I write to confirm my position on your abject plans for your 'Revised Development Plan' for Warwick.

There is a basic fundamental flaw to what you propose, namely your suggestion for the increased provision of housing is wholly inappropriate for Warwick and its environment.

Warwick is a magnificent, medieval town, attracting thousands of local and international visitors and 'the plan' will have nothing short of a massive, detrimental effect on its appeal. For the local residents, inhabitants of Warwick and those who work, commute and take leisure in Warwick, 'the plan' will equally have a negative impact for outweighing any suggested change.

The traffic, particularly during drive time, is already a big issue. If you are not aware already, there have been at least two serious incidents involving children within the past months. Increased traffic will only result in increased risk and ultimately fatalities.

Travel in from any of the neighbouring towns and it is no different. Having recently moved to Warwick from Harbury and previously Kenilworth, I can confirm from first hand experience the intense commuting difficulties that lie therein.

There are three neighbouring schools, so clearly safety and pollution are of paramount concern too.

In précis, congestion, pollution and the safety of all, particularly children should be observed.

We write in support of your revised development strategy, particularly as it affects plans for the Old Milverton and Blackdown areas. We are very glad to see that you now accept that there are no 'exceptional circumstances' which might justify the substantial development on the areas of Green Belt which was originally favoured. It seems to us to be clear that the most appropriate place for the building of new housing and the necessary supporting infra-structure lies to the south of Leamington and Warwick where there is the potential for easy access to motorway routes.
We would also like to add that we recognise that it could not have been easy for the local planning authorities to make significant changes to their original favoured position and we congratulate the authorities for having done so.

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 area. Development in Kenilworth,Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essentialGreen Beltand further development on it would not be sustainable.
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 Ibelieve that there is sufficient non Green Beltland 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 tobuild 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 cyclingdistance, minimising traffic congestion.If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development.The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land wouldalso 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 inthe North Leamington Green Beltwould be unacceptable.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, itenables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

I am writing to congratulate WDC for preparing a Revised Development Strategy with a fair distribution of new housing across the district.

It not only correctly recognises that the exceptional circumstances necessary for a major development in the North Leamington Green Belt do not exist, but has provided better solutions through the use of Brownfield sites and development to the South which hold greater opportunities for growth and employment. The Revised Development Strategy also provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure needed to support the new development.

It is essential that the precious and limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth remains untouched for the welfare of our environment, our ecology and for future generations.

I have lived and worked in Leamington and Warwick since 1990 and I am utterly dismayed as to the intended proposal by the District Council (and County Council) to impose more than 12,000 houses in Warwickshire, of which 4,500 of these houses may be built in the South of Warwick. It appears to me and many other local people that the District Council (and County Council) has not given full consideration to numerous threatening consequences of building so many new houses in the south of Warwick. My concerns and objections are as follows:-

Traffic and Traffic Congestion

Inevitably, 4,500 new homes will add to the already heavily congested roads in and around Warwick Town and Leamington Spa. The increase in traffic will cause longer delays to the flow of traffic, especially at key times in the morning and evening, further slowing down the speed of traffic along key roads in and around Warwick Town and Leamington spa. The pressure on these roads is already vast as these roads are already heavily congested and as the increase in the volume in of new houses will only add to the misery of local commuters and residents. I understand that there are plans to make lane alterations in Banbury Road and Myton Road to ease the anticipated congestion. Yet, what evidence is there that this will work and at a vast financial cost to tax payers.

Environment and Pollution

In addition, as you all know, we live in a car-dependent age and 4,500 new homes and home-owners/occupiers, who no doubt will all have access to a car, will travel by car to commute to work, take children to school, etc. and will add to the already polluted environment in and around Warwick Town. Many of the town centre streets are in the ' Air Quality Management Area' and my understanding is that the Council is required by law to reduce the pollution from car/van and lorry exhausts. Building these additional houses, together with the additional traffic and emissions, will be badly damaging to the health of local people, especially children, the elderly and those whose health may worsen owing to already long-standing health conditions. As councillors for Warwick Town and District South and with the majority of votes out of all the parties, I would expect you all to be mindful of this and the already illegal levels of pollution affecting Warwick. Implementing the proposals of the Local Plan will no doubt exacerbate the illegal levels of pollution.
The pollution levels are not just affecting the health of individuals, but also are have damaging effects on the historic buildings of Warwick which are tourist attractions for many people. Local streets will be filled with intolerable levels of traffic and fumes which may put people off visiting our beautiful town.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, is the environmental impact on Warwickshire per se. There are already environmental concerns about the marked effect of the HS2. If the Local Plan also goes ahead, then we are facing a possible environmental tsunami for our local wildlife and ecosystem, not forgetting the loss of farmland and the consequences of this for our local farmers.

Local Infrastructure

The effects of the Local Plan, if implemented, raises serious concerns as to how the local infrastructure will cope with quantity of houses (and the number of people) being proposed. There is already a lot of pressure on many of the key local services (education, healthcare, transport, water and sewage supplies, leisure, work) in and around Warwick (and Leamington). How sustainable will this infrastructure be if the Local Plan goes ahead?

So what is a reasonable Local plan for Warwick District?

1) Consider the population growth in the District and set the level of new house building at a realistic level that meets the population needs as per Town Council figures (births, deaths, etc.). It is my understanding that these figures are very accurate.
2) Spread any new housing more widely so that new houses are not solely concentrated in the South of Warwick.
3) Use 'brownfield' land and not green belt/open land space.
4) Avoid 'commuting travelling' as much as possible. Therefore, focus on house building close to work, schools, etc.
5) Give serious consideration to the sustainability of the current infrastructure.

In anticipation of your support for my concerns and objections to the Local Plan as it currently stands.

1. Existing infrastructure already at breaking point particularly at certain times along Myton Road. There appear to be no plans to improve this so no additional estate development should be allowed with access onto Myton Road
2. The additional traffic generated will impact adversely on Warwick & Leamington town centres. Residents will choose to shop else where rather that be stuck in traffic queues. This could be partly counter balanced with inviting new footpaths and cycle lanes (not painted lines on roads) leading right into city centres and undercover cycle parks
3. Employment. New housing should be employment led. Make it attractive for exist employers to expand and new ones to set up. Delay granting housing estate building permission until there is clear evidence of potential demand
4. A percentage of every parcel of land for which developers are seeking permission to build on should be allocated to be sold in individual plots for self build. Suggest 10%

We write to support the Revised Development Strategy and are pleased that the Council has recognised the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist, as identified within our previous correspondence to you. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge into one another and also within the West Midlands conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work.
The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.
The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a co-ordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution. The Revised Development Strategy appears to provide necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development which is also positive to note.
I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development and this should be considered first to protect our current Green Belt and to ensure this remains for the future as it is one of the reasons people live in South Warwickshire.

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

I write to strongly oppose the revised development strategy- local plan of Warwick.

I live in Bridge End and drive or walk daily into central Warwick. The traffic at peak times is extremely heavy and I fear that if the proposed housing goes ahead the road will become even more congested. I find it very difficult to cross the Banbury Road when taking my dog to St Nicholas Park. The road is becoming ever more dangerous for children and elderly people to cross and I have witnessed several 'near misses'.

I suffer from a lung condition and the air on Castle Hill, in particular, is very polluted. This will be exacerbated by more traffic.

Thank you for attention to this matter.

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

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

Scale and proportion

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

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

Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Effect of local services/amenities

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

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

Flood Risk

* already flood issues in Whitnash and Warwick Gates
* potential to create flood issues on Myton Road were currently none exist
* scale and density of proposed housing,
* large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc,

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pushing these planning applications through before the consultation process is complete was grossly irresponsible and incompetent; and ultimately will lead to costing local tax payers more. Keeping these developments quiet until the last possible moment and then rushing the consultation helps neither local resident, developers or future residents if the end result is not a 'garden suburb' but a 'traffic hell'.

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.
I have attended your local briefings along with my husband and discussed with council representatives at these events.

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

I wish to register my opposition to the Plan in its current form. I oppose the allocation of so much development in the area to the south of Warwick and Leamington. I am trapped in my road for two half-hour periods per day already from school traffic along Myton Road. With the traffic created by these developments feeding into the roads at either end of Myton Road, I anticipate that I could be trapped for longer periods of the day. There is also the question of air quality in this area which I believe already exceeds recommended levels. I believe that the Plan should be re-examined with a view to spreading development more equitably across the District.

Having worked in Warwick for over 25 years and lived in the Bridge End area for 8 years, I wish to register my strong objections to the draft Local Plan which I believe poses a severe threat to the quality of life enjoyed by inhabitants of and visitors to the town.
The proposal to build 4,500 new homes south of Warwick is disproportionate to the overall needs of the area. Furthermore, it is proposed to build the houses on land that is currently farmland. It would surely make more sense, if new housing is needed, to exploit first all the brownfield sites that are available in the area.
Not only this, the sites south of Warwick would be utterly car dependent. Traffic is already at an intolerably high level through the town at peak hours. It is absurd to think that the cars associated with 4,500 new homes could be easily absorbed; congestion would only increase. No new infrastructure has been suggested - merely some multi-lane traffic lights. The fact remains that there is only one bridge over the Avon in Warwick. It is old, historic and - given that lorries are not permitted to cross it at present - not strong enough to carry the extra load.
The cars would also bring about an increase in pollution (already at dangerously high levels) in the town which would lead to poorer health for many inhabitants, especially children and those with asthma. The fumes could also damage Warwick's fine buildings which attract tourists to the area.
The thought of farming land being used for development leading to massively increased congestion, poor health and damage to historic buildings (including the only bridge over the Avon) is appalling. I urge Warwick District Council to stop this plan immediately, for the sake of the town's inhabitants and visitors.

The Planning Group are to be congratulated on their achievement in formulating a development plan based on sound planning principles and robust evidence for the forthcoming 15 years and in so doing, escape the folly imposed of an attempt to spread the 'development load' to include an ill conceived and unsuitable development involving the destruction of the Green Belt north of Leamington. This could only lead to legal challenge as the planning process progressed. If actioned this perceived act of vandalism would also unlock the way to further development, a merging of Kenilworth and Bagington with Coventry; and ultimately include Leamington, Warwick and associated local villages also merged into the West Midlands conurbation. Assumed Planning approval for the Green Belt associated with the Gateway is already a step far too far.

I see that objection has been stridently voiced, concerning the 2013 revised plan, even by some District Councillors, who should certainly know better, suggesting that they have not read the relevant documentation, do not understood it, or are being deliberately obtuse and combative.

It is however, generally agreed that there are prominent existing issues to be addressed. The revised plan does include strategies for the resolution of those issues, including addressing environmental (traffic generated) air pollution, infrastructure deficiencies and impoverished amenities in some neighbourhoods covered by the latest plans.

Crucially and most importantly, the Revised Local plan's proposed housing development is located close to places of work (including the Gaydon centres of employment) and to national Road & Rail networks. Coincidently, it minimises additional cross town-centre commuting and hence enhances opportunity for town centre regeneration. Although cycleways are mentioned in each phase of the report, detail is lacking for such a key proposal for components of traffic (management), environmental improvement and recreation. Links to larger places of Work and Educational institutions ought to be detailed and feature prominently.

As I recall, little has been offered concerning the rescuing of the Town Centres of Leamington and Warwick. Over the past 40 years, we have been witness to a steady aesthetic degradation of these areas and worse is threatened. It is too late to regenerate the attractive town centres residents like to, or think, they remember.

People are reluctant to walk any distance now, unless it is seen as a recreational opportunity. To draw shoppers back into these areas demands that far more comprehensive and inexpensive car parking is made available and domestic dwellings built of both an affordable and commercial quality. This type of development is far more appropriately accomplished in an urban environment than in small hamlets/villages and green field sites. A change in policy in this regard could offer a significant release of attractive windfall sites. Such opportunities are particularly appropriate for those with limited mobility and those with an increasing reliance on public transport. We have an expanding and ageing population nationally. Warwick District can be no exception and preparations for it ought to be well advanced and more generally appreciated.

In conclusion I refer you to a statement recently circulated by Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council which very succinctly summarises the position :

"The Parish Council believes that new development should be concentrated where there are existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It also believes it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that development.

The Revised Development Strategy fulfils these objectives. Recent evidence shows that the revised plan may have less traffic congestion, less pollution and improved schools and other facilities than building on North Leamington's Green Belt. For these reasons the Parish Council supports the Revised Development Strategy

I felt that I needed to contribute my objections on certain areas of the local plan.

The overdevelopment South of the river seems very excessive given the total imbalance between North and South. Previous suggestions including developing North of Warwick seem to have been discounted. I know the argument for "Green Belt" but surely if the times require such a large expansion of the house building requirement, the "green belt" becomes of secondary importance compared to the relevance of the county town and access to and around it. It is inevitable that employment will be attracted to the Coventry Gateway scheme and I note also the proposed Thickthorn development, if the vast majority of housing is situated South of these then surely a very great strain will be added to the already overburdened road infrastructure in and around Warwick. I DO note the proposals for improving the traffic flow but you cannot escape the fact that there are only a limited numbers of crossing points of the river and there do not appear to be any proposals to increase this, hence you perhaps move the traffic to the chokepoints more quickly but there is then still the increased delay due to the limitations of the crossing points. If the view is that employment is more likely to move from North to South then the same arguments apply in reverse! Given the very poor air quality in Warwick itself, I believe higher than medically acceptable, the situation will inevitably get worse particularly in light of the almost complete absence of any form of policing of bad, inconsiderate or illegal parking. In short I object to the housing plan as it is unfairly distributed, will be unable to cope with the increase in traffic and that peoples health will suffer as a result.

Turning to the suggested development around my own village of Hampton Magna, I consider the proposed site unacceptable and the additional burden on our local infrastructure unfair. The land in question may well have been landfill in a previous era and insufficient research has been done to verify this or re-assure the local resident that this was not so. Current property transactions are being affected by this and additional insurance seems to now be required before a transaction can be completed. In addition our local school has already had the burden of Hatton Park placed upon it and the attendant problems with parents driving children to and from school and their very frequently discourteous, inconsiderate, downright dangerous and often illegal parking will only get worse along with those who use the railway station but park in our village. I assume that consideration of the capacity and capability of the Doctors surgery have been duly considered?

The vexing question of "traveller" sites is with us yet again and I note that two sites being considered are those on the A46. Surely it is inappropriate that slow moving vehicles and caravans are allowed to enter and leave these sites on an already overburdened major road which is only a dual carriageway in any case at those points. This MUST be dangerous. The proximity of young children to such a major road is unthinkable and again it will place an additional burden on our local schools and medical services. I leave aside the obvious worries of these sites proximity to the local houses and the inescapable fact that some of these "travellers" are less than honest, it must surely have been considered?

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

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

Scale and proportion

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

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

Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

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

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







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

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

Effect of local services/amenities

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

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

Flood Risk

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

I have particular interest in flooding as I was flooded in 2007 and out of my property for 12 weeks. It was the worst experience in my life and I do not want to experience again.

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

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

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

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




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

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

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

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.

It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.

I would also like to make the following points:

1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.

2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.

3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.

4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.

5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.

6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.

In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.

Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

In general I support the policies set out in the revised strategy booklet "Local Plan Helping Shape the District".

I am pleased to set that the 2012 proposals put for extensive building in the green belt north of Warwick and Leamington have been dropped. Going ahead with it would have made a nonsense of national and local policies on green belt land.

I wish to make the following observations on particular sections of the booklet;-

Paragraphs 4.1.6 -4.1.9

This section contains a major logical flaw. Paragraph 4.1.6 argues that the District cannot achieve economic growth rates in line with national forecasts without inward migration. The following paragraphs go on to forecast how many dwellings will be required to sustain this level of economic growth. However it is impossible for every planning authority to achieve the level set out in the national forecast. Some areas will be above the average, and an approximately equal number will be below it.

The policies in paragraphs 4.1.6 to 4.1.9 appear to be based on the principle of "beggar my neighbour". Apparently Warwick District Council aims to achieve the national forecasts for economic growth by stripping other areas of their populations of working age.

Warwick District Council should be aiming to achieve for it citizens extra wealth and wellbeing per head of population. Simply importing extra people does necessarily do this. In fact it can result in the reverse through pressure that it puts on the environment and the infrastructure.

Map 6: Thickthorn

I accept that some green belt land at Kenilworth will have to be designated as a development site in order to enable the town to grow, and regard Thickthorn as the most suitable area. I also support the statements in paragraph 5.4.23 regarding the need for new employment land as part of the development.
Although there is a commitment to the provision of open space in this area, no hectares are given. Kenilworth as a whole has less publicly accessible open space per head of population than the level recommended by the WDC's SPD on Open Spaces. Provision in southern Kenilworth is particularly poor. Therefore the amount of publicly accessible open space at Thicktorn/Glasshouse lane should not only meet the needs of the new development but also address the shortfall in the south of the town. The land north of Rocky Lane would be suitable for this purpose.


Section 5.6.4

I fully support the policies regarding the Kenilworth to Leamington Spa (K2L) cycleway and the provision of a shared foot/cycleway alongside the Warwick Road between Leek Wootton and Kenilworth St Johns Gyratory.

I have a son aged 17 years old and a daughter aged 12, who both attend schools in the Warwick Schools Foundation, and have done since the age of 3. For 10 years we lived in Kenilworth, and at the beginning of those 10 years, if we left Kenilworth at 8.00am we would arrive at Warwick Prep by 8.15am. At the end of those 10 years if we left home at 8.00am, we struggled to get to school for 8.30am! The build up in the volume of traffic traveling into or through Warwick over those 10 years grew so much that the school run became hell, and the only solution was to leave home earlier and earlier. Many parent's living all over the county and traveling to these schools now leave home between 7.00am and 7.30am just to avoid the worst of the traffic and ensure their children are at school on time.

We took a different approach, and after many years of the school run, decided to move to Warwick so that our children could walk to school and we would all have a better quality of life. Our house is in Bridge End. My son therefore walks across the Banbury Road to school, and although he is old enough to do this sensibly is not an easy road to cross as it is so busy and there are no crossing lights to make it safer. Our daughter walks up towards town to Kings High. I have been horrified to learn, that whilst thinking I have chosen the 'green' and healthy option for my children that the levels of pollution in Warwick are so high and set to be even higher.

Another great concern is the safety aspect for children . In the last year alone there have been 2 serious road traffic accidents with pedestrians, both of whom were senior school children. Their injuries were serious enough to be kept in hospital overnight. I would really like my children to continue to walk to school, but the thought of the traffic getting even busier is horrific. Already if we pull out of Bridge End in the morning between 8.00am and 8.45am the traffic is at standstill going towards the town. It is actually quicker to walk up to Kings High than drive, surely you cant want to make this worse?

Frustrated drivers already use Bridge End as a cut through to miss out on sitting in the traffic on the Banbury Road, or to drop off children who then walk to school from here. Surely with all the Governments green initiatives it would be better to making walking to school a better option.

Building more houses so close to what is already an area that for traffic feels to be struggling, and over capacity seems to make no sense. We are proud of our historic town and surrounding beautiful Warwickshire countryside, let's keep it that way. I strongly object to a plan which doesn't seem to have any positive outcome.

I am writing to object to the draft local plan to build up to 12,000 new houses in the Warwick area.

The plan is for far to many houses. It will ruin the local area because the roads, schools and hospitals will not be able to cope.

This plan is deeply flawed. It is for too many houses, in the wrong places, without adequate transport infrastructure and it will damage Warwick town and its people.

I urge you not to proceed with it.

I am writing to object to the draft local plan to build up to 12,000 new houses in the Warwick area.

The plan is for far to many houses. It will ruin the local area because the roads, schools and hospitals will not be able to cope.

This plan is deeply flawed. It is for too many houses, in the wrong places, without adequate transport infrastructure and it will damage Warwick town and its people.

I urge you not to proceed with it.

I am writing to now agree with the revised plan. In particular to the removal of the development of land on the green belt north of Leamington and the North Leamington relief road.

In addition to the plan I would also like to see that no green fields sites should be developed until all existing brown field sites have been developed first.

If which I believe the number of new houses needed is too large and the green field sites are developed first that would in the long run leave us to undeveloped brown field sites which would be crazy.

a) The projected number of new homes - the forecast date for this is unrealistic and there is no evidence of how this figure realistically reflects other development and infrastructure that will be required locally to serve this increase in the population of this housing.
b) Review the land earmarked for development and identify alternative areas
c) Review the implications such major developments will have on the current transport network and the feasibility of how this will cope and the scope of developing alternative network
d) Compatibility of the proposals against legal requirements for air quality
e) Commitment to maintaining local heritage and historic environments - the proposals are at odds with these commitments
f) Developing employment provision in connection with housing needs is unrealistic - has any data been collected for the current populations to establish the percentage of population who live and work in the same area?

I would urge the Council to reconsider the proposals and set up further in depth consultations to ensure that the Council's approach to localism accords with what is actually required locally and is in the very best interests for all concerned

Again we have to rebut the the ideas of the district council. We have a plan that pushes building to the south,east and west of the area, never to the north. I hear you saying that the north is green belt but that did stop you agreeing to building a large new business complex on green belt land in the north.
Looking at the Transport,Doctors,leisure and all local facilities we in the south will be bog down with traffic jams,pollution etc. there will be that much traffic we will not be able to cross the roads to use the small amount of services that are provided. The loss of farm land is again leading to urban sprawl in the south of the district.
You have built Warwick Gates an urban Sprawl nowhere near Warwick and now you want to stick more and more on the end of it.
You are still not getting the idea that we in the south are feed up with the brunt of your failure to plan for the district not your friends in Northumberland Ave..

I have attended a number of local meetings regarding the local plan and do recognise the difficult position elected members and officers have been placed in in pulling this document together. However I continue to feel that it is unfair and untenable.

Just because North Leamington residents got together quickly and financed themselves into a position to lobby and discredit the first plan option of building between Milverton and Blackdown should not mean that there is no development north of the district. One key reason for building affordable family homes in the north was to re-invigorate a fossilising community. The demographic trend in Milverton, Cubbington and beyond is for older people and this is storing up problems for the future. Neighbourhoods and villages work best with a good spread of community - old and young sharing services and supporting each other. An additional reason to re-consider some development in the north of the district is with the successful Coventry/Warwick Gateway developments application. I note officers stated that this will open up jobs for Coventry people more that Warwick District residents but I also believe many will come from and/or want to live in Warwickshire. Because of this late- in-the -day decision I do feel planners should go back to the drawing board on developments north of Warwick district.

In terms of developing close to villages - particularly Hampton Magna - it is now apparent that families purchasing homes here need to have special land checks completed and organise specific insurances to cover the fact that some homes are built on landfill. (When we purchased 37 years ago we believed the site was Budbrooke Barracks but further investigation is showing a land fill sites also). The development land proposed on the outskirts of Hampton Magna could well feature ex-landfill sites and therefore become more expensive tracts to build on or develop. Additionally the local school and doctors surgery are full to capacity and would struggle to cope with additional demands on services - particularly having recently coped with influx of residents from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow.

Feedback on the proposed gypsy and traveller sites includes the unfairness of just how many sites are located around the county town of Warwick. I, and most people I know, recognise that sites need to be developed but again these need to be fairly distributed around Warwick District not only for current residents but also for travelling families to have some choices of where they settle. Planners may well quote that fairness is not a legal requirement but it is certainly a community requirement. I don't believe the developments alongside the A46 (ex Little Chef sites North and South) are appropriate. Not only is one site on green belt land - they are both immediately adjacent to a very fast road and have poor or no walkways or public transport access. Families and domestic animals should not be placed so closely to a fast road and they should have access to available services (see above for lack of school and GP capacity).

I feel the Racecourse site is also inappropriate due to it being placed on a major gateway into the County town and this site is also a transient site for travelling circus/fairground people through out the year - again making this choice an unfair one. Sites such as Barford and Kytes Nest Lane are significantly more appropriate due to their locations. I am also surprised that Radford Semele has little or no development proposals. There is capacity in the school there as well as good road and public transport links.

Please carefully consider all the above. I look forward to the next round of suggestions.

I oppose the above for a number of reasons, 1)Amenities are already
> > stretched to the limit around here
> > 2) traffic is already awful, the roads around here can't cope with
> > the traffic now! I haven't seen plans to build more major roads
> > 3) you are planning to build on green belt land!
> > 4) most of the houses are to be built around whitnash, this is
> > unfair and the plans should show proportional representation
> > 5) too many houses proposed full stop!
> > 6)are there not too many gypsy sites proposed - how will this be
> > managed? this is a concern for us as generally when a small amount
> > of gypsies camp up in whitnash there is a police presence, which we
> > would expect! Are you planning on a constant police presence? How
> > much is this going to cost? Is there Enough resource To cope with
> > this increased police presence? Council tax is already too high Rise
> > in crime Anti-social behaviour
> >
> > Whitnash has always been a nice place to live, if this proposal goes through we will look to move!

I would like to object to the District Council draft plan:-
The number of houses planned for South Warwick is not sustainable, is weighted too heavily compared to other areas of the district.
The infrastructure will not be able to cope, especially traffic, even with so-called improvements. The conservation areas of St. Nicholas Church St., Castle Hill, Banbury Road Bridge and Bridge End will not be enhanced, and the pollution from traffic will be worsened above already illegal limits.
It should be the councils aim to reduce traffic levels on the already congested roads and maintain Warwick as a historical town that tourists wish to visit, not a polluted clogged traffic monster.

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

I feel I must object strongly to the ridiculous proposals put forward for more housing in the area of Whitnash.

After Warwick Gates
was
built and no new main roads were built to assist with the extra traffic there has been a huge impact on the roads in the area,it is already very difficult to get out of Ashford Road, (which should if any one had considered the situation had a roundabout built there) more houses will only make this much worse, and there will off course be more air pollution affecting every bodies health in the already over crowded area.

The pressure on local schools, leisure facilities and doctors is already a huge problem and with a large number of houses this will only become much worse.

The Woodside 'plan' is on
grade 2 agricultural land
which I thought was very productive for growing crops on so how can this be considered for building on and the traffic access from Tachbrook Road is totally impractical owing to the already high volume.


Surely it would make more sense to build on 'brown field' sites - there are many empty factories on Heathcote, Sydenham and round about, not use even more of our precious fields and we should have a more even distribution of new houses across the district and our neighbouring local authorities. Do we really need so many houses in this area when our roads and schools are already under so much pressure.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the Revised Development Strategy for
Warwick District. In response to the consultation I would like to provide the following comments:
 The Revised Development Strategy correctly recognises that the exceptional circumstances necessary for a
major development in the North Leamington Green Belt do not exist. It is vital to preserve the limited
green space between Leamington and Kenilworth which is so valued by local people. Otherwise there is a
real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with Kenilworth and the southern fringe of the West
Midlands Conurbation. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington
where the nearest town is Banbury.
 WDC is to be congratulated for preparing a Revised Development Strategy which, whilst providing a similar
number of new houses for the District, removes the proposal to build 2,000 houses on the North
Leamington Green Belt and, through the better use of Brownfield sites, and results in only 325 further
houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington.
 The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 17% of the
new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the
proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
 In promoting sustainable development, it is important that most of the development is located close to
where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington and Warwick) providing an
opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many
people, with a consequential positive impact on the environment and their quality of life.
 The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more business investment in to
the area, helping to generate more jobs and prosperity for the local community.
 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. It is important that these road
improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements
can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of
Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution. Conversely, the
previous proposal to build 2,000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt would have resulted in
significant increases in traffic and congestion in already densely populated residential parts of Leamington
where there is very limited scope for expanding the road capacity.
 The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra‐structure to support
the new development.