amenities

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

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

Flood Risk

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

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scale and proportion

* massive long term coalescence of settlements,
* loss of significant open space,
* loss of local countryside,
* loss of agricultural land,
* lead to significant urban sprawl.
* excessive bulk and scale,
* significant overdevelopment of the area

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


Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

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

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



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

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

Effect of local services/amenities

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

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

Flood Risk

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

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

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

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


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

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

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

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

We write to raise our strongest objection to the 2013 Local Plan, and the many planning applications that are associated with it - those that are currently under consideration, and those that are undoubtedly yet to come.
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash.
Scale and proportion
 massive long term coalescence of settlements,
- loss of significant open space,
* - loss of local countryside,
* - loss of agricultural land,
* - lead to significant urban sprawl.
* - excessive bulk and scale,
* - significant overdevelopment of the area
The effect of these potential developments on the existing local communities and infrastructure will be devastating, and I believe have been grossly underestimated by both Warwick DC and the developers.
Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure
The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched.
- 2 or more cars per household,
- 9000 extra vehicles using the local road network.
* - the local road infrastructure is inadequate. (e.g congestion on various local roads)
* - traffic heading towards the town centres is already a major problem,
* - gridlock, increased pollution etc.
* - congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem
* - traffic noise,
* - potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

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

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

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

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

Flood Risk

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

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed Local Plan for Warwick which I feel will adversely affect the town and surrounding area providing little benefit and making the environment less pleasant, less safe, and less healthy. I have copied in my District Councillors, who I hope will note my comments and represent them as appropriate. I would be grateful if they could confirm this, or let me know if they are unwilling or unable to represent my views with their reasons.
I have also copied in my MP Chris White, to whom I am grateful for already voicing similar concerns about the Local plan.
As well as my concerns, I have highlighted questions to which I would like a reply.
First, I should state that I understand the disadvantages of not having an agreed Local Plan. But I believe it is fundamental that having the wrong plan is far worse than not having a plan at all. It seems to me that the proposed plan is indeed wrong for Warwick - socially, economically, and environmentally.

Housing
The Warwick District Local Plan is predicated upon a perceived need for an additional 12,300 houses in the area. This number is not proven, and forecasting to 2029 in the light of changes in social and economic conditions over the past 15 year period - or indeed any 15 year period in post-war history - is at best optimistic and almost certainly foolhardy. A more realistic forecast from the Office of National Statistics which examines the nearer term predicts a far lower housing need, one which could be supplied from existing brownfield sites and the normal planning process.
QUESTION: Why does the Plan not use the government / ONS predictions which given that its relative timescale and resources for forecasting must make it more accurate?
Given this false premise as a starting point, the Plan proposes building almost exclusively on Greenfield sites to the south of Warwick, so as to avoid encroaching on land that (by historical accident) has been designated Greenbelt. This Greenfield land is just as valuable to the character and environment of Warwick district, town, and country and should be afforded equal protection. Any reasonable Plan would consider Greenbelt and Greenfield within the county as equivalent, and make the best case for the best use of the most appropriate land accordingly.
The approach to and aspects of Warwick and Leamington from the south contribute enormously to the general perception of the towns and their rural setting is important to continued tourism, as well as the quality of life in the area.
The result will be a clustering of houses in an area with no immediate access to the employment they should serve. Warwick's employment rate is such that it is apparent that 'spare' jobs on this scale are not available. The Plan's own predictions for the availability of employment sites being redesignated for housing makes it clear that new employment in the area is not foreseen.
Therefore, the proposed developments south of Warwick must be to serve as commuter areas. Traffic is unlikely to be moving to the south, given the nature of the Stratford-Upon-Avon Plan which more than caters for new housing North of Stratford/South of Warwick.
QUESTION: Why is the Stratford plan not referenced in the Warwick Plan. If the Warwick Plan has been developed in isolation, as it seems, then the housing requirements it claims will surely be accommodated by the Stratford proposals which further invalidates the figures quoted.

Infrastructure
The Plan addresses only in the vaguest terms how the local infrastructure will cope with the additional 18% of population planned. The most basic mathematics suggests that in order to sustain the development, we should have 18% spare capacity in our infrastructure - that is without yet taking into account the additional housing in the Stratford Plan that will also draw on Warwick's resources and infrastructure in particular for Health facilities. While development would appear to be conditional upon it funding additional infrastructure it does not seem from the Plan that this funding will be sufficient.
QUESTION: Which departments of Warwick Hospital have over 18% spare capacity currently? Which departments are already operating at full capacity (or more)? Is additional capacity needed for the NHS, education, water supply and treatment, or other infrastructure? If so, where will funding for this actually have to come from?

Traffic
The main infrastructure points addressed by the Plan all relate to traffic. This is hardly surprising as the proposed developments will be car-dependent and provide accommodation largely for out-of-area workers. Local transport will therefore increase by at least 18% and probably more. Most of this will be in the form of cars, most of them travelling through Warwick.
The Plan proposes various road changes, none of which are designed to take traffic out of the town of Warwick, but rather attempt to allow the town to cope with greater traffic capacity. Without addressing the main choke-points of the two Avon bridges, and in particular Castle Bridge, these measures will not work. Increased traffic from the new developments will certainly increase air pollution, which is already at an unacceptably high level, as well as increasing the traffic in areas close to major schools. In particular, traffic will be increased significantly along a widened Banbury Road outside Warwick School at a point where there is no pedestrian crossing and where residents have already been informed that the road is too dangerous for a crossing patrol to operate.
QUESTION: Has a Health Impact assessment been carried out with regard to air pollution, and/or the likely effect on road safety especially for schoolchildren? If so, please can you forward me a copy or tell me where to access it. If not, why not?

Local Economy
Warwick town is dependent upon tourism and many of the businesses in the town - including all retail trade - depends upon visitors being able to get into Warwick, park, and get out again. If this becomes a chore, those businesses, and the town as a whole, will suffer as casual visitors simply go elsewhere for shopping and entertainment. Adding to the levels of through traffic will obviously hasten this process.
QUESTION: What proportion of the traffic in Warwick is already through-travelling? I did see a figure from a council survey (not sure which council, I'm afraid, District or County) that suggested that already over 70% of vehicles in the town are travelling through. Is this correct? What will the percentage be when the proposed developments are complete? If there is no data predicting this figure, why not?

Environment
The additional traffic through Warwick will have a detrimental effect on the environment as a whole, and on the physical town itself. As well as a negative impact on conservation areas, listed buildings and other sites of historical interest will suffer from the poor air quality, traffic noise, vibration, and the proposed changes to historic junctions at attractive points of historical interest such as the top of Mill Street.
QUESTION: What assessment has been made of the impact of increased traffic on key buildings, and in particular Castle Bridge. Please can you tell me where I can access the Engineer's / Surveyor's report that must have been completed to ensure that Castle Bridge can actually cope with the increased usage? There seems to be no mention of it, or any other similar assessments, in the Plan.

National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework requires that proposed developments be sustainable with regards to the environment, the economy, and socially. The Warwick Plan does not meet any of these requirements. It will be detrimental to the environment; it does not serve the current or ONS-predicted economy; it is socially unacceptable.


I have attempted to be as objective as possible in my comments above, but would like to finish on a personal note. My work is not geographically dependent and I - together with my family - live in Warwick because we choose to live in Warwick. It is a convenient, accessible, beautiful, friendly place to live in a delightful rural setting. I am sure that we are not alone in this and that a significant proportion of the local population has made a similar choice. While we are here we obviously contribute to the community in many ways. Warwick is a place where people with a choice want to live.
But if the Plan does through in its current form, then it seems to me that many of the reasons that we had for choosing to live in Warwick will disappear. How many people in similar positions to us will also disappear, it is obviously hard to predict. But there is a real danger that the proposed developments will make Warwick a place where people with a choice do not want to live.

A, Volume of housing
The main proposal of the Local Plan is for a very substantial increase in residential development in the District. This is largely based on Government projections of housing need. The validity of these forecasts has recently been seriously questioned, not least because they anticipate a repeat of immigration into the area which has been shown to have been associated with the particular circumstances of recent years; there is no evidence that these circumstances are likely to be repeated. The Plan's population forecast also cannot be justified by the evidence: it extends far beyond the period covered by the original carefully researched report. It would be entirely reasonable and in accordance with the evidence, to set a lower figure for housing need, based on the natural growth of the existing local population, without deliberately seeking a further increase.

B, Transport infrastructure
The provision of this quantity of residential development south of Warwick would place a severe strain on the road network in and around Warwick and Leamington.

The aim of the transport aspects of the Plan appears to be, above all, to move traffic through the towns as rapidly as possible, with the least possible inconvenience to the users of the roads. The narrow streets of Warwick are totally unsuitable for this, as all evidence will show - see The Butts and the High Street. There is less evidence in the Plan of concern for the residents and for other occupants and users of the streets. Surveys have shown that a large proportion of traffic entering Warwick drives straight through the town, giving no benefit to the town. The road network should be developed to keep this traffic on by-passes outside the town, not going straight through it. Just getting more traffic passing faster through the towns will only damage the quality of life and the historic nature of the towns themselves, upon which the towns depend for their livelihood, principally through tourism.

C, Air Quality
The existing air quality has been recognised as unacceptably low. The Council is doing nothing to carry out its statutory obligations in this respect. There is no evidence that this poor air quality is properly taken into account in the Plan. Indeed, implementation of the Plan would damage air quality still further. How does the Council intend to meet its statutory obligations in this matter in future?

D, Warwick Bridge
The road network depends on the few existing river crossings. Of these, the bridge in Warwick is over 220 years old. No evidence is produced to show that the bridge is sustainably capable of carrying the further increases in traffic anticipated by the Plan. Has it even been surveyed for this particular purpose?

E, Warwickshire as a whole
There is no evidence that Warwick District Council is co-ordinating its own local plan with the local plans of adjacent district councils. If Stratford District Council approves a major expansion of housing in the Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath area, how will this affect this present Local Plan and the housing need it assumes?

Please think again!

The purpose of this email is to record and express my concern and dissatisfaction with the local plans, for many reasons, including the following:

- they are poorly thought out. There are better alternatives eg. priorty to brownfield sites, release land as is needed, not in advance anticipation of creating non-existent demand

- Health: air quality will be severely damaged and and even further below the legal level permitted. District Council should improve air quality not damage it beyond repair for future generations.

- Noise levels will increase irreversibly, as will congestion

- Transport strategy is car based - how old fashioned and backward thinking!!

- Historic environment will be damaged and spoilt. We have responsibility to look after historic buildings and routes, not destroy or damage them.

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

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

I am writing to object to the Local Plan, Revised Development Strategy. This objection is based on a number of points.

First the plan advocates 12,000 new houses over the period of the plan, when the number required to meet the additional needs based on 2001 and 2011 census plus the increase in Warwick over recent years would indicate a figure of the order of 5,500. This majority of this level of development could be met by utilising land currently earmarked for development and developing brown field sites, without the major development of 4,000+ houses to the south of Warwick.

The requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework include the need for economic, environment and social sustainability. With the likely increase in employment opportunities arising from 22.5 hectares of land for employment being of the order of 2,000, there appears to be an imbalance with the potential inward migration of 10,000+ people who will be seeking employment. The only solution to this imbalance is that these people will seek employment in the surrounding area of the West Midlands with the result that there will be a significant increase in the traffic flow through Warwick Town Centre. With regard to the social and environmental sustainability the area through which these vastly increased vehicle numbers will travel is one of environmental sensitivity and a major conservation area, including a bridge over the River Avon which was opened in 1793 and is a major tourist viewing point for Warwick Castle.

There will be a major increase in the volume of traffic travelling into and through Warwick Town Centre, in the process passing a number of schools, nurseries and play areas with the subsequent increase in pollution due to the restrictions of the 18th Century Bridge already mentioned. The Air Pollution in the town centre is currently above the legal limits, by the authority's own figures, and this increase can only exacerbate the situation. In addition this increase in traffic can only result in slower progress through the town with more hold ups and jams with the knock on effect being people being unwilling to stop in the town or wish to shop in such a heavily congested area thus invalidating any economic sustainability claims.



3A major omission from the plan would appear to be the actions taken in respect of the increase in population on the provision of schools, health services and public utilities other than reference to Myton and Campion being expanded and primary schools being provided. Recent developments in Warwick District have promised such facilities as part of the justification, however people living on these new developments have waited significant periods of time for delivery.

A final point is the fact that Stratford district are proposing significant development to the south of Warwick at Gaydon. This will affect any employment opportunities in the south of Warwick district and add to the flow of traffic into and through Warwick Town adding to the problems created by the Revised Development Strategy.

Dear Sir

WARWICK DESERVES BETTER

I am writing to object to the Local Plan, Revised Development Strategy. This objection is based on a number of points.

First the plan advocates 12,000 new houses over the period of the plan, when the number required to meet the additional needs based on 2001 and 2011 census plus the increase in Warwick over recent years would indicate a figure of the order of 5,500. This majority of this level of development could be met by utilising land currently earmarked for development and developing brown field sites, without the major development of 4,000+ houses to the south of Warwick.

The requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework include the need for economic, environment and social sustainability. With the likely increase in employment opportunities arising from 22.5 hectares of land for employment being of the order of 2,000, there appears to be an imbalance with the potential inward migration of 10,000+ people who will be seeking employment.

The only solution to this imbalance is that these people will seek employment in the surrounding area of the West Midlands with the result that there will be a significant increase in the traffic flow through Warwick Town Centre. A recent traffic survey has calculated this to be 76% thereby increasing congestion and noxious fumes in the area.

With regard to the social and environmental sustainability the area through which these vastly increased vehicle numbers will travel is one of environmental sensitivity and a major conservation area, including a bridge over the River Avon which was opened in 1793 and is a major tourist viewing point for Warwick Castle.

There will be a major increase in the volume of traffic travelling into and through Warwick Town Centre, in the process passing a number of schools, nurseries and play areas with the subsequent increase in pollution due to the restrictions of the 18th Century Bridge already mentioned.


The air pollution in the town centre is currently above the legal limits, by the authority's own figures, and this increase can only exacerbate the situation.
In addition this increase in traffic can only result in slower progress through the town with more hold ups and jams with the knock on effect being people being unwilling to stop in the town or wish to shop in such a heavily congested area thus invalidating any economic sustainability claims.

A major omission from the plan would appear to be the actions taken in respect of the increase in population on the provision of schools, health services and public utilities other than reference to Myton and Campion being expanded and primary schools being provided. Recent developments in Warwick District have promised such facilities as part of the justification; however people living on these new developments have waited significant periods of time for delivery.

A final point is the fact that Stratford district are proposing significant development to the south of Warwick at Gaydon. This will affect any employment opportunities in the south of Warwick district and add to the flow of traffic into and through Warwick Town adding to the problems created by the Revised Development Strategy.

see-attached

see-attached

see attached