My boyfriend and I just bought a house 2 months ago in Bishops Tachbrook. We purchased our home because of its tranquil and quaint village setting, and the fact that it was surrounded by open countryside. I strongly object to plans to build such a large number of homes, linking Warwick Gates with our village. Firstly, forecast studies and projections based on population growth suggest that only c.5,000 homes might be required. So why develop so many? Secondly, the village's infrastructure, it's roads, schools and small village doctor surgery, will struggle to cope. I a, certain that this will devalue the price of my property.
Building on the land would destroy an ancient and beautiful village. The visual impact will be horrific - even the Planning inspector who reviewed the the local plan in 2006 said Woodside Farm should not be built on. Development would also destroy valuable agricultural land.

Please be sensible - stop the development and don't destroy our village.
Nicola Toulson

My girlfriend and I just bought a house 2 months ago in Bishops Tachbrook. We purchased our home because of its tranquil and quaint village setting, and the fact that it was surrounded by open countryside. I strongly object to plans to build such a large number of homes, linking Warwick Gates with our village. Firstly, forecast studies and projections based on population growth suggest that only c.5,000 homes might be required. So why develop so many? Secondly, the village's infrastructure, it's roads, schools and small village doctor surgery, will struggle to cope. I a, certain that this will devalue the price of my property.
Building on the land would destroy an ancient and beautiful village. The visual impact will be horrific - even the Planning inspector who reviewed the the local plan in 2006 said Woodside Farm should not be built on. Development would also destroy valuable agricultural land.

Please be sensible - stop the development and don't destroy our village.

So many houses for this small village,yet more light pollution

The proposal for additional 100-150 homes between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook village will put undue pressure on the surrounding infrastructure such as roads, trains...etc. The construction and additional traffic and noise will significantly impact the lives of existing residents. The expansion is significantly more than this area requires and is already heavily populated. From exiting the M40 (key transport link), the picturesque village of Bishops Tachbrook (which is the approach into Leamington and Warwick) will be ruined forever. I strongly object to the proposal which should utilise current brownfield sites, not existing green and picturesque areas of the locality.

The recent housing needs survey identified a need for 14 new homes so why is the proposal to build up to 150? If the village is to be expanded significantly it needs infrastructure improvements including improvements to road access onto the A452 (e.g. roundabout)

A recent survey identified a local need for only 14 homes therefore I see this as being the only requirement for further development. Any more than this figure would have an adverse affect on a number of areas for example traffic, village school, agricultural land would be lost and the landscape would be affected by any larger housing development.

Too many homes have been allocated to Bishop's Tachbrook. The parish housing need survey found only 14 homes,(10 affordable + 4 market homes) are needed. A 25-30 mixed development could provide these.The infrastructure of the village would barely cope with this. Since more houses were added to the sewer system in periods of heavy rain sewage floods into our garden as the sewers cannot cope with the sudden increase in volume. Also there has been at least 10 water leaks in our road. Extra traffic would put more pressure on the old water pipes. The village school is also full.

Bishops Tachbrook - Neighbour hood plan
I object the number of houses being built south of leamington, proposed sites near Bishops Tachbrook on two grounds,1) the current infrastrucutre struggles to day and will not improve with more cars on the roads as a result of more housing.2) there is no evidence to suggest that this number of houses is required for this area. Bishops Tachbrook is a lovely village, I do not want it to be surrounded by new housing and turn into like Whitnash, a suburb of Leamington, I moved into a village because I wanted to live in a village and not a suburb!

Objection to proposed and significant developments around the village of Bishops Tachbrook (housing developments south of Harbury Lane, Gypsy sites & development adjacent to village envelope). The proposals for further development are excessive in volume, leading to destruction of a beautiful landscape south of Leamington and Warwick and a highly undesirable coalescence of settlements. The minimum separation proposed will be ineffective and the additional traffic volume detrimental to the local community. Oakley Wood Road is already plagued by traffic travelling at excessive and dangerous speed at peak times posing a danger to existing residents. The village continues to suffer from considerable noise pollution from the M40, a cause of considerable stress for many. The addition of such a high number of new dwellings in a limited area will further exacerbate these issues without due regard to the quality of life of existing residents.

There will be a strain on local services and infrastructure if Bishops Tachbrook is extended.
Undue pressure on the local school.
Destruction of the environment.

I object on the grounds that the council has failed to take into consideration the impact of;

Increase in Light,sound and traffic pollution.

massive increase in water run off causing increased flooding.

Brown sites already available within Leamington and also within the Warwickshire boundary near Finham where the infrastructure is already in place.

Traffic congestion being exasperated from an already poor start.

Increase in response times of emergency services.

Massive visual impact on Village quality of life, and loss of village identity.

Increase of crime.

Loss of high quality fertile productive land for food.

Reduction of the natural habitat of wildlife, and trees/hedgerows which helps to reduce pollution.

1. Your categorisation seems illogical e.g Barford is a secondary village and Bishops Tachbrook a Primary village, yet Barford has 2 pubs a post office. Similar comparisons can be made for other villages
2. Our housing need survey of 2009 identified a local need for only 14 homes. 10 "affordable" and 4 "market" homes. A mixed development of 25-30 homes could provide the 10 affordable homes required - why do we need 100-150?

The village's own housing needs survey indicated that only 14 new houses are needed at present. Over the timescale of the New Local Plan probably double that number would suffice, so the 100-150 proposed is far too many. However, the village suffers constant problems with gas and water leaks and drain blockages leading to floods of raw sewage, so until and unless the infrastructure, in particular the main sewer which often fails to cope with the present population, is uprated there should be no further increase in the size of Bishop's Tachbrook.

I wish to object to the proposed number of new houses required for Bishops Tachbrook being 100-150 The village has conducted its own housing need survey which identified a far lower figure of only 14 homes 10 to be affordable and 4 market homes. A mixed development of 25-30 homes could provide the 10 affordable homes so why should the village have to deliver new housing beyond that figure.

I am writing to protest about the above proposed sites. The infrastructure around Bishops Tachbrook cannot possibly cope with these types of developments. We have already had our fair share of development with Warwick Gates and all the extra strain on local facilities that brings.

Bishops Tachbrook is a village, first and foremost. With the proposed new houses we will practically be joined up to Whitnash/Warwick Gates. I feel this will have an adverse effect on the quality of life in our village. The roads cannot cope with the extra traffic (nowadays most houses have a minimum of 2 cars each). Our hospital services will suffer with the extra demand, waiting lists will grow longer too. Pollution will rise and we have already seen a massive increase in this with the M40 development. Is there really a need for so many houses, I have seen and heard it disputed by many experts in the local area?

As for the gypsies. If they are travellers why do they want a permanent site, if their aim is to travel. It wouldn't be so bad if they left where they stayed tidy but it is plainly obvious to see when they stop (illegally) on Harbury Lane and on the site by the Hungry Horse pub at Warwick Gates that they leave mess, rubbish and general devastation behind them where they stay. The local school won't cope and even if it did having transient children joining the school will bring down standards in the classroom. There is a noticeable crime rate rise, especially in rural locations like Harbury when the gypsies are around. A permanent site or sites would mean our house insurance costs would rise too. And also I would feel less safe in my home, out walking my dog on my own and letting my children go down to the local park on their own.

The sites proposed for the gypsies are prime agricultural sites too, right next to main roads and in lovely big open fields. I do not think this is fair that people who do not pay taxes or for upkeep of any of their surroundings that they should be treated so royally. It would not be so easy for the hard working tax payer that I do know.

I would appreciate your comments on these points.

I am a resident in Bishop Tachbrook and feel that we are being unfairly targetted for both Gypsy sites and over building..

I feel we are being penalised because we are green field sight not green belt.this site is more valuable as more areas will be needed for food in the future.

With regard to gypsy sites what is happening to the site on the Banbury road which has been developed as a caravan site for 3+ years and no caravan has appeared on it?

Hoping this argument as some use

The local plan mentions 100/150 housing to be built adjacent to the Bishops Tachbrook village envelope. When will we receive the details on where these will be positioned and will a further consultation be provided for comments on these plans? I object to these numbers of housing being built within the Bishops Tachbrook area.
A housing needs survey for Bishops Tachbrook highlighted a local need for 14 homes with 10 of those being for affordable housing and the other four being 'market homes'. Why do we have to deliver a housing proposal of 100/150 houses that is way beyond the local need? A mixed development of 25 homes could provide the housing required for the local need along with some extra.
The GP surgery is at capacity as it the school. There are no provisions for dental care and limited local amenities. The bus service is very limited and there are no train facilities.
If the 100/150 proposed house within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are built on the Warwick Gates side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between Leamington Spa and Bishops Tachbrook and result in a continuous sprawl of housing.
I would appreciate further information on this matter before being able to supply a considered response.

Dear Sir/Madam
The local plan mentions 100/150 housing to be built adjacent to the Bishops Tachbrook village envelope. When will we receive the details on where these will be positioned and will a further consultation be provided for comments on these plans? I object to these numbers of housing being built within the Bishops Tachbrook area.
A housing needs survey for Bishops Tachbrook highlighted a local need for 14 homes with 10 of those being for affordable housing and the other four being 'market homes'. Why do we have to deliver a housing proposal of 100/150 houses that is way beyond the local need? A mixed development of 25 homes could provide the housing required for the local need along with some extra.
The GP surgery is at capacity as is the school. There are no provisions for dental care and limited local amenities. The bus service is very limited and there are no train facilities.
If the 100/150 proposed house within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are built on the Warwick Gates side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between Leamington Spa and Bishops Tachbrook and result in a continuous sprawl of housing. Bishops Tachbrook is under constant threat from development and has already had two motorway junctions placed within its boundaries.
The area between Warwick gates and Bishops Tachbrook has a lot of wildlife in it. I personally have seen a Barn Owl, Kestrels and Buzzards, these animals are sustained by the smaller mammals living in this green space.
I would appreciate further information on this matter before being able to supply a considered response.

I hope you will still consider this feedback even though it has been submitted after the deadline. I am currently visiting family in Finland and have had to cope with two unexpected collapses of my father this afternoon which necessarily distracted me from responding before the deadline. I did, however, want to share my thoughts on the new local plan hence sending this email. Please would you confirm whether you will take my email into consideration as part of the new local plan consultation.

I am concerned that the number of new houses proposed within the new local plan appears to greatly exceed the projected housing demand in this region. I agree that the plan should aim to meet projected housing needs but, particularly given the pressure that the proposal already puts on the local environment, exceeding the projected need will only exacerbate these problems.

The location of the possible locations of housing developments deeply concerns me. I strongly believe that greenfield sites should not be built upon where there are brownfield options. Our natural environment is a rare resource and once sacrificed it is lost for good, and 'garden' housing developments proposals simply do not mitigate the loss. If brownfield sites cannot meet the housing needs the location of additional housing must be sympathetic to the existing settlements and infrastructure issues. I am concerned that a significant area of farmland to the north and west of Bishops Tachbrook appears to have been offered by the owners for development. Whilst this may be economically attractive to the land owners, the impact of further development in this area would have a serious negative impact on existing residents. The development of Warwick Gates has already increased the number of cars that travel through Bishops Tachbrook which use it as a rat run to access the M40. Given the location of the village it is reasonable to assume that further development to the north of this village will exacerbate this problem. I appreciate that increased populations will result in increased car traffic, however the main road running south through the village goes through one stretch (close to Savages Close) where it is extremely narrow and the visibility of traffic heading north along this road is already very poor when at the junction by The Leopard pub. If the housing in south Leamington Spa area is to increased it must be in a location that is further west such that traffic is more likely to use the major roads such as Europa Way.

The British countryside is characterised by villages and rolling fields. We have a duty to preserve the rural character of the area and prevent towns such as Leamington Spa to sprawl further and encroach on existing boundaries with local villages.

My recommendation would be that the new local plan should seek to only meet the projected housing demand for the area and that any development takes place next to major roads which do not run though small villages. The rural character of the area around Bishops Tachbrook must be preserved and road safety should be prioritised.

I hope you will consider my feedback.

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, where I live with my husband and 2 children (aged 4 & 6). We have lived in the village for 8 years and chose the location because we wanted to raise our family in a village setting, away from the town centre.

I have read the WDC Revised Development Strategy (2013) and I have attended a public meeting, where I viewed the WDC RDS PowerPoint presentation. What follows is my considered response to the proposed housing developments and Gypsy Traveller sites.

The RDS completely contradicts WDC's strategic vision "to make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit" (RDS 3.1).
An increase of 12300 homes will not achieve this vision and will, in fact, have the opposite effect for a number of reasons:
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the district is 5400. This is based on factual information derived from the national census statistics, and allows for migration. Where is the evidence to support WDC's claim that 12300 homes are required?
The WDC presentation states that; in order to provide for growth of the local population (RDS 3.5), sites for 550 new homes per annum would need to be identified. Over an 18 year period this totals 9900 homes. Where does this number fit in with the 12300 WDC claim are needed to meet growth?

Why has the WDC empty home strategy not been included in the 5 year plan? WDC has redeveloped 250 homes back to use under this strategy and further homes have been identified. In 2012 www.emptyhomes.com identified approximately 1350 empty homes in the Warwick district. Why isn't more work being done around this type of development of existing homes, rather than proposing large scale new developments. There does not appear to be any mention of empty homes in the RDS.

Warwick District currently has a very low unemployment rate, with only 1.6% of the population claiming JSA. If some of the proposed development is about economic growth where is the evidence to show that people moving into the area will be able to find work?
Much of the employment land in the district has not been fulfilled and may subsequently become land for housing, but where are the jobs for the people moving into the area?
I have heard the growth of Jaguar Land Rover cited as an employment opportunity, which would require homes for employees moving to the area. However, the WDC's RDS does not take account of the fact that Stratford District Council are in the process of consulting on a proposed development of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. This would be closer to the JLR than any of the Warwick District developments in terms of homes for JLR employees.
Why have WDC and SDC not communicated about their development plans when they are so close? As a Bishops Tachbrook residents we will also be affected by the SDC plans, as any commuters and/or visitors to Warwick and Leamington from the new developments will increase the traffic and associated problems, noise/ air pollination etc.

The visual impact on the view from Bishops Tachbrook, Harbury Lane, Tachbrook Valley, Gallows Hill will be hugely significant for existing residents but also visitors to the area. No amount of 'country park' can make up for the loss of beautiful countryside and open fields, which would be lost to thousands of homes and the associated environmental impacts such as noise and light (from houses, cars and street lighting). The planning inspector who reviewed the current plan in 2006 said that Woodside Farm should not be built on then or in the future. The WDC's own landscape consultant, Richard Morrish, said in the Landscape Area Statement (2009) referring to the land south of Gallows Hill " this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development". The RDS goes against this recommendation, why?


The local infrastructure cannot support such a significant number of houses in one area. The Southern Site already has significant issues in terms of volume and flow of traffic. The RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements would alleviate any of the problems that would come with such a large development. No number of dual carriage ways will improve the flow of traffic through the 'pinch points' such as crossings of canals, rivers and railways and the RDS does not provide any realistically deliverable solutions to these problems. Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment shows traffic speeds of only 0-10 mph in large parts of Warwick. Any increase in traffic, never mind the exceptionally large numbers proposed in the RDS, will make this situation worse. Rather than increasing trade in the town centre it is likely that people would be put off visiting the shops because of the volume of traffic. This view was supported by the Chairperson of the Warwick Chamber of Trade, who echoed this point at the public meeting I attended.

A lot can be learnt from previous developments in terms of the volume of traffics. The Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow developments prove that the people who move onto these developments will use their cars to commute to/from work and to/from shops and town centres. The bus services serving these developments are not self funding and rely on subsidies to run. It would be naive and idealistic to think that this would be any different on new developments. Most houses have more than one car and most people will drive to work. The location of the Southern Site development would require most residents to commute to work.
A lot can also be learnt about sites identified on development plans for facilities such as schools and play areas, which are not followed through. The Warwick Gates plans contained a site for a school, which was never built. This subsequently put huge pressure on surrounding schools and there is still an annual scrabble for places amongst the Warwick Gates residents, who have a nervous wait to see if their child will get their preferred option. Therefore, I have no faith that if the proposed plans go ahead the schools will come to fruition. Similarly, the Chase Meadow development had a playground site on the plans and again this was not built.

One of my main concerns is the health implications. I have read the Local Air Quality Progress Report (2011) and the areas already identified in this report as 'Air Quality Management Areas' will be affected by an increase in traffic volume as a result of the proposed developments. As Air Quality is covered by the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (amended 2002) and the Enviornment Act 1995, as well as various other legislation, I cannot understand why a full Health Impact Survey has not been commissioned. How does WDC know that the proposed developments will not take air pollution levels above the legal limits? It is not acceptable to just go ahead and worry retrospectively when we are talking about serious health implications. Many schools, nurseries and parks are in the vicinity of the Southern Site and the health of the children who use these facilities could be at risk if this goes ahead without a full assessment of the potential impact of such a large development. I seriously worry about the affect on my children's health and other children in the area. In my opinion this issue should take priority over everything else and I am extremely disappointed that WDC are not giving due consideration to this aspect of the impact on local residents.
In terms of Bishops Tachbrook, the village is already a cut through for many vehicles on their way to/ from the M40. When I walk my children to school in the morning there is a disproportionate amount of traffic travelling through the main roads in the village, in comparison to the number of residents. Speeding along these roads has always been an issue and the speed reduction measures are ineffective. There have been no improvements made to the road systems or pavements in Bishops Tachbrook since the development of Warwick Gates and I see no acknowledgement of this need in the RDS. This is yet another example of WDC failing to recognise and consider the wider reaching impact of large scale housing developments on existing infrastructures. If the proposed development goes ahead it will increase the volume of traffic through Bishops Tachbrook and that will increase the risk to the residents of Bishops Tachbrook, as there are no proposed improvements.

The housing proposed for village settlements has categorised Bishops Tachbrook as the largest type (100-150 homes). The Bishops Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a need for only 14 homes. Again, where is the evidence to support the need for 100-150 homes? Why would this many houses be needed in the village when 3400 homes are proposed for the Southern Site development? With regards to the visual, environmental health and infrastructure issues I echo what I have said in the above paragraphs.

I have read the criteria for the sites for Gypsy and Travellers from the consultation document. I do not think that the proposed sites are distributed evenly around the district and again the south contains a disproportionate number. All of the above points I have raised would also apply to the development of a Gypsy and Traveller site in this area.
In terms of the relevant criteria I do not consider the following sites to be suitable:
Site 3: this site is very remote and does not have easy access to facilities, access, pedestrian access.
Site 4: as above.
Site 5: The access is onto a very busy road and there is no pedestrian access. There would be a visual impact on the approach to Warwick and there is a listed building on the site. There would be undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services of such a small village.
Site 6: has no pedestrian access and is very remote in relation to distance from main centres and services.
Site 9: there would be a visual impact on the approach into Warwick and there are listed buildings on the site. The access is onto a busy road and there is no pedestrian access.
Site 10: Too close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
Site 15: This site is located on the banks of the Tachbrook. As the proposed site may be used as a place of work there could be a risk of contamination.

The school in Bishops Tachbrook has one class of approximately 30 children per intake. A GT site of 5,10 or 15 could be home to 10, 20 or 30 children. As Bishops Tachbrook is a small school already at capacity is could not support the needs of the site. There are other schools in the district that are not at capacity that could support the need.

The sites around Bishops Tachbrook are too remote to support the development and the village and its facilities are not big enough to support such an increase in population, in terms of infrastructure and facilities.

I understand the requirement for WDC to provide 31 pitches but I strongly feel that a larger number of smaller sites evenly distributed across the district in areas where the existing facilities can accommodate the need is the most appropriate way to meet the requirements.

see attachment

As a resident in the District, I would like to register my fundamental concerns to the proposed Revised Local Plan.

There are a number of features that will prove to be serious retrograde steps to the area:

1. Why are brownfield sites not being utilised before new greenfield developments - is it "easier" for developers to go for greenfield sites?
2. The farmland that is now being earmarked for development is medium to high grade and should be retained for its ability to produce multiple crops and be part of the UK agricultural economy rather than requiring yet more food to be ultimately imported
3. The density and volume of new houses - the number of houses appears to be significantly overstated and concentrated to the south of Warwick along Gallows Hill area rather than being spread more evenly (even if the number of houses required is a correct projection).
4. It is not a given that all new residents will work in the same area as they live, therefore congestion is inevitable because of the concentration of new houses to the south of Warwick
5. Likewise the proposed new employment area close to Gallows Hill is likely not needed, there are numerous empty office blocks available for new businesses already existing on various technology parks or other areas around the district. Many that have not been fully occupied since they were built.
6. The density of development means that the very features that attract people to live in Warwickshire will be lost and the developments will just become co-joined, with no distinction between the different sub areas and villages. The attraction of Warwickshire is farmland between and surrounding the town and villages adjacent to Warwick and Leamington, providing space and definition to the residential areas. People who live in Warwick District do not want to live in a housing/pseudo town sprawl. The "country park" that is proposed on the edge of the new Gallows Hill development is a poor substitute for open fields and becomes a semi urban "park" given its location not open countryside. Prior studies that WDC commissioned (Planning Inspector 2006) )stated that the Woodside Farm area should not be built on.

In addition, Bishops Tachbrook, seems to have been "chosen" as a Primary Village for expansion, presumably because of the volume of housing due to be created as a result of the Local Plan. This is based on a poor premise and seeks to alter the dynamic of a successful village. A village has a distinct identity and the boundaries shouldn't be needlessly expanded. The views from the village are of rolling countryside, which would be slowly eroded and the distinct spacing that allows the village to function as a village (rather than as an add on to a new development or Warwick Gates or Whitnash) will be lost. There is real history to the village which would be lost forever. Likewise extra housing and increased attendance at the school will cause more congestion and be dangerous to pedestrians and drivers. The size of the existing roads fits with the size of the village and to expand or widen the road network would again destroy the soul and history of the village, which should be retained for future appreciation by others. Adding on an extra 100-150 houses is also unnecessary, and again a very high volume where the need is not supported or proven.

Gypsy Sites

There are significant concerns regarding the location and number of pitches proposed. Firstly, it should be noted that it is not a given that gypsies would use such sites, in other areas (Shipston) there are sites which were set up but not used. Land that is used by the gypsies tends not to be managed well and so becomes an eyesore to other surrounding residents. The write ups suggest that they will pay council tax but given that many of the gypsies will probably be unemployed there is no motivation to take pride in the surroundings. If the council does not manage these, then there is limited re-course by those potentially affected in the direct vicinity.

The proposed sites, such as those at No's 3, 4, 5,9, 10 and are all located adjacent to busy roads, which would be dangerous to all parties including the gypsies. They are not close to secondary schools.
There is no information on the maximum number of people that would be allowed to stay on the site. The public information states 20-30 number of caravans but that does not give any idea of possible density of inhabitants, which will put a strain on local services.

I sincerely hope you will listen to the feedback the WDC receives and revise the location and volume of development to a less intrusive and a more sensitive number.

I write to object in the strongest possible terms about the local plans you are looking to impose upon the district.
After looking into the figures of houses and the locations in which you are proposing to allow construction on I object on the following basis
a) Why are the housing numbers so high
Over 20 years to 2011, population growth was 18% now you propose a further 20% increase in the local plan RDS within only 15 years allowing 12300 to be built. Using projections based on natural growth of the population and an allowance for migration only 5400 homes are required (Ray Bullen paper july 2012 updated using 2011 census data in 2013).
Your own consultans G.L. Hearn gave an economic and demographic forecast study in December 2012 and in their option Proj 5 arived at only 4405 new homes required.
The local area has an unemployment rate of 1.7% so if growth for jobs is the reason for building the new homes, this is not required. The 2012 strategic housing market assessment stated that overall "Warwick District had a very good job-homes balance.
b) Visual Impact
Currently Leamington Spa and Bishops Tachbrook are just visable to one another and these developments would in effect join up the two localities into one sprawling urbanisation. Loosing valuable agricultural land and irreplaceable views. The local planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside farm should not be built on now or in the future. WDCs own landscape consultant Rickard Morrish in the landscape area statement refered to the land south of Gallows hill concluded "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development. Why has the district council now gone against that recommendation.
c) Local Infastructure
The local plan RDS does not contain any evidence that the proposes infrastructure developments can be delivered from the developer contributions through section 106 and community infrastructure levy.
With so much unnecessary housing concentrated to the south of the town centres surrounding roads will end up severely congested causing pinch points of crossings of canal river and railways where there is no realistically deliverable solution to the problem. Will the village of Bishops Tachbrook have to contend with further volumes of traffic using the village as a rat run, with even more potential for speeding and accidents and potential fatalities.

With all this extra congestion and traffic surely the air quality will suffer causing more pollution being badly damaging to health. The local economy could also potentially be damaged by filling the streets with intolerable levels of traffic and fumes and not shoppers and visitors enjoying their qualities.
d) Housing proposed for village settlements
The local plan RDS also proposes new housing around village settlements. The allocation of housing is proportionate to the categorisation of the settlement. Bishops Tachbrook has been categorised as being one of the largest type, this means that Warwick District council proposes 100 - 150 homes to be built adjacent to the village envelope. Our own local housing survey found a local need for only 14 homes, 10 affordable homes and 4 "market homes" again the figures looking to be imposed on the village bear no resemblance to the local communities ACTUAL needs.
To conclude the local plan does not set a level of house building which meets population growth within the district building homes that people want and can afford. It is growth for its own sake not the local communitys. It does not make good use of brownfield sites for as much as possible for these developments but instead looks to use high grade agricultural land which is sheer madness with food production ever moving up the agenda, as a nation how can we feed ourselves if there is no land to grow food on. The local plan would worsen air quality in Warwick where the level of pollution is already illegal. The rapid growth being proposed would put heavy pressure on schools and the hospitals, perhaps even on water supplies and drainage. I srongly object to these plans and am disgusted that the local community might have these poorly thought out plans, forced upon us by faceless bureaucrats and big business with no regards for local wishes. The elected officials would do well to remember who elected them in the first place.
I strongly object to these plans and wish to place my views on record.

RESPONSE TO REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY - LOCAL PLAN & SITES FOR GYSPIES AND TRAVELLERS
I have read the draft plan for the District and attended public meetings in connection with this and have severe concern about this revised plan. Whereas I appreciate the need for additional housing within the area including the provision of sites for Gypsies & Travellers, I contest that the scale, location and impact on the local community are totally inappropriate and not sustainable.
In more detail:
o SCALE - the housing numbers are excessively high, the RDS proposes 12000 new houses by 2030 whereas the local need is for fewer than 6000. Projections, based from the last 2011 census, by Ray Bullen (Parish cllr. Bishop's Tachbrook) show only a need for 5400, and the WDC own consultants (G. L. Hearn) for the Economic and Demographic Forecast Survey of December 2012 estimated only 4405.
For Bishops Tachbrook, the housing needs survey produced for the Parish Plans of 2010 showed a requirement for roughly 14 homes however the RDS proposes a 10-fold increase for up to 150 houses. I object to the RSD figure of 150 houses and think that 20 - 30 would be more appropriate.

o LOCATION - From the last Core Strategy survey of 2010, local residents gave a very strong response that large development south of Leamington & Warwick was not acceptable. The concentration of many 1000's of new houses in this area would cause immense pressure on the road infrastructure and lead to high levels of pollution and congestion. Distributed development over many sites and with a lesser number of houses is preferable.
The crossing points from this area to the town centres of Leamington & Warwick are limited to only 4 and whatever infrastructure improvement that are planned, these bottle-necks will persist and worsen hugely. The WDC's Strategy Transport Phase 3 Assessment (Appendix E) shows traffic speeds of 0 - 10 mph in large parts of Warwick.
Development south of the towns uses prime agricultural land currently in crop production. The transfer of this use to housing development in certainly not in the line with future needs to preserve UK food production for the future. The development would have a huge visual impact and diminish the landscape south of Harbury Lane and Gallows's Hill - in contrast to the WDC's Landscape Statement of 2009 by Richard Morris "... this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development..." .
Though the area of land south of the towns is not Greenbelt, it is not obvious why it was not designated such, and I feel that development in this area will inevitably lead to more urban sprawl to include the village of Bishop's Tachbrook.
o SUSTAINABILITY - As was evidenced by the Warwick Gates' development, new houses in excess of the local need will generate migration from larger and distant conurbations such as Birmingham, Coventry, Oxford and even London. This will produce pollution and congestion from long distant commuting either by road or train.
The population growth resulting from the plan would also put great pressure on hospitals and schools, but the RDS does not contain any evidence to show that proposed infrastructure improvements in these areas can be delivered from Developer contributions.
o GYPSY & TRAVELLER SITES - I object to the proposed sites at location 5, 10 and 15, they would put increased demand for primary school places at Bishops Tachbrook which is at capacity numbers already. And all these sites are on major and busy roads and would not present safe access.
In conclusion, I see the proposed Local Plan as a blueprint to make the towns and villages south of the Leam into one large urban sprawl. The consequent increase in congestion, pollution and pressure on services would be to the detriment both to the residents south of Leamington and Warwick and to the future of the towns themselves.
I ask that WDC takes serious concern of the views of the local residents and prepare a revised plan that has genuine democratic legitimately. As it now stands, I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed Local Plan.

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, where I live with my wife and family.
We have lived in the village for 9 years and chose the location because we wanted to live in a quiet village location away from the town centre.

I have read the WDC Revised Development Strategy (2013) and I have attended a public meeting where I viewed the WDC RDS PowerPoint presentation. What follows is my considered response to the proposed housing developments and Gypsy Traveller sites.

The RDS completely contradicts WDC's strategic vision "to make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit" (RDS 3.1).
An increase of 12300 homes will not achieve this vision and will in fact have the opposite effect for a number of reasons:
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the district is 5400. This is based on factual information derived from the national census statistics, and allows for migration. Where is the evidence to support WDC claim that 12300 homes are required?
The WDC presentation states that, in order to provide for growth of the local population (RDS 3.5), sites for 550 new homes per annum would need to be identified. Over an 18 year period this totals 9900 homes. Where does this number fit in with the 12300 WDC claim are needed to meet growth?

Why has the WDC empty home strategy not been included in the 5 year plan? WDC has developed 250 homes back to use under this strategy and further homes have been identified. http://www.emptyhomes.com/ identified approximately 1350 empty homes in the Warwick district in 2012, why isn't more work being done around this type of development of existing homes rather than proposing large scale new developments. There does not appear to be any mention of empty homes into RDS.

Warwick District currently has a very low unemployment rate, with only 1.6% unemployment (claiming JSA). If some of the proposed development is about economic growth where is the evidence to show that people moving into the area will be able to find work?
Much of the employment land in the district has not been fulfilled and may subsequently become land for housing but where are the jobs for the people moving into the area?
I have heard the growth of Jaguar Land rover cited as a employment opportunity which would require homes for employees moving to the area. However, the WDC RDS does not take account for the fact that Stratford District Council are in the process of consulting on a proposed development of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. This would be closer to the JLR than any of the Warwick District developments in terms of homes for JLR employees.
Why have WDC and SDC not communicated about their development plans when they are so close? As a Bishops Tachbrook resident we will also be affected by the SDC plans as any commuters and/or visitors to Warwick and Leamington from the new developments will increase the traffic and associated problems, noise/ air pollination etc.

The visual impact on the view from Bishops Tachbrook, Harbury Lane, Tachbrook Valley, Gallows Hill will be hugely significant for existing residents but also visitors to the area. No amount of 'country park' can make up for the loss of beautiful countryside and open fields which would be lost to thousands of homes and the associated environmental impacts such as noise and light (from houses, cars and street lighting). The planning inspector who reviewed the current plan in 2006 said that Woodside Farm should not be built on then or in the future. The WDC's own landscape consultant, Richard Morrish, said in the Landscape Area Statement (2009) referring to the land south of Gallows Hill "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development". The RDS goes against this recommendation, why?


The local infrastructure cannot support such a significant number of houses in one area. The Southern Site already has significant issues in terms of volume and flow of traffic. The RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements would alleviate any of the problems that would come with such a large development. No number of dual carriage ways will improve the flow of traffic through the 'pinch points' such as crossings of canals, rivers and railways and the RDS does not provide any realistically deliverable to solutions to these problems. There are major problems for traffic trying to get into Leamington on weekday mornings when the traffic backs up all the way onto the main carriage way on the M40. Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment shows traffic speeds of only 0-10 mph in large parts of Warwick. Any increase in traffic, never mind the exceptionally large numbers proposed in the RDS, will make this situation worse. Rather than increasing trade in the town centre it is likely that people would be put off visiting the shops because of the volume of traffic. This view was supported by the Chairperson of the Warwick Chamber of Trade, who echoed this point at the public meeting I attended.

A lot can be learnt from previous developments in terms of the volume of traffics. The Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow developments prove that the people who move onto these developments will use their car to commute to/from work and to/from shops and town centres. The bus services serving these developments are not self funding and rely on subsidies to run. It would be naive and idealistic to think that this would be any different on new developments. Most houses have more than one car and most people will drive to work. The location of the Southern Site development would require most residents to commute to work.
A lot can also be learnt about sites identified on plans for facilities such as schools and play areas which are not followed through. The Warwick Gates plans contained a site for a school which was never built. This subsequently but huge pressure on surrounding schools and thee is still and annual scrabble for places amongst the Warwick Gates residents who have a nervous wait to see if their child will get their preferred option. Therefore I have no faith that if the proposed plans go ahead the schools will come to fruition. Similarly, the Chase Meadow development had a playground site on the plans and again this was not built. Also many of the properties on both of these developments are rented out and therefore not lived in by the people who bought them.

One of my main concerns is the health implications. I have read the Local Air Quality Progress Report (2011) and the areas already identified in this report as 'Air Quality Management Areas' will be affected by an increase in traffic volume as a result of the proposed developments. As the Air Quality is covered by the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (amended 2002) and the Environment Act 1995 as well as various other legislation I cannot understand why a full Health Impact Survey has not been commissioned. How does WDC know that the proposed developments will not take air pollution levels above the legal limits. It is not acceptable to just go ahead and worry retrospectively when we are talking about serious health implications. Many schools, nurseries and parks are in the vicinity of the Southern Site and the Heath of the children who use these facilities could be at risk if this goes ahead without a full assembly of the potential impact of such a large development. I seriously worry about the effect on my children's health and other children in the area. In my opinion this should take priority over everything else and I am extremely disappointed that WDC are not giving due consideration to this aspect of the impact on local residents.
In terms of Bishops Tachbrook, the village is already a cut through for many vehicles on their way to/ from the M40. When I walk my dog in the morning there is a disproportionate amount of traffic travelling through the main roads in the village, in comparison to the number of residents. Speeding along these roads has always been an issue and the speed reduction measures are ineffective. Mallory road leading to the Banbury road is also prone to flooding and has sometimes been impassable. There have been no improvements made to the road systems or pavements since the development of Warwick Gates and I see no acknowledgement of this need in the RDS. This is yet another example of WDC failing to recognise and consider the wide reaching impact of large scale housing developments on existing infrastructures. If the proposed develop goes ahead it will increase the volume of traffic through Bishops Tachbrook and that will increase the risk to residents of Bishops Tachbrook as there are no proposed improvements.

The housing proposed for village settlements has categorised Bishops Tachbrook as the largest type (100-150 homes). The Bishops Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a need for only 14 homes. Again, where is the evidence to support the need for 100-150 homes? Why would this many houses be needed in the village when 3400 homes are proposed for the Southern Site development? With regards to the visual, environmental and infrastructure issues I echo what I have said in the above paragraphs.

Why are we insistently building on prime agricultural land? Surely this land is needed to feed the ever growing population of the country or we will become more reliant on importing food and pushing prices up even further. Obviously the developers prefer this option as it's easier and means more profit for them.

I have read the criteria for the sites for Gypsy and Travellers from the consultation document. I do not think that the proposed sites are distributed evenly around the district and again the south contains a disproportionate number. All of the above points I have raised would also apply to the development of a Gypsy and Traveller site in this area.
In terms of the relevant criteria I do not consider the following sites to be suitable:
Site 3: this site is very remote and does not have easy access to facilities, access, pedestrian access and is prone to flooding.
Site 4: as above.
Site 5: The access is onto a very busy road and there is no pedestrian access. There would be a visual impact on the approach to Warwick and there is a listed building on the site. There would be undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services of such a small village.
Site 6: has no pedestrian access and is very remote in relation to distance from main centres and services.
Site 9: there would be a visual impact on the approach into Warwick and there are listed buildings on the site. The access is onto a busy road and there is no pedestrian access.
Site 10: Too close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
Site 15: This site is located on the banks of the Tachbrook. As the proposed site may be used as a place of work there could be a risk of contamination.

The school in Bishops Tachbrook has one class of approximately 30 children per intake. A GT site of 5,10 or 15 could be home to 10, 20 or 30 children. As Bishops Tachbrook is a small school already at capacity is could not support the needs of the site. There are other schools in the district that are not at capacity that could support the need.

The sites around Bishops Tachbrook are too remote to support the development and the village and its facilities are not big enough to support such an increase in population, in terms of infrastructure and facilities.

I am also concerned about the negative impact these sites will have on local house prices and increases in house and car insurance. Statistics show a rise in crime rates.

I understand the requirement for WDC to provide 31 pitches but I strongly feel that a larger number of smaller sites evenly distributed across the district in areas where the existing facilities can accommodate the need is the most appropriate way to meet the requirements.

Dear Sir/Madam
This letter is my objections to the WDC local plan. My main objection is to the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The area at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area.
Local need
The local need for housing is 6,000 new homes by 2030, why is it proposed that 12,000 new homes be built? From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland and not on existing brownfield industrial sites.
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with new patients. There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the area around the proposed housing. Europa Way and the lead up to Leamington is already a nightmare at peak hours. With the possibility of all these extra vehicles this would just get worse
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this thus creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the increased traffic, exhaust pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.


Flood risk
The area propsed for building between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
The plan states that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. The secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
Will the current catchment areas change? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. The village will become an extension of Leamington with just one field separating it.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are proposed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here.
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is mainly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon? Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities.
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a viable option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of three separate proposals. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions.

see attached

I am writing to make my objections to the local plan Revised Development Strategy clear. My main objection is to reference number 6 on the Revised Development Strategy, particularly the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The small pocket at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area. I believe that the area between Europa Way and Oakley Wood road, incorporating Grove Farm should never be built on as it provides a green space barrier between town and village.
Local need
It is my understanding that the local need for housing is for less than 6,000 new homes by 2030, but that it is proposed that 12,000 new homes be built, with the vast majority (4,500) of them being South of Warwick and Leamington Spa. From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland. I would like to know why existing brownfield industrial sites are not being used?
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Warwick District has a low unemployment level of 1.7% and so increasing the housing to meet job needs is not an issue. The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment said that overall "Warwick District had a very good jobs-homes balance.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Utilities
The current water supplies, drainage and sewerage would not cope with an extra 12,000 homes. Will Severn Trent water be upgrading their current systems to cope with the extra demand?
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the immediate vicinity of the proposed housing. Indeed, if the plans were to go ahead as proposed then the major employment area being built near Baginton will require a commute either through the already congested Leamington Spa town or back towards the Europa Way/M40/A46 which again struggles to cope at peak periods already. What are the plans for dealing with the major improvements that will be required for the roads in and around the proposed housing areas? Europa Way and the area around Leamington Shopping Park is often gridlocked at present. With the possibility of an extra 20,000 vehicles being added into the mix this would make it an unacceptable journey. It would in fact discourage visitors and tourists to the town areas as well as people looking to buy property.
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this this creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. I note it states possible park and ride facilities. I would suggest that this needs to be definite park and ride facilities in place prior to any building work commencing. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
What is the cost of the proposed traffic measures? Who will pay for this? The taxpayer or the developers, and if it is the developers is it a condition of sale or just a desirable measure?
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the 'snails pace traffic' pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. Those people that choose to walk or cycle will have to fill their lungs with the increasing pollution levels. Who would want to live next to or in these areas of high pollution? What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
Have any studies been done on the impact the proposed measures will have on local residents health?
Noise pollution from the significant increase in traffic will increase
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.
Flood risk
Areas of Whitnash, Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook are already prone to flooding. The area between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
What about schools? I notice it says that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. I would respectfully suggest that the secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
It does not seem fair that people that live in certain areas to ensure a placement at a specific school should end up with a less desirable option for their children when newcomers to the area will get the advantages that should be provided to the loyal local residents. Will the current catchment areas change? I suspect so. How is this fair on current residents? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
The Catholic Primary school in Whitnash, St Josephs', has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The housing planned between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook would turn a beautiful piece of rolling scenery into a view of a housing estate. The whole character of Bishops Tachbrook will be lost. The unique desirability of the village will be lost. It will merely be an extension of Leamington Spa and Warwick Gates. The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. Have you had a look at the view from Bishops Tachbrook looking towards Warwick Gates, between which some of the planned housing is proposed. The planned housing will be clearly visible leaving just a field between it and Bishops Tachbrook. The visual impact will be devastating.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are propsed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here. For many they will have no option but to stay as their houses will not be worth as much or they may be too old to contemplate moving.
There is a considerable impact on current residents and those people choosing to live in a village with limited facilities.
Country Park
What will this look like? There are few details about this area, will it be secured from future development? Who will provide the upkeep of this area and at what cost? In order to make an informed decision about the proposals we really need to know all of the information. Will a further consultation be conducted with further details of this plan?
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is predominantly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon. Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
I would suggest that these plans need to be scrapped and that the planners should look to set a level of new housing which meets the population growth for local needs. Any homes required should then be built in areas where people will want to live as the infrastructure is in place to meet their needs without impacting hugely on the current population.
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities. I understand that there is a major development proposed around the Gaydon area. If this is to be supported by the correct infrastructure then surely increasing this will help to absorb some of the previously mentioned problems. Has consideration been given to a new town/village similar to that proposed near to Gaydon?
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. What about North Leamington? If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington Spa, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The local plan states that the 22.5 hectares of new employment land is to meet local need over the next 15 years but it would appear that this is not the case as I suspect the vast majority of it will go to newcomers to the area.
It would appear that North Leamington has been largely left alone from these proposals and local concern is that this is due to the wealth of the people that live in North Leamington. It would make more sense to have the majority of the housing in the North of Leamington, Kenilworth and Cubbington areas as they are closer to the planned major employment area and do not have any greenfield areas separating them. They are already a continuous sprawl of housing. This would mean less of a commute and better air quality. The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a sensible option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
Please reconsider the scale of the housing proposed and also the positions. Without the correct infrastructure to support this plan Leamington Spa will become nothing more than a sprawling town with no character, major traffic problems, poor medical and educational facilities and an altogether undesirable place to live.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of what feels like a 3 pronged attack. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I would appreciate a response to the questions raised as part of this letter and hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions on mine and my childrens futures.

My comments relate to 6 main areas: scale of development, distribution, infrastructure, flooding, quality of life and listening to residents.

Scale of development

Previous Local Plan projections in 2012 suggested 10,800 houses needed to be built in Warwick District by 2029; new 2013 figures suggest 12,300. I have concerns that neither of these figures are accurate and, accounting for natural growth and an allowance for migration, only 5400 homes are required. This calculation was undertaken using 2011 census data by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Councillor Ray Bullen. In support of a much lower figure, in December 2012 Warwick District Council's own consultants G.L. Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study projection of 4405. Given the low unemployment rate of 1.7% in Warwick District, growth for employment is not a valid argument to explain this level of growth. I believe there is a very strong case that the scale of development is far in excess of what is required through natural growth and reasonable levels of migration.

Warwick District Council's 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment' states that the total capacity of the District is approximately 13,385 homes between 2014-2029; this Local Plan's projections use up 91.8% of total capacity. As this would leave virtually no room for future expansions, the local environment would undoubtedly be negatively impacted by future developments.

The level of growth proposed is unsustainable and according to the Local Development Framework, Annual Monitoring Report 2011, 'the majority of this [housing] growth has resulted from people moving into the District from other areas, notably the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham...[a] key factor behind this trend has been the particularly high level of house building that has taken place within the District during that period.' If migration has been fuelling the housing growth then the more homes that are built, the more people are likely to move out from Coventry and Birmingham to live in Warwick District. This in turn will put more pressure on housing stock as these new residents have families who will require housing if they are to remain nearby. This means large scale development will exacerbate rather than solve the local housing issues. Warwick District Council needs to revisit the scale of development to bring it down to sustainable levels.

The Bishop's Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a local need for only 14 homes; 10 'affordable and 4 'market' homes. A mixed development of 25-30 homes could provide the 10 affordable homes required so why have the numbers 100-150 homes been chosen for Bishop's Tachbrook against the local evidence base?

Distribution

The consultation document shows that 70% of the proposed housing is concentrated in the south of the district, in Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash. The Green Belt in the north of the district has been protected but insufficient provision has been made for the green field sites in the south. This leads me to question the fairness of this distribution, with the residents of the south bearing a greater burden than those of the north.

Infrastructure
The distribution of the proposed new housing raises concerns regarding infrastructure. A number of improvements over the last 12 months have not been project managed effectively, namely the High Street/Jury Street roadworks and the Morrisons development roadworks. Additionally, it took over 10 years for improvements to the Gallows Hill junction to be implemented so I have serious concerns regarding when any proposed infrastructure improvements will be undertaken to complement the housing developments. The knock on effect for existing residents whilst waiting for improvements to take place would be unacceptable. I also believe that even with the planned upgrades, the strain on local infrastructure will be intolerable and whilst the upgrades are taking place there would be a considerable inconvenience placed on local residents and businesses.

Flooding

The Tach Brook runs parallel to Harbury Lane, approximately equidistant from Bishop's Tachbrook and Warwick Gates. The Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council Flooding Review in Warwick District Final Report of the Joint Panel June 2008 reported that properties in Bishop's Tachbrook were affected by the floods. If houses in Bishop's Tachbrook already flood without housing being built on the Tach Brook flood plain then it is likely that it will only get worse if the water has fewer fields to run off into. If new housing is built on the land between the Tach Brook and Harbury Lane the new housing will be built with new anti-flood defences. This would leave the existing housing, built when such technology was neither available nor necessary, more vulnerable to flooding. I lived in Cubbington village when that flooded in 2007 and the extent of the flooding was exacerbated by the inadequacy of flood defences since new housing had been built.

Constructing large areas of housing on the banks of the brook will increase the water flow and in periods of prolonged heavy rain will increase flooding risks to neighbouring authorities such as Gloucestershire and Stratford. Recognising that only 5,400 homes are required, dispersing them more fairly around the district and not directly connecting them into the river system (except by the upgraded drainage system in Leamington) would be more acceptable to downstream neighbours such as Gloucestershire and Stratford.

Quality of life

Bishop's Tachbrook is a rural village separated from Leamington town by Harbury Lane. Having lived in what was Cubbington village and seeing the erosion of quality of life as a result of infill I would not want the same happening to Bishop's Tachbrook. It has a rural character which I would like preserved by maintaining the geographical barrier of Harbury Lane. The suggestions for a country park are paying lip service to the real issue which is that the edge of Bishop's Tachbrook is a mile from the edge of Warwick Gates and if the urban sprawl comes any closer than that then the rurality of the village is lost. A country park may provide a minimum level of separation but the undulations of the land will make the new housing highly visible from Bishop's Tachbrook thus negating this token separation.

The Planning Inspector who reviewed the current Local Plan in 2006 reported that Woodside Farm should not be built on now or in the future. Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish in the Landscape Area Statement in 2009 wrote the following with regards the land south of Gallows Hill 'this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development'. However, this new Local Plan appears to go against its own consultant's advice.

Listening to residents

A Neighbourhood Plan has been issued by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council which reflects the survey undertaken to gather residents' views. Bishop's Tachbrook residents such as I are concerned that our views will not be taken into account during this consultation. The previous 2012 Local Plan was altered after the consultation process and became much more acceptable to residents in the village. However this new Local Plan rips up any compromises made last year and in fact proposes more housing, with more of a burden borne by villagers. Consultation should not be a token gesture and the Local Plan should be altered if residents are clearly opposed to its proposals.

My comments relate to 6 main areas: scale of development, distribution, infrastructure, flooding, quality of life and listening to residents.

Scale of development

Previous Local Plan projections in 2012 suggested 10,800 houses needed to be built in Warwick District by 2029; new 2013 figures suggest 12,300. I have concerns that neither of these figures are accurate and, accounting for natural growth and an allowance for migration, only 5400 homes are required. This calculation was undertaken using 2011 census data by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Councillor Ray Bullen. In support of a much lower figure, in December 2012 Warwick District Council's own consultants G.L. Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study projection of 4405. Given the low unemployment rate of 1.7% in Warwick District, growth for employment is not a valid argument to explain this level of growth. I believe there is a very strong case that the scale of development is far in excess of what is required through natural growth and reasonable levels of migration.

Warwick District Council's 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment' states that the total capacity of the District is approximately 13,385 homes between 2014-2029; this Local Plan's projections use up 91.8% of total capacity. As this would leave virtually no room for future expansions, the local environment would undoubtedly be negatively impacted by future developments.

The level of growth proposed is unsustainable and according to the Local Development Framework, Annual Monitoring Report 2011, 'the majority of this [housing] growth has resulted from people moving into the District from other areas, notably the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham...[a] key factor behind this trend has been the particularly high level of house building that has taken place within the District during that period.' If migration has been fuelling the housing growth then the more homes that are built, the more people are likely to move out from Coventry and Birmingham to live in Warwick District. This in turn will put more pressure on housing stock as these new residents have families who will require housing if they are to remain nearby. This means large scale development will exacerbate rather than solve the local housing issues. Warwick District Council needs to revisit the scale of development to bring it down to sustainable levels.

The Bishop's Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a local need for only 14 homes; 10 'affordable and 4 'market' homes. A mixed development of 25-30 homes could provide the 10 affordable homes required so why have the numbers 100-150 homes been chosen for Bishop's Tachbrook against the local evidence base?

Distribution

The consultation document shows that 70% of the proposed housing is concentrated in the south of the district, in Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash. The Green Belt in the north of the district has been protected but insufficient provision has been made for the green field sites in the south. This leads me to question the fairness of this distribution, with the residents of the south bearing a greater burden than those of the north.

Infrastructure
The distribution of the proposed new housing raises concerns regarding infrastructure. A number of improvements over the last 12 months have not been project managed effectively, namely the High Street/Jury Street roadworks and the Morrisons development roadworks. Additionally, it took over 10 years for improvements to the Gallows Hill junction to be implemented so I have serious concerns regarding when any proposed infrastructure improvements will be undertaken to complement the housing developments. The knock on effect for existing residents whilst waiting for improvements to take place would be unacceptable. I also believe that even with the planned upgrades, the strain on local infrastructure will be intolerable and whilst the upgrades are taking place there would be a considerable inconvenience placed on local residents and businesses.

Flooding

The Tach Brook runs parallel to Harbury Lane, approximately equidistant from Bishop's Tachbrook and Warwick Gates. The Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council Flooding Review in Warwick District Final Report of the Joint Panel June 2008 reported that properties in Bishop's Tachbrook were affected by the floods. If houses in Bishop's Tachbrook already flood without housing being built on the Tach Brook flood plain then it is likely that it will only get worse if the water has fewer fields to run off into. If new housing is built on the land between the Tach Brook and Harbury Lane the new housing will be built with new anti-flood defences. This would leave the existing housing, built when such technology was neither available nor necessary, more vulnerable to flooding. I lived in Cubbington village when that flooded in 2007 and the extent of the flooding was exacerbated by the inadequacy of flood defences since new housing had been built.

Constructing large areas of housing on the banks of the brook will increase the water flow and in periods of prolonged heavy rain will increase flooding risks to neighbouring authorities such as Gloucestershire and Stratford. Recognising that only 5,400 homes are required, dispersing them more fairly around the district and not directly connecting them into the river system (except by the upgraded drainage system in Leamington) would be more acceptable to downstream neighbours such as Gloucestershire and Stratford.

Quality of life

Bishop's Tachbrook is a rural village separated from Leamington town by Harbury Lane. Having lived in what was Cubbington village and seeing the erosion of quality of life as a result of infill I would not want the same happening to Bishop's Tachbrook. It has a rural character which I would like preserved by maintaining the geographical barrier of Harbury Lane. The suggestions for a country park are paying lip service to the real issue which is that the edge of Bishop's Tachbrook is a mile from the edge of Warwick Gates and if the urban sprawl comes any closer than that then the rurality of the village is lost. A country park may provide a minimum level of separation but the undulations of the land will make the new housing highly visible from Bishop's Tachbrook thus negating this token separation.

The Planning Inspector who reviewed the current Local Plan in 2006 reported that Woodside Farm should not be built on now or in the future. Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish in the Landscape Area Statement in 2009 wrote the following with regards the land south of Gallows Hill 'this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development'. However, this new Local Plan appears to go against its own consultant's advice.

Listening to residents

A Neighbourhood Plan has been issued by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council which reflects the survey undertaken to gather residents' views. Bishop's Tachbrook residents such as I are concerned that our views will not be taken into account during this consultation. The previous 2012 Local Plan was altered after the consultation process and became much more acceptable to residents in the village. However this new Local Plan rips up any compromises made last year and in fact proposes more housing, with more of a burden borne by villagers. Consultation should not be a token gesture and the Local Plan should be altered if residents are clearly opposed to its proposals.