Preferred Options

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.