Lifting the Green Belt status on this land and agree planning permission for 400 homes, initially with more in the future, allied to additional development in Burton Green & Cromwell Lane would be reckless Without substantial transport infrastructure development.

traffic is already congested in the immediate and surrounding area. This is in part due to the Westwood business park and ever expanding Warwick university. I suggest that increased traffic from HS2 and other developments under plan will cause a catastrophic burden on the road infrastrucure. So if the council choose to undertake this large development as well, then only chaos will prevail.

Any development at Westwood would surely require the widening of Crackley Lane as an absolute minimum.



The University also now propose a new Sports complex near Kirby Corner which in itself will result in more traffic in the local area.

I believe the proposal for H42 not to be viable as does not take account of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and consideration of conservation of the area due to species on the endangered birds list of Merlin, Bullfinch, Fieldfare and Redwing which have been seen using the area repeatedly. This is in addition to many other species of wildlife such as community of bats, badgers, woodpeckers large variety of birds and the endangered stag beetle. Addition of housing will increase domestic pets contributing to reduction of wild animal populations and disrupting the natural ecology of the area. The compounded effect of the development with the addition of others in the area and High Speed 2 has not been taken into account. Immediate and long term effects will result in decline of local wildlife and possibly not recover within the area.

The proposed plan (H42) does not comply with the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 including 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC as it will result in reduced air quality in the area due to increased road traffic, dust and air pollutants from the increased housing and development. The proposal increases use of gas and fossil fuel burning devices such as combination boilers, gas fires and gas fired central heating failing to address environmental issues and fails to deal with the compounded effect of introducing additional vehicular traffic (cars, motorcycles, lorries, vans etc) to the area. The proposal will reduce the air quality of the surrounding area in the immediate and long term resulting in increased hazards to those currently living in the area and future residents.

The local plan for H42 is not sound as fails to address the increased road traffic as a result of an additional housing development in the area. Significant and potentially cost prohibitive developments would need to take place to the surrounding road systems of westwood heath road, Cromwell lane, charter avenue, sir henry parks road, Bockenden Road, Station Avenue, Gibbet Hill Road, Kirby Corner Road, the area surrounding Cannon Park and Canley junction of the Coventry A45 Fletchamstead Highway to allow for increased numbers of vehicles. Many of the impacted roads have seen recent high cost improvements to cope with existing traffic flows. The compounded effect of the new ALDI supermarket, construction traffic for HS2, increased local residencies will cause major congestion in the area at peak times resulting in significant delays to the major roads such as A45.
The roads required for improvement to accommodate additional traffic from the proposed development are restricted by existing housing and development making sufficient improvements to them to increase traffic flow extremely unlikely, add to the very limited viability of adding a development at H42.

The local plan does not comply with the Water Resources Act 1991 as it will result in a worsening effect upon the water saturation level/zone of saturation within the area, increasing the flooding risk to surrounding land and existing properties. The development will increase the amount of non-permeable surfaces such as road surfaces, houses and hard landscapes areas, resulting in pushing surface water to already highly saturated slow to drain areas. The existing developments along westwood heath road currently suffer from water logging show the current high saturation zone. Making significant improvements to the drainage of the proposed development such that it mitigates a worsening of the surrounding land drainage and water saturation zone will be cost prohibitive and require non-standard construction practices and techniques.

The local roads in the area are already stretched at peak times, and this development will only add to the issues on Cromwell Lane, Westwood Heath Road and knock on to other roads in the area such as Charter Avenue. Car parking at Tile Hill station, and the subsequent knock on with commuters (and others) parking in small residential streets, is well known to local Coventry councillors, and by WDC councillors. More work on infrastructure is needed before this planning should be considered, especially those which bound the specific area under consideration. WDC and Coventry Council need to work together on this as the area is travelled by people from both councils.

I consider that the level of housing proposed, even capped at 425, is inconsistent with the current road infrastructure. Furthermore, I contest the need; planners should not simply accept current trends but should develop active policies to reduce needs to within sound limits, we should not accept unbridled population growth. Note also that development of HS2 could represent a major clash with housing development at the same time.

The Inspector correctly states at para 31 of his letter of 1st June 2015 that "The merits of individual site allocations and the assumptions about delivery have not been subject to detailed scrutiny at this stage in the examination." It is of major concern that the Modificatons now allocate additional sites, rather than just indicating that there is more than adequate deliverable land to meet the housing need requirements of the Plan.

By allocating certain sites and not allocating others, this implies that a fully transparent, public debate has taken place on an objective analysis of the selection criteria. If it has not, then such a public debate should take place as part of the Examination in Public, as the allocated sites with consequent release from the Green Belt, are a fundamental part of the Modified Plan.

There is opportunity to make representation on the allocated sites but NOT on those not being allocated. Comparative comment must therefore be made in relation to a proposed, allocated site.

The site selection appears to be based on the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report of February 2016.

The Council makes a strong proposal to allocate land at Westwood Heath and release it from the Green Belt. The principle of allocation in this area may be acceptable although the lack of clear and objective analysis of the site and the alternatives, hinders objective conclusion. As a result, the Modified Plan remains unsound and may also fail to be 'positively prepared' as it does not allow for proper public consultation on possible allocations of land and therefore does not give the required degree of certainty for residents and future residents.

In common with other possible sites for allocation, this land adjoins the built up area. The most significant and comprehensive study into the possible release of land for development on the periphery of Coventry, which is fully in the public domain, was published in 2009. This study fully analysed all the potential development sites and classified them into the degree of constraint which applied to the land.

See the attached figure.

It will be noted that Westwood Heath was classified as "Least Constrained" within the same parcel as the Land at Cryfield Grange / Land South of Gibbet Hill Road (SHLAA Ref C27/C28).

The Land at Cryfield Grange / Land South of Gibbet Hill Road (SHLAA Ref C27/C28) has been proposed to the Council.
● It directly adjoins the built up area;
● 100% of the land was classified as "Least Constrained"
● It is suggested that Westwood Heath could be developed at the same time as the land at Cryfield/Gibbet Hill.
● Both areas are of very similar standard (neither being 'worse' or more constrained than the other);
● Both sites would limit the geographic distance of new development from the current built up boundary;
● It would add diversity to the land choice available;
● It would provide enhanced competition; and,
● It would ensure early development would be achieved.

Comparison between Cryfield/Gibbet Hill and Westwood Heath:

The Council has chosen to "allocate" land at Westwood Heath in preference to land at Cryfield (SHLAA Ref C27/C28). The reasoning appears to be based on the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report Feb 2016 from Enfusion and the earlier SA Report of February 2015.
An analysis of the reasoning shows very little objective difference between the two sites.
It is worth noting that Cryfield/Gibbet at an estimated 371 houses apparently scores lower than the much larger strategic sites in terms of likely provision of new facilities. However, Westwood Heath is only an estimated 425 houses or a mere 14% larger. It therefore seems strange that a site which will only provide an estimated 14% more homes is much more advantageous in terms of catalysing new facilities?
It is also said that at Westwood Heath there is "Potential for a medium to long term negative effect on SA objective 2 (sustainable transport) through increased levels of traffic on the surrounding road network." However, it is not considered that there is any material difference with Cryfield/Gibbet as, what is effectively the same road, services both sites. However, access is cited as a reason why Cryfield was not allocated i.e. "development in this area has to be limited given highway capacity constraints."

Again, it is noted that there are very positive comments on Cryfield/Gibbet that updated landscape evidence found that the site offers potential for expansion of the Gibbet Hill residential area.
Comparison of Westwood Heath and Cryfield /Gibbet is not as easy owing to the assessments having been carried out at different times and published in different reports. However, whilst it is appreciated that that there may be fine differences between the two sites, with Westwood Heath being "allocated" in preference, it is not believed that the minor differences withstand objective scrutiny.

It is further noted that Burton Green Parish Council has responded to the consultation by explaining why it believes Westwood Heath should NOT be allocated and its preference for development of the Cryfield/Gibbet Site.

As this allocation process SHOULD be objective, transparent and open to public input, it is suggested that the Plan is clearly unsound and has not been comprehensively prepared i.e. it is not positively prepared.

Any decision to lift Green Belt status on this land and agree planning permission for 425+ homes, initially with more in the future, allied to additional development in Burton Green & Cromwell Lane would be highly irresponsible unless and until substantial new provision was made to accommodate the increase traffic that would result.

Any policy makers should first visit the area and witness the traffic queues that already arise along Westwood Heath Road from Cromwell Lane to Kirby Corner roundabout on weekdays mornings as traffic attempts to access:
* Westwood Business Park
* Cannon Park and the A45
* Warwick University and the Kenilworth Road / A46
Likewise in the evenings, queues form back from Cromwell Lane down Westwood Heath Road as people make journeys back to Balsall Common, Kenilworth or Tile Hill.

You should fully take into account that the road across the University of Warwick campus is now restricted to 20 mph and the frequent stops made buses dropping up 80+ plus students at a time cause tail backs not only along Westwood Heath Road but back up to Cannon Park and the A45.

An alternative access route from Westwood to Kenilworth along Crackley Lane, which is already used a 'rat run' to avoid the University Campus is highly unsuited to an increase in traffic and already dangerous to both vehicular traffic and especially cyclists, due it's narrowness, sharp blind corners, and extensive pot holes especially along the verges that cause cyclists and vehicles to utilise the middle of road resulting in close misses, as I am frequently aware of as both a cyclist and driver.

Any development at Westwood would surely require the widening of Crackley Lane as an absolute minimum.

I would also suggest that the route across Warwick campus would need to be re-considered, removing the 20 mph limit, erecting barriers to protect pedestrians and construction walkways across the road instead of having students walking out in front of vehicles as they do today.

The University also now propose a new Sports complex near Kirby Corner which in itself will result in more traffic in the local area.

Furthermore you should be aware of the frequent instances of 'unlit' student cyclists around Westwood Heath, which would become even more of a danger with a rise in traffic. You may refer to the Police Liaison Team at the University to validate that issue / concern.

Finally I would invite the planners to visit the Banner brook development in Coventry and the surrounding roads where the Massey Ferguson plant once existed, on any weekday morning or evening to witness and experience the traffic congestion that has arisen following a similar large scale housing development with no foresight or appreciation of the impact on local traffic and residents. If residents aren't away from their properties by around 8 am and travelling to Westwood Park / Warwick Uni they might as well stay at home until past 9 am, or sit in a queue for an hour. The same fate would face residents of Westwood and Burton Green.

Yes we are told that new homes are required, but great thought and consideration as the infrastructure required to support such developments must be undertaken.

Following my correspondence with Ms Holder and Mr Barber, may I now formally record my views as a Councillor for Westwood Ward which includes, inter alia, Canley, Tile Hill South, Tile Hill Village; Lime Tree Estate, part of Banner Lane and Westwood Heath. I understand that my friends Mr Tim Mayer and Cllr Marcus Lapsa agree.

A I comment only on areas near my Ward- what happens in, for example, Warwick is beyond my purview;

B there is a considerable need for new housing, both to buy and to rent, including social housing, as the population grows, because, inter alia, people are, thank goodness, living longer- I should like to be around for some time more myself;

C there is a proposal for major new building in Westwood Heath, but in Warwickshire, and that could self-evidently greatly affect Westwood Ward over time. There is, I believe an issue with a fuel pipeline affecting the area, and more generally, many residents will understandably be unhappy over the disappearance of green spaces;

D my personal concerns include the ever-increasing traffic. Because of my family history, I am acutely aware of the risk of death or serious injury on the roads.

I have asked for detailed comments from City Council officers, but have at present absolutely no idea how the whole area can safely absorb the great changes likely in Burton Green and elsewhere with HS2, to which I am personally so opposed, not least on security grounds- the Brussels attacks are very relevant; more building in Westwood Heath and Cromwell Lane; the greatly-needed Canley Regeneration; the on-going expansion of Warwick University, the construction traffic at the various sites; the ever-growing number of vehicles on our roads generally, and more.

So I ask; will the community that Cllr Lapsa and I represent be protected or endangered? Nothing is more important than the lives of innocent people.

I shall be very happy to meet the Inspector, and am copying this to some residents in Westwood Ward.

I am writing to you on behalf of the Burton Green Parish Council in response to the Amended Local Plan and in particular to the proposed development of 425 houses at Westwood Heath.
INTRODUCTION
I begin with a description of the main features of Burton Green and some of the problems we face, especially that of increased traffic on our roads.
I will endeavour to ascertain whether the proposal is legally compliant and whether it is in accord with the present Government's policy towards Green Belt and the National Planning Policy Framework. (NPPF) The subject of legal compliance is not always clear cut and is often a matter for the courts to determine but it does seem that the development at Westwood Heath rests uneasily with national policy and is at odds with the principles enshrined in the NPPF.
Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, I question whether the development is sound and whether all the infrastructure implications have been addressed, especially in relation to sustainable transport. I will argue that the figure of 425 houses is not properly evidence based and that other information is needed for this proposal to go forward.
Finally I will examine other concerns we have about this proposal and the changes made to the original development at Burrow Hill Nursery.

BURTON GREEN
The village of Burton Green is a ribbon development which covers a wide area, including parts of Crackley but the parish boundaries have now been extended to include the ward of the University. Burton Green is a community of 387 houses, lying in a semi-rural, elevated position between Coventry and Kenilworth. Surrounded by Green Belt, the village benefits from open views across the countryside including ancient woods and hedgerows. Westwood Heath is an essential part of the landscape. It sits in the Crackley Gap and separates Burton Green from Coventry. Environmentally it is of a very high value. It is perhaps the most important open space in Burton Green with fantastic views towards the university. It is enjoyed by residents, walkers and even motorists and it provokes a feeling of well-being which will be lost forever if this proposal is accepted. Already Burton Green has been severely impacted by HS2 which goes straight through the heart of the village. Many residents have left because of the proximity to the route and their houses are now rented out by HS2 Ltd. A considerable amount of land has been set aside for the route while our special amenity, the Greenway, is irreparably damaged. Despite these setbacks, the sense of community remains very strong. We have taken on board the projected 30 mobile homes in Red Lane and have supported the development of 80 houses at Burrow Hill Nursery. However we believe that the Westwood development, which is far in excess of our present housing stock, is a step too far and threatens our community sustainability.
In our Parish Plan, Planning for the Future, April 2014, the aspirations and the concerns of our residents were noted. The respondents (at least 75% of households)" rated the openness/views, rural nature, village environment, trees, fields, verges, wildlife and Greenway as the most important aspects of the village" and it was considered essential that "people's views on what is really important to them about BG are reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan." (Page 8) Sadly this hope has been extinguished by the Revised Local Plan and certainly residents would be shocked and disappointed by the comments in Appendix 6, on the Site Appraisal Matrix, that "Burton Green has been identified as a growth village with a range of services and facilities."
In the Parish Plan, there were concerns about traffic, mainly on speeding and parking, but there was little mention of the volume of traffic on our roads. The situation is very different in 2016 from the time the Steering Group came together in 2012 and produced their report in 2014. Traffic levels are much higher as motorists drive along Cromwell Lane towards Westwood Heath Rd. on the way to the A45 or to the Science Park or to the University etc. I know from personal observation. I live in Cromwell Lane, opposite the water tower about 350 yards from Westwood Heath Rd. Today, Monday, April 11th, I did a simple survey of traffic between the hours of 8-25 and 9-25 travelling in the Coventry direction. Between 8-25 and 9-05, there were 361 motorists at an average of 45 motorists every 5 minutes with over 50 motorists in the time slots, 8-25 to 8-30, 8-30 to 8-35 and 9-00 to 9-05. Between 9-05 and 9-25, there were 101 vehicles at an average of 25. During the whole time, only 4 intrepid cyclists braved the traffic.
It may well be that the number of motorists is not that different from previous years but the problem has been compounded by the much higher levels coming from Tile Hill village, many from the new Bannerbrook Estate. Motorists coming from the opposite direction cannot turn right and consequently you can get a huge congestion of cars, very often outside my house. Burton Green residents are acutely aware of this problem. They have difficulty in getting off their drives and more seriously, pupils experience danger when they cross the road for the school bus to the Heart of England Comprehensive School in Balsall Common. I have spent some time looking at road transport in Burton Green at the present time but I will return to this subject when we look at the impact of the Westwood development of a further 425houses on transport links.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, GOVERNMENT POLICY AND THE NPPF.
As I intimated in the introduction, it is not always easy to interpret the law and I have not the legal expertise to tackle this subject. However it is the task of governments to determine policy and shape the law. In the Coalition Government, Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, and Brandon Lewis, the Housing and Planning Minister issued guidance to Councils on how to use their Local Plan. They were to draw on "protections in the National Planning Policy Framework to safeguard the local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities." Of course the Coalition is no longer with us but it would seem that the present Conservative Government is still intent on safeguarding Green Belt. In their Manifesto, there was a strong commitment to the Green Belt; "We will ensure local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt" and were ready to publish "planning guidance which reaffirms the importance of the Green Belt during Local Plan preparation." Of course, promises in manifestos may be ignored but to be fair to the present Conservative Government, ministers have shown a relish to implement Manifesto proposals.
But what about the guidance of the NPPF and what light does this show on the development at Westwood Heath? The answer is simple. This proposal to build 425 houses is in complete contradiction to the principles of the NPPF as is absolutely evident in Appendix 8 of the Green Belt and Green Field Review of November 2013. A series of questions are posed on a possible development at Westwood Heath which show conclusively that this development is not fit for purpose and here are a few of them.
Question 3. Would development in this area impact negatively on the visual amenity of the Green Belt?
Question 6. Would the loss of this Green Belt parcel lead to or constitute ribbon development?
Question 11. Would the loss of this Green Belt parcel result in a small settlement being absorbed into a large built up area?
Question 16. Would the loss of this Green Belt parcel reduce the defensible boundary between the existing urban area and open countryside?
Question 25. Would the loss of this Green Belt parcel reduce the character, identity or setting of a village or hamlet?
The answers are obvious and it would have been a massive shock if the District had supported an earlier development at Westwood Heath but are circumstances so exceptional to allow such an environmentally damaging proposal now? Does the duty to cooperate with Coventry mean that all environmental considerations are discarded? Moreover it is likely that this development will lead to changes in our boundary with Coventry and it would be no surprise if Coventry were to extend to the HS2 line. Burton Green has always been a target for Coventry and in the 1960s, an attempt was made to include it in Coventry's boundaries. The attempt failed but it now seems that the District is acquiescing in their demands. In their recommendations, they seem to suggest that the integrity of Burton Green has been protected by maintaining space between the development and the back gardens of properties in Cromwell Lane. But this development is in Burton Green but for how much longer? Of course, such a situation would be really attractive to Coventry as it seeks to extend its finances. With 70% of all Coventry homes within Council Tax bands A and B, (Coventry Local Plan, p45), the building of aspirational homes would be a great triumph for Coventry.
IS THE WESTWOOD HEATH PROPOSAL SOUND?
Warwick District seems to have absolute confidence that 425 houses can be built without any adverse impacts on road transport. It follows a "Do Nothing Option Scenario". It does recognise that there would have to be significant improvements to the strategic highway network, including the construction of a new link road between the A46 junction and Kirby Corner and onwards towards the A452 or the A45 if, for example, the safeguarded land lower down Westwood Heath were developed. But how can the Planners be so confident and how can they be so sure that 425 houses can be built without adverse impacts? Despite all the magic formulae, such as the Geoffrey E. Havers statistic, or all the advanced computer technology, predicting transport patterns is surely not an exact science. In Appendix 1 of the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report, it states that "there is an element of uncertainty for all the options as the precise nature and level of the provision or improvements to associated facilities/services and sustainable transport modes is not known at this stage." Likewise in the Strategic Transport Assessment by Vectors Microsim in Appendix A, 4-53, Crackley Lane would come under significant pressure at this time but it was not possible to identify what additional impacts may occur or what an appropriate mitigation strategy could be. Indeed the situation on the Crackley route appears precarious and in the Supplementary Analysis of the W.D.C.Strategic Assessment Phase 5, it concluded that with 425 dwellings, this route "is likely to be nearly over capacity." Yet despite these reservations, Warwick District have complete faith that 425 houses could be built without having any impact on existing transport links. Perhaps councillors and planners should consult the Warwick District Phase 5 Supplementary Analysis by Vectos Microsim. In the introduction, it notes "that some of the area of network which may be affected by the allocation of these sites is missing from the existing microsimulation models meaning it is not currently possible to fully assess impacts of these sites." On the other hand, it may be prudent to ignore the technical language of the planning fraternity and concentrate on more simple issues.
Warwick District focusses on housing within their area but seem oblivious of developments across their borders. The development at Westwood Heath is closely linked to that at Kings Hill but what about the possible housing developments in Coventry? Within a stone's throw of Westwood Heath Rd., Coventry could build 236 houses. If this proposal goes ahead, many motorists will head towards the University and will join up with the residents from the 425 houses in Westwood Heath. At the same time, Berkswell and Balsall Common will also need to build more houses under a revised Solihull Local Plan, and motorists from those areas will head for the already congested Cromwell Lane route and will join forces with motorists from the 90 houses at Burrow Hill Nursery. Faced with these pressures on our transport infrastructure, would it not be prudent for Warwick District to consider more carefully their proposal to build 425 houses at Westwood Heath? Perhaps understandably, Warwick District has rushed to find a solution without proper consideration in an attempt to secure a Local Plan which will stop property developers riding roughshod in the Leamington and Warwick area where there are ample opportunities to build on land which is not Green Belt. But it seems that there are sufficient grounds for rejecting the Westwood Heath proposal as unsound and surely if this consultation is to be meaningful, all interested parties should know what additional roads will be needed and where they will be located if Kirby Corner is to be joined up with the A46 and subsequently to the A45 or the A452.
In deciding on a figure of 425 houses, I am not sure what weight has been given to improvements in public transport. Obviously planners want to optimise public transport, but it is still doubtful, even with bus shelters at key stops, that residents will forsake their cars to join car clubs or participate in car sharing. (Appendices. Sustainable Transport Strategy Overview). It is perhaps a similar situation with cyclists. Burton Green would support improved cycle paths but how achievable is this objective? At this moment in time, if I were a parent, I would make sure that my children kept well away from Cromwell Lane and Westwood Heath Rd during week days. We also recognise that pedestrians should have access to green corridors but the reality is that pavements in Burton Green are in a very poor state and there is no money to repair them. It may be that some residents from the Westwood Development would walk to Tile Hill railway station, especially as it is increasingly difficult to park there, but it is doubtful whether improvements in public transport, cycle paths or in green corridors will have any real effect on the number of motorists going to work or dropping their children at school, thus increasing the numbers on Westwood Heath Rd. and Bockenden Road.
OTHER ISSUES AT WESTWOOD HEATH AND CHANGES TO THE BURROW HILL PROPOSAL
If the development at Westwood Heath does goes ahead, we would welcome a Health Centre and a retail facility but we do have serious concerns about educational provision in Burton Green. At first, we were alarmed to see that significant changes were made to the original Burrow Hill proposal. We were concerned that provision for parking had been removed and no mention was made of a playing field for the Burton Green Primary School but it now seems that the concessions to the School remain. However we are concerned that the increase to 90 houses is excessive and may have a negative impact on the development. The acquisition of the playing field does give the school some scope to expand but it is highly unlikely that the school can cope with the increased demand from a development of 425 houses at Westwood Heath.
In the Table of Proposed Modifications to the Publication of the Draft Local Plan, emphasis was placed on the need for educational capacity in a coordinated manner. But that is easier said than done. There is a shortage of places in Coventry's Primary Schools while the merging of Woodland Boys with Tile Hill Girls reduces the number of places in Secondary Schools, despite the emergence of Finham 2 at Torrington Avenue. It seems that there may be 2 Primary Schools at King's Hill but does that mean children from Westwood Heath will attend these schools? If they do, of course, it means that even more cars will be travelling on Westwood Heath Rd. than hitherto considered, making it imperative that additional roads will be required. Surely, if this consultation is meant to be transparent, knowledge of these roads should already be in the public domain.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The Westwood Heath development will have a massive impact on our community, already beleaguered by HS2. The projected houses, both at Burrow Hill Nursery and Westwood Heath, will be far in excess of our present housing stock and the openness of our village, which residents value so much, will be severely compromised. Burton Green's genuine concerns about the volume of our traffic will even more be exacerbated by this new development.
2) It is probable that the proposal is compliant with the law, (it is a matter for lawyers) but it certainly runs counter to supposed government policy and contradicts the guidance of the NPPF. The duty to cooperate with Coventry is a binding commitment but should it be at the complete expense of the environment?
3) It is doubtful if the proposal is sound and it would be a really interesting experience if planners were called to justify its soundness. Predicting transport patterns is not a precise science as some of their own literature makes clear. There are serious doubts about their research, especially on the Crackley route, and at times the Revised Local Plan seems rushed and incomplete.
4) The statement that 425 houses can be built without additional roads does not stand up to scrutiny and the failure to identify routes of possible roads to Kirby Corner and beyond is a serious failure and puts at risk the democratic process.
5) The Local Plan ignores the housing developments of our neighbours, whether in Coventry, Berkswell or Balsall Common which will impact considerably on Cromwell Lane and Westwood Heath Rd. All Authorities are under pressure to build more houses and it is likely that the pace will be unyielding in the years to come.
6) It is almost certain that improvements in public transport and in cycle and pedestrian pathways will have little effect in reducing the volume of traffic along Westwood Heath Rd., making it even more likely that the existing transport infrastructure will be unable to cope.
7) The development at Westwood Heath will have serious implications for educational provision in Burton Green. It could well be that the solution to these problems, especially in the primary sector, will result in further traffic on our roads.

Comments concerning WDC plan modifications
Modification 20 Paragraph 2.54
Policies Map 35

With reference to the above proposals in the WDC plan modifications, I am a resident of Cromwell Lane and have already responded to the Coventry local plan but since the building of 425 homes South of Westwood Heath road as proposed in the WDC plan will have a very serious impact on the wider area I would like to make the following comments and objections.
* I do not believe the proposal for these homes is sound as it does not take account of the traffic and infrastructure difficulties which already exist in this area and which will be made infinitely worse with the addition of 425 homes and around 800 extra cars.
* The Coventry Plan is already proposing 240 homes to the West of Cromwell lane with no suggestion of any infrastructure improvements in the area apart from 'considering resident's parking schemes in adjacent roads.'
* The general area of Tile Hill, Cromwell Lane and Westwood Heath is already badly congested for large parts of the day due to the opening of the flyover in 2005, the construction in recent years of approximately 2000 new homes in the wider area, the extra traffic and parking problems caused by the Centro operation of the park and ride facility at Tile Hill station which is oversubscribed every working day, the large number of HGV vehicles which use these minor roads on a daily basis from Logistic facilities with no direct access to major roads and the large amount of traffic which uses Cromwell Lane/Westwood Heath roads as a through route to the A46, the University of Warwick and beyond.
* The proposed HS2 works at Burton Green are scheduled to last from 2016 to 2026 and will involve major works in the area around the A46/Stoneleigh Rd junction, the construction of a compound east of the A46, major works at Bockendon Rd. and the actual construction works at Burton Green. The published vehicle movement schedules show a large amount of HGV and general traffic in the area for the next 10 years which must have an impact on local minor roads.
* To make the plans of both Coventry and Warwick sound for this area the issues above have to be addressed and an overall infrastructure scheme for the area formulated which will mitigate if not completely solve these problems. Otherwise the proposals for both these developments are not sustainable and therefore not sound.
* In the event of these proposals going ahead, I believe that no building works should commence until the HS2 project is completed in 2026 to prevent the area being swamped with construction and other traffic

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

see attached

see attached

See attached

See attached