Helping Shape the District

5: Health & Wellbeing

We are also surprised at the omission of any expression of the necessity for improving psychological well-being, or happiness. It appears only obliquely in point 5 and as the negative of 'crime and the fear of crime' in point 10. In our view, improving the quality of life requires a focus on non-materialistic as well as economic success. It can be contributed to, for example, by helping cohesion across generations, by broadening opportunities for participation in decision-taking, and by strengthening the sense of place and belonging. This important issue should be added to those to be dealt with in the plan.

The absence of any forecast of population growth and the reasons for it is a severe weakness of the draft, and makes invalid the assertion (page 17, para4) that scenario three would 'meet forecasts ... and projections ... based on population and household growth'. Rather, it seems to base its argument for maximum development on 'supporting the economy', overlooking the circularity of the argument.

While development should be led by other policy objectives, not be an end in itself, we consider that the level of housing development should be lower than that proposed in scenario 2. It should meet local needs for more housing and, most importantly, needs for affordable housing and housing for the elderly. It should not enable population migration from other local authorities' areas which makes the condition of Warwick District worse for its existing inhabitants

Suggests that growth may not be the appropriate objective for Warwick town centre, conservation, or change, are more significant. Are very concerned that Background Paper 11 (page 104, first three paras) focuses only on retailing and leisure as town centre activities. It omits mention of residential use and office employment, which are the two largest economic activities in Warwick town centre. It prejudges work that has not yet been started on the Town Centre Plan (AAP) in considering services to play the 'anchor function'. It is essential for both sustainability and community cohesion that the centre of the county town has a broader economic base than this, and that daytime retail activity is strengthened, not the 'evening economy'. This objective must be considered further alongside the town centre plan work, and must not constrain the outcome of that.

The objectives should have been debated and agreed before any scenarios were developed and analysed failure to do this is a major weakness of the draft.

Draft objectives 1 and 2 promote balance between economic growth and housing growth, as though each justifies the other when it is actually a circular argument. The argument for housing is unsupported in terms of level, tenure, type of location therefore without evidence the objective has no meaning.

Strongly support objective 4 on the sustainable siting of development and objective 7 on their location and design improving (not just maintaining) the built and natural environments, especially historic areas and buildings. Draws attention to the importance of green space in separating and maintaining the identity of Warwick from Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Has concern over the meaning of objective 10 which as worded suggests primacy is given to the needs of the economy rather than conservation. The objectives to improve social, transport and and service infrastructure are noted however it is suggested that achieving this and correcting present deficiencies is likely to be more difficult in the higher growth scenario, as the impact of high growth on the District's infrastructure would be greater than any additional funding resulting from it could resolve.

The absence of any forecast of population growth and the reasons for it is a severe weakness of the draft, and makes invalid the assertion (page 17, para4) that scenario three would 'meet forecasts ... and projections ... based on population and household growth'. Rather, it seems to base its argument for maximum development on 'supporting the economy', overlooking the circularity of the argument.

While development should be led by other policy objectives, not be an end in itself, we consider that the level of housing development should be lower than that proposed in scenario 2. It should meet local needs for more housing and, most importantly, needs for affordable housing and housing for the elderly. It should not enable population migration from other local authorities' areas which makes the condition of Warwick District worse for its existing inhabitants

Suggests that growth may not be the appropriate objective for Warwick town centre, conservation, or change, are more significant. Are very concerned that Background Paper 11 (page 104, first three paras) focuses only on retailing and leisure as town centre activities. It omits mention of residential use and office employment, which are the two largest economic activities in Warwick town centre. It prejudges work that has not yet been started on the Town Centre Plan (AAP) in considering services to play the 'anchor function'. It is essential for both sustainability and community cohesion that the centre of the county town has a broader economic base than this, and that daytime retail activity is strengthened, not the 'evening economy'. This objective must be considered further alongside the town centre plan work, and must not constrain the outcome of that.

The objectives should have been debated and agreed before any scenarios were developed and analysed failure to do this is a major weakness of the draft.

Draft objectives 1 and 2 promote balance between economic growth and housing growth, as though each justifies the other when it is actually a circular argument. The argument for housing is unsupported in terms of level, tenure, type of location therefore without evidence the objective has no meaning.

Strongly support objective 4 on the sustainable siting of development and objective 7 on their location and design improving (not just maintaining) the built and natural environments, especially historic areas and buildings. Draws attention to the importance of green space in separating and maintaining the identity of Warwick from Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Has concern over the meaning of objective 10 which as worded suggests primacy is given to the needs of the economy rather than conservation. The objectives to improve social, transport and and service infrastructure are noted however it is suggested that achieving this and correcting present deficiencies is likely to be more difficult in the higher growth scenario, as the impact of high growth on the District's infrastructure would be greater than any additional funding resulting from it could resolve.

The absence of any forecast of population growth and the reasons for it is a severe weakness of the draft, and makes invalid the assertion (page 17, para4) that scenario three would 'meet forecasts ... and projections ... based on population and household growth'. Rather, it seems to base its argument for maximum development on 'supporting the economy', overlooking the circularity of the argument.

While development should be led by other policy objectives, not be an end in itself, we consider that the level of housing development should be lower than that proposed in scenario 2. It should meet local needs for more housing and, most importantly, needs for affordable housing and housing for the elderly. It should not enable population migration from other local authorities' areas which makes the condition of Warwick District worse for its existing inhabitants

Suggests that growth may not be the appropriate objective for Warwick town centre, conservation, or change, are more significant. Are very concerned that Background Paper 11 (page 104, first three paras) focuses only on retailing and leisure as town centre activities. It omits mention of residential use and office employment, which are the two largest economic activities in Warwick town centre. It prejudges work that has not yet been started on the Town Centre Plan (AAP) in considering services to play the 'anchor function'. It is essential for both sustainability and community cohesion that the centre of the county town has a broader economic base than this, and that daytime retail activity is strengthened, not the 'evening economy'. This objective must be considered further alongside the town centre plan work, and must not constrain the outcome of that.

The objectives should have been debated and agreed before any scenarios were developed and analysed failure to do this is a major weakness of the draft.

Draft objectives 1 and 2 promote balance between economic growth and housing growth, as though each justifies the other when it is actually a circular argument. The argument for housing is unsupported in terms of level, tenure, type of location therefore without evidence the objective has no meaning.

Strongly support objective 4 on the sustainable siting of development and objective 7 on their location and design improving (not just maintaining) the built and natural environments, especially historic areas and buildings. Draws attention to the importance of green space in separating and maintaining the identity of Warwick from Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Has concern over the meaning of objective 10 which as worded suggests primacy is given to the needs of the economy rather than conservation. The objectives to improve social, transport and and service infrastructure are noted however it is suggested that achieving this and correcting present deficiencies is likely to be more difficult in the higher growth scenario, as the impact of high growth on the District's infrastructure would be greater than any additional funding resulting from it could resolve.

The absence of any forecast of population growth and the reasons for it is a severe weakness of the draft, and makes invalid the assertion (page 17, para4) that scenario three would 'meet forecasts ... and projections ... based on population and household growth'. Rather, it seems to base its argument for maximum development on 'supporting the economy', overlooking the circularity of the argument.

While development should be led by other policy objectives, not be an end in itself, we consider that the level of housing development should be lower than that proposed in scenario 2. It should meet local needs for more housing and, most importantly, needs for affordable housing and housing for the elderly. It should not enable population migration from other local authorities' areas which makes the condition of Warwick District worse for its existing inhabitants

Suggests that growth may not be the appropriate objective for Warwick town centre, conservation, or change, are more significant. Are very concerned that Background Paper 11 (page 104, first three paras) focuses only on retailing and leisure as town centre activities. It omits mention of residential use and office employment, which are the two largest economic activities in Warwick town centre. It prejudges work that has not yet been started on the Town Centre Plan (AAP) in considering services to play the 'anchor function'. It is essential for both sustainability and community cohesion that the centre of the county town has a broader economic base than this, and that daytime retail activity is strengthened, not the 'evening economy'. This objective must be considered further alongside the town centre plan work, and must not constrain the outcome of that.

The objectives should have been debated and agreed before any scenarios were developed and analysed failure to do this is a major weakness of the draft.

Draft objectives 1 and 2 promote balance between economic growth and housing growth, as though each justifies the other when it is actually a circular argument. The argument for housing is unsupported in terms of level, tenure, type of location therefore without evidence the objective has no meaning.

Strongly support objective 4 on the sustainable siting of development and objective 7 on their location and design improving (not just maintaining) the built and natural environments, especially historic areas and buildings. Draws attention to the importance of green space in separating and maintaining the identity of Warwick from Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Has concern over the meaning of objective 10 which as worded suggests primacy is given to the needs of the economy rather than conservation. The objectives to improve social, transport and and service infrastructure are noted however it is suggested that achieving this and correcting present deficiencies is likely to be more difficult in the higher growth scenario, as the impact of high growth on the District's infrastructure would be greater than any additional funding resulting from it could resolve.

The absence of any forecast of population growth and the reasons for it is a severe weakness of the draft, and makes invalid the assertion (page 17, para4) that scenario three would 'meet forecasts ... and projections ... based on population and household growth'. Rather, it seems to base its argument for maximum development on 'supporting the economy', overlooking the circularity of the argument.

While development should be led by other policy objectives, not be an end in itself, we consider that the level of housing development should be lower than that proposed in scenario 2. It should meet local needs for more housing and, most importantly, needs for affordable housing and housing for the elderly. It should not enable population migration from other local authorities' areas which makes the condition of Warwick District worse for its existing inhabitants

Suggests that growth may not be the appropriate objective for Warwick town centre, conservation, or change, are more significant. Are very concerned that Background Paper 11 (page 104, first three paras) focuses only on retailing and leisure as town centre activities. It omits mention of residential use and office employment, which are the two largest economic activities in Warwick town centre. It prejudges work that has not yet been started on the Town Centre Plan (AAP) in considering services to play the 'anchor function'. It is essential for both sustainability and community cohesion that the centre of the county town has a broader economic base than this, and that daytime retail activity is strengthened, not the 'evening economy'. This objective must be considered further alongside the town centre plan work, and must not constrain the outcome of that.

The objectives should have been debated and agreed before any scenarios were developed and analysed failure to do this is a major weakness of the draft.

Draft objectives 1 and 2 promote balance between economic growth and housing growth, as though each justifies the other when it is actually a circular argument. The argument for housing is unsupported in terms of level, tenure, type of location therefore without evidence the objective has no meaning.

Strongly support objective 4 on the sustainable siting of development and objective 7 on their location and design improving (not just maintaining) the built and natural environments, especially historic areas and buildings. Draws attention to the importance of green space in separating and maintaining the identity of Warwick from Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Has concern over the meaning of objective 10 which as worded suggests primacy is given to the needs of the economy rather than conservation. The objectives to improve social, transport and and service infrastructure are noted however it is suggested that achieving this and correcting present deficiencies is likely to be more difficult in the higher growth scenario, as the impact of high growth on the District's infrastructure would be greater than any additional funding resulting from it could resolve.