The allocation to village locations is unreasonably high and is not sustainable - there will be an increase in car dependency.

Villages that are protected by green belt should not be targeted for expansion other than on brownfield areas.

The objective of building over a 15 year period some 12,000 houses, of which 70% are planned to be constructed south of Warwick and Leamington Spa is not sustainable because:
* This level of development represents the equivalent of building a new Bishop's Tachbrook village every two years in the vicinity over the life of the Plan.
* The local need for new housing requires less than half this level of development (i.e. less than 6,000 houses).
* Little consideration appears to have been given to the difficulties in fostering community life on the recently completed Warwick Gates.

There is now more emphasis on villages taking more housing, this is unsubstainable if the qualities of village life is to be maintained, expansion dose not necessary lead to a village survival since world war 2 most commerical services have been lost in villages but residential development still has grown.
The amount of development should be halved.

As the Conservative Party's candidate in North Leamington in the May 2013 County Council elections I, along with colleagues, campaigned on a platform of firm opposition to any development of the Green Belt in North Leamington. I am pleased, therefore, that the Council has listened to the concerns of local residents and that the local plan does not propose any development of the Green Belt to the north of Leamington. I would urge the Council to retain this position when the final plan is brought forward.
At the same time, I recognise the concerns held regarding the proposed development to the south of Leamington and Warwick. Before any further development takes place in the District it is vitally important that we are assured that the population projections are robust, that all Brownfield sites are exhausted and that the potential for residential development in the towns of Leamington and Warwick is fully explored. I refer in particular to development above shops and conversion of shops into residential units. As average family size becomes smaller, as rates of family breakdown increase and as the number of single occupancy households increases the need to smaller residential units as oppose to traditional 3/4 bedroom properties becomes greater. Development in the town centres might also help with the much needed regeneration of our towns.

The Majority of the development is in greenfield sites which is environmentally unsound.
The plan needs to focus more on use of brown field sites within the area not Sacrificing green belt.
Opportunities such as the redevelopment of the Ford foundry site for dwellings has been missed in the past, putting in retail developments that there is no need for and not addressing the environmental need to use brown field sites for housing.

The majority of the developments is in the Sothern part of lamington and Warwick which will coalescence of the existing settlements changing the landscape and the nature of the community permanently.

WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure on the south of the District to absorb all forms of development during the new local plan period.
WDC should be requiring that Gypsy and Traveller sites are developed within the proposed new housing developments or other brownfield sites in Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth which would allow for full integration into local communities with appropriately planned facilities and services (schools, doctors' surgeries etc) accessible by foot and all forms of public and private transport.
WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington as Greenbelt to ensure that the villages in the south of the district retain their rural identities and are not, over time, absorbed by the expansion of Leamington and Warwick.

WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure on the south of the District to absorb all forms of development during the new local plan period.
WDC should be requiring that Gypsy and Traveller sites are developed within the proposed new housing developments or other brownfield sites in Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth which would allow for full integration into local communities with appropriately planned facilities and services (schools, doctors' surgeries etc) accessible by foot and all forms of public and private transport.
WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington as Greenbelt to ensure that the villages in the south of the district retain their rural identities and are not, over time, absorbed by the expansion of Leamington and Warwick.

I wish to object to the proposed local plan and in particular those developments projected to the South of the town. I feel that there are too many houses proposed and have detailed my fuller objections on this point in the relevant section.
In addition I feel that the large number of houses projected off Harbury Lane, Europa Way and on Woodside FArm should not be granted as this will create a large urban sprawl, destroy a beautiful part of the county and rolling countryside, build on prime agricultural land and also create a significant level of congestion in this area and town centres of both LEamington and Warwick.
In more detail my objections are as follows:
1. The local RDS plan does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can be delivered from the Developer contributions through section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
Even with new dual carriageways being created around Europa Way all of the traffic eventually ends up either on the Myton Road or Tachbrook Road which ultimately end up crossing over either the River or Canal where there is no no deliverable answer to the the problem of the increased traffic numbers or congestion. There is no suggestion or proposal to build new bridges.
The proposals are only for ugly large traffic lighted crossroads which only cater for vehicles and not for pedestrians.
This increase in vehicles and traffic congestion will also result in higher pollution levels and this wil impact on the Councils legal duty to actually Reduce fume pollution.
The increase in traffic will also detrimentally effect the town.'s economy if the roads are so congested and fume filled - ruining the very pleasant and attractive environment that people currently enjoy.

I am happier with this distribution, with the exclusion of the green belt to the north of Leamington but am still concerned at the level of development of green belt being targeted to the south of Leamington and am not convinced that this is justified

It seems to me that we are paying the price for years of uncontrolled immigration. The green belt needs to be protected at all times. Agricultural land should never be compromised, as it provides us with food and security. The need for more housing is greater than ever, so we should be thinking of building up rather than spreading out, as that makes more sense. We should also consider the welfare of our animals as their habitats will be lost. I have no further comments, but fear the worst, if green belt is going to be used for housing.

I object to the proposals for the housing south of Warwick and Leamington because they rely heavily on car use. The draft plan will increase traffic congestion, increase pollution causing increased respiratory disease and a reduced quality of life. The pollution will spread across the rest of the District. WDC say its investment in mitigation will improve the traffic flows but how more vehicles will cross the river to reach either Warwick or Leamington town centres or reach employment centres around Coventry is not clear. The mitigation measures will cause disruption to implement them and once Europa Way becomes dual-carriageway, it will become a barrier between the communities either side of it and the Europa Way roundabout will be a bottleneck, particularly during the peak travel hours.
If WDC believe that employment will be in Warwick or Leamington then this underlines the importance of the railways and building settlements along the rail corridors. This is very different from the concentration of dwellings to the south of Warwick and Leamington.
The number 68 bus which is the main service connecting the Local Plan's development area suffers poor reliability, most likely because of traffic congestion. This will only worsen with the added traffic that the development would bring. Furthermore the service is expensive to users which presumably together with its poor reliability causes its poor loading. Poor performance of public transport will cause more of the new residents to use cars for travel which will set up a vicious circle.
I object to the Local Plan because of the investment needed to try to mitigate the congestion. The lack of clarity about the river crossings makes it hard to believe in the viability of the infrastructure proposals.
The County proposals for a park and ride scheme by the Europa Way roundabout demands a lot of infrastructure. Furthermore, the intensity of services quoted in page 95 of the Strategic Transport Assessment looks high, surprisingly high. The financial viability of this level of service looks suspect and might well need an ongoing subsidy. In short, to satisfy the transport needs of the large scale of the proposed development needs disproportionate infrastructure spending to offset the effects of a badly sited development.
I object to the Local Plan because I believe that such a large number of dwellings should be distributed around the District. That such a high proportion of dwellings should be built in one place shows that the 'greenbelt' framework is not fit for purpose and should be reformed. WDC should look to reform the 'greenbelt' legislation if it is to take so many houses.
Placing so much development away from rail corridors is very short-sighted, especially with the planned railway electrification with its possibilities for using renewable energy. WDC should pursue a policy of one or two small eco-towns of 2,500 to 3,000 houses centred on a new railway station. Development would be around 1km across depending on housing density. As the railways run through greenbelt for the great majority of their mileage in the District, the policy would be undermined straight away. The choice is to build settlements on greenfields that will increase pollution but it is outside greenbelt or build in a sustainable transport way on greenbelt. Building settlements on rail corridors would be truly sustainable.
I object to the Local Plan because it will extend a market town and spa town in one direction, creating sprawl and being out of character with the towns.
I object to the Local Plan because it takes the number of houses, assigns some to a few token areas and leaves the majority for a single area. This is reacting not planning

I am deeply concerned with the proposed development in Warwick and surrounding areas.

I have lived in Warwick since 1992, firstly in Myton road and for the last 13yrs at the above address, near Myton Hospice. During that time the amount of development has increased significantly e.g. the Moorings, Warwick Gates, Hatton, Chase Meadow and Myton Road (on the Catholic School site) to name but a few.

These developments have brought with them increased traffic, increased pressure on the hospital and schools to the point of bursting.

There are times of the day when I already feel "trapped" in my home and know that to venture out by car/public transport I would have to allow at least an extra 30mins just to get to the other side of Warwick. In view of the proposed plans journeys would become even slower and congestion worse - with pollution a major health concern to local residents.

The plan drafted by the Council would encourage more people to move into the District, destroying the advantages which might attract them: the housing forecast is double what we need and would build far too many houses on greenfield sites.

Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash would become a sprawl of housing estates losing precious agricultural land. The greenfield development would be car-dependant and unsustainable.

New houses are needed, but in the right numbers and places with the infrastructure necessary for sustainable lifestyles, and without awful damage to the life of the town and its existing residents.

I feel very strongly that it is not in the best interests of Warwick and its residents and strongly object to these plans.

I believed that WDC should be acting in the best interest of their residents, who voted for them, and not against their wishes.

I would like to object to the local plan proposals.

Apart from a period of years abroad I have lived all my life in Warwickshire, mainly in Warwick itself, and have seen some badly conceived changes but these are the most severe threat to our lovely historic town. Parts of the town centre are already suffering from high pollution levels which can only be made worse by the massive amount of traffic which will be generated from the intended vast development.

There are at least five schools in the town which are directly affected by pollution. This is irresponsible for the health of the future generation, although everyone in the town would suffer.

Our precious historic buildings particularly would experience deterioration as a result. And the economy of the town which we are currently improving would be reversed.

Travel would become slower, and whilst planners may consider this a good thing, it causes frustration and anger. The result can be reckless driving decisions, and more accidents.

I understand that at present 76% of traffic is through the town. This must be reduced, and certainly not allowed to increase, by some type of charging to encourage drivers to take a circuitous route.

Development should be spread more widely and in conjunction with local authority neighbours, using brownfield sites as much as possible with the retention of a distinction between Warwick and Leamington. There needs to be a corresponding provision of infrastructure, and all should be genuinely sustainable.

At present it is not a balanced plan but a charter for developers.

We are writing to express our concern about the proposed development of land south of Warwick. We've attended public meetings and attempted to provide feedback through that channel (in fact the first one held at Warwick Gates Community Centre which was somewhat a debacle, offering little chance for proper discussion or feedback from the panel).

As residents of Warwick Gates since 1999, we have felt the impact of the ever increasing traffic congestion and the quick fixes which have not resolved the problems (i.e. new junction at Gallows Hill and the road layout near Morrisons). At the public meeting it was suggested that traffic wouldn't be a problem as people would be heading out to work towards Banbury, and that adequat infrastructure would be put in place but this really is not the case - the new proposals are simply going to add pressure through Warwick and Leamington town centres which are barely coping as it is and do not have room for road widening for instance. Neither have we been provided with any evidence that the sheer number of homes proposed are necessary, nor why the area near Milverton cannot be developed better placing residents to have access to the A46 and other routes to Coventry, an equally valuable employment region alongside Banbury.

Having resided at Warwick Gates for over a decade, and in fact moving in in the first year or so of devlelopment, we've already lived through the empty promises of locating a primary school on the estate - which never happened. As such we have this year also experienced the school places shortage - when our son was not given a place at his priority school of Briar Hill. The Local Plan proposes several schools but we have little faith that even one will be provided - as ever more land is given over to lucrative deals with property developers.

It seems that WDC are determined to take what was once a beautiful area and cram it full of new builds that need cars to get from A to B, as public transport links are poor (we've tried using the local buses but they are infrequent and ridiculously expensive compared to the car, particularly if there is more than one passenger).

We would also welcome further information as to why the proposed traveller sites have so much land attributed to each plot, when we, as private purchases, have half that available space on what is deemed a large property. It seems unnecessarily 'generous' given that the beneficiaries are not tax payers or contributing to the wider community.

We look forward to hearing your response,

I strongly oppose the building of so many new homes in the Bishops Tachbrook area.
The land between Whitnash and my village is Green Belt and acts as a boundary between the 2 villages. This would disappear and we would be merged into a sprawling housing estate. Nobody who wants to live in a countryside setting wants that environment with all the problems it would present. Eg extra traffic, congestion, overcrowding of schools and other amenities. Please rethink this plan and come up with a sustainable alternative involving a much reduced number of new houses.

I am writing to you to express my extreme concern over the current WDC Local plan where 69% of new housing is planned South of the District . Over 4000 homes are planned in a very small area resulting in increased traffic and pollution of potentially in excess of 8000 cars. With only 4 river crossings, getting to North of the towns (both Warwick and Leamington) from South of the area will be impossible with current roads. The traffic chaos caused by the re-development of Princes Drive should bear witness to the need for road improvements to the North - an additional burden from 4000 houses will be unbearable for all local residents.

I also have concerns that the planned changes to the motorway (a running hard shoulder between junctions 12 to 15) will not be sufficient for the increased volumes of traffic and may well contribute to severe congestion and increased pollution in the area. Current motorway junctions serving Bishop Tachbrook and the south side of Warwick are already dangerous at peak times with stationary traffic backing up along the hard shoulder. Additional cars joining and leaving the motorway and proximity of Junction 15 will be a considerable risk for further collisions.

The South side of the District will become an urban sprawl of housing estates between Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash and far too many houses are planned to be built on these greenfield sites damaging the current agricultural land
and ruining the existing neighbourhood for local residents.


In addition, several developers have already opportunistically placed planning applications for developing this land taking advantage of the fact that the WDC local plan has not been approved. I have specific concerns over one of the developments at Grove Farm, Harbury Lane, Warwick where levels of arsenic, copper and benzo(a)pyrene have been found above the "Generic Assessment Criteria" for residential development with gardens. Whilst this is only in one area, building in this area of already high population (Warwick Gates development) must be considered dangerous. Section 6.3.1 of the report highlights that apart from the elevated levels of these compounds, there is not considered to be a risk to human health. However, I understand that metabolites of benzo(a)pyrene are highly carcinogenic and do not believe residents of the planned development, or nearby developments would wish to take the risk to their own, or their childrens risk to health should they be aware of it!

http://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/79602B8147297E752F37D48CC98EBE4B/pdf/W_13_0036-site_investigation_report-617681.pdf

I hope that you will be supportive of many local residents concerns on this unfair and potentially dangerous local plan which will put current local residents at risks from increased traffic (and potentially) harmful substances. A plan for Warwick is required that meets the needs of local and future residents, enhances the environment and improves residents lifestyles. The current proposed local plan cannot be seen to do this.

Having attended the meeting at Guy Nelson Hall on the 22nd July, I am writing to express my great concern with the W.D. Local Plan.

Warwick is a special medieval town with places of interest for locals and tourists alike. There are hostelries and cafes and people are encouraged to sit out in the open air and enjoy the atmosphere of the town.

Already the air quality in the main streets in the town centre is reduced by pollution from car and other motor transport exhaust emissions, as is also the case in Leamington Spa. Measured pollution on occasions already exceeds that permitted by law.

This plan together with the resulting Transport Strategy would only worsen the situation considerably. The strategy is patently car based and would squeeze more traffic onto an already overstretched road network.

As a medical practitioner, who has over the years, dealt with the effects of poor air quality on health, in particular asthma, bronchitis, C.O.P.D. and of course cancer, I am greatly concerned.

There are school with playgrounds and playing fields, parks and sport and recreation areas all within the area which will be affected by this strategy. Parents are advised to encourage their children to walk or cycle more. With the likely levels of pollution this would be entirely counterproductive for health benefits.

So overall, the projected housing need for 12,300 new build homes is much too high.
The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook is rural and agricultural. Building on this scale would result in an urban sprawl. Gone would be the greenland which is just as important as the green belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick.

This green land must be preserved.

Dear Sirs,


Sorry we were away and have just returned home. We are writing to support the New Revised Development Strategy of non-development of the Green Belt to the North of Leamington.

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.

see attached

Attached

see attachment

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached