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

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern,

I have read the proposed new local plan and it has raised numerous concerns with me as to the detrimental effect which it will have on Warwick, as I have listed below.


Number of Homes
The sheer number of homes which the plan provides for is excessive. The claim that we need over 12000 new homes is in direct contrast with the assessments of projected local need which claim we need only around 5000 new homes to meet the local needs. The additional homes will only create an influx of people who will live in Warwick because there are homes here but then commute to Birmingham or Coventry for work, bringing Warwick itself nothing but strain on its infrastructure and increased traffic and air pollution. Further to this, the strategic housing land and availability assessment which Warwick District Council themselves compiled indicates the districts maximum capacity for expansion by 2029 is a little over 13,000 homes, meaning that the local plan would use up more than 90% of this capacity with homes which we do not need and would force any further expansion to come at the expense of the local environment to a greater extent even than the current plan does
Environmental Cost
Warwick is primarily a town of great historic and natural beauty, but the proposed plan would seriously damage the environment of the town. At the moment Warwick has only one scenic entrance to the town and the proposed development would rob Warwick of this natural beauty. While the land to the south of Warwick is not a part of the greenbelt this is no reflection on its nature as green land of equal if not greater beauty than the greenbelt land to the north of Leamington and yet Warwick District Council seems to have decided that it is expendable.
Cost to the Town
The development of a large suburban housing area will by necessity require an increase of traffic through the town. Most households today have 2 if not 3 cars and this will be especially true of a large out of town housing development. As such Warwick's already criminally poor air quality will be further reduced. Further to this, one of the most prominent features of Warwick is the river Avon and in order to get into or through Warwick anyone in the proposed new homes will have to pass over the bridge, which is already strained by the amount of traffic passing over it and any increase to this could seriously damage its structural integrity. The proposed local plan could seriously damage an important historical part of Warwick's heritage and do so in a way that places people in danger.
Strains on Infrastructure
The proposed local plan would increase the population of Warwick by nearly 20% from its current level, and doing so would place an incredible strain on Warwick's social infrastructure. The education needs of the families moving into the new homes would be too great to be met by the schools in the area, and the health needs would put a strain on local health centres and in particular on Warwick Hospital which the hospital and health centres simply do not have the capacity to handle. Additional strain on drainage and even on water needs would be great and Warwick may well be unable to cope with the increases which the local plan proposes.


I hope that you will take these concerns into account when redrafting the plan and that a new local plan which will truly benefit Warwick will soon be drawn up

I object to the local plan - Revised Development Strategy .

I believe the proposed plan is unsustainable on the following 3 points. Environmental, economic and social grounds.

Housing - Too many new house proposed as there are already thousands of empty houses in the area around Warwick which could be improved and sold on .

Car parking - More homes means more cars and there are not enough parking places already so more traffic will cause more parking problems this being followed by more safety problems.

Environment - The view from Warwick Castle will be greatly disturbed by such a plan and as the Castle is one of the main generators of income to the local economy suggest that what brings in a good income should not be disturbed in any way.

Gas emissions - As the emissions are already over the guidelines in certain areas of Warwick it seems unbelievable that they are going to be made worse if the plan goes ahead.

Traffic - More pressure on local services such as hospitals,social services, etc especially over the Avon Bridge near Bridge End and the Myton Road which is already horrific at certain times of the days with traffic queueing right back up the hill and out of sight round the bend on Banbury road.

Safety - The safety of all Pedestrians young, old and disabled will be greatly increased which seems contary to all the other counties in the country.

Conservation - Exremely important in many areas south of Warwick including Bridge End which is one of main beauty spots of the town and surrounding area.

Services - Greatly increased pressure on such services as the hospital,social services and education to name but a few.

In conclusion - The proposed plans will bring many more problems with them and much larger ones than we have at the moment so what is the point in making matters worse and not better.? Suggest it might be better to halve the number of houses, renovate the thousands of empty ones and to place some of the the remaining half equally distributed north, south, east and west around the area

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that it will be passed on to the appropriate authority who will be making the decisions.

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.

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.

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.

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 Councillors to join with your Conservative MP, Chris White, and ask for the Local Plan to be completely revised and also to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

Dear Mr Barber

LOCAL PLAN - REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Please take this as an objection 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 recently, 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.

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 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 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. 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.

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.

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, as well as an infill site on George Street itself) 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, this vision will never be achieved.

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 would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Councillors to join with your Conservative MP, Chris White, and ask for the Local Plan to be completely revised and also to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

As a resident of The Butts, Warwick I am totally against the proposals that have been submitted for the development of housing on the green land close to Warwick for the following reasons:

The projected housing needs of 12,300 new homes to be built is much too high and cannot be justified.

The transportation strategy is car based and will simply be squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network which is already totally inadequate for the town.

The additional pollution from the increased number of car exhausts will create even more health problems for the residents of Warwick, and particularly those living on The Butts. The air pollution is already significantly above the legal limits. - This is a major concern that concerns us and as we work with leading respiratory professionals around the world have sought their advice accordingly. The long term health of Warwick residents would be severely threatened. WE thought that it was the responsibility of the District Council to improve the air quality not worsen it.

The additional noise and vibration would be a constant and would damage not only businesses and tourism in the town but also the historic properties throughout Warwick.

The alternatives:

Lower the housing to be built to meet local needs, and especially houses that local people could afford.

Revise the transport strategy that hasn't been thought through clearly at all, to ensure that the number of cars simply passing through the town are reduced not increased, which in turn would also improve the current illegal air pollution within certain streets, The Butts being one of them.

I have written very recently about the important issue of Air Pollution which will seriously effect Warwick Town Centre and the southern area of Warwick. Since writing that letter I have become aware of proposals by the Stratford District Council to create a new village of 4,500 homes as part of its masterplan near Gaydon and Lighthorne Heath. Do Council's ever think of discussing sensitive issues between themselves?

Where is the effect of such development proposed by Stratford D.C. going to be felt most? While Stratford may well rake in money for the General and Water Rates for their proposed homes it is more than likely that Warwick's and Leamington's transport problems and its environment and air pollution will increase even more than with just the difficulties which will be caused by Warwick District Council's own plans.

Although Gaydon and Lighthorne Heath are in the area of Stratfod D.C. there is not a direct main road to Stratford itself but there is a direct main road route to Warwick and Leamington to the north and to Banbury to the south although perhaps slightly further away. The factual situation is therefore likely to be that Warwick and Leamington will receive even more traffic than with just Warwick D.C.'s own proposals. The situation is becoming not only ridiculous but also dangerous for those who will suffer the effects of what is proposed.

I await the Council's response to this letter also as soon as possible since this matter is of the utmost concern.

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.

Re: Revised Development Plan for new homes and travellers sites

We object to this new local plan on the following grounds:

* The National Planning Policy Framework requires sustainable development which meets an established housing need. Local builders and developers already have around 5000 homes in the pipe line and are not developing them as they see a chance to get their hands on even more sites through this plan. 12300 new homes easily exceeds the demand for this area and to give approval of this plan would mean that even more Greenfield land would be lost to the local agricultural businesses. We are told that there are currently around 5000 unoccupied homes in the district that could be taken over, refurbished and returned to the housing market.

* The suggested sites are mainly to the south of Warwick and Leamington. This is unacceptable as both towns have a river running through which means bridges have to be crossed when travelling North to South and vice versa. The road infrastructure cannot take the extra traffic from all these homes. There are suggested improvements to Europa Way and Banbury Road but you can make them dual carriageways for all their length but you cannot change what is at the end of them i.e. the river bridge over the Avon at Warwick followed by The Butts, the narrowest road in Warwick, where two cars cannot pass at the same time. (Not mentioned in the traffic assessment!) Moving East to Europa Way again a dual carriageway would only mean shorter queues but two of them instead of one. What faces them? Princes Drive with the narrow railway bridge. (Again not mentioned in the traffic assessment) The recent so called improvements have made no difference to the traffic flow. You have provided 3 lanes at exits of Europa Way, Myton Road, and Old Warwick Road and 2 lane entrances for each making a total of 5 lanes at these points but this reduces to a total of 3 lanes at the railway bridge so the 'pinch point' has not changed. The single lane from Park Drive towards Myton Road is too narrow for buses and lorries. They have to straddle the lane markings to avoid hitting the bridge with their mirrors. The decision to stop traffic exiting Park Drive from turning right into Princes Drive or going straight ahead into the Recycling Centre and making them travel up to the island at Myton Road and then go full circle around to get back into Princes Drive is just stupid. It has added extra traffic to the Myton Road island which makes things even worse. (Again not included in the traffic assessment) Moving further East you come to Tachbrook Road. An already very busy single carriageway road that leads to Lower Avenue and the railway bridge. (Funny this was also missing from the traffic assessment) This cannot be improved at all. The other problem with this is that through traffic here has to meet up with through traffic from Princes Drive. The considerable extra volume of traffic cannot be absorbed with the suggested 'improvements'. The traffic assessment only states that there are highway land problems in the Princes Drive and Warwick New Road areas. (Another railway bridge in Warwick New Road)

* There was previously a way around Warwick and Leamington by using the A452 but the section from Greys Mallory to the Longbridge island was taken over by the M40 motorway. This meant that traffic now had to go onto the M40 and immediately come off at the next junction, the Longbridge island. This is ridiculous and is the reason for the significant increase in traffic congestion on Banbury Road and Europa Way. The M40 is extremely busy at this junction, so much so that proposals are in place to utilise the hard shoulder as a normal traffic lane with improved lane management. To add even more traffic for just a short stretch of road is not on. The missing stretch of road must be replaced before the towns come to a complete halt.

* To make things worse for the Banbury Road entrance to Warwick is the proposal by Stratford upon Avon District Council for a new village of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. Where is this? Why on the Banbury Road! This will add considerable extra traffic onto the Banbury Road approach to Warwick and the Europa Way approach to Leamington. This proposal must be taken into account when considering the revised local plan. They cannot be taken into account separately.

* The largest number of proposed new homes are all South of the rivers yet all emergency services are to the North i.e. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Hospital so all would have to cross the river bridges on roads that cannot cope. People would die waiting for these emergency services especially at rush hour times. When Warwick Fire Station was being considered for closure we said that Warwick residents living in the Myton Road area would suffer we were told that a fire engine would reach us from Leamington fire station in 6 minutes! Only by helicopter was our reply yet it was still closed. This was on the advice of consultants who admitted that they had only used national figures and had not looked at the local picture! Warwick Hospital would not be big enough to cater for another 24000 local people and it cannot expand further as it is built on an enclosed site. This means that more emergency patients would have to be taken to Coventry with significant danger of death.

* All sites South of Warwick and Leamington are on Greenfield land. This is productive farmland and produces food that is wanted by this country. We cannot continue to remove farmland as the country's food needs for the future will be even higher than at present. We cannot rely on importing food as there have been big changes in the global food market particularly from Asia with China buying ever more supplies from some of our traditional suppliers. There is a proposal for a 'Country Park' but this will be used the same way as the present 'areas of restraint' off Myton Road. What is the value of these as they are simply ignored when a suggestion of new homes comes along. When the next allocation of homes is required we know that this country park will disappear. This Greenfield land is just as important as the green belt to the North of Warwick and Leamington. It should have been green belt anyway.

* At present the air pollution in the centre of Warwick exceeds the legal limit so how can any new homes be allowed. How can we get this air pollution problem solved? We do not know the answers but surely the health of the residents must be given priority over any further damage caused by around 18000 more cars locating to the area. Warwick District Council is legally required to reduce air pollution to improve air quality. How can you even consider these development plans which can only make things worse? The suggested town centre initiative for road improvements includes a ban on parking in Smith Street followed by a ban on turning right into St Nicholas Church Street. That would speed traffic flow along Smith Street but would kill off all the shops and restaurants there. What good would that do to the town? If you cannot turn right at the end of Smith Street how would you get back to the Banbury Road for residents South of the River? Turn round in the small Sainsbury's car park or at the Wharf Street junction? Or use the road in front of the St John's shops and turn onto Coventry Road?

* Drainage could be a big problem to the residents in the Myton Road areas. When the new Round Oak School was built the first time we had heavy rain a number of properties in Myton Crescent were flooded. Extensive land drains and ditches had to be installed. So imagine what would happen with 1150 houses built on the slope up to Gallows Hill. Where would all the surface water go? Downhill to the existing houses that's where.

* The prospect of significant expansion in employment in this area is very small. Certainly not enough to accommodate families in 12300 homes. The only area of supposed new employment is the Gateway scheme (on green belt land!) by Coventry Airport. They say that up to 12000 jobs will be created. We do not feel that it would be anywhere near that figure. Anyone living in the proposed developments south of the river would add to the commuting through Warwick or Leamington or add more traffic onto the M40. An area of designated employment land at Warwick Gates has just been given planning permission to build houses on as 'there is no demand for employment land as the developer could not get anyone to move there'.

* Regarding gypsy and travellers sites we believe that the Council should stand up to the government and say no to these sites. Gypsies and travellers are not British; make no contributions to society in the form of National Insurance; pay no Tax; cost local authorities thousands of pounds to clear up their mess left behind so we should not be made to cater for them.

In summary

We object to this plan on the grounds of the unnecessary number of new homes, inadequate road network for the unfair placing of the majority of these homes south of Warwick and Leamington Spa, increases in air pollution, inadequate provision of emergency services, taking away good farm land and destroying the valuable beautiful environment of this district.

I object to latest local plan for published by WDC for the following reasons...
We need a plan which accurately reflects the population growth and demand within the district taking into account the latest data from the `Office of National Statistics`. I believe that the current plan massively overstates the demand.
The situation has been made worse in South Leamington and Whitnash by the `immigration` of students from Warwick University.......which is 10-15 miles away, dependent on route - and in Coventry! Many `low-cost` properties suitable for `first time buyers` have been taken up by students (including new build).
Whitnash also currently takes a higher level of Immigration compared to other areas.
The healthcare and education provision is already virtually to capacity.
Transport - at times the roads in this area are exceedingly busy and hazardous around schools especially. If the schools are extended any further then the roads will be impassable at certain times of the day especially Golf Lane, Coppice Road and Morris Drive around Briar Hill and St. Margaret`s schools. The potential developer of the Fieldgate Lane area admitted that their traffic survey failed to measure the traffic at the peak time of day i.e when parents are all arriving to collect their children at the same time - around 3pm.
The plan shows an focus on the area south of the river. The `green belt` argument used to limit development to the north of Leamington is artificial. `Green belt` status is man-made, created some years ago to meet the needs of the time and should be varied when circumstances change. A more even and fair distribution across the district is needed.
There is still much `brown field land` in the wider area e.g Baginton, Ryton and do we need another fuel filling station at the new Morrisons store.
I object specifically to the proposed development of the Fieldgate Lane / Golf Lane field for the following reasons:-
Drainage / potential flooding
We have evidence of the flood risk status of Fieldgate Lane which shows that we are within 250m of an area prone to flooding (zone 3).
The drainage channel in Fieldgate Lane connects directly to the Whitnash brook in the flood zone.
The normal flow in the Fieldgate Lane drainage channel is negligible but several times a year at times of heavy rainfall the water level reaches within a few centimetres of overflowing the channel. On several occasions water has come over the top, flowed along Fieldgate Lane, down driveways and has reached as far as garage doors.
The slope of the field and loss of the water soakaway due to development must result in additional water in the drainage channel at peak times.
I have already had house insurance declined by one company on the grounds of flood risk.
We also have the situation several times during a normal winter when the ground is waterlogged to the point where we can have several centimetres of water standing across our gardens and this can take a considerable time to drain away. Fieldgate Lane also often floods with running rain water to part way up the kerbs for short periods during heavy rain. These are actual events seen by local residents.
Currently the field regularly floods in the north-west corner and along its north edge several times a year during heavy rain. Development of roads and hard standing on this sloping site will inevitably result in more runoff towards the Fieldgate Lane drainage channel and will make the current situation much worse.
Traffic hazards
The entrance to Golf Lane from Heathcote Road has long been considered a hazard and, I believe, has formerly been the prime reason for not allowing further development. The main issues are :-
... this part of Golf Lane is on a steep slope and is relatively narrow.
....visibility to the right is restricted when exiting Golf Lane.
....the junction with Home Farm Crescent is at the bottom of the slope, on a bend and visibility is again restricted when turning right into Home Farm Crescent.
The junctions at Morris Drive/Golf Lane, Golf Club entrance/Golf Lane, Golf Lane/ Fieldgate Lane corner and Mullard Drive / Fieldgate Lane are all areas which residents consider hazardous. At all of these junctions the issues are the same in that many drivers come through them not expecting to meet other traffic. It is not just strangers who don`t know the roads, but local drivers who only expect traffic from a particular direction. I am aware of the hazards and usually drive through these junctions at around 15mph but regularly have near misses. Many local drivers ignore the road signs and markings and residents can quote daily incidents.
At school times the traffic situation in Coppice Road, Golf Lane and Morris Drive is hazardous and Police are regularly in attendance. Children already have significant difficulty in crossing the roads through parked and moving traffic. We are aware of at least 2 serious incidents outside the schools.
Traffic lights at Heathcote Road / Tachbrook road are already at capacity at certain times of the day with traffic often queuing back several hundred metres.
Traffic flows have recently been measured as part of a development application for the Fieldgate Lane field but this failed to measure the traffic at school closing time as it was not considered to be a busy time of day. In fact this is the most hazardous time of day and additional traffic from this proposed site will make it worse.
Schools
It is common knowledge locally that the local schools have been at capacity since the advent of Warwick Gates. There are regularly comments in the local newspapers about the issues. Additional housing locally will make the situation worse.
Ecology and wildlife
Bats - there are numerous bats of several species which feed around the local houses and over the Fieldgate Lane field every night during the summer months and sometimes at other times of the year. The roost sites are not known but are certainly local.
Birds - many species of birds use the hedgerows and field throughout the year. I have records of 47 species using the hedgerows and fields in Fieldgate Lane alone including Tawny Owls, Herons, Lapwing, Snipe, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Woodpeckers, Bullfinches,
Mammals - the field is used by deer, fox, hedgehogs (a declining species) and several species of small rodents.
Ridge and Furrow system - the field is a rare and disappearing example of the medieval ridge and furrow system of historic importance and should be preserved.
General
Formerly, the Fieldgate Lane site has been considered unsuitable because of the slope and its contribution to potential flooding. The slope of the field will also mean that the view from Fieldgate Lane will be of a succession of house ends and roofs increasing in height up the hill, particularly in winter.
The site is an `Area of Restraint` in the current local plan - for many of the reasons quoted.
A current planning application shows the access road immediately opposite our property in Fieldgate Lane This would result in major disruption to access to our property, parking and our way of life for several years. The slope of the land will mean that, at night, headlights will shine directly at our living room and bedroom windows.

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

Dear Sir/ Madam

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE WARWICK DISTRICT REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY - JUNE 2013

CBRE Limited writes on behalf of a third party client who wishes to remain unnamed at this stage. These representations should therefore be registered under CBRE Limited.

Our client is a major land owner and occupier in the City and is also a key service provider falling within Class D1 of the Use Classes Order. Our client is in the early process of giving very serious consideration to relocating an important part of their operations to another site within the city. We are not able, at this stage, to identify that potential relocation site, however, suffice to say that it is a brownfield site and is not a Green Belt location. In summary therefore, our client is a key stakeholder locally, a key service provider and an important local employer. These representations are submitted in that context.

We set out below our comments relative to the corresponding paragraphs in the Revised Consultation Development Strategy document:


Paragraph 3.4

We support the overall aims and objectives of the Revised Strategy as stated. However, we consider that the District Council should clear and specific in relation to the need for more homes (including affordable homes) with a strong and implicate emphasis on the re-use of brownfield urban land in preference to greenfield land.

Paragraph 3.5

We agree with the aims set out in paragraph 3.5 however there is no reference to the need to support (and enhance) existing service provision at the local level in addition to the need to provide new service provision as part of larger new development allocations.





Paragraph 4.3

We note the broad location of proposed housing development set out in RDS3 and whilst it may be clear to Council officers that there will be a focus on the re-use of brownfield sites (including conversion of premises), this objective should be stated clearly as part of the first bullet point.

Paragraph 4.3.2

We note that there has been considerable concern by stakeholders previously at the proposed identification of Metropolitan Green Belt to deliver significant growth of new development. The Council's revised strategy should be strongly focussed on the need to better utilise existing brownfield sites within the urban areas to deliver new jobs, homes, and community services, prior to the release of either Greenfield or Green Belt land.

Paragraph 4.3.9

We note the high level of vacancy attributed to some of the towns existing industrial/commercial estates (for example at Warwick Technology Park). We believe very strongly that the Council should state what action they intend to take to resolve such vacancy. Specifically we would want the Strategy to allow for a flexible policy approach which considered a wider array of uses (and occupier types) in such estates. This could include non traditional B class uses (subject to criteria) including local community services, health care use and education uses to name just a few. The Council needs to ensure that its policy approach is flexible, commercial, and innovative to ensure that employers and businesses can utilise existing premises and land resources. Many non pure B-Class uses generate employment and deliver associated benefits to the local economy and to the area generally. Policies should be sufficiently flexible to allow non office uses to maximise existing commercial premises and land which is (or has remained) vacant or under-used.


Paragraph 4.5.3

We agree that the Government's NPPF provides significant weight to the need to provide for sufficient employment land during a Plan period. However, we are concerned that the Council's Revised Development Strategy appears to focus completely on the need to unlock new land and there is no guidance or view expressed on the need to support and facilitate growth of existing services and facilities (see our comment to paragraph 4.3.9 above). A significant element of economic growth is generated through changes of use and the optimisation of existing land and premises. In this important respect, the Council's strategy is silent. Indeed, the NPPF is clear that LPA's should work to build 'strong competitive local economies' and yet this key consultation document forming part of the Local Plan contains very little substance to explain or justify how the LPA will use its development and planning strategy to help existing businesses, employers and service providers to expand and adapt their offer through the planning system.

Paragraph 5.61 - 5.6.4

We agree with the Council's in-principle statements, however, developer contributions and mitigation needs to be viewed and assessed in the context of financial viability. The Revised Strategy document appears to be silent on the issue of viability and this important factor should be referred to by the Council (in accordance with the advice set out in the Government's NPPF).

Summary and Conclusions

The Revised Consultation Strategy document represents a very positive and useful discussion paper and sets out a range of very laudable aims and objectives as part of the Council's emerging LDF. In particular, we are pleased to read the positive statements regarding the need to promote and support development growth, and the need to support the local economy, create new jobs, and deliver new homes in the district's main settlements. We are also highly encouraged to read positive statements regarding the need to deliver new 'infrastructure' locally.

However, the consultation document appears to miss an opportunity in relation to the need to support, nurture, and enhance existing community services and existing businesses through the planning and development system. In this respect, the consultation document appears to be overly focussed on the delivery of new land rather than existing land and existing uses. The majority of wealth and job creation in Warwick will be generated through 'churn' (the use, re-use, and adaptability of existing premises), not just through the provision of new land.

We also note that the consultation document provides a very narrow view of 'employment' generating uses (B1, B2 and B8). Active thriving economies need support for a wide range of employment types including uses falling outside the traditional B Class uses. For example, service providers in the education and health sectors (Use Class D1) are vital contributors to the local economy and yet there is nothing in the Strategy document to acknowledge this factor and no reference to the need to ensure that existing social infrastructure and services will be supported and encouraged through the planning system.

In this respect, the consultation strategy discusses the need (at some length) for developers to provide new infrastructure as part of larger new development allocations but it is largely silent on the need to improve, enhance, and support existing community infrastructure and service provision at the local level (e.g. existing schools, health facilities, community uses etc). Such uses are important sources of job and wealth creation in their own right. Such uses may need to significantly expand or relocate during the Plan period in order to improve their service provision and/or meet necessary statutory standards. What view does the Council have on this? It is silent on these points.

Whilst we fully acknowledge that new large-scale development should mitigate the impacts of the local community, we note that the consultation document is also largely silent on the critical issue of financial viability and the absolute need to ensure that development is not discouraged with the excessive burdens of financial and other obligations (in line with advice contained in the NPPF).

I trust that these representations will be considered carefully and brought to the attention of Members.
Should you wish to discuss the contents of this letter in more detail please contact me direct.

Dear Sir/ Madam

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE WARWICK DISTRICT REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY - JUNE 2013

CBRE Limited writes on behalf of a third party client who wishes to remain unnamed at this stage. These representations should therefore be registered under CBRE Limited.

Our client is a major land owner and occupier in the City and is also a key service provider falling within Class D1 of the Use Classes Order. Our client is in the early process of giving very serious consideration to relocating an important part of their operations to another site within the city. We are not able, at this stage, to identify that potential relocation site, however, suffice to say that it is a brownfield site and is not a Green Belt location. In summary therefore, our client is a key stakeholder locally, a key service provider and an important local employer. These representations are submitted in that context.

We set out below our comments relative to the corresponding paragraphs in the Revised Consultation Development Strategy document:


Paragraph 3.4

We support the overall aims and objectives of the Revised Strategy as stated. However, we consider that the District Council should clear and specific in relation to the need for more homes (including affordable homes) with a strong and implicate emphasis on the re-use of brownfield urban land in preference to greenfield land.

Paragraph 3.5

We agree with the aims set out in paragraph 3.5 however there is no reference to the need to support (and enhance) existing service provision at the local level in addition to the need to provide new service provision as part of larger new development allocations.





Paragraph 4.3

We note the broad location of proposed housing development set out in RDS3 and whilst it may be clear to Council officers that there will be a focus on the re-use of brownfield sites (including conversion of premises), this objective should be stated clearly as part of the first bullet point.

Paragraph 4.3.2

We note that there has been considerable concern by stakeholders previously at the proposed identification of Metropolitan Green Belt to deliver significant growth of new development. The Council's revised strategy should be strongly focussed on the need to better utilise existing brownfield sites within the urban areas to deliver new jobs, homes, and community services, prior to the release of either Greenfield or Green Belt land.

Paragraph 4.3.9

We note the high level of vacancy attributed to some of the towns existing industrial/commercial estates (for example at Warwick Technology Park). We believe very strongly that the Council should state what action they intend to take to resolve such vacancy. Specifically we would want the Strategy to allow for a flexible policy approach which considered a wider array of uses (and occupier types) in such estates. This could include non traditional B class uses (subject to criteria) including local community services, health care use and education uses to name just a few. The Council needs to ensure that its policy approach is flexible, commercial, and innovative to ensure that employers and businesses can utilise existing premises and land resources. Many non pure B-Class uses generate employment and deliver associated benefits to the local economy and to the area generally. Policies should be sufficiently flexible to allow non office uses to maximise existing commercial premises and land which is (or has remained) vacant or under-used.


Paragraph 4.5.3

We agree that the Government's NPPF provides significant weight to the need to provide for sufficient employment land during a Plan period. However, we are concerned that the Council's Revised Development Strategy appears to focus completely on the need to unlock new land and there is no guidance or view expressed on the need to support and facilitate growth of existing services and facilities (see our comment to paragraph 4.3.9 above). A significant element of economic growth is generated through changes of use and the optimisation of existing land and premises. In this important respect, the Council's strategy is silent. Indeed, the NPPF is clear that LPA's should work to build 'strong competitive local economies' and yet this key consultation document forming part of the Local Plan contains very little substance to explain or justify how the LPA will use its development and planning strategy to help existing businesses, employers and service providers to expand and adapt their offer through the planning system.

Paragraph 5.61 - 5.6.4

We agree with the Council's in-principle statements, however, developer contributions and mitigation needs to be viewed and assessed in the context of financial viability. The Revised Strategy document appears to be silent on the issue of viability and this important factor should be referred to by the Council (in accordance with the advice set out in the Government's NPPF).

Summary and Conclusions

The Revised Consultation Strategy document represents a very positive and useful discussion paper and sets out a range of very laudable aims and objectives as part of the Council's emerging LDF. In particular, we are pleased to read the positive statements regarding the need to promote and support development growth, and the need to support the local economy, create new jobs, and deliver new homes in the district's main settlements. We are also highly encouraged to read positive statements regarding the need to deliver new 'infrastructure' locally.

However, the consultation document appears to miss an opportunity in relation to the need to support, nurture, and enhance existing community services and existing businesses through the planning and development system. In this respect, the consultation document appears to be overly focussed on the delivery of new land rather than existing land and existing uses. The majority of wealth and job creation in Warwick will be generated through 'churn' (the use, re-use, and adaptability of existing premises), not just through the provision of new land.

We also note that the consultation document provides a very narrow view of 'employment' generating uses (B1, B2 and B8). Active thriving economies need support for a wide range of employment types including uses falling outside the traditional B Class uses. For example, service providers in the education and health sectors (Use Class D1) are vital contributors to the local economy and yet there is nothing in the Strategy document to acknowledge this factor and no reference to the need to ensure that existing social infrastructure and services will be supported and encouraged through the planning system.

In this respect, the consultation strategy discusses the need (at some length) for developers to provide new infrastructure as part of larger new development allocations but it is largely silent on the need to improve, enhance, and support existing community infrastructure and service provision at the local level (e.g. existing schools, health facilities, community uses etc). Such uses are important sources of job and wealth creation in their own right. Such uses may need to significantly expand or relocate during the Plan period in order to improve their service provision and/or meet necessary statutory standards. What view does the Council have on this? It is silent on these points.

Whilst we fully acknowledge that new large-scale development should mitigate the impacts of the local community, we note that the consultation document is also largely silent on the critical issue of financial viability and the absolute need to ensure that development is not discouraged with the excessive burdens of financial and other obligations (in line with advice contained in the NPPF).

I trust that these representations will be considered carefully and brought to the attention of Members.
Should you wish to discuss the contents of this letter in more detail please contact me direct.

see attached

I am writing about the issues that are involved with the Local Plan. I am 13 years old, and go to King's High School in Warwick, and I live in Bridge End. I have heard about the plan from the worries of many local residents and after a little research, feel the need to express my anxiety over the proposals.
Firstly comes the environmental aspect. The colossal amount of proposed development land in Warwick alone is unbearable. With so much natural land destroyed, not only will there be ever less land for the already rapidly declining hedgehog populations (of which may I point out you are readily encouraging) as well as other plants and animals' natural habitats, but even the basic need for a clear horizon will not exist. I've even heard that the Ribbon Development Act doesn't allow this much destruction of natural land. All over the world natural habitats are being destroyed, to my disgust, at an ever increasing rate. But when this comes to home, I begin to feel horrified of how real this all is. The natural habitats of the area are already being strained out, and although you may "express concerns", I believe you do not. I feel ashamed that my home country is turning as industrious as the rest of the world - it is becoming less and less special. You will prize it more, in your eyes, but not us. For you this is simply a business matter but for us this is our lives, and through all this paperwork, all you're really doing is thwarting the beauty out of them. It really comes to a point of the tolerable and the intolerable.
Secondly, and very potently, the health aspect. As a local along with at least 25 people in Bridge End walk to Myton, King's High, and Warwick Boy's School. After a trip to Cornwall, I remember saying "Dad, can't you smell something really... you know, like dust, like stale air.." and Dad said "the car fumes. I love Cornwall, it's so clean from the sea, it's a shame I guess...". And I do notice it even now. When I walk up to school through the town centre, the fumes are really noticable, and horrible. England, like the rest of the world, is shrouding itself in it's own filth. Also, all of the girls and boys from Warwick Prep, King's High and Warwick Boy's have PE lessons in the playing fields. Many of my friends have asthma, and all of us can actually taste the pollution in the air. The huge amount of housing means extra roads, extra roads mean extra cars, which mean thousands more inputs on air pollution. I've heard the air pollution in Warwick is at or even over the legal limit. Is this true? It doesn't surprise me. You may claim otherwise, but it's a fact. The increase in air pollution will be significant. It will go over the legal limit, very much to your knowledge, yet you readily accept and move on thinking "we are not liable. This is not through our cause, but of the new local residents." This has serious health effects, or else the limit wouldn't have been made! Buildings as well as people will be affected, including the Castle and other historic sites. As a cross-country runner who loves to train on the school track, I know as much as everyone that it's not only horrible, it's damaging me as I run even though I'm meant to be getting healthier from excerise! Isn't that what you encourage, because it can't be for long. It's illegal, and we shouldn't put up with it.
And finally, the actual effect of the quality of life on the residents, visitors and tourists. The Bridge. Shown in countless postcards of Warwick, it's an enormous cultural significance. I walk across it twice a day to get to school. I used to throw snowballs over the edge when I was little with my Mum. People row their boats down the timeless stonework. Photographers use it to catch that beautiful sunset view of the castle, where, on a plaque that countless feet have walked across, reads "one of the finest views in England." So many new cars may, over calculations, seek an end to this masterpiece. You simply cannot wish to achieve this! One of the finest views in England, replaced by a cold, budget replica, because all of this is really about money. You are rejecting one of the best treasures of the River Avon, the most famous river in your country.
I already know all too well that every morning, every afternoon at rush hour the traffic queues are some of the largest in the area. Even when the traffic lights turn red to let me cross the road, the queue will often grow 500m. For large events, like concerts, and the folk festival, the traffic can extend as far as you can see over the bridge in all directions. Add to this thousands more cars, and I don't think many can cope. Some people may want to drive because of the illegal air fumes, so these extra cars (that would have been healthier walkers, may I add) create even more unwanted fumes. Others may want to walk because of the unbearable traffic, but they hate to because of the horrible fumes! You have to drive either way. Many of my friends' parents drive them to school, as well as their siblings. With so much extra traffic in the area, the journey between sibling's schools will be extended, to the point that (already being tight) one may have to miss some school in the morning. The money you pay for many schools wasted, as pupils cannot attend the first ten minutes - no, not an exaggeration, a real concern amongst everyone! This may seem little, but over the course of a childhood will have a noticeable effect on their education - often the start of a lesson is the most important! You may say the extra roads will spread the traffic out more, but we don't need more roads, we have plenty to get around. What these new roads really are doing is turning half the town into a parking lot!
Tourists and visitors will likely be put off too. Even from entering Warwick, "the heart and soul of England", actually an industrial skyline of fields of grim, identical looking houses just like these people have back at home, huge employment buildings, like at home. Traffic that reduces their day spent in Warwick, also simply off-putting. Who wants to know that the beautiful, idyllic town of Warwick has decided to replace it's history and wonder with industry, money and power? The history lost from the bridge, the nature lost from development and replaced with the things these people already have and are trying to escape from in order to experience new places to their fullest - will surely put tourists and visitors off. Meant to be a quiet place, not just for tourists, but for families and the retired, Warwick will have a terrible increase in noise pollution. I love the great outdoors and it's quiet serenity, that makes it so at peace. The noise of traffic and people in town are already starting to drown out my thoughts. Why go further? Not only will all this have an effect on your reputation from outsiders (and insiders) from within and without England alike, it will eventually decrease the steady flow of tourists that many people's livelihoods remain on. They get poorer, you get less tax, until many become unemployed and seek your help - which you are trying to solve by building an employment building!
My letter may seem somewhat defensive, but I feel it has to be. So many people feel these things but their voices are blatantly being ignored, which makes me feel even more passionate about having the voice that our country is meant to give us. Of course I realise that this isn't simply a matter of acting on the plan or not, as there are a lot of issues that you are trying to solve, and a lot of things tying you down. But I am concerned that far more issues will be made taking action in the plan - the ones above are simply a sampler of the concerns that I and indeed all the locals harbour. These cons will affect you too - they threaten all of us. The new residents coming to live here will also experience them, and word of mouth will leak to them of the side effects of this development, which they shall not be proud of. This is a long term commitment - 18 years altogether - that not many can take. Residents will leave, so this plan to get more people to stay will surely not balance as planned? This is my entire childhood, and all my friends, which will stay with us for the rest of our lives. Warwick will be a less green place, a noisier, more claustrophobic, and grimier, less interesting or beautiful place. Many people decided to retire here for what it truly is. You are about to deny them that and force them to live the most precious part of their lives in misery - they don't deserve this!
Please make the most out of our country. It upsets me that if the people who contributed to the history of Warwick, who helped make it such a beautiful place, were able to see the disrespect and ingratitude that some people nowadays have on them and their country - they would feel ashamed and disappointed. I feel grateful for what fortune has given me and my family - all of my childhood memories come back to here. Please show a love to other people's lives, like you promised you would, and help Warwick continue to be the prosperous, green, homely community it already is. Please let me know I am in good hands.