As regards both Lapworth & Rowington. Why do the authorities want to ride roughshod over the wishes and interests of those they are intended to serve? Why do they want to make us poorer by diminishing the value of our homes & worsening our environment? Why do they HAVE to build at all? There is no viable public transport here, and no employment. Those of us who paid to live here did so because we liked the area- and we're not all rich! Some areas would be improved by rebuilding- why not do this?

* Strong support for the retention of open spaces (Green Belt and Special Landscape Areas) Difficult to comment further without information regarding potential changes to green belt boundaries.
* Clarification of the area referred to as "Rowington" is still required. Reference is made to the settlement of Kingswood as "Lapworth" when in fact a large part of Kingswod is within Rowington Parish
* The data gathering exercise for the Rowington Parish Design Statement provides a strong evidence base of the need for small infill developments of residential units for the young and elderly alike, which would allow a balanced community to be maintained in the rural areas. This appears to have been largely ignored within the Development Strategy at this point.
* It seems that rather than spread the burden of new development across Warwick District, much of the proposed new housing is in the form of concentrated and large scale developments. As mentioned above, the proposals have ignored the needs of the small rural villages in favour of the big developers who are only interested in such large scale developments.

Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

* The overriding concern of the Parish Council is that any CIL is levied on a particular site and remains attached to that site area i.e. no levy should be consumed within a central "pot"
* Because CIL is intended to be mandatory, smaller developments such as those likely to occur in the rural settlements, may be unable to bear the cost of this levy and developers will not therefore be encouraged to come forward.

Sustainability Appraisal and Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

* Need further clarification on the definition of a "pitch" and how this is to be utilised i.e. single or multiple occupancy per pitch? Not clear what is meant by a "pitch".
* Clear guidelines on the numbers of pitches per site and a preference for permanent as opposed to itinerant occupancy. Permanent occupancy may encourage occupants to become part of the community and therefore develop a sense of inclusion and ultimately, responsibility.
* Will the proposed sites/occupiers incur rental charges etc? As in the case of council accommodation provided by WDC. We believe that the occupiers should be subject to rental and other charges and would like to know how such charges will be collected by WDC.
* How will these sites be administered i.e. will the sites be self managing or managed by
WDC? We are concerned that the sites will certainly need to incur costs associated with hygiene, waste disposal, school transport and maintenance alongside overall supervision/administration costs if they are to remain usable. These costs are running costs as opposed to capital infrastructure costs mentioned below.
* What are the likely costs of the provision of necessary infrastructure for these sites and how will such infrastructure be funded.
* Following the creation of approved sites, how will the settlement of travellers or gypsies of the type that are "unpredictable economic migrants" be handled in the event of their occupation of sites over and above the official sites provided?