Preferred Options

The group has 200 members and is locally active in promoting awareness about peak oil and climate change, and finding solutions.
We recognise that the Council is obliged to build more houses, however, we are concerned about the proposed encroachment upon Green Belt land when there is urban Brownfield land available which is vacant and / or derelict. These should be used as a priority and in preference to the Green Belt and Green Field options. WDC has not made a compelling case for the necessity for building on the Green Belt, which should be kept sacrosanct. Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that in reviewing Green Belt boundaries, authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. Sustainable development can be achieved by channelling development towards urban areas, avoiding the Green areas.
In 7.19 of the Consultation Document, the sustainability appraisal of the options showed that development which is not in the Green Belt or Green Field has clear advantages, such as the provision of sustainable transport options and reducing the need to travel. The carbon impact of increased vehicle travel from suburban developments will have a huge impact on local air and noise pollution levels and traffic congestion. Therefore the proposed developments fail the review criteria of paragraph 84 of the Framework. We would expect any new developments to accommodate cycle tracks with comprehensive connections to the town centres, and increased bike parking facilities. Development of vacant and derelict non-Green land in the South of Leamington and Warwick, and pockets within the town centres meets the review criteria both in offering more sustainable transport, services and utility options.
At Paragraph 80 of the Framework, five purposes of the Green Belt are indicated;
to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
to assist in safeguarding the country side from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic town's; and
to assist in urban regeneration.
These considerations also apply to Green Field sites. Green areas around the towns conserve the open space between built up areas. Encroachment upon this land will negate this purpose, by reducing the buffer between them, leading the way to even further infringement. The reduction in the existing wildlife corridors will further lessen the opportunity of migration of species as the effects of climate change continue to effect flora and fauna. We need to protect and safeguard these areas in order to be provided for by them. At PO 10, Built Environment, the Council gives an objective 'to protect, enhance and link the natural environment', which these developments will seriously compromise. Bio-diversity studies need to be carried out to establish environmental impact on our flora and fauna, and to ensure that protected species are not endangered.

Transition Town Leamington is concerned about the environmental impacts of building works. Water supplies and ecological considerations need to be accommodated. In the Netherlands, all new developments need to ensure that water run off does not burden the drainage existing system, and that ground water is maintained. Planting trees is an important factor in retaining water in urban landscapes, thus helping to prevent flooding. Sewage can be dealt with in wet systems and reed beds, which increases biodiversity and reduces pollution. We note that some areas proposed for development, particularly south of Leamington and between Warwick and Leamington, are on flood plains, which is not wise.
The Garden suburb proposals do not address the rise in the price of oil as they encourage car dependency. Town planning needs to take into consideration climate change and the current energy crisis. Decreasing supplies of gas will also have a tremendous impact as prices rise, and alternatives for domestic use become more viable. If housing is built at a greater density, it will not encroach so much upon land, which can be used for growing food. The sites need to accommodate enclosed allotments, to prevent the possibility of future development.
The proposed increase of our local population will need food and services, and put more pressure on existing supply chains. Promotion and production of local energy and food sources needs to become a priority in the town planning department, which is not shown in the existing local plan. District heating systems and smallholdings would alleviate these issues.
Higher density will also allow for larger green wedges, which need to be instated to encourage communal areas for recreation and wildlife corridors.
We hope that these concerns will be considered useful in the re appraisal of the local plan.

The group has 200 members and is locally active in promoting awareness about peak oil and climate change, and finding solutions.
We recognise that the Council is obliged to build more houses, however, we are concerned about the proposed encroachment upon Green Belt land when there is urban Brownfield land available which is vacant and / or derelict. These should be used as a priority and in preference to the Green Belt and Green Field options. WDC has not made a compelling case for the necessity for building on the Green Belt, which should be kept sacrosanct. Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that in reviewing Green Belt boundaries, authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. Sustainable development can be achieved by channelling development towards urban areas, avoiding the Green areas.
In 7.19 of the Consultation Document, the sustainability appraisal of the options showed that development which is not in the Green Belt or Green Field has clear advantages, such as the provision of sustainable transport options and reducing the need to travel. The carbon impact of increased vehicle travel from suburban developments will have a huge impact on local air and noise pollution levels and traffic congestion. Therefore the proposed developments fail the review criteria of paragraph 84 of the Framework. We would expect any new developments to accommodate cycle tracks with comprehensive connections to the town centres, and increased bike parking facilities. Development of vacant and derelict non-Green land in the South of Leamington and Warwick, and pockets within the town centres meets the review criteria both in offering more sustainable transport, services and utility options.
At Paragraph 80 of the Framework, five purposes of the Green Belt are indicated;
to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
to assist in safeguarding the country side from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic town's; and
to assist in urban regeneration.
These considerations also apply to Green Field sites. Green areas around the towns conserve the open space between built up areas. Encroachment upon this land will negate this purpose, by reducing the buffer between them, leading the way to even further infringement. The reduction in the existing wildlife corridors will further lessen the opportunity of migration of species as the effects of climate change continue to effect flora and fauna. We need to protect and safeguard these areas in order to be provided for by them. At PO 10, Built Environment, the Council gives an objective 'to protect, enhance and link the natural environment', which these developments will seriously compromise. Bio-diversity studies need to be carried out to establish environmental impact on our flora and fauna, and to ensure that protected species are not endangered.

Transition Town Leamington is concerned about the environmental impacts of building works. Water supplies and ecological considerations need to be accommodated. In the Netherlands, all new developments need to ensure that water run off does not burden the drainage existing system, and that ground water is maintained. Planting trees is an important factor in retaining water in urban landscapes, thus helping to prevent flooding. Sewage can be dealt with in wet systems and reed beds, which increases biodiversity and reduces pollution. We note that some areas proposed for development, particularly south of Leamington and between Warwick and Leamington, are on flood plains, which is not wise.
The Garden suburb proposals do not address the rise in the price of oil as they encourage car dependency. Town planning needs to take into consideration climate change and the current energy crisis. Decreasing supplies of gas will also have a tremendous impact as prices rise, and alternatives for domestic use become more viable. If housing is built at a greater density, it will not encroach so much upon land, which can be used for growing food. The sites need to accommodate enclosed allotments, to prevent the possibility of future development.
The proposed increase of our local population will need food and services, and put more pressure on existing supply chains. Promotion and production of local energy and food sources needs to become a priority in the town planning department, which is not shown in the existing local plan. District heating systems and smallholdings would alleviate these issues.
Higher density will also allow for larger green wedges, which need to be instated to encourage communal areas for recreation and wildlife corridors.
We hope that these concerns will be considered useful in the re appraisal of the local plan.