The Limited Infill Villages boundary for Sherbourne currently includes part of an agricultural field and an agricultural barn. We do not consider that this should be included as land potentially suitable for development under the LIV policy.

4 - Specialist Housing for Older People

The JPC welcomes WDC's recognition of the Ageing Demographic but does not believe that proposals are adequate for the challenges we all face.

In light of the 2012 ONS results figures and percentages quoted in 4.53 and 4.55 may well understate the proportion of our population requiring or potentially benefiting from Age Related Housing.

We note that 4.51 recognises that in 2011 "22% of households in the district contained someone with a long-term health problem or disability" but goes on to require only 10% provision of "Lifetime Homes Standard" or other adaptable homes and then only in the Strategic Urban Extension sites. Clearly a gross under-provision.

Whilst the emphasis on Primary Health Care is understandable there is a lack of clarity (H5(b) and 4.57) of how criteria might be interpreted and provision for alternative solutions.

H5 in particular would seem to limit provision to the urban areas (including the strategic urban extension sites) and hence preclude most of the rural areas, including preclusion of the more sustainable rural villages (ie most Growth Villages and specifically Barford)

H5 (b) and H5(c) are currently too restrictive. The JPC suggests the addition of "in Growth Villages and other sustainable locations where rural local initiative has demonstrated local need (eg through Neighbourhood Development Plans and/or Housing Needs Surveys etc) and a community will to address that need along with needs of adjacent areas and such need may be met through a broader range of models than might be required in an urban setting.

The above proposal recognises that whilst rural living has changed considerably over recent times - not least by development driven mostly by developers and higher authorities rather than by indigenous rural dwellers - the single common strand is that most rural dwellers choose to live there and wish to remain there for as great a part of their life as possible. The current and Draft Local Plan models do not permit this and at times of increasing dependence distract the elderly (and otherwise infirm) from their communities through "distress relocation" based on clinical need alone. The JPC contends that communities should have a mechanism to rise to the challenge of allowing their elderly to remain within their rural community for the whole of their lifetime with all the many benefits to the elderly and their relatives and friends.

JPC believes the Plan andG&T Preferred Options fails to address adequately the best interests of both the settled and G&T communities.

Imposing G&T on mature communities and failure to incorporate them into larger strategic sites is flawed/neglectful, rendering this Plan UNSOUND.

Furthermore the reluctance to address the Greenbelt in any imaginative way concentrates the G&T impact into an unrealistically small part of the WDC disregarding both existing residents' and G&T community wishes.

G&T provision should be properly planned on the strategic urban extension sites and the gateway area and only located elsewhere when there is explicit community and landowner support.

The proposed level of growth has never been convincing and is almost universally rejected by the public. The mid-2012 ONS projections confirm this view.

2 - Greenbelt Issues

The JPC is disappointed that WDC have not seized the opportunity to re-evaluate the Greenbelt within its area in a realistic and imaginative manner.

An aggressive "growth agenda" in a district of c.80% Greenbelt, with a near sacrosanct approach to Greenbelt puts unrealistic and unsustainable pressure on the remaining non-Greenbelt area, south of Warwick and Leamington, and renders this Draft Local Plan UNSOUND.

Given that we are/are likely to be expected to accept overflow from Coventry (See 2012 ONS figures) it would be most appropriate to look at some Coventry "urban extension" into WDC Greenbelt as a priority and not to expect to re-locate such overflow to the south of Warwick and Leamington.

Similarly imaginative use of pockets of relaxation immediately adjacent to other settlements could dramatically improve capacity and relieve some of the pressure currently focussed on the area south of Warwick and Leamington.

Removal of Greenbelt status to facilitate the Gateway project (Sub Regional Employment Allocation DS16) shows that it can be done where there is a political will so why not extend the concept to accommodate some of the housing need and a significant proportion of the G&T provision.