see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

See attached

see attached

I am writing in response to the revised development of the Local Plan by Warwick District Council.

I have looked carefully at the revised plans for future development in the area and feel that the revised plans reflect a much more balanced and logical approach to addressing the development needs of the area whilst recognising and protecting the unique character and setting of Warwick District.

The new plans recognise that there are no exceptional circumstances allowing major development of Green Belt land North of Leamington. This will protect the rural identity of the area and preserve a much loved and utilised recreational space for residents across northern Leamington and beyond. The high grade arable farming land North of Leamington is protected within the revised plans and the decision to remove the proposed 2000 homes for the Green Belt area North of Leamington will keep Leamington from merging with Kenilworth which will further protect Leamington's identity and setting as a Spa town.

The planned distribution of new housing in the revised plan seems to be a fair distribution across the District with limited development on Green field sites. It reflects a better use of brown field sites and limits development in villages.

It is reassuring to see that the importance of existing infrastructure and the scope for its development has been taken into account with the main development plans situated in the South of the town. This will provide closer links to rail and road networks. Traffic surveys show that road improvements to the South of Leamington can cope with the planned new development and that by having the majority of the Development in the South of Leamington, traffic movements will be reduced, also reducing pollution, and congestion will be eased.

Warwick District Council should be congratulated for accommodating a similar number of houses in the Revised Local Plan, whilst recognising the above points and limiting the compromise of our Spa Town identity and rural setting.

Objection to New Local Plan

There is no correct evidence for the plan. If followed through, there would be too many houses in developments which would be ridiculed because they were examples of what should NOT have happened. Why? Because all the evidence was ignored e.g. the car dependency; the inappropriate road plans to 'deal' with the new traffic; serious problems of illegal levels of air pollution; permanent misappropriation of green sites etc. I attach a letter re the Local Plan which I sent to Chris White MP.

I would like to make my objections known about the "Revised" proposals to the Warwick District Local Plan 2013. Anything less consultative I have yet to experience! I feel my civil rights are of no consequence to the non-elected members of the WDC. I do not approve, and object to, the "Sheriff of Nottingham" approach to Local Government.

As the form produced is inadequate for the task, my specific objections are listed below:

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
Piecemeal "improvements" can be compared with the little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dyke. The proposed improvements are TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE! Warwick and the environs are already hopelessly traffic clogged. Until work starts on a by-pass or ring road any future housing development plans should, in all conscience, not even be considered.

AIR POLLUTION
Parts of Warwick Town Centre and adjacent feeder streets already have Air Quality deficits. What will 6,600 new dwellings - and the accompanying vehicles - do to the Air Quality?

HEALTH
Do not the WDC non-elected officers have a Duty of Care towards the health issues of the present inhabitants? Are the non-elected officers unaware of the detrimental health issues associated with poor air quality? A follow-on problem is the fact that the medical facilities are already over-burdened without space to expand.

I sincerely hope my objections will be taken seriously.

Dear Planning Manager,
I wrote previously to express concern about the proposal to site development on green belt land to the north of Leamington, and I am pleased that the Council is no longer pursuing this option. I understand the Council has now recognised that Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist.. As I wrote earlier, 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. So long as the infrastructure of roads, shops, schools and community facilities really is put in place, this seems the most sensible option.
However, I would question whether so much green field development really is needed. There are so many empty commercial properties and existing brownfield sites in the district that I believe the Council should be prioritising these for residential development before considering greenfield development. For instance, the Ford site in Leamington could all have been residential, instead of only a small part of it.. The addition of another supermarket there was unnecessary, and will only detract from the viability of the ones we already have. The supposed office development on the site we are now told has attracted no interest, so this should become housing rather than more retail.
The Council really must make change of use to housing a priority strategy in the local plan, rather than just planning new residential areas.

see attached

see attached

see attached

Dear Mr Elliott,

I would just like to concur with Mr Steeles thoughts regarding the distribution of any new housing.

The 2013 Local Plan that has so unfairly targeted the south of the district needs to be thoroughly re-thought out. In the same way that residents of North Leamington/Warwick objected to the 2012 Local Plan, so too now are the residents of South Leamington regarding the revised 2013 Plan.

It seems that Warwick District Council wants to try and dump large numbers of houses/developments wherever they can. Having been foiled in 2012, they changed the Plan to the next available area of land. If the 2013 Plan is similarly withdrawn, will the area to the west of Warwick, or East of Leamington towards Southam/Harbury be the next to be targeted?? Don't think that there would be no opposition if these areas were targeted.

This could rumble on and on - yet Mr Steeles alternative proposal makes good sense. The housing numbers required quoted by WDC are open to debate, and it is the opinion of many that these numbers have been very largely over estimated. I believe also that the WDC has failed to take into account the large number of derelict and empty properties around the district which should be returned to full use before any new houses are considered. There are also many private houses that are let to (transient) students in the district that could be brought back into use for people who wanted to live in them as their every day home.

Any residual housing numbers that are left after everything else has been taken into consideration could be evenly distributed around the district, in small developments that could benefit local builders (and hence the local economy) rather than national developers with no ultimate interest in the area, other than the next swathe of land they can get their hands on and bury beneath more bricks and concrete for their own profit!!!!!

Spreading the developments thinly will mean no need for vast changes to the road infrastructure, and no significant burden on existing services (such as schools etc) in comparison to what is currently proposed. The effects on each local area will also be minimal, and the character of the areas largely unchanged.

Warwick District covers a significantly large area that should be able to absorb this (including Green Belt areas), and a proposal such as Mr Steeles should not be dismissed, but should be actively considered and pursued. It would not destroy Warwick district - but the Local Plan as it stands in 2013, would do considerable long term damage to the areas south of Warwick and to Whitnash, and this must be avoided.

As the deadline for the end of the consultation period nears, I urge you to please take account of the views of your residents - the fact that both North and South Leamington/Warwick residents have objected so fiercely to the 2012 and 2013 Local Plans respectively, suggests that Warwick District Council is pursuing a policy that is out of touch with those same residents.

We have not simply objected, but have presented an alternative proposal that could satisfy your requirements, and spare us the destruction of large areas in our immediate locality. This could also save significant sums of money by drastically cutting the potential changes to the road networks, reduce the need to build other new infrastructure, and money saved could be used to improve existing infrastructure and services. As I said previously, contracts to build large numbers of small developments could be given to local building companies, which will further boost the local economy.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen McFadden,


----

Dear Mr Steele,

Thank you for your comments below. I shall ensure they go into the overall consultation analysis and be brought to the attention of Councillors.

I would add that a public inquiry is envisaged for the Local Plan as a mater of course.

Yours sincerely,


Chris Elliott
Chief Executive


---

Dear Mr Elliot,

I have just seen your reply to Anne Horsley regarding Green Belt Issues.
What you have said there, and in this reply to myself is unsatisfactory because it does not give a good reason for using or not using Green Belt in the two cases in question.
All we can see in your statements is that when it suits your argument you will allow use of Green Belt land or not.

You say you could not justify use of land in the Green Belt north of Leamington. Yet you can justify the draconian solution to site most of the housing south of Leamington. The fact that one is Green Belt and the other not is a moot point, and under the circumstance it should not have been given so much priority. What you have failed to take notice of is 'proportionality'. In the words of this extract from the Document 'Human Rights'.

<How does the Human Rights Act affect me? *
When it comes to decision making, the rights of one person often have to
be balanced against the rights of others or against the needs of the
broader community (there is more detail on this in Part 3). But if you
have to restrict somebody's rights, you must make sure that you are
not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Any restriction must be no
greater than is needed to achieve the objective. This is called 'proportionality'.> End of Extract

You are 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' by allocating most of the housing needs on the community south of Leamington and Warwick.
The good reason you could not find to use Green Belt land North of Leamington (and/or many other possible areas in my alternative plan suggestion) is to protect the Human Rights of the community who's lives are to be made hell. Accordingly you have failed to use 'proportionality'.
Accordingly the Human Rights of all individuals in the community will have been violated and restricted. It is the right to enjoy the benefits of living in a urban community of their choice,, free of stress and threat from the un-proportional amount of houses now being planned. This could and still should be avoided by applying a policy of proportioning the need to provide land for future housing needs over a larger area within the District. If this means violating the Green Belt Issue then so be it. It is after all only temporary as you have just illustrated with the Gateway project. (Again you have not given a good reason for ignoring the Green Belt rule).

A public enquiry seems inevitable. If WDC had included the alternative of spreading the housing in Green Belt it too would lead to a public enquiry. This should not be a reason against it.
A simple and logical reason would be to try and be fair to everyone in the District and expect them all to take their share of housing needs. The solution you have adopted is treating the South of Leamington as 'not being very important'. On the other hand it is favouring the north of Leamington for the sake of the Green Belt. We do not buy that reasoning.

Summarising the foregoing, If the housing requirements were allocated proportionally throughout the District you would be balancing the rights of those living in the Green Belt (i.e the right to never have any houses imposed in their locality or any other reason) against the awful consequences our community is now threatened with. You may not recognise the need to be fair in applying Planning rules. However there is the morality of what you are doing. What is most important, Care for the community or applying rules?

Ray Steele C. Eng., M.I.Mech.E.


---

Dear Mr Steele,

Again I understand your logic. However, the National Planning Policy Framework does give protection to Green Belt land and does say that land which is non green belt should be developed first in preference. The difficulty we therefore have is that we tried to demonstrate special reasons to develop land north of Leamington but could not justify it.

We are making some green belt releases around Kenilworth because there is where else is available to provide more housing for that town. The same is true for a number of villages.

I have discussed the Local Plan with Chris White MP. Whilst I understand the concerns raised the Local Plan is hardly dictatorship. It is a policy process that sees seeks to resolve how we use a precious resource, land, for a range of purposes. Inevitably there are arguments over how we do this, that is what is called democracy.

Yours sincerely,


Chris Elliott
Chief Executive


---

PLANNING

Boles: Build on boring fields
Nick Boles, the Planning Minister, has said that developers should be allowed to build on fields if they are "boring". In a letter to Anna Soubry, the Health Minister, he said that people must be realistic about the need for more housing, which will mean building on "environmentally uninteresting" green spaces. Mrs Soubry had warned Eric Pickles' Communities Department that housing was being built on the Green Belt despite assurances from David Cameron that it will be protected. She described the situation as "intolerable" and said that planning inspectors were forcing local councils to accept more housing and build on Green Belt. Mrs Soubry wrote: "In short, assurances about localism and continuing protection for the Green Belt at ministerial level are flying in the face of advice from the inspectors leaving local authorities with no alternative but to agree to development on Green Belt land." Mr Boles, responding on behalf of Mr Pickles, said: "Given a 2m increase in our population over the last ten years and historic under-provision of housing we have to be realistic that not all the housing that we as a country need can be on brownfield land. In some places, this may mean building on low quality, environmentally uninteresting fields. In exceptional circumstances, it may involve a Green Belt review."
The Daily Telegraph, Page: 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Elliot,
The above was passed onto me today and interestingly it refers to the Green Belt.
With reference to my suggestion of spreading the housing needs over the whole of the District, this would need land attached to and around all of the 90 or so sites named by the village or hamlet. This is mostly Green Belt so those places are already in Green Belt land. The proposal would only require 4 or 5 houses to be built at each place. The great advantage is of course that these houses would only be built as needed. This is in stark contrast to the Local Plan that is totally committing and giving cart-blanch to developers to flood communities with houses that are not proven or even needed at this moment. Certainly not right now. It is irresponsible speculative building.

A point of notice. Ask any builder if he will build you a house. His answer may be "I will start tomorrow"! So where are all these people asking to have a house built? This is not an entirely frivolous remark.

I requested the other day that you discuss this with Chris White MP to talk about the pressure being placed on District Councils to provide a plan and the associated threat to override their planning objections. We cannot accept this threat as it is not democratic and amounts to dictatorship.

What I am saying is that the community expect to be protected from irresponsible development brought about by government pressure. It needs those in parliament to listen to the people and then form a balanced view.

Regards

Ray Steele


---

see-attached

I am writing to voice my objection and concerns about the revised development strategy.

Having attended several of the public meetings and discussed the proposals with representatives I feel that I must object to the current plan on a number of points.

TRAFFIC
It is widely known and accepted that there are issues with the traffic in the area around Europa way and the plan to develop up to 1200 homes within this area will generate a significant increase in the current traffic volumes.
I am concerned with the calculations and models being used to predict the expected increase in traffic as the numbers are significantly less than 1 car per household.
It is my understanding that a national model has been used to predict the number of cars yet t he average number of cars per household in the area is significantly more than this.
Much of the traffic mitigations are aimed at not making the current situation worse, and little has been done, or made public to validate the models being proposed. The recent junction changes for the new supermarket have not in my experience improved the traffic situation as the traffic lights mean traffic is forced to back up.

POLLUTION
There is currently a major health issue with pollution levels ABOVE the legal limit and and errors in the predicted numbers of cars adding to the traffic and the effectiveness of the traffic flow and bottleneck works will mean an INCREASE in this pollution health risk

FLOODING
During the recent periods of heavy rain, the cycle path and some houses newly built on the site of the old school have flooded.
This is with all the land off Europa way being farmland and hence available to soak away rainfall. The amount of water that runs off into the culvert is significant and building on the land will dramatically reduce the amount of soakaway and I am concerned that the current plans will not address this significant flood risk.
Should any existing homes flood after any development I would expect the council and or developers to be liable for any subsequent flooding and premium increases that may result.

There has been much discussion about improving traffic flow from the south of the leamington/warwick, indeed directing it around the towns. Surely it makes sense to actually build the homes to the North where all the traffic is heading.
It has been stated that land to the north cannot be built on unless there is no other places to build, yet the King Henry VIII land was protected from development, a condition of the building of the technology park and the council already has a legal obligation to resucr eht pollution - this surely will not be possible with the addition of all the extra traffic.

This plan proposes changes to the local area that have health and flooding risks that affect existing residents that have not been addressed or any mitigations adequately published.
I would need to see

1. A full independent health study on the pollution levels and the effects of increased traffic.
2. A review on the expected levels of traffic based on the currently demographic of the area and not a model that the council are allowing developers to use ( as quoted to me by a representative)
3. a full review of the flooding risk.

I do not know of a single home in the area that is not opposed to the proposed local development plan and I find it hard to accept that it will be pushed through given the clear issues that have not been addressed.

Dear Sir/Madam


I write in support of the Revised Local Plan Strategy for Warwick District.

Having studied the internet documentation on the 2013 Revised Local Plan, and attended several Consultation Meetings, I consider that planners have addressed a very difficult task with objectivity and professionalism enabling significant changes which render the revised Local Plan, sound and fit for purpose.

The Revised Plan is evidence based on information supplied for the 2012 Local Plan, together with new evidence derived from assessments made subsequently.

The objective evidence obtained from the assessments and conclusions, is particularly welcome from independent studies based on the Landscape, the Employment Land Review and the 2012/13 updated Strategic Transport Assessment.

The Local Plan now complies with The National Planning Policy Framework. The Strategic Transport Assessment Review evidence, refutes on traffic grounds, any justification for building north of Leamington. It is accepted that there are no 'exceptional circumstances' for building on the Green Belt north of Leamington.

It is vital to preserve this limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth (which will suffer erosion from the proposed Thickthorne and Coventry Gateway developments). I consider it vital that merging with the West Midlands conurbation is avoided, indeed prevented to retain the essential identity of Kenilworth, Leamington and Warwick.

The Revised Development Strategy has removed the proposal to build 2000 houses on North Leamington Green Belt and through better use of existing brownfield sites, only 325 more houses are proposed on Greenfield (not Greenbelt Land) land to the south of the town.

The Revised Development Strategy, proposes that in keeping with the 2012 Plan, a substantial proportion of new development is located close to employment opportunities (south of Leamington and Warwick), thus reducing travel and avoidable exhaust pollution, whilst offering the benefits from acres of greenfield space before the nearest town to the South Banbury.

The traffic surveys show that road improvements will allow the network to cope with more development. The Revised Development Strategy provides both the finance and opportunity, for the essential road network improvement south of Leamington to take place. It will relieve the existing congestion and exhaust fumes whilst servicing the new development. However, it is important that these improvements are well-designed and carried out as part of the coordinated plan.

The Revised Development Strategy makes provision for schools and other infrastructure to support the new development.

I would urge the council to keep the number of houses to a minimum and not accept more. It looks as though the legal requirement to liaise with Coventry and other surrounding towns, does not extend to a legal requirement to agree to their developing land within Warwick District. Perhaps if necessary, Stratford would build houses for Coventry as I understand their proposed settlement site near Gaydon is larger than the present requirements.

The Revised Development strategy has a fair distribution of development throughout the district. The planners are to be congratulated on their success in achieving this, in view of the obvious difficulties faced when trying to plan meaningful development in established areas. Much of the development is in the south of the town, for good planning reasons, which are essential to secure a sound plan.

It is disappointing that a handful of vociferous Community Leaders, have made a less than constructive attack on the Local Plan in its Revised form at Consultation Meetings, and have found the Courier a ready outlet week after week for their adverse publicity. The reporting has been less than objective, and failed to present a balanced view. I trust the legitimate concerns of those living in the affected area can be addressed but more than this, I sincerely hope Planners and Councillors will not be bullied into bad decisions as a result of this.

In summary, planners are to be congratulated on the improvements they have achieved in the 2013 Revised Plan based on objectivity and sound evidence. It is sustainable, complies with the NPPF, is in the best interest of the community, businesses and significantly, the prosperity of the district. I trust that on this basis, Warwick District Council will adopt this Revised Local Plan.

Dear Sir/Madam


I write in support of the Revised Local Plan Strategy for Warwick District.

Having studied the internet documentation on the 2013 Revised Local Plan, and attended several Consultation Meetings, I consider that planners have addressed a very difficult task with objectivity and professionalism enabling significant changes which render the revised Local Plan, sound and fit for purpose.

The Revised Plan is evidence based on information supplied for the 2012 Local Plan, together with new evidence derived from assessments made subsequently.

The objective evidence obtained from the assessments and conclusions, is particularly welcome from independent studies based on the Landscape, the Employment Land Review and the 2012/13 updated Strategic Transport Assessment.

The Local Plan now complies with The National Planning Policy Framework. The Strategic Transport Assessment Review evidence, refutes on traffic grounds, any justification for building north of Leamington. It is accepted that there are no 'exceptional circumstances' for building on the Green Belt north of Leamington.

It is vital to preserve this limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth (which will suffer erosion from the proposed Thickthorne and Coventry Gateway developments). I consider it vital that merging with the West Midlands conurbation is avoided, indeed prevented to retain the essential identity of Kenilworth, Leamington and Warwick.

The Revised Development Strategy has removed the proposal to build 2000 houses on North Leamington Green Belt and through better use of existing brownfield sites, only 325 more houses are proposed on Greenfield (not Greenbelt Land) land to the south of the town.

The Revised Development Strategy, proposes that in keeping with the 2012 Plan, a substantial proportion of new development is located close to employment opportunities (south of Leamington and Warwick), thus reducing travel and avoidable exhaust pollution, whilst offering the benefits from acres of greenfield space before the nearest town to the South Banbury.

The traffic surveys show that road improvements will allow the network to cope with more development. The Revised Development Strategy provides both the finance and opportunity, for the essential road network improvement south of Leamington to take place. It will relieve the existing congestion and exhaust fumes whilst servicing the new development. However, it is important that these improvements are well-designed and carried out as part of the coordinated plan.

The Revised Development Strategy makes provision for schools and other infrastructure to support the new development.

I would urge the council to keep the number of houses to a minimum and not accept more. It looks as though the legal requirement to liaise with Coventry and other surrounding towns, does not extend to a legal requirement to agree to their developing land within Warwick District. Perhaps if necessary, Stratford would build houses for Coventry as I understand their proposed settlement site near Gaydon is larger than the present requirements.

The Revised Development strategy has a fair distribution of development throughout the district. The planners are to be congratulated on their success in achieving this, in view of the obvious difficulties faced when trying to plan meaningful development in established areas. Much of the development is in the south of the town, for good planning reasons, which are essential to secure a sound plan.

It is disappointing that a handful of vociferous Community Leaders, have made a less than constructive attack on the Local Plan in its Revised form at Consultation Meetings, and have found the Courier a ready outlet week after week for their adverse publicity. The reporting has been less than objective, and failed to present a balanced view. I trust the legitimate concerns of those living in the affected area can be addressed but more than this, I sincerely hope Planners and Councillors will not be bullied into bad decisions as a result of this.

In summary, planners are to be congratulated on the improvements they have achieved in the 2013 Revised Plan based on objectivity and sound evidence. It is sustainable, complies with the NPPF, is in the best interest of the community, businesses and significantly, the prosperity of the district. I trust that on this basis, Warwick District Council will adopt this Revised Local Plan.

Dear Sir/Madam


I write in support of the Revised Local Plan Strategy for Warwick District.

Having studied the internet documentation on the 2013 Revised Local Plan, and attended several Consultation Meetings, I consider that planners have addressed a very difficult task with objectivity and professionalism enabling significant changes which render the revised Local Plan, sound and fit for purpose.

The Revised Plan is evidence based on information supplied for the 2012 Local Plan, together with new evidence derived from assessments made subsequently.

The objective evidence obtained from the assessments and conclusions, is particularly welcome from independent studies based on the Landscape, the Employment Land Review and the 2012/13 updated Strategic Transport Assessment.

The Local Plan now complies with The National Planning Policy Framework. The Strategic Transport Assessment Review evidence, refutes on traffic grounds, any justification for building north of Leamington. It is accepted that there are no 'exceptional circumstances' for building on the Green Belt north of Leamington.

It is vital to preserve this limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth (which will suffer erosion from the proposed Thickthorne and Coventry Gateway developments). I consider it vital that merging with the West Midlands conurbation is avoided, indeed prevented to retain the essential identity of Kenilworth, Leamington and Warwick.

The Revised Development Strategy has removed the proposal to build 2000 houses on North Leamington Green Belt and through better use of existing brownfield sites, only 325 more houses are proposed on Greenfield (not Greenbelt Land) land to the south of the town.

The Revised Development Strategy, proposes that in keeping with the 2012 Plan, a substantial proportion of new development is located close to employment opportunities (south of Leamington and Warwick), thus reducing travel and avoidable exhaust pollution, whilst offering the benefits from acres of greenfield space before the nearest town to the South Banbury.

The traffic surveys show that road improvements will allow the network to cope with more development. The Revised Development Strategy provides both the finance and opportunity, for the essential road network improvement south of Leamington to take place. It will relieve the existing congestion and exhaust fumes whilst servicing the new development. However, it is important that these improvements are well-designed and carried out as part of the coordinated plan.

The Revised Development Strategy makes provision for schools and other infrastructure to support the new development.

I would urge the council to keep the number of houses to a minimum and not accept more. It looks as though the legal requirement to liaise with Coventry and other surrounding towns, does not extend to a legal requirement to agree to their developing land within Warwick District. Perhaps if necessary, Stratford would build houses for Coventry as I understand their proposed settlement site near Gaydon is larger than the present requirements.

The Revised Development strategy has a fair distribution of development throughout the district. The planners are to be congratulated on their success in achieving this, in view of the obvious difficulties faced when trying to plan meaningful development in established areas. Much of the development is in the south of the town, for good planning reasons, which are essential to secure a sound plan.

It is disappointing that a handful of vociferous Community Leaders, have made a less than constructive attack on the Local Plan in its Revised form at Consultation Meetings, and have found the Courier a ready outlet week after week for their adverse publicity. The reporting has been less than objective, and failed to present a balanced view. I trust the legitimate concerns of those living in the affected area can be addressed but more than this, I sincerely hope Planners and Councillors will not be bullied into bad decisions as a result of this.

In summary, planners are to be congratulated on the improvements they have achieved in the 2013 Revised Plan based on objectivity and sound evidence. It is sustainable, complies with the NPPF, is in the best interest of the community, businesses and significantly, the prosperity of the district. I trust that on this basis, Warwick District Council will adopt this Revised Local Plan.

Dear Sir/ Madam
Local Plan Revised Development Strategy proposed developments to the South of Warwick
Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the "New Local Plan" document dated May 2012.
The specific areas I object to are, the housing proposals on:
1) Land at Europa Way and Gallows Hill
And also:
2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
5) Land South of Harbury Lane
My objections are based on the following:
* Air pollution would suffer massively with the increase in traffic that would entail from the
development of the south side of Warwick etc. Currently the air pollution does not meet
European Directives so by adding 3000-4200 houses in this area I cannot see how this could
be improved in any way whatsoever, only that it would become much worse leaving the
residents of the area open to higher health risks associated with poor air quality. I believe that
this is now the responsibility of the Council to ensure that these directives are met (as it is on
the statute) so if Air Pollution was to increase as a result of the new developments I would
suggest they would open themselves for prosecution (possibly) for failing to ensure the health
of its residents or even endangering the health of its residents. Both My Daughter and my
mother suffer from Asthma, any increase in Air pollution would be detrimental to their health
prospects and it is on this point I strongly object.
* On the Understanding that we need further housing I can appreciate that the land the end of
Harbury Lane could be used. This would not lead to such infrastructure problems that people
would start to leave the area as they could not stand the hassles which is the complete
opposite of what is trying to be achieved (in creating a nice environment to live in) but any
further expansion could lead to the above.
* An additional 3000 houses on the south side of the town creates an imbalance to the area as
it would mean that with Warwick Gates and the proposed additions there would be around
4400 houses in that area with only 3 roads to get in to town? (Banbury road, Princes Drive
and Lower Avenue) Taking an average of 2 cars per family that would me there would be an
additional 6000 cars to add to the 2800 already in Warwick Gates. This is a wholly
Kenneth McEwan
8 Trinculo Grove
Warwick Gates
Warwick
CV34 6EG
unacceptable and unfeasible suggestion and myself would look at moving it already takes me
25 minutes some days to get from my house to the Coventry road in Warwick.
* Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education
performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton
Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this
development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport
links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.
* We think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District
Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of
open farmland and parklands".
* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With
both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we
fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need. Siting
the vast majority of the Housing does not help this problem and indeed exacerbates it.
* The huge increase in traffic arising from at least 8000 new cars in this area will result in
pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At
peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill,
Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are grid locked, your proposed development is
situated right along these roads, simply adding to the congestion already experienced. So far
you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest
that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete on the contrary the town
planners admitted that the current situation would not get any better in the future. Recent
studies that were conducted noted that nearly 75% of all traffic was pass through traffic i.e. did
not reside in Warwick add extra traffic and you have a recipe for disaster.
*
* We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel
elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.
As Stratford-upon Avon district council have released plans to build a new town /village of up to
4800 homes at Lighthorne Heath/ Ashorne Is there actually a need for such a huge new
development South of Warwick. Why did you not decide to create a brand new settlement within
the district (like Norton Lindsey) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the
road network are very easily accessible? A new town there would have fantastic access to Dual
carriage ways and the Motorway network, New schools could be planned including Secondary
Education as most schools are full already
I do believe that some housing maybe needed for organic growth within individual communities;
however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people not
imposed from the Government in a top-down approach as it is at the moment and certainly not to
the numbers you are suggesting. Local sources put the number of required houses at approx
5500 this could be achieved organically by Brownfield and Windfall site development released
over the required period
I feel that the New Local Plan is more of a Developers Charter than a logically thought out
Strategic Housing Development Plan
We urge you to rethink the development placements radically; to look again at regeneration
possibilities in the towns, to work with owners and developers on imaginative schemes to bring
forward brown field sites and possibly a new village/town in a rural position for housing
developments.
I look forward to your response

Dear Sir/ Madam
Local Plan Revised Development Strategy proposed developments to the South of Warwick
Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the "New Local Plan" document dated May 2012.
The specific areas I object to are, the housing proposals on:
1) Land at Europa Way and Gallows Hill
And also:
2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
5) Land South of Harbury Lane
My objections are based on the following:
* Air pollution would suffer massively with the increase in traffic that would entail from the
development of the south side of Warwick etc. Currently the air pollution does not meet
European Directives so by adding 3000-4200 houses in this area I cannot see how this could
be improved in any way whatsoever, only that it would become much worse leaving the
residents of the area open to higher health risks associated with poor air quality. I believe that
this is now the responsibility of the Council to ensure that these directives are met (as it is on
the statute) so if Air Pollution was to increase as a result of the new developments I would
suggest they would open themselves for prosecution (possibly) for failing to ensure the health
of its residents or even endangering the health of its residents. Both My Daughter and my
mother suffer from Asthma, any increase in Air pollution would be detrimental to their health
prospects and it is on this point I strongly object.
* On the Understanding that we need further housing I can appreciate that the land the end of
Harbury Lane could be used. This would not lead to such infrastructure problems that people
would start to leave the area as they could not stand the hassles which is the complete
opposite of what is trying to be achieved (in creating a nice environment to live in) but any
further expansion could lead to the above.
* An additional 3000 houses on the south side of the town creates an imbalance to the area as
it would mean that with Warwick Gates and the proposed additions there would be around
4400 houses in that area with only 3 roads to get in to town? (Banbury road, Princes Drive
and Lower Avenue) Taking an average of 2 cars per family that would me there would be an
additional 6000 cars to add to the 2800 already in Warwick Gates. This is a wholly
Kenneth McEwan
8 Trinculo Grove
Warwick Gates
Warwick
CV34 6EG
unacceptable and unfeasible suggestion and myself would look at moving it already takes me
25 minutes some days to get from my house to the Coventry road in Warwick.
* Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education
performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton
Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this
development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport
links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.
* We think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District
Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of
open farmland and parklands".
* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With
both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we
fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need. Siting
the vast majority of the Housing does not help this problem and indeed exacerbates it.
* The huge increase in traffic arising from at least 8000 new cars in this area will result in
pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At
peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill,
Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are grid locked, your proposed development is
situated right along these roads, simply adding to the congestion already experienced. So far
you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest
that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete on the contrary the town
planners admitted that the current situation would not get any better in the future. Recent
studies that were conducted noted that nearly 75% of all traffic was pass through traffic i.e. did
not reside in Warwick add extra traffic and you have a recipe for disaster.
*
* We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel
elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.
As Stratford-upon Avon district council have released plans to build a new town /village of up to
4800 homes at Lighthorne Heath/ Ashorne Is there actually a need for such a huge new
development South of Warwick. Why did you not decide to create a brand new settlement within
the district (like Norton Lindsey) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the
road network are very easily accessible? A new town there would have fantastic access to Dual
carriage ways and the Motorway network, New schools could be planned including Secondary
Education as most schools are full already
I do believe that some housing maybe needed for organic growth within individual communities;
however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people not
imposed from the Government in a top-down approach as it is at the moment and certainly not to
the numbers you are suggesting. Local sources put the number of required houses at approx
5500 this could be achieved organically by Brownfield and Windfall site development released
over the required period
I feel that the New Local Plan is more of a Developers Charter than a logically thought out
Strategic Housing Development Plan
We urge you to rethink the development placements radically; to look again at regeneration
possibilities in the towns, to work with owners and developers on imaginative schemes to bring
forward brown field sites and possibly a new village/town in a rural position for housing
developments.
I look forward to your response

Dear Sir,
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY:
CONSULTATION 14th JUNE TO 29th JULY 2013
We write in response to the consultation exercise for the Revised Development Strategy for
the emerging Warwick District Local Plan published on 14th June 2013 ("the Revised
Development Strategy"). Old Milverton and Blackdown Joint Parish Council ("the Parish
Council") make comments on this emerging strategy in order to help provide a vision for new
development and shape the District in an appropriate manner that delivers sustainable
development and accords with the national planning policy objectives.
The Parish Council recognises the enormity of the task that faces Warwick District Council
("the Council") in providing new growth whilst balancing environmental, planning and other
objectives. It welcomes a Local Plan that is based on sound principles and robust evidence to
ensure that it provides a solid framework upon which to guide future development.
The Parish Council does not seek to challenge the number of new houses included in the
Revised Development Strategy. We understand that the Council has estimated future housing
need in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government and that if the Local
Plan contains too few houses there is a risk that it will be found unsafe at Public Enquiry.
The Parish Council simply asks the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum.
A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is being performed with Coventry City Council.
Should this review identify that it is necessary to increase the housing numbers above those
included in the Revised Development Strategy, the Parish Council believe that there is
sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
The Parish Council believes that the Preferred Options for the New Local Plan published in
June 2012 do not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and that as a
consequence a Local Plan based on the Preferred Options would be found unsound at Public
Enquiry. The Parish Council is, therefore, 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.
The Parish Council believes that the Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown serves all of
the 5 purposes set out for Green Belt in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") in
that it:
* prevents the urban sprawl of built up areas from Leamington,
* prevents neighbouring towns (Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry )from merging,
* protects the country side from encroachment from Leamington,
2 of 3
* preserves the setting and special character of the historic towns of Royal Leamington
Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth; and
* assists urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land.
It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. Otherwise
there is a real risk Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands Conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy considers Old Milverton to be a "Smaller and Feeder
Village". The population of Old Milverton Parish is small, 319 residents and 119 households
(Source: Office for National Statistics March 2011). Nearly half of the population of Old
Milverton Parish (126 adult residents (source: Electoral Register)) live on a modern housing
estate which we understand will be transferred to Milverton Parish when the Parish
Boundaries are reviewed in 2014. There are probably less than 50 adults living in the
settlement of Old Milverton. Given its small and decreasing size, the Parish Council believes
that Old Milverton should be regarded as a "Very Small Village and Hamlet".
The Parish Council believes that new development should be concentrated where there are
existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It also
believes it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where
necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that
development.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new
development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of
Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of
work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, with a consequential positive
impact on the environment and their quality of life. Furthermore there is almost unlimited
green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Council is to be congratulated for preparing a Revised Development Strategy which,
whilst providing a similar number of new houses for the District, removes the proposal to
build 2,000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt and, through the better use of
Brownfield sites, results in only 325 further houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington.
The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more businesses to
set up and relocate to the area, helping to generate more jobs and prosperity for the local
community.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of
Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is
important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic
surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that
locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements,
ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infrastructure
to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District.
16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and
Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
Although cycleways are mentioned in each phase of the Revised Development Strategy, detail
is lacking for such a key proposal for components of traffic
management, environmental improvement and recreation. The cycle ways need linking
3 of 3
together and cycleways to larger places of Work and Educational institutions ought to be
detailed and feature prominently.
The outline for the proposed development South of Leamington includes a new country park.
If the country park is sited next to the existing houses with new housing beyond it, the result
would be to make the park more accessible, reduce impact of further development on the
existing houses; it could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air
pollution.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, with the exception of the classification of Old Milverton as a
"Feeder Village" and improvement to the cycleways, the Parish Council supports the Revised
Development Strategy.

Dear Sir,
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY:
CONSULTATION 14th JUNE TO 29th JULY 2013
We write in response to the consultation exercise for the Revised Development Strategy for
the emerging Warwick District Local Plan published on 14th June 2013 ("the Revised
Development Strategy"). Old Milverton and Blackdown Joint Parish Council ("the Parish
Council") make comments on this emerging strategy in order to help provide a vision for new
development and shape the District in an appropriate manner that delivers sustainable
development and accords with the national planning policy objectives.
The Parish Council recognises the enormity of the task that faces Warwick District Council
("the Council") in providing new growth whilst balancing environmental, planning and other
objectives. It welcomes a Local Plan that is based on sound principles and robust evidence to
ensure that it provides a solid framework upon which to guide future development.
The Parish Council does not seek to challenge the number of new houses included in the
Revised Development Strategy. We understand that the Council has estimated future housing
need in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government and that if the Local
Plan contains too few houses there is a risk that it will be found unsafe at Public Enquiry.
The Parish Council simply asks the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum.
A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is being performed with Coventry City Council.
Should this review identify that it is necessary to increase the housing numbers above those
included in the Revised Development Strategy, the Parish Council believe that there is
sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
The Parish Council believes that the Preferred Options for the New Local Plan published in
June 2012 do not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and that as a
consequence a Local Plan based on the Preferred Options would be found unsound at Public
Enquiry. The Parish Council is, therefore, 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.
The Parish Council believes that the Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown serves all of
the 5 purposes set out for Green Belt in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") in
that it:
* prevents the urban sprawl of built up areas from Leamington,
* prevents neighbouring towns (Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry )from merging,
* protects the country side from encroachment from Leamington,
2 of 3
* preserves the setting and special character of the historic towns of Royal Leamington
Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth; and
* assists urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land.
It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. Otherwise
there is a real risk Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands Conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy considers Old Milverton to be a "Smaller and Feeder
Village". The population of Old Milverton Parish is small, 319 residents and 119 households
(Source: Office for National Statistics March 2011). Nearly half of the population of Old
Milverton Parish (126 adult residents (source: Electoral Register)) live on a modern housing
estate which we understand will be transferred to Milverton Parish when the Parish
Boundaries are reviewed in 2014. There are probably less than 50 adults living in the
settlement of Old Milverton. Given its small and decreasing size, the Parish Council believes
that Old Milverton should be regarded as a "Very Small Village and Hamlet".
The Parish Council believes that new development should be concentrated where there are
existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It also
believes it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where
necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that
development.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new
development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of
Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of
work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, with a consequential positive
impact on the environment and their quality of life. Furthermore there is almost unlimited
green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Council is to be congratulated for preparing a Revised Development Strategy which,
whilst providing a similar number of new houses for the District, removes the proposal to
build 2,000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt and, through the better use of
Brownfield sites, results in only 325 further houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington.
The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more businesses to
set up and relocate to the area, helping to generate more jobs and prosperity for the local
community.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of
Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is
important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic
surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that
locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements,
ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infrastructure
to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District.
16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and
Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
Although cycleways are mentioned in each phase of the Revised Development Strategy, detail
is lacking for such a key proposal for components of traffic
management, environmental improvement and recreation. The cycle ways need linking
3 of 3
together and cycleways to larger places of Work and Educational institutions ought to be
detailed and feature prominently.
The outline for the proposed development South of Leamington includes a new country park.
If the country park is sited next to the existing houses with new housing beyond it, the result
would be to make the park more accessible, reduce impact of further development on the
existing houses; it could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air
pollution.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, with the exception of the classification of Old Milverton as a
"Feeder Village" and improvement to the cycleways, the Parish Council supports the Revised
Development Strategy.

Dear Sir,
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY:
CONSULTATION 14th JUNE TO 29th JULY 2013
We write in response to the consultation exercise for the Revised Development Strategy for
the emerging Warwick District Local Plan published on 14th June 2013 ("the Revised
Development Strategy"). Old Milverton and Blackdown Joint Parish Council ("the Parish
Council") make comments on this emerging strategy in order to help provide a vision for new
development and shape the District in an appropriate manner that delivers sustainable
development and accords with the national planning policy objectives.
The Parish Council recognises the enormity of the task that faces Warwick District Council
("the Council") in providing new growth whilst balancing environmental, planning and other
objectives. It welcomes a Local Plan that is based on sound principles and robust evidence to
ensure that it provides a solid framework upon which to guide future development.
The Parish Council does not seek to challenge the number of new houses included in the
Revised Development Strategy. We understand that the Council has estimated future housing
need in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government and that if the Local
Plan contains too few houses there is a risk that it will be found unsafe at Public Enquiry.
The Parish Council simply asks the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum.
A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is being performed with Coventry City Council.
Should this review identify that it is necessary to increase the housing numbers above those
included in the Revised Development Strategy, the Parish Council believe that there is
sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
The Parish Council believes that the Preferred Options for the New Local Plan published in
June 2012 do not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and that as a
consequence a Local Plan based on the Preferred Options would be found unsound at Public
Enquiry. The Parish Council is, therefore, 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.
The Parish Council believes that the Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown serves all of
the 5 purposes set out for Green Belt in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") in
that it:
* prevents the urban sprawl of built up areas from Leamington,
* prevents neighbouring towns (Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry )from merging,
* protects the country side from encroachment from Leamington,
2 of 3
* preserves the setting and special character of the historic towns of Royal Leamington
Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth; and
* assists urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land.
It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. Otherwise
there is a real risk Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands Conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy considers Old Milverton to be a "Smaller and Feeder
Village". The population of Old Milverton Parish is small, 319 residents and 119 households
(Source: Office for National Statistics March 2011). Nearly half of the population of Old
Milverton Parish (126 adult residents (source: Electoral Register)) live on a modern housing
estate which we understand will be transferred to Milverton Parish when the Parish
Boundaries are reviewed in 2014. There are probably less than 50 adults living in the
settlement of Old Milverton. Given its small and decreasing size, the Parish Council believes
that Old Milverton should be regarded as a "Very Small Village and Hamlet".
The Parish Council believes that new development should be concentrated where there are
existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It also
believes it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where
necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that
development.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new
development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of
Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of
work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, with a consequential positive
impact on the environment and their quality of life. Furthermore there is almost unlimited
green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Council is to be congratulated for preparing a Revised Development Strategy which,
whilst providing a similar number of new houses for the District, removes the proposal to
build 2,000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt and, through the better use of
Brownfield sites, results in only 325 further houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington.
The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more businesses to
set up and relocate to the area, helping to generate more jobs and prosperity for the local
community.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of
Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is
important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic
surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that
locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements,
ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infrastructure
to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District.
16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and
Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
Although cycleways are mentioned in each phase of the Revised Development Strategy, detail
is lacking for such a key proposal for components of traffic
management, environmental improvement and recreation. The cycle ways need linking
3 of 3
together and cycleways to larger places of Work and Educational institutions ought to be
detailed and feature prominently.
The outline for the proposed development South of Leamington includes a new country park.
If the country park is sited next to the existing houses with new housing beyond it, the result
would be to make the park more accessible, reduce impact of further development on the
existing houses; it could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air
pollution.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, with the exception of the classification of Old Milverton as a
"Feeder Village" and improvement to the cycleways, the Parish Council supports the Revised
Development Strategy.

see atatched