Publication Draft

Comment

Representation ID: 6912

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Residents of Warwick, as well as residents of Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook are most concerned that the Preferred Options for further housing development, intended to meet the housing needs of the entire District, proposes that the majority of green field development should be directed to those areas.

Whilst landowners and developers have indicated a preference for more houses in those areas, the consultation for Options for Growth in May of 2008 showed that there was no support expressed by the communities of Bishops Tachbrook, Warwick and Whitnash areas for
the mass of houses as proposed by the Preferred Option. Indeed, residents and Town Councillors were greatly disappointed that Option 5 (development south of Coventry), the most supported option, was rejected by the District Council, on the basis of 'regional and national planning policies'.
From the presentations which have been delivered and the District's own documentation it does appear that the District Council is responding to the GOWM direction in respect of projected population growth. The Core Strategy states that this figure is unrealistic and this view is supported by the Town Council, for a 40,000 population increase depends on migration from the adjoining areas, when GOWM's policy is to focus more development in major cites and reduce migration to districts like Warwick.
The Town Council therefore considers that the District Council should seek more time in order to question and assess the projections on which the Preferred Options are based.
TC wishes the District Council to question the projected population growth of 40,000, which the Core Strategy states is unrealistic, and which assumes continued inward migration from adjoining urban areas, before determining how many new houses are required in Warwick District.

Comment

Representation ID: 6913

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Town Council very much wish to urge the District Council to reflect the views of local residents and resist the pressure from Central Government to foist on to Warwick District development which is not needed to meet local demand. Having determined the development needed to meet local need the District Council should seek to ensure that such development is allocated across the whole of the District, to avoid the creation of any areas of urban sprawl, the detrimental impact on the environment, and any disproportionate impact on particular residents and communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 6914

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Notwithstanding the above, residents are being asked to support major development proposals, without any indication of the infrastructure required for the Preferred Option Sites. Similarly no information is available regarding infrastructure relating to the 'Amber Sites'. Again the Town Council seek to support the view that more time is needed for a full appraisal of all sites.
Examples of failure to provide infrastructure are all too available and an example within the District, is South West Warwick.
Tne Town Council calls on the District Council to investigate and determine the infrastructure for all the development options, water and sewage, transport, education, health, roads, shopping, community activities and green space, and the impact of development on existing communities.
To provide evidence to support the assertion that people will work, shop, go to school and spend leisure time, close to new homes in the south of the District, and to address the problems that would be created by the traffic which would actually be created.

Comment

Representation ID: 6915

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

A further aspect, which is of great concern, is the intention within the Preferred Options to remove the green spaces which have served as historic boundaries within the areas south of the river. This has the effect of sundering historic identities and creating an area of urban sprawl. A preference difficult to accept, when elsewhere in the Development Plan Document landscape is identified as a key part of the environment, which provides a setting for towns and villages, and the Town Council would expect that the policy should apply in all the District.
Nor should the GOWM's directive that areas of restraint should be developed be accepted, when such a proposal is directly opposed to the views of the community. In this circumstances elected representatives must reflect the views and wishes of the electorate. Certainly when considering development elsewhere, the green space areas which distinguish and separate towns and villages has been recognised by the District as a very basic requirement which should be preserved and retained.
The scheduling of development is also an issue, and the Town Council and residents consider that development of all green field sites, including those in areas of restraint, should not be developed ahead of windfall and brown field sites. The Town Council therefore request that windfall and brown field sites should be developed ahead of green field sites and commence in 2011 and not as scheduled in the option strategy.
The Town Council calls on the District Council to retain the green space which distinguishes and separates the towns of Kenilworth, Royal Leamington Spa, Warwick Whitnash and other areas of the District.
To avoid the serious detrimental impact on the environment, which would arise from locating the bulk of housing in close proximity to existing development, creating continuous urban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 33654

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

The public consultation has been wholly inadequate in the quality and detail of infrastructure provided, to enable the public to make meaningful contribution to the decision making process. WDC is asked:- to identify all main infrastrucure needs, local shops, schools, leisure activity, medical needs etc. to support each proposed area, also public transport links, cycle tracks, roads, both within each proposed development area and linking to the main town shopping/employment centres.

Object

Representation ID: 33656

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Wish to object to Core Strategy Preferred Option to build 10,800 houses, the majority to south of Warwick/Leamington - areas 1E, 1F, 2F, 3F, 1D
Contrary to Central Government 'Directive' designated areas of restraint should be respected, such areas having in past invariably been identifed for good reason. e.g. area 1E to west of Europa Way was established as area of restraint, specifically for leisure and sporting activities, as related condition of planning approval for Technology Park, thus providing a green breathing space between Warwick and Leamington to avoid urban sprawl merging two towns. Similarly 'green' spaces should be maintained between Warwick/Leamington and surrounding villages to maintain individual character.

Comment

Representation ID: 33657

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Wish to object to Core Strategy Preferred Option to build 10,800 houses, the majority to the south of Warwick/Leamington - areas 1E, 1F, 2F, 3F, 1D.

Object

Representation ID: 33658

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Wish to object to Core Strategy Preferred Option to build 10,800 houses, the majority to the south of Warwick/Leamington - areas 1E, 1F, 2F, 3F, 1D.

Object

Representation ID: 33660

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

The WDC is asked:
- to make a Legal Challenge against WDC housing allocation (plus the further possible overflow from Coventry!) as made by Central Government via the West Midlands Government Office (a legal challenge such as has already been made by some other Councils).
- try to make a more meaningful assessment of the population numbers extrapolation over the Strategy period, necessary to meet WDC needs.

Object

Representation ID: 33661

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

The present proposed adjoining areas 1E, 1F, 2F, 3F, 1D represents a pending environmental urban sprawl disaster area, cut off from the main Warwick/Leamington shopping, working and social activity areas by the constraints of the limited River Avon crossing points. With no evident public transport solutions, the additional traffic impact of at least an additional 10k-15k vehicle movements per day impacting on the already heavily congested Warwick Banbury Road Avon Bridge and the Ford Foundry Roundabout/Leamington two river crossings, this will contribute further to the environmental disaster which will result if the preferred option is adopted.