Land north of Milverton: - I am resident in Blackdown, not in Old Milverton, so I am not defending my own back yard. I am however writing as a former chairman of the Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council; and during my twelve years in that role I saw a growing community spirit take hold in Old Milverton, growing it into a village of character. (You are not likely to find many other villages with a "go slow" sign at both village entrances that feature a woman with a child and a duck). I believe that such village communities are increasingly rare, and that the people who promote such community spirit are an endangered species. If only they were newts, they could certainly claim protection against their village habitat being swallowed up into the Leamington conurbation.

As I understand it, the requirement is to provide a very large number of houses for people who are expected to be working in Coventry. I also understand that there are parts of the Green Belt nearer to Coventry than that at Old Milverton, which are less highly rated. If so, then it seems wholly contrary for a range of obvious reasons (submitted by the Parish Council) to cover a large area of highly rated green belt with houses whose occupants will be expected to travel ten miles each way, more or less, to get to work every day. The area in question should be allowed to retain its valuable green belt status.

I believe that the 'green lung' between Leamington and Kenilworth should be defended. There is no point in putting a 'Park and Ride' north of Old Milverton as there is adequate parking in Leamington and nationally these systems have been proven to be poorly used.
The whole plan is questionable in terms of sustainability. Coventry Houses need to be in Coventry, not Leamington and suitable sites have been identified closer to Coventry.
Why does WDC want to put a railway station inanely a mile away from Leamington and Kenilworth Station? The line is in a cutting here anyway!

The plan is ill thought and not taken into considerations the existing enviroment for current residants .
How many people will use a park and ride!!!! Leamington town center is dying due to change in buying trends. Just look how many shops are vacant.

Exceptional circumstances required for removal of Land north of Milverton H44 have not been demonstrated by WDC.
Development in Milverton should not be used to support Coventry's housing need. There are better options closer at hand.
Sites with a lower green belt value are available in more appropriate locations which should be used in preference.
The green lung between Kenilworth and Leamington will be reduced to less than 1.5 miles.
Residents of the local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued, sustainable, safe and accessible for walking, running, cycling and riding, and supports wildlife activities for local residents and schoolchildren.

I understand that the National Planning Policy Framework requires demonstration of Exceptional Circumstances in order to remove the land to the North of Milverton from the Green Belt; as such relevant Exceptional Circumstances are not proven. The proposed development has been a response to an approach from Coventry City Council who suggest that they need support to meet their housing need. However, there are many sites much closer to Coventry which would be favourable alternatives to the proposed use of land in Leamington. The proposed development would inevitably create urban sprawl without good solid reason or foundation.

My concerns for the proposed developments for the green belt land is a follows:

Impact on congestion -
The change in green belt use would inevitably cause an increase in traffic congestion, noise and pollution to the area. This could be avoided by choosing other sites that are more viable closer to Coventry which is where the demand of houses is required.

Reduction in the green lung between Leamington and Kenilworth - This will also cause an increase in congestion, noise and pollution and increase the risk of greater urban sprawl.

Ecological impact - Green belt areas provide a wealth of habitats for plants and animals.
The removal of such an environment would result in the irreplaceable loss of wildlife within the area.

Recreational use - The fields are used widely by many people for a range of purposes. Many local residents, my family included, enjoy walking the fields, exploring, taking in the fresh air and scenery, observing seasonal changes and spotting wildlife. It is a fantastic way to educate children in a way that is fun and encourages a sense of pride and appreciation in the area we live in. Should developments take place, opportunities for learning, recreation and well-being will be lost.

The requirements for councils to build on green belt areas can only be considered where 'exceptional circumstances' are given. I have yet to see suitable evidence to show that this is the case. Brown field sites should be first and formally considered before green belt areas.

My concerns for the proposed developments for the green belt land is a follows:

Impact on congestion -
The change in green belt use would inevitably cause an increase in traffic congestion, noise and pollution to the area. This could be avoided by choosing other sites that are more viable closer to Coventry which is where the demand for houses is required.

Reduction in the green lung between Leamington and Kenilworth - This will also cause an increase in congestion, noise and pollution and increase the risk of greater urban sprawl.

Ecological impact - Green belt areas provide a wealth of habitats for plants and animals.
The removal of such an environment would result in the irreplaceable loss of wildlife within the area.

Recreational use - The fields are used widely by many people for a range of purposes. Many local residents, my family included, enjoy walking the fields, exploring, taking in the fresh air and scenery, observing seasonal changes and spotting wildlife. It is a fantastic way to educate children in a way that is fun and encourages a sense of pride and appreciation in the area we live in. Should developments take place, opportunities for learning, recreation and well-being will be lost.

The requirements for councils to build on green belt areas can only be considered where 'exceptional circumstances' are given. I have yet to see suitable evidence to show that this is the case. Brown field sites should be first and formally considered before green belt areas.

Exceptional Circumstances in order to remove the land to the North of Milverton from the Green Belt; as such relevant Exceptional Circumstances are not proven. The proposed development has been a response to an approach from Coventry City Council who suggest that they need support to meet their housing need. However, there are many sites much closer to Coventry which would be favourable alternatives to the proposed use of land in Leamington. The proposed development would inevitably create urban sprawl without good solid reason or foundation.

This plan brings into question sustainability issues.
The 'Park and Ride' is poorly conceived and unlikely to be used, as is the plan to build a station at Old Milverton when Kenilworth and Leamington are only 5 mins. train ride apart.

There is a plan for a school on this site which makes the whole plan look like a 'box ticking' exercise. Is there anything that hasn't been thrown into this mix to make it look good? There is a large primary school and secondary school adjacent to the build site, with another primary and secondary school within close proximity

I consider that Modification 16 is unsound for the following reasons:
1. The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
2. Development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sites closer to Coventry more suitable considering infrastructure and damage/reclassification of Green Belt
3. The location of the proposed site is unlikely to attract people who want to live and work in Coventry. This will effectively result in housing not supporting Coventry's housing need.
4. There are more suitable green belt sites on the edge of Coventry considering 'value' of potential sites as assessed and determined by WDC in cooperation with Coventry City Council.
5. The Green Belt in question would effectively be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles between Leamington and Kenilworth
6. The beautiful village of Old Milverton would now be integrated into Leamington Spa should the Green Belt be removed
7. From my experience the land is successfully farmed and this would be lost
8. From experience there is an abundance of wildlife in this area of Green Belt which would be lost
9. I personally, as do many other people in the area, regularly use this area of Green Belt for walking with my family and recreational purposes and as such consider it a valuable asset to the local community which is at risk of being lost.
10. The proposed park and ride scheme is unsustainable because:
a. There will be no dedicated buses so it would have to work with the bus timetable
b. The site is too close to Leamington Spa to provide the congestion relief a park-and-ride is supposed to achieve. Located a park-and-ride within a high congestion area makes no sense at all and suggests a badly thought out strategy
c. The more suitable infrastructure and major employers are located to the south of Leamington
d. I have lived and worked in Oxford and there the park-and-ride scheme is successful because there is no alternative but to use it due to parking and vehicle restrictions within the city. This is not planned for Leamington so the logic behind the scheme would appear to be lacking
e. The very action of destroying valuable green belt to provide car parking is illogical. Isn't one of the very reasons behind a park-and-ride scheme to protect the natural amenities, i.e. Green Belt, supporting local communities?
A railway station is not viable as the existing line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton.

I consider that Modification 14 - Allocation of land north of Milverton for devlopment is unsound for the following reasons:
1. The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
2. Development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sites closer to Coventry more suitable considering infrastructure and damage/reclassification of Green Belt
3. The location of the proposed site is unlikely to attract people who want to live and work in Coventry. This will effectively result in housing not supporting Coventry's housing need.
4. There are more suitable green belt sites on the edge of Coventry considering 'value' of potential sites as assessed and determined by WDC in cooperation with Coventry City Council.
5. The Green Belt in question would effectively be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles between Leamington and Kenilworth
6. The beautiful village of Old Milverton would now be integrated into Leamington Spa should the Green Belt be removed
7. From my experience the land is successfully farmed and this would be lost
8. From experience there is an abundance of wildlife in this area of Green Belt which would be lost
9. I personally, as do many other people in the area, regularly use this area of Green Belt for walking with my family and recreational purposes and as such consider it a valuable asset to the local community which is at risk of being lost.
10. The proposed park and ride scheme is unsustainable because:
a. There will be no dedicated buses so it would have to work with the bus timetable
b. The site is too close to Leamington Spa to provide the congestion relief a park-and-ride is supposed to achieve. Located a park-and-ride within a high congestion area makes no sense at all and suggests a badly thought out strategy
c. The more suitable infrastructure and major employers are located to the south of Leamington
d. I have lived and worked in Oxford and there the park-and-ride scheme is successful because there is no alternative but to use it due to parking and vehicle restrictions within the city. This is not planned for Leamington so the logic behind the scheme would appear to be lacking
e. The very action of destroying valuable green belt to provide car parking is illogical. Isn't one of the very reasons behind a park-and-ride scheme to protect the natural amenities, i.e. Green Belt, supporting local communities?
A railway station is not viable as the existing line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton.

I consider that Modification 16 is unsound for the following reasons:
1. The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
2. Development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sites closer to Coventry more suitable considering infrastructure and damage/reclassification of Green Belt
3. The location of the proposed site is unlikely to attract people who want to live and work in Coventry. This will effectively result in housing not supporting Coventry's housing need.
4. There are more suitable green belt sites on the edge of Coventry considering 'value' of potential sites as assessed and determined by WDC in cooperation with Coventry City Council.
5. The Green Belt in question would effectively be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles between Leamington and Kenilworth
6. The beautiful village of Old Milverton would now be integrated into Leamington Spa should the Green Belt be removed
7. From my experience the land is successfully farmed and this would be lost
8. From experience there is an abundance of wildlife in this area of Green Belt which would be lost
9. I personally, as do many other people in the area, regularly use this area of Green Belt for walking with my family and recreational purposes and as such consider it a valuable asset to the local community which is at risk of being lost.
10. The proposed park and ride scheme is unsustainable because:
a. There will be no dedicated buses so it would have to work with the bus timetable
b. The site is too close to Leamington Spa to provide the congestion relief a park-and-ride is supposed to achieve. Located a park-and-ride within a high congestion area makes no sense at all and suggests a badly thought out strategy
c. The more suitable infrastructure and major employers are located to the south of Leamington
d. I have lived and worked in Oxford and there the park-and-ride scheme is successful because there is no alternative but to use it due to parking and vehicle restrictions within the city. This is not planned for Leamington so the logic behind the scheme would appear to be lacking
e. The very action of destroying valuable green belt to provide car parking is illogical. Isn't one of the very reasons behind a park-and-ride scheme to protect the natural amenities, i.e. Green Belt, supporting local communities?
A railway station is not viable as the existing line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton.

I consider that Modification 14 - Allocation of land north of Milverton for development is unsound for the following reasons:
1. The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
2. Development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sites closer to Coventry more suitable considering infrastructure and damage/reclassification of Green Belt
3. The location of the proposed site is unlikely to attract people who want to live and work in Coventry. This will effectively result in housing not supporting Coventry's housing need.
4. There are more suitable green belt sites on the edge of Coventry considering 'value' of potential sites as assessed and determined by WDC in cooperation with Coventry City Council.
5. The Green Belt in question would effectively be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles between Leamington and Kenilworth
6. The beautiful village of Old Milverton would now be integrated into Leamington Spa should the Green Belt be removed
7. From my experience the land is successfully farmed and this would be lost
8. From experience there is an abundance of wildlife in this area of Green Belt which would be lost
9. I personally, as do many other people in the area, regularly use this area of Green Belt for walking with my family and recreational purposes and as such consider it a valuable asset to the local community which is at risk of being lost.
10. The proposed park and ride scheme is unsustainable because:
a. There will be no dedicated buses so it would have to work with the bus timetable
b. The site is too close to Leamington Spa to provide the congestion relief a park-and-ride is supposed to achieve. Located a park-and-ride within a high congestion area makes no sense at all and suggests a badly thought out strategy
c. The more suitable infrastructure and major employers are located to the south of Leamington
d. I have lived and worked in Oxford and there the park-and-ride scheme is successful because there is no alternative but to use it due to parking and vehicle restrictions within the city. This is not planned for Leamington so the logic behind the scheme would appear to be lacking
e. The very action of destroying valuable green belt to provide car parking is illogical. Isn't one of the very reasons behind a park-and-ride scheme to protect the natural amenities, i.e. Green Belt, supporting local communities?
A railway station is not viable as the existing line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton.

The exceptional circumstances required to remove the land from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated. Moreover, the reasons given for allocating this area for development are illogical, irrational and contradicted by facts and evidence. The decision is therefore faulty and should not stand.

In particular, the notion that this area would support Coventry City Council's housing need is flawed for three principal reasons:

First, the planning guidance states that where land is allocated for another authority's housing need, it should be adjacent to or adjoin that authority. This does not, and is some considerable distance from Coventry.

Second, there is no evidence to suggest that current Coventry residents, or people who wish to live in Coventry but cannot find housing there, will move to Leamington. There are a number of barriers to this.

For example, like-for-like housing is considerably more expensive in Leamington than Coventry. According to land registry data reported on the Rightmove website, last year "most property sales in Coventry involved terraced properties which sold for on average £139,639. Semi-detached properties sold for an average price of £182,730, while detached properties fetched £297,696. Coventry, has an overall average price of £167,867." By contrast, the same website reports that "Last year most property sales in Leamington Spa involved flats which sold for on average £214,482. Terraced properties sold for an average price of £291,348 [(£150,000 more than in Coventry)], while semi-detached properties fetched £261,974 [(£120,000 more than in Coventry)]..."

In Leamington Spa, the overall average price was £285,693, £120,000 higher than in Coventry. (Source http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/Leamington-Spa.html and http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/Coventry.html 22/4/2016).

Third: the commuting time to Coventry from Leamington has already increased considerably over the last 10 years. I used to commute to Coventry in around half an hour. Now, at peak times, it is necessary to allow more than an hour, for a journey in highly-polluting, slow moving traffic for its entire duration. Additional housing in North Leamington aimed at Coventry commuters will only exacerbate this growing problem. The introduction of a short stretch of dual carriageway will not solve this problem because the traffic will still have to merge back to one lane before reaching Kenilworth.

In addition, I understand that other sites have been identified in the Green Belt which are of lower value than this, and that, in accordance with relevant guidance, this should be released first.

Further, the removal of the land will deprive people who currently live in the area of a valuable leisure space - I run there, for example - and a valuable wildlife habitat which supports the diverse ecosystem of the area. Removing this will make the whole area poorer and less attractive for everyone: residents, potential residents, and visitors alike, and without achieving the stated objectives of meeting Coventry's housing need.

The exceptional circumstances required to remove the land from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated. Moreover, the reasons given for allocating this area for development are illogical, irrational and contradicted by facts and evidence. The decision is therefore faulty and should not stand.

In particular, the notion that this area would support Coventry City Council's housing need is flawed for three principal reasons:

First, the planning guidance states that where land is allocated for another authority's housing need, it should be adjacent to or adjoin that authority. This does not, and is some considerable distance from Coventry.

Second, there is no evidence to suggest that current Coventry residents, or people who wish to live in Coventry but cannot find housing there, will move to Leamington. There are a number of barriers to this.

For example, like-for-like housing is considerably more expensive in Leamington than Coventry. According to land registry data reported on the Rightmove website, last year "most property sales in Coventry involved terraced properties which sold for on average £139,639. Semi-detached properties sold for an average price of £182,730, while detached properties fetched £297,696. Coventry, has an overall average price of £167,867." By contrast, the same website reports that "Last year most property sales in Leamington Spa involved flats which sold for on average £214,482. Terraced properties sold for an average price of £291,348 [(£150,000 more than in Coventry)], while semi-detached properties fetched £261,974 [(£120,000 more than in Coventry)]..."

In Leamington Spa, the overall average price was £285,693, £120,000 higher than in Coventry. (Source http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/Leamington-Spa.html and http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/Coventry.html 22/4/2016).

Third: the commuting time to Coventry from Leamington has already increased considerably over the last 10 years. I used to commute to Coventry in around half an hour. Now, at peak times, it is necessary to allow more than an hour, for a journey in highly-polluting, slow moving traffic for its entire duration. Additional housing in North Leamington aimed at Coventry commuters will only exacerbate this growing problem. The introduction of a short stretch of dual carriageway will not solve this problem because the traffic will still have to merge back to one lane before reaching Kenilworth.

In addition, I understand that other sites have been identified in the Green Belt which are of lower value than this, and that, in accordance with relevant guidance, this should be released first.

Further, the removal of the land will deprive people who currently live in the area of a valuable leisure space - I run there, for example - and a valuable wildlife habitat which supports the diverse ecosystem of the area. Removing this will make the whole area poorer and less attractive for everyone: residents, potential residents, and visitors alike, and without achieving the stated objectives of meeting Coventry's housing need.

The Richborough Estates Partnership LLP support the principle of releasing land from the Green Belt to the east of Warwick Road, Kenilworth (Site H41). The exceptional circumstances required by the National Planning Policy Framework to amend Green Belt boundaries exist because of the level of new homes which need to be delivered at sustainable urban areas during the plan period to meet the Objectively Assessed Housing Need.

We live adjacent to very valuable green belt land which acts as a buffer between Leamington and Kenilworth. This area is a vital leisure and recreation asset to North Leamington and Warwick. It harbours important wildlife habitat including an owl population and roosting sites for bats.
The area is also prone to flooding as recently witnessed with levels at an almost record high. Building on adjacent land will only exacerbate this problem making existing riverside habitat a semi-permanent wetland.

The exceptional circumstances required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the "value" of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC, in cooperation with Coventry City Council, has assessed sites on the edge of
Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development, there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference
to the land north of Milverton.
Highly productive farming land will be lost, together with long established wild life habitat.
The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.
The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
* There will be no dedicated buses, so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable;
* The site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was 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;
* Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers;
* There are already a lot of car parks in this area of Green Belt with impervious surfaces all of which reduce the areas ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding.
A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical.

The plan to remove such valuable Green belt land in Milverton on the basis of "Potential for some employment land; potential park and ride; primary school; land/contribution for medical centre; community facilities; potential for new rail station (subject to viability)" is evidence of a lack of precision and detail in the objectives and how they will be achieved.
Where is evidence that employment land is needed in this area; who would use a rail station and who would provide a service? What evidence is there that park-and-ride would be supported?

The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.

The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction.

In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.

Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the "value" of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC, in cooperation with Coventry City Council, has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development, there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.

The "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles.

The picturesque northern gateway to the historic regency town of Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.
Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.

The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.

The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
 There will be no dedicated buses, so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable
 The site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was 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.
 Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers
 Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
 Oxford appears to have the only park and ride scheme in the country which really works and this is because there is such limited parking in Oxford city centre.
 There are already a lot of car parks in this area of Green Belt with impervious surfaces all of which reduce the areas ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding
A railway station is not viable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical

Further to my previous objection I wish to raise 2 further points
Why has the redevelopment of the site of the old North Leamington school not been included in this plan as this area would surely added 90-120 homes?
And as the council seems intent on selling the current HQ which according to last weeks Observer would add a further 100 homes?

The same article also talks about the redevelopment of Covent Garden car park to provide 650 spaces (+104 space) allowing Chandos (146 spaces) redeveloped as providing sufficient parking going forward so why do we need a park and ride?

This is going directly against the Government's assurance that it would maintain protection for the Green Belt and against the promises by ministers that their reforms under the National Planning Policy Framework would not lead to a degradation of the Green Belt.
There are still no exceptional circumstances. When the exceptional reasoning for building on North Leamington's Greenbelt were read out in our meeting at Old Milverton Church on March 14th, there was a round of laughter. It took a few moments for us to realise that Mr. Landers was not joking!
While I appreciate houses are needed in Warwick District, I do not agree that there are exceptional circumstances to build on the Greenbelt for the following reasons:
1) You say that it needs to be there because it needs to be close to the A46!
a) If you build in Leamington Spa, it's not just people from Coventry who will buy the houses so why is this relevant?
b) There is more appropriate, cheaper land available closer to Coventry which you have identified but discounted.
c) The Greenbelt is there to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. I do not believe urban regeneration has been properly investigated due to builders putting pressure on the Council. In addition to this land closer to Coventry, we have acres of land on the old School on Kenilworth Road, which I've been told is being overlooked because it is too expensive to demolish. There is also 8 acres of land off Coventry Road in Warwick which could be developed into lovely canalside houses like the ones on Myton Road. The Old Travis Perkins site by Leamington train station would be a great location for apartments.

2) Coventry City Council have pledged to preserve Greenbelt land in Coventry so it's comical we are planning to use Greenbelt land to fulfil their housing shortfall? The Coventry Local Plan States "The Local Plan will make sure Coventry keeps its beautiful parks, green belt and open spaces as the city grows. High quality, well-connected green areas can make Coventry a much more attractive and prosperous city, and a healthier place to live and work. The plan will look at all areas of the city's green environment, from individual protected trees to areas of open land, woods, parks and wildlife sites. It looks at the green belt that surrounds the city and the green corridors within it. It looks at how to protect public parks, allotments, churchyards, nature reserves, waterways, civic squares, sports pitches, play areas and much more........"
Coventry City Council clearly values and appreciates the Greenbelt. Why is the Greenbelt in Leamington Spa being prioritised for building Coventry's houses? Why can't we have a attractive, healthy place to live and work and they get to keep theirs? Do we not have environmental values or any plans to maintain healthy living for residents of Warwick District? If you build on our Greenbelt, we would loose our access to open fields for walking / running and access to clean fresh air.
3) CCC also states in It's plan that it wants to "improve active travel - better networks for walking and cycling; cutting air and noise pollution through fewer car journeys and reducing the speed of vehicles".
There are closer areas to Coventry which have been identified for development which would reduce the air and noise pollution.

Park and Ride
Other than ticking a box, I do not understand why this has been proposed for the following reasons:
a) We already have ample parking in the form of private car parks and 10 district council car parks with just under 1900 spaces in Leamington Spa.
b) In addition to the money made in the council car parks, the Council also make up to £1 per hour in some places for on street parking. Surely this Park and Ride will, if any one actually uses it, will reduce Council income.
c) Let's presume that this is for the residents of the new houses:
i) I've heard that a majority of the houses are required for Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) Employees. They all have very nice company cars and it is doubtful they will use the Park & Ride.
ii) Do you think residents, regardless of where they work will drive 5 minutes up the road to get a 2 minute bus ride into Leamington Spa?
iii) There's a perfectly good bus stop at the island by Nuffield Hospital if you want to get a bus into Coventry.
iv) It only takes 20 mins to walk into Leamington town centre on foot and 5 minutes by bike so it would be more sensible to improve the cycle tracks instead of building a park and ride.
v) It would be more cost and environmentally efficient to put bus stops up in the new estate and improve the current bus services than build an ugly concrete Park & Ride on our Greenbelt.

It is becoming annoying obvious that the Builders who have "Building Rights" on the land are putting pressure on the Council to use this land as it is very valuable. Less valuable sites, close to an existing infrastructure are available and HAVE been identified by WDC but I presume are less desireable to builders because there's less profit to be made.

I'm extremely passionate about our Greenbelt because it is home to a wealth of wildlife, including small owls, badgers, foxes and crested newts and makes North Leamington a beautiful place to walk, cycle or run. It makes an entrance to Royal Leamington Spa an entrance to be admired and enjoyed by all. This is not only Greenbelt land, it's grade A agricultural land and we need to protect our resources to feed ourselves as a country.
Our Greenbelt currently prevents neighbouring towns merging into one another - the 2nd stage of this proposed building will merge Old Milverton Hamlet with Leamington Spa.

CALA Homes supports the removal of land at Redhill Nurseries, Burton green (H24). However as will be detailed below we consider that the are to be removed should be increased. The attached plan indicates the area suggested for removal from the green belt. The extra land amounts to some measures 1.47ha, with a developable area of 1.3ha and currently comprises majority brownfield land (a rural residential curtilage and menage) and has a very defensible boundary

I believe that this modification is unsound because there has been no demonstration of the 'exceptional circumstances' required to develop important and highly-valued green belt land. We will never regain any green-belt land that is lost; the current government and opposition, and in this case the local-community all agree that green belt land should have the highest importance attached to its preservation and protection.
As an example of this concord please see:
https://hansard.digiminster.com/Commons/2016-03-15/debates/16031557000003/HousebuildingKing%E2%80%99SHillCoventry

The proposed modification regards an area of green belt that also has a 'highly ranked' importance attached to it's green belt status. Although I believe all green belt land should be protected wherever possible, there are lower value green belt sites closer to Coventry that should be considered in preference to the land in Old Milverton; a valuation criteria established in previous planning decisions.

Developing on this land is undesirable because it means the loss of an area of land that is important to Old Milverton's identity as a distinct village and our local infrastructure, the land:
* provides a treasured recreational area for joggers, dog-walkers, amblers and families giving them an important and easily accessible escape from urban life
* the local road system is inadequate to deal with increased traffic and the proposed changes would increase congestion problems in rush-hours and the risks of death & injury to all road-users
* replacing agricultural land with a built-up area is likely to create drainage & flooding issues that have not been thoroughly evaluated
* there will be a large and negative environmental impact not just in terms of the loss of the greenbelt land itself but also for the surrounding areas of countryside in terms of light, noise & air pollution and the effect on local wildlife and habitats

I also totally agree with Old Milverton parish council assessment of the plans, who have objected to them on the basis that the proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need and have highlighted that there are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction and that the proposed park-and-ride scheme is ill-conceived and unsustainable for the reasons they have cited.

I would like to add that I realise that planning is a difficult job, balancing many needs, but the continued attempts by the council to develop this land, contradicting national policy to protect high-value green belt and the flying in the face of the local community's views is really surprising and very disappointing.

The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction.
In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.
Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the "value" of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC, in cooperation with Coventry City Council, has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development, there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.
The "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles.
The picturesque northern gateway to the historic regency town of Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.
Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.
The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.
The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
 There will be no dedicated buses, so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable
 The site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was 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.
 Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers
 Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
 Oxford appears to have the only park and ride scheme in the country which really works and this is because there is such limited parking in Oxford city centre.
 There are already a lot of car parks in this area of Green Belt with impervious surfaces all of which reduce the areas ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding
A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical

Modification: Removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt
Mod Number: 16
Paragraph Number: 2.81
Mod. Policies Map Number: H44

I believe that Modification 16 is unsound because the exceptional circumstances required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting, congestion and further road construction.

In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.

Exceptional circumstances required by NPPF to remove land North of Milverton from green belt have not been demonstrated.

The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction.
In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.

Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the "value" of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC, in cooperation with Coventry City Council, has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development, there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.

The "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1⁄2 miles.

The picturesque northern gateway to the historic regency town of Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.

Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.

The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.

A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical

It was with dismay that I read in the Courier that the council is again targeting Green Belt land North of Leamington for development, it felt worse that it seems that it is being used as a Coventry overspill.
Is Bill Gifford the only councillor that can see the obvious fact that a Coventry overspill should be sited by Coventry?
If the proposed park and ride in Blackdown proves to be a failure, is there provision to return the land to Green Belt and ensure there is no development on this land?
Old Milverton and Blackdown parish council were excellent last time the council tried to use this precious Green Belt which keeps our local identity separate from Kenilworth and as a proud Leamingtonian, I will fully support them in their efforts to have this attempt refused.

In June 2012 I wrote to the Council objecting strongly to the plans to build on green belt land north of Leamington.

At the time, the plan was based on population growth forecasts which, in my view were erroneous and it did not follow the NPPF.

Nothing has changed, so why has this plan been put forward again?

The NPPF states that any plan should:

1 Promote town centre environments
2 Promote vitality of urban areas
3 Protect green belts around them
4 Recognise the benefits of best agricultural land
5 Conserve landscape and scenic beauty
6 Use brown field sites first
7 Only change green belt boundaries under exceptional circumstances
8 Even then only consider limited infilling of green belt land
9 Avoid potential coalescence

These plans ignore all 9 points.

These are not exceptional circumstances.

The plans should be scrapped again to preserve the sacrosanct boundaries in this 'Green and Pleasant Land'.

I have read the proposals in the WDC Draft Local Plan and would like to express my concerns and objections.

Whilst agreeing to the need for additional housing to be provided in Warwickshire I firmly object to the withdrawal of the green belt land to the north of Milverton to provide for this new housing.

The green belt is a very valuable green lung and provides an area of great benefit for the residents of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth healthy activities including walking, running, cycling of etc

It is important as a positive break between the two conurbations and as a necessary wild life habitat.

Whilst agreeing to the need for sustainable development I cannot agree that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated for the land to be released for this proposed invasion of the green belt at this time.

There is a suggestion of the provision of a Park & Ride facility. To what benefit? I do not believe that residents of the suggested development will use this facility when it is so close to the centre of Leamington Spa. If they have cars they will always prefer using them unless they only have very lightweight shopping to carry. Also the existing roads into Leamington Spa and Warwick are already terribly congested, and even if they are widened there will still be bottleneck at the entrance and exit from the towns without the addition of a possible 1350 plus cars for the residents proposed over the next 5 years.

The proposed development in Old Milverton to provide housing for Coventry is absurd. This is not sustainable. It should be close to Coventry where there is plenty of available space, both to the North. South and West which have already been identified as of much lower green belt value. Coventry's need for additional housing should be met by development closer to Coventry to be more sustainable, and I do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances for removing the Green Belt land to the north of Milverton.