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.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish it to be known that I am IN FAVOUR of the Revised Development Strategy.

This strategy makes much more sense and will retain the few beauty spots left to us. I was completely opposed to the former strategy to build on the beautiful Warwickshire green belt in the North of Leamington. This land is home to many endangered species of wildlife including War
I also think that to build in North Leamington will take away the only pretty countryside that Leamington has left!!

I would be grateful if you would make my views known for the public consultation of the latest plan.

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.

Dear Sirs,
I write personally in support of the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence within the Plan of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential in my view that the Plan does not revert to or involve any development on the North Leamington Green Belt.
The Green Belt in this area meets the five key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well-used cultural and exercise related resource for both residents of Leamington and further beyond. Developments 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 specific 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 without having to look to develop the North Leamington Green Belt.
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 existing employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial/business parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick). This provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating (what has become even across Leamington itself increased) commuting time for many people, reducing pollution and improving quality of life and health benefits. 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 additional public 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 both new and existing) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation with the consequential environmental impact of such journeys and the health impact through having less available recreation in the immediate proximity.
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 and it is my view that there is far more scope to do this in the South of Leamington. 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 strongly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist. The North Leamington Green Belt is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability and attraction to newcomers to the District.
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.
Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir or Madam

I wish to make the following comments on the Local Plan bearing in mind the significant development that has already taken place in Warwick over the last two decades, namely Hatton Park, Chase Meadows, Benfords site, Warwick Gates and Myton Road (old school site).

The local plan is suggesting significant further development of the town, which would potentially increase the size of Warwick by approximately 40% and yet little attention seems to have been taken into consideration the already poor air quality experienced in the town centre, which would be further adversely affected by the additional traffic generated by such development, which seems to suggest that traffic would be concentrated on the Castle Hill area of the town. The proposed changes to the infrastructure of the town seems to be based solely on providing additional traffic lights and by reducing access to a thoroughfare at the St John's end of Smith Street. The traffic congestion which already exists in the town, particularly at peak times is an issue now, let alone having potentially more traffic directed through the town in future years. I understand that a report is due shortly on the air quality of Warwick town centre, and so I think it regrettable that the District Council would put forward such development without having first knowledge of the outcome of that report.

Development on the scale proposed would have significant impact on services such as schools and hospitals. It was suggested at the public meeting held at Aylesford School that the District Council were in discussion with Warwick Hospital and the County Education Department about the provision of additional services. We have all read in the press about problems at Warwick Hospital A & E Department being able to cope with current demand, and as the hospital site has already been developed to its maximum potential, I fail to understand how it can be suggested that the hospital could cope with the impact of providing care for potentially a 40% increase in the size of the town and surrounding district. It was suggested at the Aylesford meeting that to cope with the additional demand for school places, that Myton could expand, and yet you only have to attempt to travel along the Myton Road now between the hours of 8.15 am and 9.00 am and 3.15 pm and 4.30 pm to see that the current road is frequently blocked with long tailbacks of traffic caused by school traffic both from Myton and Warwick Schools. Any such expansion of Myton School would have an impact on the infrastructure and yet this does not seem to have been taken into account.

With regard to the plan for the proposed traveler sites, it strikes me that all the proposed sites are predominantly around Warwick, and this seems an unfair distribution, bearing in mind that there is a long tradition of using the Thickthorn site in Kenilworth for the annual traveler horse fair. That site is close to transport links (A46), close to schools, doctors, shops etc and would appear to meet more of the criteria that a lot of the sites suggested for Warwick. I fail to understand why that area of land at Thickthorn would be designated for employment use, when there is no history of employment use in that part of Kenilworth, and there would not appear to be a demand for employment land in Kenilworth when you take into consideration the change of use around Common Lane, Priory Road, Kenilworth from employment to residential.

All in all I think the proposed local plan reflects badly on the Council as an ill-conceived document, and officers and Councillors need to go back to the drawing board and start again, and come back with proposals which residents of the area would find acceptable. It is clear from the local press that there is strong opposition to the plan, and as a democratic country, Officers and Councillors should respond in line with local wishes.

I would like to register an objection to the new local plan regarding the impact on Bishops Tachbook in particular.

The overall numbers seem unreasonable and the research we have read suggests that less than half the 12,300 homes are needed. In addition the concentration around the southern area of Warwick Gates and Gallows Hill will cause log jams on routes that are already at standstill at peak times. It can already take us 45 minutes to get to Warwick 4 miles away at rush hour. There is not the infrastructure in place to cope with this. The extra traffic will end up diverting through Oakley Wood Road which can be dangerous with only 1 crossing area in the whole village outside the leopard. With 3 young children this is a major concern.

The traffic management plans will not resolve the current problems around Tachbrook Park and Warwick Gates and Europa Way let alone accommodate significant increased residential and commercial traffic in these areas.

There are major cities with room for development around Coventry and Kenilworth where their will also be access to the HS2 rail line. Development should be concentrated in these areas where there is transport links to cope with the growth.

In addition the Chiltern Railways line is also crowded on peak trains, often standing room only to London, further developing this historic area will cause disruption, pollution and damage to the district.

The green belt seems to be used to disproportionately force development around a small area of the district however Bishops Tachbrook dates back to the Bronze Age and should be protected and preserved as much as any green belt village.

Dear Sirs


I fully support the sensible alterations to the previous Local Plan, as outlined in the revised plan.


In particular, I wholeheartedly support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown, for the reasons stated in my response to your consultation last year, namely that:


1) It fulfils the five key purposes of green belt land as outlined in the NPPF.
2) It is a valuable outdoor resource for leisure and healthy living.
3) It is prime farm land.
4) There are alternatives available, as you have demonstrated in the revised plan.


It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. 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 reiterate the important points made by Bill Gifford and others:
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, it is important to recognise that there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.


2. The Revised Development Strategy has distributed new housing across the District. Although far from ideal (there are plans for houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington) there is a balance of housing across different sites as well as town and village areas.

3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to existing employment opportunities (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. 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 have generated 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 air pollution. It also enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

I wish to raise my objection to the 2013 Local Plan, and the numerous planning applications that are associated with it - those that have been submitted and that are currently under consideration, and those that are either in the pipeline or have been placed on hold. I also feel that the areas of search identified for sites for Gypsies and Travellers have also been unfairly focused in the same overall areas -mostly around Warwick, south of Leamington, and in and close by to Whitnash. I have submitted my views and objections separately to the relevant sites and applications.

I strongly feel that this revised local plan unfairly places the majority of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick / Leamington and around Whitnash.

Some of the issues that I feel are relevant and should be high-lighted relate to the overall plan to concentrate development in one main area and the scale of these plans. I believe that overdevelopment of the area would lead to significant urban sprawl and long term coalescence of settlements. The loss of the countryside, rural aspects and local agricultural land are not factors which can be replaced once development has begun and these will be lost for future generations forever.

The effect on local roads in relation to traffic and infrastructure has been severely underestimated and the road infrastructure south of Warwick / Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched. Major problems already exist with traffic heading into the centre of each of the towns, and at peak times congestion on rural roads outside the town and on various local roads is also experienced. The increase in pollution through gridlocked areas and the additional vehicles in such a small, concentrated area of the District will only make the problems worse. If we estimate that each additional household will use at least two vehicles there could be almost 10,000 extra vehicles using the local road networks.

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts. Short of completely reworking most of the local road networks at massive cost and disruption I do not see that this can be achieved.

With regard to much of the planned development in and around Whitnash, the infrastructure is just not in place to accommodate planned development in this vicinity. Whitnash is the smallest of the four main towns in the District and as is evidenced by NHS reports, local doctors surgeries are already oversubscribed and cannot reasonably be extended further. Nor would it be feasible to build a separate local facility for use by additional residents to Whitnash. Warwick Hospital is currently operating at full capacity and typical waiting times for referred appointments run to many months.

With the HS2 development and other local projects where additional construction and workers will be on site - there is little capacity for additional residents to be assisted at the hospital, particularly in emergency cases.

The general facilities available in the Whitnash area are not comparable with Warwick, Leamington or Kenilworth and massive investment would be required to bring services and amenities up to a standard to justify the proposed developments in and around the Whitnash area.

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. Much of my knowledge relates locally to Whitnash, however I believe that the other local areas experience similar pressures in that primary schools are already oversubscribed year on year and the majority of schools will experience pressures, parking issues and difficulties in changing catchment areas, with siblings potentially at different schools, should these plans go ahead. It is my understanding that whilst developers may "allocate" land for a school, they do not actually fund the school to be built and surely it is WCC who would have to agree to pay the wages of teachers and staff in the short, medium and long term?

I am aware that in Whitnash and Warwick Gates there are proposed planning applications on areas where currently and historically there have been flooding issues. Previous planning applications have been rejected on the basis that some of these sites are very steep and that water drainage and access issues for others have deemed them unsuitable for development in the past. It seems strange that these issues can suddenly be overcome purely on the basis that a projected need for housing has been identified.

There are many reasons why the Local Plan is unbalanced and unfairly impacts on the South Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash areas by concentrating the proposed new housing in one relatively small area. Alternatives that may be considered include identifying existing housing that is currently unoccupied, spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with many more much smaller developments, which are more likely to be completed by local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy, and identifying empty industrial units with a view to using the land for brownfield site housing.

My preferred option would be to identify an area in the surrounding countryside which could be used to build an entirely new town.

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

W/13/0036 -200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)
W/13/0603 -370 homes on land west of Europa Way / South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0606 -720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane (withdrawn?)
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields (withdrawn?)
W/13/0776 -280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0858 -up to 100 homes at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash
W/13/1016 -800 homes at Myton Garden Suburb

I am aware that permission for W/13/0464 - large Retirement Community development on Gallagher Land near Heathcote has already been granted at the time of writing.

I hope Warwick DC would also refuse any new applications relating to the following:
Further development South of Gallows Hill - up to 260 homes
Former Severn Trent Sewage Works - 225 homes
Further development at Grove Farm - 375 homes
Whitnash East/South of Sydenham - 500 homes

These applications fall within part of the consultation on the new Local Plan and to decide/grant planning permission whilst consultation is ongoing is wholly inappropriate and unjust. Decisions relating to the Local Plan, as a whole, impact on each of these individual applications. At the very least decisions should be deferred until the situation regarding the local infrastructure is clearer, and sensible plans relating to accurate projected housing requirements have been reviewed and amended.

Please reconsider the Local Plan and give value to the views of current residents of the District, in addition to any future residents. At the moment Warwick District is a great place to live and raise children, however if the Local Plan is implemented in its current form, the quality of life for residents and future generations would be very sadly diluted and compromised.

dear sir/madam

unfortunately i cannot respond to your revised development strategy through your website and so i am emailing you and hope that this is sufficient to log and raise my opinion/concerns.should i need to use the link throught the wdc website then please let me know before 29th july.

my opinion:

i raised my opinions in a formal manner at the earlier consultation stage - 'preferred options' - urging you not to build on the greenbelt land north of leamington spa. i gave several resons for this, including:

the footpath and green belt land accessed from Bamburgh Grove across the greenbelt land of Old Milverton is used by lots of people who also enjoy using this greenbelt land for recreational purposes. This greenbelt land should be protected and kept as it is for the local community to enjoy. The recreational value of this greenbelt land is immense. It keeps our town looking nice - appealing to locals and visitors to the town. It encourages people to live and stay in our town. It helps to educate younger people - allowing them to easily get out into the countryside. It is good for people's well-being and fitness. building on the grenbelt land would have a negative effect on peoples' health and well-being.

(2) This greenbelt land is also highly important environmentally - it provides habitat for wildlife and is an area filled with lots of different types of plants and trees. The WDC has a responsibility to protect this area.

Greenbelt land is important to stop towns merging into one another. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Therefore, the greenbelt land in Old Milverton and Blackdown should NOT be built on otherwise the towns of Kenilworth, Leamington Spa and Old Milverton village would eventually merge together.

The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.

The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It ...

o Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
o Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
o Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
o Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
o Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

i agree with the sites which have been currently identified by WDC as being able to be developed that are not in any greenbelt area. These sites were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy) and most are south of Leamington where there is already lots of employment opportunities and infrastructure already in place - so being land suitable for building and development; NOT greenbelt land so no greenbelt destroyed; land more suitable for housing etdc as places for jobs, shopping and roads already in place and easier to develop. I believe that this non-greenbelt land land should be used for development in preference to the greenbelt land to the north of Leamington (or any other greenbelt land).

further concerns:

i have become aware that due to the plans of coventry city council the greenbelt land of old milverton and blackdown may still be at risk of development.

at this point i would like to raise my concerns again and urge you to safeguard the greenbelt land north of leamington spa (old milverton/blackdown areas) and prevent it being built on. it would cause urban sprawl and have a detrimental affect on the town of leamington and the health and well-being and quality of life of many of its long standing residents.

so please log this email as a second formal response - and response to the revised development strategy - PLEASE keep our greenbelt land as it is for future generations to enjoy and to best preserve leamington spa as the lovely town that it is.

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 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 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 am writing this letter 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. I outlined such arguments in my letter dated 15th July '12. Recent developments in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. I object to further such development.
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
 This should be about Warwick District Council and the ability of our district to accommodate the required housing for the next 15 years. We should not have to use additional district land to satisfy the shortfall of other councils. That should be their responsibility as I foresee the same matter arising in a further 15 years and if Warwick district land is utilised then that means we will have less options at our disposal in the future
 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. It would also properly utilise the recent infrastructure improvements around Princes Drive to accommodate the new supermarkets for Morrison's and Aldi meaning that further inconvenience to the district's tax payers is avoided and additional land does not need to unnecessarily used.
North Leamington, and the district as a whole, should not have to use its land to fulfil the housing requirements of Coventry City Council. There is significant opposition across the district as it currently stands to cope with its own housing requirements. To build a further 3,500 houses would be nothing short of inflammatory and the councillors should be doing their utmost to protect their constituents and the interests of their constituents with the Green Belt being one of those significant interests.

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 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 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 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.

Dear sir I 'm writing to you about the plans to build thousands of homes on the boundaries of Whitnash, Warwick and Bishops Tachbrook.
There are major flaws in the projected housing need of 12500 figures, it is wrong to forecast up to 2029.
The proposals to commit to build over this number of years will span many future elections, this takes away my rights to show my disapproval through the ballet box as these decisions will be binding on future Warwick District Councils whatever their political bias.
These decisions being forced on us by a NIMBY biased north Conservative District Councillors is to my mind disgraceful.
No Houses to the north of the towns on green field sites is a farce they built North Leamington School on green field site, we propose to build HS2 on Green field land.
To reduce the need to travel, houses should be built near to employment, how are we going to attract employment to this area? The latest decision to build houses on land already earmarked for industrial use demonstrates that new jobs are not so easy to attract to this area.
Houses should be built close to future industrial sites like the Coventry Gateway project and the new and ever expanding Jaguar Land Rover plants at Gaydon.
Daw Mill Coalmine will never open again; this could be a major brown field development area for houses and Industry in the future.
The proposal by Stratford Upon Avon District Council to build near the Jaguar Land Rover plant at Gaydon is going to effect the WDC proposals, yet neither of these two councils have talked to each other, Warwick District go blindly on burying their heads in their proposals without the basic consultation between the two.
So many changes have taken place since the current set of statistics were compiled which were used to come up with the current proposals, that serious rethinks should take place by all, including National Government.
The current infrastructure cannot be improved to satisfy the influx of people and cars to the south of the river, improvement to incoming roads to Warwick and Leamington yes will improve the flow of traffic but will come to a stop at the river bridges and Morison's railway bridge.
How will increased traffic flow through Warwick which is already a bottle neck, the River Bridge and The Butts in Warwick?
The air quality in Warwick and Leamington is already causing concern; this set of proposals will only cause further deterioration to the air quality, resulting in major health risks to the population of inner town residents and workers.
The Woodside Farm proposed development has serious access flaws and is proposed without considering existing pedestrian crossings and future traffic flows in this area if the other proposed developments in the area go through. The proposal to build three story houses at the highest point is also ill planned.
Many houses in the district are currently single occupancy with older people struggling to pay bills in large houses, there is a need in each development for small two bedroom bungalows to give these people the opportunity to move and release these larger houses, or even parents moving to be close to siblings in new developments.
I could go on for another few pages but I hope you are getting the full picture of the concerns I and the local townspeople who I represent have to these proposed housing developments.

This letter is to register my support for the Revised Development Strategy

It is positive 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 simply 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 and 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.

While I do not 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, I would 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.

Dear Sir

I wish to express my objections to the fact that the new local plan places the vast majorty of new housing to the south side on the district and much of it in and around Whitnash. This area has been subject to non-stop growth & development over the past 20 years and more and has in that time lost some of its identity as a separate town within the district. Traffic on even small resiential roads has increased because of parents travelling in to drop their children off at school to the extent it now poses a hazard for the many children who do walk to school in Whitnash. Parking on our streets and particularly near facilities such as library and post office is a real problem - it is rare to find a legal parking place with cars parked on double yellows and, at the acre close shops, often backed up onto the main road. Routes from south leamington through to the north and to warwick are always busy, buses although overpriced are often overcrowded making them unpleasant and uncomfortable to use. To me it makes no sense that the plan refers on its front page to a "major sub-regional employment site in the north-east of the district" but NON of the housing is nearby. Surely this is just going to put more pressure on our roads and is not remotely sustainable.

As a specific interest to me as a resident of Home Farm Crescent is the proposal to put 500 dwellings east of whitnash. We overlook this site and as well as being important farmland and home to a good amount of wildlife, including otters, we have also noted the regular flooding of Whitnash brook which flows through/round this site. I have taken the liberty of attaching photos, taken earlier this year, to show how the brook regularly bursts its banks. It currently floods like this 3 or 4 times per year. Building on this site will just make this worse, and move the problem downstream towards Leamington itself.

It is simply unfair that the new development should all be built around areas which have already borne the brunt of so much of the regions growth. Please reconsider.

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.

Dear Warwick District Council,
I am writing to express my serious concerns about aspects of the Local Plan. I do appreciate that there has to be a Local Plan and that at least some new homes have to be built in the general area. I also appreciate the difficulties you face in trying to reconcile so many competing demands, both local and national. Nevertheless, I strongly feel that, in its current form, the Local Plan will damage the quality of life and health of residents and schoolchildren, commuters and tourists in Warwick, and also risk damaging local wildlife and plants, and beautiful and historic buildings (and the views from them and approaches to them) which are not just valuable in their own right, but play a central role in the local economy.
My concerns are as follows:
1) As I understand it, 4,000 new houses are proposed for south of Warwick, 3,195 of these on the land stretching from the Gallows Hill fork off the Banbury Road up to Europa Way. This intense concentration of new homes will hugely increase traffic along the Banbury road route to Warwick town centre, and exacerbate already severe traffic flow problems. The traffic lights proposed to replace the Bridge End/ Myton Road roundabout and the Castle Hill gyratory will mean that much of this traffic will be idling or stationary for periods.
2) This will result in increased air pollution which will affect residents in Bridge End, Mill Street, Smith Street and St Nicholas Church Street (and I understand that air pollution is already at or even over the legal limit in Warwick Town Centre). It will also affect the visitors to the Castle and St Nicholas' Park who bring so much to the local economy. And I am particularly concerned about the effect on children: in this area are Myton School, Warwick Preparatory School, King's High School, Warwick School and at least two nurseries. These schools have playgrounds and playing fields bordering the affected roads and we can expect to see an increase in asthma. Also, a large number of children walk to school and they will also be affected - I see no allowance in the Local Plan for the needs of pedestrians. We do not want to discourage this activity: it helps to increase fitness and prevent/reduce obesity (my sense is that there are fewer overweight children in Warwick than in many places, and we want to keep it that way). Also, if parents feel that air quality is so poor that they have to drive their children to school, this will only make the traffic even heavier. Children cannot vote or put in bids for contracts, and we have a clear ethical imperative to make their well-being a top priority.
3) Increased pollution will also affect wildlife (and plants) in the park and in the wood at the top of Bridge End by the bridge. In this wood I have spotted, amongst other creatures, hedgehogs, toads and bats.
4) Increased noise pollution will also decrease the quality of life for residents and wildlife, and impact adversely on the tourist experience.
5) The increased volume of traffic (and often stationary traffic) on the 18th Century Grade ii* Avon Bridge is likely to put it under intolerable strain: it has a 7.5 ton weight restriction. It would be a tragedy if such a beautiful, historic and iconic structure had to be replaced, and it is to be profoundly hoped that such a replacement is not a covert part of the Plan.
6) Increased pollution will also be detrimental to the historic buildings of Warwick Castle, Warwick Town Centre and Bridge End.
7) The Phase 3 Transport Assessment acknowledges the potential for problems caused by the increased traffic flow. It states that 'routes into and through the town (Warwick) are likely to suffer substantial increases in the overall level of delay'; it also says 'increased congestion and reduced speeds ... occur within the town centre (slow moving and idling traffic being a major contributor to air pollution.' And it admits that 'there are a number of assumptions that have been included within the modelling that may require further detailed analysis.'
8) Great care needs to be taken to ensure that the views from Warwick Castle remain largely green; the approach to Warwick is also an important part of the visitor experience (as well as contributing to the quality of life of local residents, schoolchildren and workers) and needs to remain attractive. At the very least there needs to be a protective landscaped strip along the eastern side of the Banbury Road. Indeed, I believe such a strip is required by the Ribbon Development Act of 1935. Tourism is so important to the local economy - let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg!
9) It is unfortunate that recent traffic 'improvements' in the area, such as the confusing and dangerous mess by the Princes' Drive Waste and Recycling Centre, do not inspire confidence.
To sum up: as I said at the outset, I do appreciate that the District Council has a very difficult job on its hands and I am sympathetic to these difficulties. But I also believe that the above points show that there are powerful legal, ethical, economic, aesthetic and historic arguments against the Local Plan in its current form, and I would urge Warwick District Council to think again. The current plan may be good for builders, but it is not good for existing residents, schoolchildren, tourists and workers in Warwick. It is not even going to benefit the new residents if they have to struggle to get into the shops and other amenities.
So: is this high number of new houses really necessary? Are there not any existing buildings that could be reused? And, above all, why is there such an unbalanced concentration of new building just off the Banbury Road? Many of the problems would be reduced if the new houses were more evenly spread around the district.
With many thanks for your time and attention in addressing my concerns,
All good wishes,

We, the 3 Warwick County Councillors, whilst supporting the need for new local housing, express our opposition to the Local Plan published for consultation, on the grounds of over-development of one area, resulting in pollution which will be impossible to mitigate. This will affect both the health of residents and the structure of our multiple historic buildings, which are so important to our sense of place and culture.

Warwickshire County Council officers have produced the best transport mitigation plan they can in response to the proposals for housing offered by the District Council. This does not imply support, but a neutral response on the best option for increasing flow. The location of the proposed development does not allow our priorities for sustainable transport to be taken forward. Distances will be too great for pedestrians. Viable public transport will not be possible.

Unequivocally, the proposed traffic mitigation still results in increased traffic and increased pollution as laid out in the report from Arup. Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European guidelines on safety. Air pollution from traffic is linked to strokes, heart and respiratory diseases as well as some cancers and asthma. About 4,300 premature deaths a year in London alone are attributable to air pollution, according to studies for the London Mayor. We believe a Health Impact Assessment should be completed before any agreements are made on the Plan.

The 1993 Local Plan and the Inspectors Report in 1994 required measures to reduce the impact of traffic on our town centre. And yet, over a decade on, we have been unable to mitigate the traffic effect of this development, despite funding from the developer. We do not believe further development should be approved without first meeting our previous obligations.

Whilst we understand green belt should be preserved, we do not feel this should be at the expense of increased pollution for our existing residents.

The Town Council meeting on 17 July 2013 voted unanimously to reject the latest Local Plan proposal and to support Leamington and Warwick's MP, Mr Chris White in his call for the District Council to rethink its ill-conceived proposals.

Additionally, there was considerable surprise and concern that the District Council had chosen only to note the clear advice given by Mr Andrew Langley MP, Leader of the House of Commons, in answer to issues raised by Chris White MP in the House of Commons, that residents of his constituency felt that their voice was not being respected, regarding the Local Plan Consultation.

The advice was that in the formation of the Local Plan, and that in the expectation of the Localism Act 2011, the District Council should not only apply the National Planning Policy Framework, but do so in the context of local decision making by local people.

Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook residents deserve to be heard, as were the residents of North Leamington, and their clear preference was that south Warwick District should not become a single urban sprawl, with the loss of those green areas, which define the boundaries of those parishes, but that housing should be limited to levels which the community and residents were able to support.





The greenfield sites, which are of considerable importance to the towns and villages affected, and which the Local Plan proposes for some 4,300 houses and flats, have been roundly rejected not only in the context of the current plan, but also in respect of the 'Core Strategy'. The strong local objection was known to the District Council before work commenced on this Local Plan and entirely ignored.

The importance of the green rural and agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook has been entirely discounted on the grounds that it was not Green Belt, but these green areas are as important to those residents, as the Green Belt in Kenilworth or Leamington Spa, is to those residents.

Indeed the loss of this green land is being dictated by;
i) The apparent willingness to provide developers with land to develop and to massively over provide for the housing needs of the Warwick District.
ii) The direction from Warwickshire County Council, confirmed by County Councillors, that in order to achieve maximum funding from development, that development needed to be allocated in large blocks.

In the Town Council's view local need can justify only approximately half the number now proposed and the Local Plan proposal provides for uncontrolled growth within the South of the District, which will lead to even greater congestion onto the existing road network and will impose intolerable traffic congestion in Warwick and Leamington Town Centres and the approach roads over the river crossings on the Avon.

The levels of traffic from some 4,300 houses and flats, based upon census findings, will generate in excess of 7,000 additional vehicles and which will worsen the levels of air pollution in the Town Centre of Warwick, when levels already exceed the legal limits imposed by the Air Quality Regulation (England) 2000.

That the levels, are exceeded was determined by the District's own officers, and formed the District Council's policy to work in proactive a manner to reduce the existing levels of unacceptable air pollution. Nothing in the Local Plan addresses the need to reduce the existing levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution in Warwick Town Centre and residents' health will suffer.

The traffic solutions outlined in the Local Plan and the mass of development proposed by the plan will seriously damage the setting of the Town, and consultants have previously recommended that the land south of Gallows Hill, which provides an historic setting for the Town and Castle, and Castle Park, should be protected from development. This area appeals to residents and visitors alike and is an important factor in the Town's tourism economy.

That impact on the tourism economy and the vitality of the Town will be made worse by the increase in traffic and wide junctions with traffic lights, in historic and sensitive locations in the Town, which will turn Warwick into a Town to be avoided by visitors. A further impact on the vitality of the Town and directly impacting on the Town's economy.

The issues regarding traffic congestion and pollution will be exacerbated by Stratford District Council's proposal to build 5,000 houses at Gaydon and in the Town Council's view, it is impossible to continue with a Local Plan, which already generates housing greatly in excess of local needs, when development directly intended to provide for employment needs is to be provided in Gaydon, effectively providing for the employment needs of the area, and in relative close proximity to the major development proposed in south Warwick.

Discussions must take place with Stratford District to produce a rational solution, for a new town type development at Gaydon, will directly reduce houses needed in Warwick District and demand for employment land. The take up of the latter has been so reduced that the District Council has already released designated employment land for the other users.

House building in Gaydon will greatly impact on the need for housing for employment migrants into Warwick District.

Notwithstanding, the large scale development in the south of the District centred in such large numbers will generate high levels of infrastructure from roads to sewage provision and water supply, schools, policing, doctor's surgeries, hospital demands and all health care facilities. Funding has been outlined in the Local Plan, but at this time the District Council cannot demonstrate that funding levels to be generated will meet the costs of such infrastructure.

There is also the doubt as to the deliverability of needed infrastructure and it will not be lost to the District, of the failures and delays regarding the provision of infrastructure at Chase Meadow, for the traffic scheme is not yet complete and sports playing fields have never been provided.

The Town Council does believe that there is a better alternative to the present Local Plan and one which local people would support. That alternative would be to reduce the total number of houses to that required to meet local need and in particular affordably social housing. Then if LPA allocation of employment land is taken up, additional land could be released to meet housing demand with development concentrated on brownfield and infill sites and near to schools and other needs.

Additionally a greater co-operation with adjoining authorities and in particular Stratford would allow for a joint approach, rather than a competition for jobs and houses.

The Local Plan has located a high number of possible Gypsy and Travellers sites in the south of the District and the Town Council consider that if the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities are to be met, then more rural sites should not be ignored, rather than the District Council just repeat the decision to ignore local representation and concentrate Gypsy and Traveller sites in Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook.

Regrettably therefore the Town Council finds itself in the position of repeating its objections to previous consultations objections, which have been ignored along with the views of local people.

The Town Council's objections are:

1) The projected housing development does not reflect local needs and the plan as proposed offers uncontrolled growth, and is a charter for developers,
2) The plan does not provide for development evenly throughout the District.
Almost total protection is given to Green Belt, as demonstrated by the decision to delete land at Old Milverton.

No concern is given to the importance of the greens areas between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook and 4,300 houses and flats will spill over the historic boundaries to create a single urban sprawl.

3) Local views are being ignored, despite the support of Leamington and Warwick's MP.

4) The impact on traffic has not been assessed as an impact on the Town's tourism and commercial economy. Warwick would become less attractive for residents and visitors, if large traffic light controlled junctions were constructed and even greater congestion was created.

5) No thought is given to transport policies relating to cyclists and pedestrians.

6) Traffic generation will further increase the existing excessive air pollution and not reduce the pollution as provided by the Districts policy. Residents' health will suffer.

7) The historic environment would be directly damaged and the plan makes no provision to protect those historic buildings or the Conservation Area.

The purpose of the Local Plan is to develop Warwick District as a great place 'to live, work and visit' and the Local Plan should be assessed to ensure that this aim is met, throughout the District, and not just in parts.

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 am writing this letter 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. I outlined such arguments in my letter dated 15th July '12. Recent developments in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. I object to further such development.
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
 This should be about Warwick District Council and the ability of our district to accommodate the required housing for the next 15 years. We should not have to use additional district land to satisfy the shortfall of other councils. That should be their responsibility as I foresee the same matter arising in a further 15 years and if Warwick district land is utilised then that means we will have less options at our disposal in the future
 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. It would also properly utilise the recent infrastructure improvements around Princes Drive to accommodate the new supermarkets for Morrison's and Aldi meaning that further inconvenience to the district's tax payers is avoided and additional land does not need to unnecessarily used.
North Leamington, and the district as a whole, should not have to use its land to fulfil the housing requirements of Coventry City Council. There is significant opposition across the district as it currently stands to cope with its own housing requirements. To build a further 3,500 houses would be nothing short of inflammatory and the councillors should be doing their utmost to protect their constituents and the interests of their constituents with the Green Belt being one of those significant interests.

I am writing to you, as Director of Public Health for Warwickshire, with reference to serious concerns we have with the impact upon our health and wellbeing if Warwick District Council's preferred options within the New Local Plan are allowed to go ahead.

This would include a large concentration of around 3420 dwellings on the greenfield land to the south of Warwick between Myton Road and Europa Way which is currently an Area of Restraint and would join up with Warwick Gates.

This amount of development in one area would have serious health impacts upon local residents in the loss of green land and the addition of additional vehicles onto roads which are already in excess of their capacity.

I moved to Warwick 12 years ago where the air was cleaner and the housing less concentrated than Birmingham where I had lived from childhood.

The addition of this housing will create an additional 3000+ vehicles at peak times around Warwick on roads which are already stationary and slow moving and hence result in additional pollution and a further decline in air quality which was shown in the 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick district to be poor. The worse area was then shown to be Warwick town centre.

I currently have to leave home 20 minutes earlier than I did 12 years ago or sit in a row of cars causing even more pollution. As more traffic is introduced even more will become stationary and slow moving causing an increased concentration of pollution in the Myton area.

It can only result in an increase in respiratory conditions such as asthma, chronic lung diseases and of course will be a contributory factor to lung cancer as shown in recent reports.

We are extremely concerned about the potential health impact upon our families.

I therefore seek urgent confirmation that the issue of air quality is being thoroughly investigated as an urgent matter of Public Health and urge that this Local Plan, in its current form, will be opposed in its entirety if it is found to be detrimental to the health of residents.

Sadly I was only able to stay at the meeting in the Guy Nelson Hall until 8.30p.m.last Monday and we had only reached Q4 by this time. I left feeling that everyone had worked very hard, it was well
presented but the vital question had not been addressed.
We all know that the builders have "sticky" fingers (my son has lived on Warwick Gates for about 9 years now), that the projected housing of 12,300 is far too many, that every new house
has most likely 2 cars which will be needed to get to work, that the beautiful river Avon bridge into Warwick will not take any more volume of traffic, that Warwick town centre is already full,
polluted and will get only worse if these plans are allowed to go ahead, that at peak times when the schools are in not out the traffic jams in both directions along Myton Road are awful, that
the developer promised a school and play area but neither materialised etc etc
The government/district council seems to be changing the rules to suit themselves. What is happening to the over 1,000 empty houses in Warwick? We need to look at the infrastructure much
more carefully so all tastes are covered. In this case we should look at water, education, green infrastructure, health facilities, sports facilities, the police, our libraries and especially our roads.

The speaker from The Warwick Society more or less presented his case as a fait accomplis. Why have public meetings if the developer has already been given the go ahead? We need to stop and
think much more carefully about these plans and their wider implications.

I've rambled but do feel very strongly about this. I have lived over 65 years in this area of Warwick and don't want to see it spoiled any more.

Then there are the possible Gypsy and Traveller sites..............

I am forwarding my views on the proposed development plans in the Warwick area,

Having children and living in the centre of Warwick I am concerned about the level of traffic pollution which already exists in the centre of Warwick . The proposals for further housing will make this much worse unless a relief road is built to the south of the town enabling traffic to completely bypass the centre of Warwick.

Why are so many houses necessary to be built on the outskirts of Warwick? The reasons advanced so far do not justify such a large development. They should be spread throughout the county and not just on previously undeveloped land. This will enable existing infrastructure to cope better with the increased demands that will be placed upon it .

I do not believe the present plans are sensible and it will not enhance Warwick and the town centre where my family live.

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.