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 live on St Nicholas Church Street in Warwick and worry about the effect this plan will have on the town and the area I live in.

More vehicles on this road will lead to severe congestion and levels of pollution even higher than the current illegal levels.

The infrastructure around Warwick is already unable to cope with any kind of incident on nearby roads such as the M40 and A46; I have been caught up in traffic resulting from incidents on the M40 causing it to back-up into the town and surrounding roads and it has taken more than 1 hour to travel only a few miles home.

I also can't understand the need for such a number of homes unless the Council is expecting an influx of new residents from outside the district. Where are all these new people going to work?

We already have a significant development taking place on Chase Meadow and don't need the additional number of homes proposed.

I strongly object to this plan and ask the Council to vote against it.

I write this email to confirm my support inline with the revised development strategy.

I strongly agree with revised strategy and commend Warwick District Council for being able to adapt a plan that recognises and makes best use of available Brownfield sites in the South of Leamington Spa. The revised plan clearly demonstrates that the chosen sites are not only suitable to the task in hand, but will also enable commutable employment opportunities for many local people. Furthermore I believe the plan will encourage new businesses to relocate their activities to Leamington Spa, as well as much neeeded road network improvement across the area.

I write this email to confirm my support inline with the revised development strategy.

I strongly agree with revised strategy and commend Warwick District Council for being able to adapt a plan that recognises and makes best use of available Brownfield sites in the South of Leamington Spa. The revised plan clearly demonstrates that the chosen sites are not only suitable to the task in hand, but will also enable commutable employment opportunities for many local people. Furthermore I believe the plan will encourage new businesses to relocate their activities to Leamington Spa, as well as much neeeded road network improvement across the area.

I just want to register my disapproval to all of the important measures put down in the latest draft local plan. It is an absolute DISGRACE, for instance, that you are considering building all the houses South of Warwick. Why on earth did you not put housing where the new Morrisons is? Apart from which, it is absolute drivel, as the Warwick Society have proved, for you to say there is a need for all this development. I want to see Warwick, Kenilworth and Leamington thrive as someone who depends on footfall, but I certainly do not want my business to prosper at the expense of the complete destruction of the whole nature of these wonderful towns. You should be ashamed that you have not more integrity to build on what is good, and not try to introduce wholesale unnecessary change.

Similarly with these points raised by Sue Butcher...
* Do you realise that they plan to put traffic lights on Castle Hill roundabout, Myton Road roundabout and the foot of Smith Street?
* Do you realise they plan to create a no right turn from Smith Street into St Nicholas Church Street?
There is absolutely no need for these measures whatsoever.

What you should be looking at is the whole question of parking, and treating it as a means of getting people into our towns to shop, instead of treating it as a cash cow. When retail is totally run into the ground in all our towns and High Streets it will be short-sighted Councils like yours that will be to blame, and you should be ashamed of your lack of a decent strategy.

The point is WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN? The Warwick Society and the Chamber of Commerce have both spoken out as representing large considered bodies of opinion and you appear to totally disregard them. Your consultation will no doubt be shown as the usual travesty. Listen before it is too late.

As a resident of Warwick I should like to draw attention to the following objections to the proposals on the grounds as set out below
>
>
> ** they will change the nature of Warwick from edge of town to urban sprawl.
>
> ** 7000 extra cars on the road ( two per household )
>
> ** already unsustainable traffic at Myton Road cross roads, Warwick Castle roundabout and
> Smith Street.
>
> ** extra cars mean extra pollution in the town centre
>
> ** more traffic will bring even more through traffic despite the new Jury Street layout thus
> destroying our historic Medieval town.
>

I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. 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 with 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. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
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 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.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% 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.
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.

I am writing to express my support of the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. 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 with 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. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
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 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.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% 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.
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.

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 revised plan since it recognises the importance of the Green Belt land in the north of Leamington and accepts that under current law there are no exceptional circumstances under which development can take place in this area. This means that the Green Belt area can continue to prevent the coalesence of Leamington and Kenilworth. The development in Kenilworth on Green Belt land south of Kenilworth still concerns me but here it appears that there are exceptional circumstances for the building of houses and the residents of Kenilworth do not seem to object.

I understand why the people in the south of Leamingon and Warwick may not be happy about the Size of the development in this area but this land is green field land and not Green Belt land and developers, who have options on the land are keen to use this land and other Brown field sites. The size of this development will change the whole character of the historic towns of Leamington and Warwick and as a resident is does concern me. The towns are already congeseted with traffic and I think it is absolutely essential that the infrastructure is put in place before the development goes ahead. The recent development of the Ford foundary site was a disaster as far as disruption to the traffic was concerned and shows that the road network and bus links need to be in place before the development of the houses and schools.

I would also like to see developers making more effort to add traffic free zones where it is safe to cycle so that residents can be encouraged to travel without the need to get in their cars. At present the cycle path system is very disjointed and difficult to follow. Cycle paths exist but just as quickly disappear and rejoin the roads which makes the use of cycles dangerous on the crowded roads.

Whilst I understand that the government is dictating the number of houses that are required by local areas, I am concerned that the the Revised Local Plan will completely change the nature of this historic place and make it a less desirable place to live. I do not think that simply tacking huge areas of growth onto pre-existing towns is very satisfactory. A more forward thinking plan and one fit for the future might be to go back to the government and ask them to consider the idea of creating a New Town, as they have done in the past, with towns like Milton Keynes, which was specifically designed with the future in mind. In this way we create something new and exciting, whilst preserving places of historical importance.

I would like to thank you for all the hard work that you have put into the Revised Local Plan. It cannot be an easy task to satisfy all the people all of the time!

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. 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 with 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. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
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 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.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% 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.
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.

I write in response to the consultation exercise for the Revised Development Strategy for the emerging Warwick District Local Plan published in June 2013 ("the Revised Development Strategy").

Warwick District Council ("the Council") has a very difficult task providing new growth whilst balancing environmental, planning and other objectives. The Local Plan must be based on sound principles and robust evidence.

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. If the Local Plan contains too few houses there is a risk that it will be found unsafe at Public Enquiry. I simply ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum.

A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is being performed with Coventry City Council. Should this review identify that it is necessary to increase the housing numbers above those included in the Revised Development Strategy, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.

I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced.

It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. Otherwise there is a real risk Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands Conurbation.

New development should be concentrated where there are existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and for there to be adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that development.

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, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, with a consequential positive impact on the environment & their quality of life. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.

The Revised Development Strategy provides a similar number of new houses for the District as the "Preferred Options" published last year. Importantly it removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt and, through the better use of Brownfield sites, results in only 325 further houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington

The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more businesses to set up & relocate to the area, helping to generate more jobs & prosperity for the local community

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 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.

The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.

The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% 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.

Although cycleways are mentioned in each phase of the Revised Development Strategy, detail is lacking for such a key proposal for components of traffic
management, environmental improvement and recreation. The cycle ways need linking together and cycleways to larger places of Work and Educational institutions ought to be detailed and feature prominently.

The proposed development South of Leamington includes a new country park. If the country park is sited next to the existing houses with new housing beyond it, the result would be to make the park more accessible, reduce the impact of further development on the existing houses; it could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.

For the reasons set out above, with the exception of the sighting of the country parks and improvements to the cycleways, I support the Revised Development Strategy.

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. 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 with 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. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
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 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.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% 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.
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.

I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. 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 with 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. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
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 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.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% 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.
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.

This is not a plan or a Consultation Document it is a mish-mash of isolated ideas and unconnected thoughts without any joined up thinking. I am repeating what I said at the meeting held at Hill Close Gardens a year ago. Fundamentally my views have not changed.

My major objections are as follows:

1. There cannot be any development in this area without the building of

* A new hospital which is fit for purpose as Warwick Hospital cannot cope with potentially 20,000 - 30,000 new patients
* Two new secondary schools need to be built and I can only see a site for "possible Secondary School". This has other implications on both schools in the area and on traffic flows at peak times.
* Where are these people going to work? Is it Sir Peter Rigby's new Gateway scheme that the WDC planners are so keen on?

2. No traffic assessment can have been done because if that is the case then the overwhelming case cannot be in favour of bringing traffic over a Grade II listed bridge that is already crumbling as the 7.5 tonne weight limit is regularly ignored. You only have to stand at the end of Myton Road between 8.00am and 9.00am or between 5.00pm or 6.00pm and you can see the effect. Warwickshire County Council's record in traffic management schemes is not one to have confidence in considering the mess they made of the recent "improvements" to the High Street and Jury Street. Indeed if these plans come to fruition then many of the streets in Warwick and surrounding environs will be just be arteries and I think here of Smith Street, St Nicholas Church Street, Bridge End, Myton Road, High Street, Jury Street, Castle Hill, Europa Way etc. The list is almost endless.

It has been suggested that the junctions become traffic light signal controlled. If they are anything like the new scheme that has been put in place at Princess Drive and the Recycling Centre then they will be an accident waiting to happen. It also adds nothing to the traffic flow and is far too complicated.

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

3. At a previous meeting at Hill Close it was indicated that traffic issues at peak times would be a real problem issue due, in part, to school starting and finishing times. It was suggested that schools could be spoken to stagger their start and finish times. This I felt was naïve in the extreme as many parents drop their children off on the way to their place of work and this will not change. Thus that will not improve.

4. Developers will only build houses if they can sell them. Do people want to buy them and are they affordable. However once planning permission is in place then it is very difficult to stop it. This will be like having the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over us.

5. Surely 12,000 houses are excessive. I would have thought a maximum number of half that amount is what is actually required which would have a dramatic effect on the plan. Why is the vast majority of the development on Greenfield sites and not Brownfield ones. I understand that only 9% of Britain is developed but when cuts out most of Scotland, Wales some areas of Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland and others then the picture looks vastly different. We are already overcrowded as an island. Why must the residents of Warwick (mainly) and Leamington be made to suffer?

I am not a 'serial' objector but a very concerned resident of what is a jewel in the crown of Warwickshire that is likely to be desecrated by this plan.

We are writing to support the Revised Strategy. It is vital to preserve the limited and very beautiful green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. If this were to be developed, Leamington and Kenilworth would merge into an urban sprawl. This would be a tragedy.

The green space to the south of Leamington is much larger and because of the distance to Banbury, more able to absorb extra development, especially if brownfield sites can be used.

We do urge the Council to keep the development to the minimum, using only non green belt land.

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.

Network Rail is the "not for dividend" owner and operator of Britain's railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations - the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network.

With regards to the proposal Network Rail has no comments to make.

1. Warwick is known worldwide as a town of historical importance in Britain's history. This is the main reason why it's so popular with Tourists. Unfortunately the continued development surrounding the town is changing it's character and affecting its history forever.
2. The area around Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 20 years with various large Housing estates (Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and Warwick Gates), Retail, industrial & Business Parks. This is already placing an overburden on the local area.
3. Further development increases the urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside and increases the local population (permanent and transient).
4. Warwick was designed to deal with 17 and 18th century traffic and is already choked by traffic congestion and grid locked at rush hours.
5. Many of the existing local large employers for example on the Technology Park do not employ the local population, but people from further afield, which adds to the local congestion in/out and around the town. Some do relocate, but this only creates a demand for further housing, more school places etc, etc.
The ongoing development in and around Warwick is not sustainable.

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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Please find our objections to the Revised Development Strategy
Warwick is known worldwide as a town of historical importance in Britain's history. This is the main reason why it's so popular with Tourists. Unfortunately the continued development surrounding the town is changing it's character and affecting its history forever.
The area around Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 20 years with various large Housing estates (Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and Warwick Gates), Retail, industrial & Business Parks. This is already placing an overburden on the local area.
Further development increases the urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside and increases the local population (permanent and transient).
Warwick was designed to deal with 17 and 18th century traffic and is already choked by traffic congestion and grid locked at rush hours.
Many of the existing local large employers for example on the Technology Park do not employ the local population, but people from further afield, which adds to the local congestion in/out and around the town. Some do relocate, but this only creates a demand for further housing, more school places etc, etc.
The ongoing development in and around Warwick is not sustainable.

Please find our objections to the Revised Development Strategy
Warwick is known worldwide as a town of historical importance in Britain's history. This is the main reason why it's so popular with Tourists. Unfortunately the continued development surrounding the town is changing its character and affecting its history forever.
The area around Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 20 years with various large Housing estates (Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and Warwick Gates), Retail, industrial & Business Parks. This is already placing an overburden on the local area.
Further development increases the urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside and increases the local population (permanent and transeunt).
Warwick was designed to deal with 17 and 18th century traffic and is already choked by traffic congestion and grid locked at rush hours.
Many of the existing local large employers for example on the Technology Park do not employ the local population, but people from further afield, which adds to the local congestion in/out and around the town. Some do relocate, but this only creates a demand for further housing, more school places etc, etc.
The ongoing development in and around Warwick is not sustainable.

I am writing to reiterate my objection to building further houses on the land north of Leamington. The development proposed would completely alter the nature of Old Milverton. The fields by the allotments off Old Milverton Road are regularly and heavily used by people for walking, running and exercising their dogs. This is good for health and the area acts as a kind of a lung for the area. Any building would be higher than existing housing and would dominate not only the houses but the landscape too. It would be a disaster. Leamington needs to remain attractive to business people who want attractive housing and countryside. Further development would render the town less attractive. Once again I write to express my objections to any development. This green belt is very precious and once built upon we will never get it back

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 am writing to voice my objections to the new local plan proposals.

I am a young resident of Warwick and an asthma sufferer. As such, I am particularly concerned about the significant decrease in air quality that the very large development would bring to this relatively small town. Data on pollution available online up to 2010 show that the AQS objective for nitrogen dioxide, a direct result of traffic pollution, is consistently exceeded in many areas of Warwick, by up to 154% (Progress Report 2011, Warwick District Council, April 2011). The addition of such a large development to the town would increase traffic into the centre and increase the pollution levels. A link between pollution and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) (which I am already at a higher risk of developing as an asthma sufferer) has been firmly established (Yang and Holgate, 2013). Furthermore, a link between pollution and lung cancer and asthma have also been suggested, although there is not yet enough evidence to firmly establish this as fact. The cost of COPD alone to the NHS is £1.3 million per 100,000 people (NICE clinical guideline 101, 2011). Thus, any further increase in pollution would not only be a personal cost to individuals involved, but also a major cost to the local NHS. There is a legal requirement for the air quality in Warwick to be improved and this cannot be achieved when adding to the traffic burden of the town. A health impact assessment for this development is of critical importance, before anything goes any further.

Furthermore, statistics were given at a recent local meeting which firmly stated that the projected housing need of 12,300 new homes by 2029 has been massively inflated. It was suggested that the 5,400 new homes needed over the next 5 years could all be built on brownfield sites. In addition, there are currently 1350 homes in Warwick standing empty (www.emptyhomes.com), which have not been included in these calculations. A local planner with an understanding of the local area would not have suggested such a large development in a greenfield site. While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already has the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market.

The land is not greenbelt, but really should be. This rural and agricultural land is important to the county and provides habitats for species of special interest, such as the great crested newt (http://www.ues.org.uk). The area also clearly delineates the boundary between Leamington Spa and Warwick, preventing the urban sprawl that greenbelts were designed to prevent.

Traffic around this area is also particularly problematic. My husband took nearly an hour to travel less than a mile down Myton Road one weekend and queues in this area are the norm. This increased traffic may also damage the local economy as people are prevented from accessing the shops and amenities in town centres. An historic city such as Warwick cannot be allowed to turn into a ghost town. The additional measures needed - traffic lights and signage - would also be an eyesore in this beautiful, old town, particularly around Castle Bridge.

It is my firm belief that the employment opportunities for residences do not exist in the local area. On top of this, Stratford upon Avon District Council also have plans to build a large development of 4600 homes at Lighthorne Heath, some 8 miles from Warwick. This development is better situated, as residents may find employment locally at Jaguar-Landrover. This may reduce the need for housing in Warwick further and should be taken into account when making the projections.

Furthermore, we do not have the infrastructure in terms of water supply, sewage and drainage and the historic town of Warwick cannot be damaged for the sake of this unnecessary development, which in essence is just lining the pockets of the developers and not in Warwick's best interest. A recent development at Warwick Gates did not include the primary school provisions promised, so we are left with little assurance that the school and healthcare facilities can be provided for this new development. Concerns have been raised by people at Myton School and Warwick Hospital as to the sustainability of this development.

I do believe that there are better alternatives to this development, including lowering the housing numbers to meet local needs. Our community is thriving, but there is a need for more affordable homes. However, the town cannot support further in-migration. A better alternative would therefore to be to build small, affordable developments of family homes on brownfield sites. Homes should be situated near to employment, schools, shops and railway stations. Finally, neighbouring local authorities must be consulted and a plan developed that can enhance the local area and not be of great detriment, as, having read this, I am sure that you would agree that this development would be.

We,as residents of Fryer Avenue (Leamington Spa), are pleased to learn, from the latest edition of the Development Plan, that the integrity of the green belt is to be preserved in the area between Northumberland Road and Old Milverton and we further assume that no overspill from Coventry will be contemplated in this area.
Regarding South Leamington, we sincerely hope that any development there will include all necessary supporting facilities such as adequate road layout, schools etc.
Thank you for looking after the legitimate interests of Leamington Spa.

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 cannot see any reason why the green belt should be built upon.
* The area off Old Milverton Road is used for exercise (walkers, joggers and dog walkers). The fields are heavily used in this way and have many public footpaths crossing them.
* Any building would mean that Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick will just merge into one sprawling blob. This will not be attractive to those wanting to continue their businesses in Leamington.
* We need to keep Leamington attractiver and to provide for a range of housing. I understand that Londoners thinking of moving to the area complain that there is not enough
* this end of Leamington is saturated with housing
* the allotments must remain.
* any development in this area will mean additional infrastucture which will further degrade the area (roads,schools, waste collections etc)
* any housing would be on higher ground than the existing ones and would dominate the houses and the landscape
* once the area is developed it will be gone FOREVER
* we need our green spaces, we need our 'lung'.
* if there is further building here the reasons why people want to come to Leamington will be negated.
I would argue that we need so many more houses in this area anyway.