I object to the proposal to build houses on Strawberry Fields, North West of land at Gallows Hill. I was very upset when the housing at The Asps and Gallows Hill was approved, the negative impact on the asthetics of Warwick cannot be underestimated. Every approach made by road into Warwick will now be through a sprawl of housing estates. The only chink of light was the green field at Strawberry Hill, if this goes, the old entrance to Warwick will be lost for ever. We have a beautiful old market town, Historic Warwick - why aren't we protecting it? Warwick is now a gem of a town, surrounded by housing estates. The traffic in Warwick is so very, very congested now, what will it be like after 1000s of new homes are built in the town, what does the council have planned to combat this? I believe the proposed development at Strawberry Fields will damage the heritage and conservation of Warwick, Castle park and Warwick Castle, and therefore contrary to Warwick District Council's obligation to care for an enhance conservation areas. Is is also a flood plain. Please stop the destruction of our historic town.

Modification area H46A covers two parcels of land. Land east of Turnbull's Gardens has been approved for development. Land to the west, known as Strawberry Fields, was previously rejected by the District Council for good reasons - very visible from the Castle, and adjacent to Warwick Castle Park. This latter area should not be included for development because of the development impact on the settings of the Grade I listed Castle and Castle Park. It is also not appropriate for development, as it would add to traffic overcrowding and pollution, and its northern end floods.

Objection to inclusion of sites H46A (Gallows Hill 'Strawberry Field') and H46B (The Asps) in the modifications to the Local Plan:

- Unsound supporting transport documents: major traffic problems for the towns of Warwick and Leamington associated with the proposed location of the majority of new housing in the area south of Warwick are stated as requiring 'further investigation'. This 'further investigation' needs to take place and be exposed to public scrutiny.

I write to object to the inclusion of Strawberry Fields in the modified plan. There are many familiar issues - a heritage location close to the Warwick Conservation Area, a worsening of the traffic problem on the Banbury Road with no mitigation in relation to the bridge, the further loss of green fields near the town, etc. The point I would like to stress is the the area of Strawberry Fields nearest the town is liable to flooding, as shown by the water lying in recent weeks. This arises naturally from the lie of the land, which is therefore unsuitable for the housing development that is proposed.

It's is the area of Strawberry fields Banbury Road.
Firstly in the interest of justice this was actually rejected in the original application by the planning officer, and planning was not granted.
Then the plan put forward for discussion at WDC was for 480 houses for which central government overruled the local planning inspector and granted planning. All parties involved agreed not appeal the decision. Then after being told that no further planning was being considered in the southern area, we then see Strawberry fields added to the local plan making it a total of 630 houses. Not the original total outlined in the final plan.
Now any company has to re apply for planning and go through the process again.
Now as the plan was rejected before why now should it be granted?
The plan is as originally submitted. But building nearby has begun. This now created a flood plain, something to be considered in the final outcome when all building in the area is completed, where does the water go?
The application to find development unsuitable still remains.
The long term traffic problem and pollution will only be increased
The small amount of houses involved does not justify the granting for planning.
(Yes II bet you have a lot of districts saying the same. But we have bore the brunt of the planning and this is a very small number in the grand scheme of things)
Then finally the impact on historic Warwick, in the context of such a significant small amount of houses,(that will not reduce the total houses required to meet the five year housing need) for no or little affect on the overall Local Plan will be massive.
Like I said earlier this vey small area, and the massive amount of new build already being granted, surely there can be a little give to save a very well loved and important area of Old Warwick

I object to the plan because of the following:-

1. The new local plan has only adjusted the numbers of houses proposed. The examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings, which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.

2.The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objection as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development area (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.

3. The Inspector agreed that the Asps area should not be developed, which was the correct approach in view of the impact it would have on approach to the Grade 1 listed castle. Not only would any development be inappropriate in this setting, the impact on the already gridlocked roads around this area at peak times would have been unbearable. Pollution levels are already been exceeded, and need to reduced by limited development not increasing it. However, the Secretary of State overturned this, and has permitted building on the site - so much for localism!
However, as the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan - this area must be looked at again, so that this area can be safeguarded. For this reason I object to the allocation for housing on the land to the west of Banbury Road and at the northern edge of Gallows Hill, known as Strawberry Field. The land could also be considered unsuitable as it is liable to flooding.

4. Personally I think the need for housing in this area has been exaggerated. Developers prefer to build in Warwick rather than Coventry because they can charge a considerable amount more for the same property here. Warwick should not be asked to cover any of Coventry's shortfall in provision just to help line the pockets of developers.

5. If the UK opts out of the EU and projected figures for population growth will need to be adjusted - as the vast EU immigration that has happened in the last few years will slow - so we won't need the incredible amount of development proposed. Why make decisions now - that will change our county town forever - when we are in such a period of flux.

1. The proposed modifications may address the shortcomings of the local plan which were identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015 which followed his examination dealing primarily with the numbers of houses to be provided in the new plan. That examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.
2. The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objections as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.
The conclusions of the WDC - Strategic Transport Assessment, Final Phase STA of Feb 2016 hardly make a convincing case.
8.7 Performance of the WLWA RDA & NS model
* Journey times & speeds will worsen across the network as a result of the additional housing sites but despite these impacts it is likely that the additional mitigation measures will be able to, at least in part, accommodate the additional traffic volumes generated by the new sites. I would hardly call this an encouraging endorsement of these plans. As I have mentioned previously none of the mitigation measures addresses the biggest bottleneck in the area namely the listed single lane Warwick Briodge.
* The junctions on either end of Myton Road could potentially constrain traffic volumesin the area but further work is needed to determine an optimum solution in this area. It goes on to warn that the impacts of these ' mitigations' must take into account how they could affect the town centres of Warwick & Leamington.
* Queueing issues are observed accessing Warwick Town Centre and the M40 Junction 15 that merit further investigation. It then goes on to speculate that these issues are not likely to become severe until such time as the volume of housing approaches 100%.
* The introducing of signal proposals along the A452 to the north of Leamington may introduce additional delays despite a wider dualling strategy being proposed. Further work on these implications is recommended.
Not much of a convincing case here. What is all this going to do for airquality - surely this has to be a key factor in these plans.
3. The inspector into the appeal against the proposed development at the Asps agreed the importance of ensuring there should be no new development adjoining the Banbury Road on the southern approach to Warwick because of its potential impact on the settings of the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle Park, the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle and the Warwick Conservation Area. In the event, the development was permitted by the Secretary of State who, despite accepting the Inspector's view of the importance of these factors, agreed to the development on the basis, principally, that (in the absence of an adopted local plan) satisfying the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is the opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development. For this reason we object to the allocation for housing of the land east of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, known as "The Strawberry Field." - which would be even more damaging and which is, in any case, liable to flooding.
This photo [NOT INCLUDED HERE - SEE ORIGINAL E-MAIL] was taken of the land just south of the Banbury Road, Gallows Hill Road Junction.
At the Asps appeal the WDC opposed the building of housing on the Asps, & Gallows Hill South. The Inspector for that appeal found in favour of the WDC and the Rule 6 Save Warwick Group as far as the Asps was concerned. However, on looking at the Map 2 of Mod PM 2A Gallows Hill, Asps & Myton School, I see that the WDC have merged Gallows Hill South and Gallows Hill North (Strawberry Field ) into one area labelled H46A. Why have they done this, it is a complete ' volte face' and I am unaware of any consultation between WDC and the Save Warwick Group on this move. Strawberry Fields represents the last Green Field lung to this area of South Warwick, and does not need to be included for sufficient housing numbers to be reached. The Secretary of State has already seen to that, and furthermore as already shown above the bottom end is prone to flooding. Surely this last section of green field should be preserved.
Regarding the Local Plan I do not consider it Legally Compliant nor Sound.
I consider the Proposed Modification is unsound because it is neither effective nor consistent with National Policy.

I wish to object to the new local plan on the following basis
1. The proposed modifications may address the shortcomings of the local plan which were identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015 which followed his examination dealing primarily with the numbers of houses to be provided in the new plan. That examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.
2. The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objections as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.
3. The inspector into the appeal against the proposed development at the Asps agreed the importance of ensuring there should be no new development adjoining the Banbury Road on the southern approach to Warwick because of its potential impact on the settings of the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle Park, the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle and the Warwick Conservation Area. In the event, the development was permitted by the Secretary of State who, despite accepting the Inspector's view of the importance of these factors, agreed to the development on the basis, principally, that (in the absence of an adopted local plan) satisfying the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is the opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development. For this reason we object to the allocation for housing of the land west of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, known as "The Strawberry Field." - which would be even more damaging and much of which is, in any case, liable to flooding.

My family and I wish to object to the planning proposals for Warwick based on the following points:

1. The proposed modifications may address the shortcomings of the local plan which were identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015 which followed his examination dealing primarily with the numbers of houses to be provided in the new plan. That examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.
2. The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objections as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.
3. The inspector into the appeal against the proposed development at the Asps agreed the importance of ensuring there should be no new development adjoining the Banbury Road on the southern approach to Warwick because of its potential impact on the settings of the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle Park, the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle and the Warwick Conservation Area. In the event, the development was permitted by the Secretary of State who, despite accepting the Inspector's view of the importance of these factors, agreed to the development on the basis, principally, that (in the absence of an adopted local plan) satisfying the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is the opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development. For this reason we object to the allocation for housing of the land west of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, known as "The Strawberry Field." - which would be even more damaging and much of which is, in any case, liable to flooding. This can be seen in the image below [SEE ORIGINAL E-MAIL].
As we wish to walk to school down the Banbury Road each day it is no longer safe to do so for my 8 year d and 5 year d daughters. The air quality is unacceptable and I, as an adult, find it difficult to breathe easily during busy periods. I would urge you to make the walk over the bridge yourselves when traffic is usually at a standstill. We have now decided it is safer for our children's health to drive the 200 yards from Bridge End to St. Nicholas Park car park! I travel throughout the cities of the U.K. And Warwick's air quality is already worse than London, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh at rush hours!

We urge you to save this town for future generations. You will personally go down in Warwick's vast history as heroes or villains!

I wish to have my serious concerns and objection noted regarding the proposed New Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The proposed modifications may address the shortcomings of the local plan which were identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015 which followed his examination dealing primarily with the numbers of houses to be provided in the new plan. That examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.
2. The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objections as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.
3. The inspector into the appeal against the proposed development at the Asps agreed the importance of ensuring there should be no new development adjoining the Banbury Road on the southern approach to Warwick because of its potential impact on the settings of the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle Park, the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle and the Warwick Conservation Area. In the event, the development was permitted by the Secretary of State who, despite accepting the Inspector's view of the importance of these factors, agreed to the development on the basis, principally, that (in the absence of an adopted local plan) satisfying the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is the opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development. For this reason we object to the allocation for housing of the land west of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, known as "The Strawberry Field." - which would be even more damaging and much of which is, in any case, liable to flooding.
4. The photo below [SEE ORIGINAL E-MAIL] is just an indication of the potential flooding that is going to be a SERIOUS problem for the council if they do not take heed of the advice and warning given.
5. A prime example is the recent flooding which occurred at the Mallory Court traffic lights recently, which I have not seem before but is almost certainly due to the excavations of the housing being built and the flood plain being altered. There were tankers trying to pump out water, and this was only after an averagely bad period of rain. Imagine this scenario on the Gallows Hill with the water flooding down the Banbury Road - CHAOS - even more than it is EVERY day at peak hours.

1. The proposed modifications may address the shortcomings of the local plan which were identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015 which followed his examination dealing primarily with the numbers of houses to be provided in the new plan. THat examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore , the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.

2. The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objections as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (Including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.

3. The inspector into the appeal against the proposed develop at the Asps agreed the importance of ensuring there should be no new development adjoining the Banbury Road on the southern approach to Warwick because of its potential impact on the settings of the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle Park, the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle and the Warwick Conservation Area. In the event, the development was permitted by the Secretary of State who, despite accepting the Inspector's view of the importance of these factors , agreed to the development on the basis, principally, that (in the absence of an adopted local plan) satisfying the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is an opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development. For this reason we object to the allocation for housing of the land west of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, know as "The Strawberry Field" which would be even more damaging and much of which is, in any case, liable to flooding.

As a long-standing resident of Bridge End it has been with a rising sense of despair that I have viewed the way in which the local population's legitimate concerns have been steam-rollered - putting the rubber stamp on plans which sadly will blight this historic approach to the county town of Warwick for ever more. Nevertheless, I would like the council to take into account my views even at this late stage.

1. The proposed modifications may address the shortcomings of the local plan which were identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015 which followed his examination dealing primarily with the numbers of houses to be provided in the new plan. That examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.
2. The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objections as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.
3. The inspector into the appeal against the proposed development at the Asps agreed the importance of ensuring there should be no new development adjoining the Banbury Road on the southern approach to Warwick because of its potential impact on the settings of the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle Park, the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle and the Warwick Conservation Area. In the event, the development was permitted by the Secretary of State who, despite accepting the Inspector's view of the importance of these factors, agreed to the development on the basis, principally, that (in the absence of an adopted local plan) satisfying the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is the opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development. For this reason we object to the allocation for housing of the land west of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, known as "The Strawberry Field." - which would be even more damaging and much of which is, in any case, liable to flooding.

I wish to object to the new local plan on the following basis
1. The proposed modifications may address the shortcomings of the local plan which were identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015 which followed his examination dealing primarily with the numbers of houses to be provided in the new plan. That examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.
2. The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objections as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.
3. The inspector into the appeal against the proposed development at the Asps agreed the importance of ensuring there should be no new development adjoining the Banbury Road on the southern approach to Warwick because of its potential impact on the settings of the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle Park, the Grade 1 listed Warwick Castle and the Warwick Conservation Area. In the event, the development was permitted by the Secretary of State who, despite accepting the Inspector's view of the importance of these factors, agreed to the development on the basis, principally, that (in the absence of an adopted local plan) satisfying the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is the opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development. For this reason we object to the allocation for housing of the land west of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, known as "The Strawberry Field." - which would be even more damaging and much of which is, in any case, liable to flooding.

I wish to argue that it would be foolish to consider building any properties on Strawberry Fields, Banbury Road, Warwick. The land lies in a flood plain. I attach a photograph, taken in March 2016, showing how large amounts of floodwater remained several days after heavy rain.
Furthermore, any building south of the town will destroy the beautiful approach to our historic town. Not only this, but the bridge over the Avon is in danger of being destroyed by the weight of extra traffic produced.
Finally, the levels of congestion and air pollution is not only unpleasant but also pernicious to health.
Please reconsider the options for the local plan and build - if you must - elsewhere in the area where there is less risk of flooding and a lower risk to the environment through traffic.

See attached

We wish to submit our comments on the following modifications;
H64A. We wish to object to the inclusion of the land which does not currently hold a planning consent for development (i.e. land locally known as "the Strawberry Field"
For good reasons the Council did not include this site, together with the Asps and the land south of Gallows Hill in the previous draft of the Local Plan, and subsequently expended considerable effort and resources in defending two of those three at appeal. The inspector at the Asps inquiry recognised the importance of that site in terms of the impact of its development on Warwick Castle Park, and it is regrettable that the Secretary of State chose to over-rule her recommendation.
However, we do not consider that the loss of two of these three sites should automatically be considered a reason for abandoning the third to development also. The reasons for objection to the first two remain valid, in spite of the damage which will be caused by the now existing consents. The preservation of the openness of this piece of land would still enhance the setting of Warwick Castle Park and retain a little of the designed intent of the approach to and departure from Warwick. Added to this, the cumulative impact of additional traffic on the historic environment of the closer approach to Warwick and within the historic town should remain a reason for excluding this site. There should no longer be an argument of lack of housing land supply which was the reason for the Secretary of State ignoring the advice of the Asps inspector and we believe that exclusion of this site from the plan would be defensible.
DSNEW3.1 and 3.2. We welcome the stated intention of producing a masterplan to sensitively respect the locally listed park and garden at Woodcote when considering proposals for new development there.

see attached

I wish to argue that it would be foolish to consider building any properties on Strawberry Fields, Banbury Road, Warwick. The land lies in a flood plain. I attach a photograph, taken in March 2016, showing how large amounts of floodwater remained several days after heavy rain.
Furthermore, any building south of the town will destroy the beautiful approach to our historic town. Not only this, but the bridge over the Avon is in danger of being destroyed by the weight of extra traffic produced.
Finally, the levels of congestion and air pollution is not only unpleasant but also pernicious to health.
Please reconsider the options for the local plan and build - if you must - elsewhere in the area where there is less risk of flooding and a lower risk to the environment through traffic.

See attached

See attached

I refer to the Local Plan and confirm that I am sending my objection by email as the link on the WDC website is not working.
Please consider my objections on the following grounds:
1. The proposed modifications may address some but not all shortcomings identified by the Inspector in his letter dated June 2015, which followed his examination. That dealt primarily with the numbers of houses. The examination did not deal with other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and that makes the plan unsound. The original objections should not be ignored.
2. The transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to objections as they were unaffordable and unworkable. The impact of the new development areas (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.
3. In the absence of an adopted local plan the Secretary of State overturned the decision of the Inspector of the Asps Inquiry arguing that the predicted demand for housing should take precedence. Now, however, the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan and there is the opportunity to plan to safeguard the remaining important open areas from development.
For the reasons set out above I object to the allocation for housing of the land west of Banbury Road and at the northern end of Gallows Hill, known as "The Strawberry Field." - which would be even more damaging is liable to flooding.

See attached

See attached

see attached

See attached

see attached

see attached