Testun llawn:
Whitnash Town Council (WTC) have considered the additional 'Alternative Sites' put forward by Warwick District Council (WDC), for consideration in the public consultation, but has restricted its comments to the site that would have the greatest impact on Whitnash and its community, namely Alternative Site 2 - Land at Campion School / South of Sydenham.
WTC have been actively involved in the Core Strategy process and its consultation stages, directly with Officers of WDC, other local parish councils and members of the public to ensure that the views of Whitnash residents are represented. Meetings with
WDC Planning Officers have been held. Town Councillors have attended and hosted public meetings.
On the 6th April 2010, the public were invited to discuss the alternative sites and in particular the site put forward by Redline Town Planning and Development
Consultants, on behalf of their clients A C Lloyd, for potential development on land at Campion School / South of Sydenham, at Whitnash Community Hall.
Whitnash Town Council, have considered the report submitted to WDC by Redline, and listened to the views expressed by residents attending the public meetings, we are also mindful of previous views put forward by local residents and WTC in the various stages of the Core Strategy consultation process, and would make the following comments and objections to the proposed alternative site.
Transport and Accessibility
The report confirms that the main access to the site will be accessed by relocating Campion School to the south end of the proposed site. Highway access will be from the existing roundabout at Sydenham Drive and Prospect Road and via existing development onto proposed site L10 within the original preferred options. In our view this will increase traffic congestion along these routes and within the site which effectively becomes one large cul-de-sac, with the majority of traffic then being routed along Sydenham Drive and Prospect Road.
Provision for cycle ways and pedestrian access is indicated in the report, however current usage of these facilities to the school site is low, with many parents driving children to the school, causing existing congestion at peak times, and we do not see any evidence that usage will be increased within the proposal. Indeed, if there were any additional pedestrian access via Church Lane or Golf Lane then this would lead to additional congestion by parents dropping off children near these access points. Both Prospect Road and Sydenham Drive have extensive residential and industrial areas, associated traffic such as cars, HGV's and supermarket traffic add to the existing congestion. Additional development of 1000 homes and school traffic to this site would only compound the current problems.
Drainage and Flood Risk
Areas within the proposal are identified as flood plain; the report highlights this but suggests that this does not pose any significant threat to the development of land nearby. However, within the last three years, Whitnash has seen flooding to properties along Home Farm Crescent and Fieldgate Lane. Residents have also noticed that since development of land at Sydenham, flooding of local fields particularly along Fieldgate Lane has increased.
It is our view that development of the proposed site would only increase the flooding risk to proposed new dwellings but more significantly to existing dwellings in Whitnash.
Natural Environment and Historical Character
Whitnash and the local area has a rich history, the site has many known historical and naturally beautiful features, which have been enjoyed by generations of residents and visitors. These include the Whitnash Brook, Brook Valley Nature Reserve, Roman Villa remains, and country walks to Radford Semele and beyond.
The land proposed for development also acts as a natural boundary between Whitnash and other areas such as Sydenham and Radford preventing urban sprawl and loss of community identity, something WTC are extremely vigorous in trying to prevent and protect.
We believe that the area holds much more history and environmental interest much of which is yet unknown and therefore needs extensive archaeological and environmental studies, before any agreement is given to developing the land, helping to protect and preserve it for future generations.
Sustainability and Infrastructure
The Redline report, suggests that the development of 1000 new homes and a school would be sustainable and not 'overload' the current infrastructure available in the area. WTC disagree with the assumption and would site existing issues within the community, including traffic congestion, oversubscribed admission applications to local infant and primary schools, waiting times at GP surgeries, which dispute the claims made by Redline Consultants. In our view additional development within this area or any other areas in to the South of Leamington and around Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook, would exacerbate these problems.
Redline Consultants comment on the cost of infrastructure and affordable housing, and admits that the significant cost of relocating and building a new secondary school within the site, would make affordable housing options, such as shared ownership and/or social housing limited. One of the primary purposes of the Core Strategy is to meet housing need; and current planning regulations ensure that major housing developments comprise of a mixture of housing options that meet local housing needs. Based on the comments made by Redline Consultants that affordable housing options will be limited and indicating that they would not be able to meet the quotas set by WDC Planning Authorities this is another valid reason, in our view to object to this site for development.
Developers are required to share the costs of infrastructure via a percentage or levy system. It is therefore in doubt how A C Lloyd would meet their obligations and contribute towards wider infrastructure, particularly as they are committing themselves to building a new school, a crucial element to the success of their proposal. There is no commitment or detail within the report about how infrastructure will be funded, for example additional provision for health care, local infant and primary schools, utilities, roads, sewage etc...
Conclusion
WTC understands the principle of the Core Strategy and recognises that it is a Government requirement of all Local Authorities to have strategies in place.
However over the last ten years Whitnash has seen significant housing development, along South Farm, Warwick Gates and development east of Sydenham all of which have impacted greatly on the town and its community, many of these issues have been previously cited, but include traffic congestion, flooding, environmental impact, increased demand on local schools and health care services. WTC also feel that assumption that most people living in these new homes would work in employment settings in the south of the district is fundamentally floored, and that the recommendation by WDC Planning Officers, to Members, that development should be focussed to the south of Leamington around Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook, based on this assumption is incorrect.
The south area of the district is significantly congested at peak times in both directions with traffic entering and leaving the area. This is compounded and restricted by the four river crossings that separate the north from the south of the district, additional development in the south added to existing development both employment and residential would have a detrimental and lasting effect on the community of Whitnash.
Finally WTC would remind WDC of the views expressed by WTC and the public in the previous public consultations carried out on the Core Strategy between May and
July 2008 and July and September 2009.
21.6% of respondents, the majority view in the consultation on options, preferred development to be directed South of Coventry. The second highest 15.0% of respondents preferred development along the A46 Corridor.
1,083 Respondents Objected to proposals to build housing on land South of Sydenham, and East of Whitnash
1,171 Respondents Objected to proposals to build housing on land at Lower
Heathcote Farm.
1,106 Respondents Objected to proposals to build
