I don't think Blackdown is an appropriate site for park and ride for the following reasons

1. It is with in green belt area and building park and ride will damage the green belt.

2. It is too close to the town centre, so park and ride is unnecessary. Commuters will have to wait and pay for a bus which unlikely to take them near to their workplace

3. The council plans do not have the provision of dedicated bus service for the park and ride, so it is highly likely that the park and ride will be unsuccessful.

4. Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is adequate parking in Leamington because of the inconvenience of carrying shopping on a bus.

5. The sites are too close to Leamington to reduce congestion on the A452. A scheme focused on the A46 roundabout with the A452, which could form part of the Thickthorn Development, and provide for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry. Alternatively, a site near to, or within the Stoneleigh Park, could provide out-of-town parking for Leamington Spa, Coventry and the NAC.

Re: Policy number: 5.59.3 Areas of search for Park and Ride

There will not be dedicated buses to shuttle commuters into Leamington. The proposed scheme will comprise a car park and associated facilities (waiting rooms, toilets etc) where scheduled bus services will stop.
Users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable

Presumably there will be a charge for using the service

The proposed sites are too close to Leamington Spa to be of value to commuters who would be required to wait and pay for a bus which is unlikely to take them near to their workplace or where they wish to shop.

Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are major employers

Shoppers are unlikely to use the park-and-ride when there is adequate parking in Leamington because of the inconvenience of carrying shopping on a bus.
The sites are too close to Leamington to reduce congestion on the A452. A scheme focussed on the A46 roundabout with the A452, which could form part of the Thickthorn Development, and provide for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry would be more viable and feasible. Alternatively, a site near to, or within the Stoneleigh Park, could provide out-of-town parking for Leamington Spa, Coventry and the NAC.

Deeley Group object to Policies Map 12 on the grounds that it should include the Deeley Group site off Home Farm (as referenced in the objection to Policy DS11). The site should be identified for housing and included within the settlement envelope boundary.

In general, Deeley Group consider that the settlement boundary is too tightly drawn and does not provide for a long term clear and defensible boundary to the Green Belt around the village. As such the Map is not positively prepared and does not take into account NPPF requirements that new Green Belt boundaries should be drawn having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, to ensure that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

Paragraph 85 of NPPF requires that:

When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should:

* ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;
* not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;
* where necessary, identify in their plans areas of 'safeguarded land' between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period;
* make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development;
* satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and
* define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

In circumstances where the plan already acknowledges that Green Belt boundaries need to be reviewed, and furthermore that it is already known the plan may need an early review to provide for some of the housing needs of neighbouring authorities, it is clear that the circumstances require proper consideration of the permanence of the proposed new Green Belt boundaries.