Yet again you are ducking the issue of Warwick town centre being used as a through route by heavy vehicles and enormous numbers of cars. Your proposal to add thousands of new houses to the district can only make this even worse.
Today (18th June) High street was blocked for a good 10 minutes because 2 large lorries were stuck in opposite directions on one of those stupid raised junctions you have put in.
It is my belief that you have no idea what to do and, in successive iterations of the plan, you ignore it and hope it will go away. You are proposing to improve Gallows Hill/Banbury Road and the Castle hill roundabout but that is just going to funnel even more traffic into Jury Street/The Butts/Smith Street.
You should not be sanctioning any new housing until you have sorted this out.
My personal suggestion is to enforce the weight limit that you already have (but do not enforce) by putting width restrictions at either end of the town and to extend the existing one way in Smith St up Jury St and High St

Yet again you are ducking the issue of Warwick town centre being used as a through route by heavy vehicles and enormous numbers of cars. Your proposal to add thousands of new houses to the district can only make this even worse. It is my belief that you have no idea what to do and, in successive iterations of the plan, you ignore it and hope it will go away. You are proposing to improve Gallows Hill/Banbury Road and the Castle hill roundabout but that is just going to funnel even more traffic into Jury Street/The Butts/Smith Street.
Today (18th June) High street was blocked for a good 10 minutes because 2 large lorries were stuck in opposite directions on one of those stupid raised junctions you have put in.
You should not be sanctioning any new housing until you have sorted this out.
My personal suggestion is to enforce the weight limit that you already have (but do not enforce) by putting width restrictions at either end of the town and to extend the existing one way in Smith St up Jury St and High St with the Butts as the other direction.

The wording around these transport proposals is too imprecise, there needs to be guarantees that the related housing and employment expansion will not take place until the infrastructure improvements have been carried out.

Access to the Shires Retail Park needs additional improvement over what is being proposed. Linking the Tachbrook Park Road to Queensway via a new roundabouts or junctions would hopefully ease some pressure on the Shires Roundabout

Traffic will increase on Tachbrook Road and cause further issues at the traffic lights with the A425. Consideration for improvements here are required

I am grately concerned at the proposal to eliminate the right turn from the bottom of Smith Street into Saint Nicholas Church Street. This is a major part of the route used by worshippers at our church. There is a one-way system existing which will mean that anyone going to the church arriving via Smith Street must find some way of being able to reverse their direction of travel to access the entrance in Saint Nicholas Church Street. Presumably you would wish people to go along Coten End to the roundabout at the end of Wharf Street, go round and then back along Coten End. This is clearly ridiculous and what will happen with, not only us, but just about everyone, they will use the service road in front of the shops to gain access to Coventry Road. This will turn the service road into a rat-run and, at busy times, there will be large numbers of cars trying to turn right from the service road onto Coventry Road which is often backed-up with traffic at the lights because of the stupid timings on those lights.
May I suggest that you think again or risk another headline as in this week's Courier where you had to admit "We got it wrong" because you would not listen to those who knew what they were talking about as opposed to your "experts".

I read WDC's new plan for green belt development for Thickthorn with dismay and would like to add my objection to what would be this damaging and costly ruination of our town.
WDC have no democratic mandate to proceed with these plans. In response to a previous consultation nearly 60% of respondents opposed development in the Green Belt yet you ignore this and offer us only options on which massive level of destruction we would prefer. Where is the explanation of the benefits to Kenilworth that wrecking the southern part of the town ?
Green belt is there for a reason, and previous WDC studies had identified areas of development that did not require this harmful removal of precious land.
Kenilworth cannot cope with 700 additional homes and 1000 + cars. It is gridlock during rush hour and most of the day up the Warwick Road and surrounding streets. There is nothing in your plans to accommodate this extra traffic load on the existing roads other than shunting traffic lights on St John's gyratory. Expecting this alone to deal with the increased traffic flow is la la land nonsense.
Nor is there evidence of how the disruption, noise and pollution will be minimised or managed while the development is underway.
It is interesting to note that the few people who support your plans on the comments forum are either those who directly financially benefit from the scheme or those who actually live in the town and therefore won't be affected.
As with HS2, even though there is overwhelming local objection, the will of the majority is being ignored. Our democracy is a sham. Where is the option for us to say "None of the above"?

My wife and I have lived at Greville House on the Banbury Road since 1995 and have raised our four children there.Three of them have been educated at Warwick Schools and have walked to school.Kathi and I walk to the centre of Warwick every day.We are very aquatinted with the traffic pollution between our house near Bridge End and the centre of town.Each attempt by the council to accommodate the traffic has made the pollution worse as more vehicles bottle neck at the bridge.This will continue to get worse by widening the Banbury Road as the same bottle neck will remain as we live in a medieval pretty town not built for vehicles.
Similarly the new proposed development by Gallows Hill will make the problem worse and is also likely to cause flooding as the drainage in this area will be compromised.
Unfortunately we have little faith in the District Council to listen to the people of Warwick. The recent improvements to the High Street being a case in point when warnings about crossings and difficult barriers to negotiate by traffic have led to a worsening in Warwick than the original arrangements.
The Banbury Road and the Myton Road do not need more traffic which goes faster as they are both crossed regularly be children attending the schools. if anything the roads need a 20 mph limit.At present they are busy from 0800-0900 hrs and from 1600-1800hrs. This is a result of parents dropping/ collecting children at school and rat runners in the evening who shortcut the M40/ Warwick Bypass to get to homes not in Warwick.
There must be better sites for new homes and gypsy accommodation than a much visited medieval town such as Warwick.

I have comments on one of the transport proposals, scheme reference 12. I appreciate that this is a County Council area of responsibility, and for this reason I have copied this to my local County Councillors.
The scheme envisages the banning of the right turn from Smith Street into St Nicholas Church Street. It is not clear what benefit is anticipated from this, although presumably some has been identified.
There are, however, significant disbenefits to a number of people. Anyone from the Myton Road/Banbury Road area (where there is to be a significant increase in residents under the proposals), or from the West side of Warwick, who wishes to take a disabled person to St Nicholas Church will have a more convoluted and longer (and therefore environmentally unfriendly) journey; as will both hearses and wedding cars from the same area. None of these groups can be expected to use the car park in St Nicholas Park as an alternative.
Equally, it is probable that people from these areas also at time use the short-term parking in Smith Street when visiting the shops there. They may be discouraged from so doing by the more complicated journey home.
That, of course, assumes that people use conventional roads.There is, however, a danger -- given human nature -- that people will make use of two alternative actions:
1. They will turn left into the road in front of the St John's shops, and at the other end turn right into Coventry Road in order to turn right again at the lights. This short road is currently used by some as a slip-road when turning left into Coventry Road; it is congested, and dangerous for pedestrians
;
and the right-hand turn into Coventry Road is awkward and can at times lead to hold-ups of traffic.
2. They will proceed along Coten End, but make use of the car park in front of Sainsbury to reverse direction
.
Th
i
s will involve more vehicles

crossing the line of westbound traffic, and create greater congestion in that car park.
In the light of this, I would be grateful if this scheme could be looked at again, and if it is to be proceeded with, that the reasons could be made public.

Scheme reference 18 commentary and the need to make further alterations to the traffic systems show how difficult the road transport infrastructure capacity is already. Further expansion of housing in the villages immediately linking onto the A46 into Warwick (Hampton Magna and Hampton on The Hill particularly) should stop

Scheme reference 18 commentary and the need to make further alterations to the traffic systems show how challenged the road transport infrastructure capacity is already. Further expansion of housing in the villages immediately linking onto the A46 into Warwick (Hampton Magna and Hampton on The Hill particularly) should stop

We support sustainable transport generally - WDC cycle routes are currently VERY POOR and must be improved. We think that the "virtual P&R system may have some merit but the devil will be in the detail... We have little confidence that the road improvements proposed will be even remotely adequate for the growth levels proposed and will simultaneously urbanise and damage the nearby rural areas.

These will be intrusive and urbanising whilst almost certainly being inadequate. They would be less needed if the numbers and growth were realistically moderated.

These proposals will do little to increase the capacity of the north-south crossings of the Rivers Leam and Avon and the crossings of the West Coast Main Line.
No additional crossings have been proposed.

proposals at the Bericote and Blackdown roundabouts are unnecessary. The roundabout system grants priority to heavy traffic in an un-managed manner which allows priority to heavier traffic flow. Singalled junctions would require more maintenance and constant monitoring to ensure their effectiveness at positively contributing to traffic flow. Update and improvement of the current roundabouts with the addition of a feeder lane between the A452 and Bericote road and cucle/pedestrian crossing lights should be considered.

If there was not such a high concentration of development in one area, there would not be the need to create an expensive wide, noisy and fast road network to deal with traffic predicted travelling to and from that one area.
Smaller, less intrusive developments would distribute the traffic flow.

No serious measurements or forecasts have been made by WCC of the increased commuter traffic from north and south of Warwick via the A429 through Barford caused by local changes eg Warwick town centre & the growth of Warwick Technology Park. Major building in S Warwick will increase this further. Improving the junction with the old Banbury Rd near The Asps will encourage even more. Much of this extra traffic should be directed to use the corridor between M40 J14 and Europa Way roundabout.

I object to the change in Smith Street/ST Nicholas Church road junction. This is absolutely ridiculous as there will be no option for residents who live in the town centre or West of Warwick to use the shops in Smith St as there will be no means of turning right back into the town and make it impossible to access Banbury road. It will mean a VERY long detour with increased traffic and pollution creating a 'rat run' through Lakin Rd and by Warwick Hospital. Shops in Smith St will suffer as shoppers avoid a long diversion.

The proposed change to Smith Street/St Nicholas Church Street will not achieved the objective of reducing the traffic flow quite the reverse. It will only serve as an inconvenience to residents of the town centre and west of the town who would have a long diversion back to the town with resultant increased traffic in Coventry Road, Lakin Road and Millers Road with increased pollution.

Proposed road and junction improvements will not increase the capacity at the crossing points of the river, canal and railway. the increased volume on the improved roads will cause the crossing points to become even worse bottlenecks.

I do not believe that the proposals to improve the traffic infrastructure will be remotely adequate to mitigate the severe impact of the proposed levels of development.

I do not believe that the infrastructure changes will keep the traffic moving with if up to 300 more cars from Hampton Magna goes ahead. Queues to get out on to the A429 Bham Road from Hampton Magna are already lengthy at peak times. More rat running through local villages will be the result on a school cycle route to Aylesford School. Expansion at Hampton Magna should not proceed.

As outlined elsewhere, in more detail, we are very concerned about the impact of the Revised Development Strategy on our ability to continue to provide attractive bus services, supporting both existing residents and businesses, and new development.

In the absence of comprehensive bus priority measures, we believe the adverse impacts on the highways network will be worse than anticipated by WSTA, and will undermine the delivery by Stagecoach Midlands of the attractive bus services needed to offer effective mode choice, in support of the 15% mode shift required away from personal car use.

What consideration has been given to Church Lane Whitnash. If a new estate is built on the other side of the railway line then there are potential issues with the children and speeding cars around Campion. Also the railway bridge at the bottom of Church lane would become a rat run if it is not closed off to cars and have just pedestrian and bicycle access.

Point 02 is the only improvement planned for Kenilworth and I cannot see how making this junction signalised will help in the least. Consideration is required to assess the full impact on the town as a whole.

Point 03/19 A better solution to these two proposed changes would be to encourage Stoneleigh to change it access point to the north of the site providing as shorter and more direct access to A46 via the Stoneleigh junction

Point 04 how will signalisation improve things the main reason this junction gets snarlled is due to congestion else where this would seem to be a waste of money. Improving the A46 junction and adjusting the prioirty at the roundabout by the Quality Inn would improve the flow out of town in the evening

Looking at the details of the schemes listed it would appear that signalised junctions will be cure of all our our traffic congestion problems. This simple tweak which will more than likely increase congestion, pollution and vehicle wear and tear. The council really needs to look at more radical solutions otherwise warwick and leamington will simply grind to a holt and be a location that people deperately avoid visiting.

I am writing as both a resident and business owner of some 30 years on Smith Street in Warwick. It seems that another answer to the traffic flow problems would be to put a mini-roundabout at the junction of Priory Road, Smith Street and St Nicholas Church Street. This would mean that we would not be plagued by more traffic lights and their associated "street furniture". The non-light controlled crossings at the bottom should be retained.
At all costs it would seem to me that in order for our remaining businesses to prosper we must not fall into the trap of full pedestrianization of
Smith Street as in my opinion this would lead to us being isolated. The same would occur if right turns into St Nicholas Church Street were stopped., our customers would then be faced with a detour to return to their homes on the new estates.
When in doubt maybe do nowt!

Cycleways supports the Plan's objectives, as set out in 5.6.3. However, it objects to the District Wide Transport Mitigation Proposals since they do not support the Plan's objectives, neither do they support the objectives of the Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (LTP 2011-2026), or the government's White Paper on Transport.
Apart from increasing the use of unsustainable modes of transport, the suggested options 05 and 14-24 will increase carbon emissions, air pollution, noise and congestion across the District.
The following examples illustrate how the Proposal fails the overall aims outlined in the policies mentioned above.
Within the objectives set out in 5.6.3 are:
Maximise the number of journeys made by sustainable transport
The main focus of the District Wide Mitigation Proposals is on the unsustainable mode, the motor vehicle, with a disproportionate investment of increasing road capacity rather than providing for good quality links for cycling and walking.This is evident in the lack of the provision of good quality cycle links between the areas of new development and access into the town centres of Warwick, Leamington Spa, and Kenilworth. Likewise, good links toWarwickHospital, Leamington College and other high usage destinations are not provided for either.
Deliver an integrated approach to transport
Here there is a serious lack of integration between the planned road improvements, as listed 01-15, and the sustainable modes, such as cycling and walking.
* Schemes 01-04 all impact on the proposed Kenilworth to Leamington cycle route, but these are not linked in together.
* Scheme 05, increasing the capacity of Spinney Hill roundabout. This will have a serious and adverse impact on the proposed Warwick - Leek Wootton - Kenilworth cycle route, and also for pedestrians who need to use this junction.
* Schemes 06 &07 form parts of the Warwick to Leamington cycle route, but again these are not linked in.
* Scheme 09, the proposed signalised junction should include a signal phase for pedestrians
* Scheme 11, the proposed signalised junction should include a phase for cyclists, (and pedestrians), becauseit forms part of the Warwick to Warwick Technology Park cycle route.
* Schemes 12&13 in Warwick make no provision for cyclists or pedestrians.
Without more comprehensive integration and providing genuine choices of how people can travel by the sustainable modesit will be very difficult for the Council to achieve its objectives as set out in 5.6.3, orin meeting the objectives of the government's White Paper on Transport.
One particular feature of the White Paper is in the role of community groups to facilitate the delivery of local transport solutions. The new Local Planwould therefore be an ideal opportunity to not just deliver a sustainable integrated transport framework for the District, but to also draw on the knowledge and support of local groups.
Cycleways would be pleased to work with the Council to further develop the District Wide Transport Mitigation Proposalsto enable the objectives as set out in 5.6.3 to be achieved.


Last week, Cycleways submitted its response to the transport mitigation proposals contained in the Local Plan.
In its response it referred to the government's White Paper on transport, and attached is a copy of the relevant pages, for your reference.
Later on in the White Paper, p38, it refers to the Sustainable Travel Towns project.
Even though this project has only been running for a few years it is already demonstrating a modal shift in travel behaviour, as follows:
reduction in number of car driver trips - 8%
cycle trips increase per resident by 26%
walking trips per resident increase by 13%
PSV usage increase by 14%
If one looks to London where a sustainable travel strategy has been in place much longer, the shift is quite dramatic when it comes to cycling.
The head of TfL surface transport planning, Michelle Dix, was recently quoted as saying that they plan to have as many commuters cycling to work by 2030 as those who use the underground.
In a recent survey conducted by City Hall in the City of London it showed that 49% of all vehicles passing along Old Street at the morning peak, were bicycles.
Turning to more local matters, Cycleways has prepared a draft cycle plan of the Warwick District embracing all three of its towns to show how the objectives set out in 5.6.3 of the Local Plan could be delivered. Here once again, the large scale plan of Leamington and Warwick that you supplied to us, was particularly useful.