Revised Development Strategy

We wish to respond to this consultation with considerable objections to the proposed development allocations south of Warwick and Leamington.
We also wish to make it clear that, as a result of the agreement between the Garden History Society and the Association of Gardens Trusts, this should be considered as a response from the Garden History Society.
The objections relate to:
* The impact of development adjacent to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park (area 6 in the WDC leaflet, but area 14 in the Arup traffic document)
* The impact of traffic generated by all of the south Warwick proposed development, and of the proposed mitigation measures in the Arup traffic document as they affect both Warwick Castle Park and the historic fabric of Warwick itself.
* General observations on the justification for the proposed allocations and the economic impact. These are within our remit inasmuch as the background calculations have led to the pretty pass in which the future of the setting of Warwick's heritage now finds itself. In that respect we consider we are entitled to comment.
1. IMPACT ON WARWICK CASTLE PARK
Warwick Castle Park was initially created in 1743 to form a landscaped setting for Warwick Castle. It was developed incrementally during the time of the first Earl (Francis Greville, d1773) as the gardens were progressively extended. The park, in its form up to 1773 was much influenced by Capability Brown, brought in to advise and supervise much work from 1849 onwards.
The second Earl (1773-1816) was responsible for the extension of the park to the east, creating the present boundary, and the further extension of the gardens, closing Castle Street and creating Castle Lane adjacent to the present line of the castle wall. It might be supposed that the present line of Banbury Road was simply devised to enclose the enlarged park and particularly a greater length of the Ram/Tach Brook so that its lake could be lengthened and widened by enlarging its dam.
In fact, examination of the boundary demonstrates that it was carefully aligned to be part of the design of the park. The road rises from the viaduct which crosses Ram/Tach Brook to the ridge of Temple Hill, from which it can be seen to be aligned directly on the spire of St Nicholas's church.
The "Approach" to Warwick Castle formed part of the plans of the second Earl from as early as 1773, when he discussed them with other proponents of the "Picturesque" style, so there can be no doubt that the alignment of the road which formed the perimeter of the park was as much a part of the design of the park as the rides and walks within it.
The Castle first comes into view, in a way which was clearly planned, on the approach to Castle Bridge. The bridge had been enabled by an Act of Parliament of 1788, when the line of the road from the Asps had been completed, and was encouraged by an engineer's report to the council, that the only way to avoid the continuing maintenance problems of the old bridge was to re-locate it upstream of the castle mill. Apart from £1000 paid by the town council, whose responsibility the bridge legally was, the expense of the work was undertaken by the second Earl. It is therefore quite clear that the alignment of Banbury Road from the Asps to Castle Hill was part of the designed landscape of the park, culminating, after the bridge was completed, in the creation to the new gatehouse on Castle Hill and the present entrance drive.
The development of the eastern side of Banbury Road as a "garden suburb" would therefore be extremely detrimental to the historic landscape of the Grade I registered park.
2. IMPACT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE SOUTH WARWICK PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
The Arup traffic impact and mitigation study essentially demonstrates why development in this location should not take place.
This is a document of which Arup, as its authors, should be ashamed, and the County and District Councils, as its commissioners should be ashamed to have accepted. People with two degrees find it virtually impenetrable, and it is disgraceful that such an obscurely written document (and ill-proof-read, with sentences without verbs, for instance) should be offered for consultation by the public.
However, it is apparent that Arup are offering mitigation proposals for the adverse traffic impact of the proposed development, without which the impact would be even worse.
These mitigation proposals are totally barbarous and unacceptable for the environment of a county town which has main roads passing over one of the most famous viewpoints in the country, and along historic streets crammed with listed buildings.
The fact that such measures are proposed in mitigation demonstrates that the development which makes them necessary should not and cannot proceed.
The setting of not only the castle and its park, but of the whole town, is defined by the presently open areas of the proposed development and the tree-line highways of the approach roads to Warwick. In recent years this has been defiled by widening and the creation of a turning lane at Ram Brook (apparently implementing an old permission to prevent its expiry) and the new junction at Gallows Hill (apparently not needing consultation because purely highway works).
The highway works proposed by the County Council to mitigate the proposed development would have an infinitely more devastating impact on the setting of the town. The widened junctions and increased lanes would make it much more difficult to experience the famous views on foot. The view from the bridge and the entrance at the 1800 gate house would lose their impact. The open space of St Nicholas Park, protected by covenants when initially transferred to the Council, would cease to have the semi-rural character with which it was planned.
The economy of Warwick town centre depends significantly on visitors. Many businesses would fail to prosper without the addition of tourists, while others would not exist at all. It takes little effort in examining websites and twitter feeds to see that in recent years Warwick has pulled itself up by its bootstraps and made itself into a vibrant community, with a heavy reliance on "cafe culture" promoted in the previous Local Plan. But it is dependent on the ambience of the town to continue to thrive. The leisurely but quality environment on which these trends depends would be totally undermined by the level of traffic forecast in the Arup report. The so-called mitigation measures which it outlines are entirely directed at improving traffic flow, with no consideration of the impact on quality of life and the environment of the town. The beneficial results of the recent work on High Street and Jury Street in making the roads ore inviting to cross, would be lost.
It seems most probable that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the delicately balanced economy of the town, leading to reduced maintenance of historic buildings as more of them became difficult to let.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
We find that the closely argued calculations of the real need for housing development in Warwick District as presented by objectors to these proposals are compelling. The District Council's calculations appear to be based on what would sell if built, rather than what is actually needed. This might appeal to the vanity of some councillors and officers, in increasing the population base of the council, but would adversely affect the attractiveness of the district and would be particularly detrimental to existing residents.
Although this might increase the Council Tax base of the District, it would undermine the viability of the town centre and old suburbs, potentially leading to neglect and loss of attraction to the town.
The proposed development is not sustainable. Firstly, there is little likelihood of people choosing to live in the new houses working locally. There is only a very small allocation of employment land, while allocations from the last and the previous local plans are still not being taken up and are being canvassed for a change in allocation from employment to housing. Other current employment land is being proposed for housing development (Such as the Eagle site) This means that the ratio of housing to employment is constantly being eroded, leading to the prospect of Warwick and Leamington becoming dormitory towns. Even if the (disputed) prospective jobs at Coventry Gateway are factored in, residents of south Warwick would have to drive around 10 miles to work there. There is a limited number of crossings of the Avon and the Leam which are already highly congested at morning and evening peaks. The existing infrastructure cannot cope without more traffic needing to make these river crossings. The situation would only be mitigated by the brutal Arup proposals, so that the ambience of the town, with higher pollution, noise and vibration would be set on a downward spiral.
We consider that the proposals for development allocations south of Warwick will be unacceptably detrimental to Castle Park and to the setting of the historic town and should be abandoned.

We wish to respond to this consultation with considerable objections to the proposed development allocations south of Warwick and Leamington.
We also wish to make it clear that, as a result of the agreement between the Garden History Society and the Association of Gardens Trusts, this should be considered as a response from the Garden History Society.
The objections relate to:
* The impact of development adjacent to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park (area 6 in the WDC leaflet, but area 14 in the Arup traffic document)
* The impact of traffic generated by all of the south Warwick proposed development, and of the proposed mitigation measures in the Arup traffic document as they affect both Warwick Castle Park and the historic fabric of Warwick itself.
* General observations on the justification for the proposed allocations and the economic impact. These are within our remit inasmuch as the background calculations have led to the pretty pass in which the future of the setting of Warwick's heritage now finds itself. In that respect we consider we are entitled to comment.
1. IMPACT ON WARWICK CASTLE PARK
Warwick Castle Park was initially created in 1743 to form a landscaped setting for Warwick Castle. It was developed incrementally during the time of the first Earl (Francis Greville, d1773) as the gardens were progressively extended. The park, in its form up to 1773 was much influenced by Capability Brown, brought in to advise and supervise much work from 1849 onwards.
The second Earl (1773-1816) was responsible for the extension of the park to the east, creating the present boundary, and the further extension of the gardens, closing Castle Street and creating Castle Lane adjacent to the present line of the castle wall. It might be supposed that the present line of Banbury Road was simply devised to enclose the enlarged park and particularly a greater length of the Ram/Tach Brook so that its lake could be lengthened and widened by enlarging its dam.
In fact, examination of the boundary demonstrates that it was carefully aligned to be part of the design of the park. The road rises from the viaduct which crosses Ram/Tach Brook to the ridge of Temple Hill, from which it can be seen to be aligned directly on the spire of St Nicholas's church.
The "Approach" to Warwick Castle formed part of the plans of the second Earl from as early as 1773, when he discussed them with other proponents of the "Picturesque" style, so there can be no doubt that the alignment of the road which formed the perimeter of the park was as much a part of the design of the park as the rides and walks within it.
The Castle first comes into view, in a way which was clearly planned, on the approach to Castle Bridge. The bridge had been enabled by an Act of Parliament of 1788, when the line of the road from the Asps had been completed, and was encouraged by an engineer's report to the council, that the only way to avoid the continuing maintenance problems of the old bridge was to re-locate it upstream of the castle mill. Apart from £1000 paid by the town council, whose responsibility the bridge legally was, the expense of the work was undertaken by the second Earl. It is therefore quite clear that the alignment of Banbury Road from the Asps to Castle Hill was part of the designed landscape of the park, culminating, after the bridge was completed, in the creation to the new gatehouse on Castle Hill and the present entrance drive.
The development of the eastern side of Banbury Road as a "garden suburb" would therefore be extremely detrimental to the historic landscape of the Grade I registered park.
2. IMPACT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE SOUTH WARWICK PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
The Arup traffic impact and mitigation study essentially demonstrates why development in this location should not take place.
This is a document of which Arup, as its authors, should be ashamed, and the County and District Councils, as its commissioners should be ashamed to have accepted. People with two degrees find it virtually impenetrable, and it is disgraceful that such an obscurely written document (and ill-proof-read, with sentences without verbs, for instance) should be offered for consultation by the public.
However, it is apparent that Arup are offering mitigation proposals for the adverse traffic impact of the proposed development, without which the impact would be even worse.
These mitigation proposals are totally barbarous and unacceptable for the environment of a county town which has main roads passing over one of the most famous viewpoints in the country, and along historic streets crammed with listed buildings.
The fact that such measures are proposed in mitigation demonstrates that the development which makes them necessary should not and cannot proceed.
The setting of not only the castle and its park, but of the whole town, is defined by the presently open areas of the proposed development and the tree-line highways of the approach roads to Warwick. In recent years this has been defiled by widening and the creation of a turning lane at Ram Brook (apparently implementing an old permission to prevent its expiry) and the new junction at Gallows Hill (apparently not needing consultation because purely highway works).
The highway works proposed by the County Council to mitigate the proposed development would have an infinitely more devastating impact on the setting of the town. The widened junctions and increased lanes would make it much more difficult to experience the famous views on foot. The view from the bridge and the entrance at the 1800 gate house would lose their impact. The open space of St Nicholas Park, protected by covenants when initially transferred to the Council, would cease to have the semi-rural character with which it was planned.
The economy of Warwick town centre depends significantly on visitors. Many businesses would fail to prosper without the addition of tourists, while others would not exist at all. It takes little effort in examining websites and twitter feeds to see that in recent years Warwick has pulled itself up by its bootstraps and made itself into a vibrant community, with a heavy reliance on "cafe culture" promoted in the previous Local Plan. But it is dependent on the ambience of the town to continue to thrive. The leisurely but quality environment on which these trends depends would be totally undermined by the level of traffic forecast in the Arup report. The so-called mitigation measures which it outlines are entirely directed at improving traffic flow, with no consideration of the impact on quality of life and the environment of the town. The beneficial results of the recent work on High Street and Jury Street in making the roads ore inviting to cross, would be lost.
It seems most probable that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the delicately balanced economy of the town, leading to reduced maintenance of historic buildings as more of them became difficult to let.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
We find that the closely argued calculations of the real need for housing development in Warwick District as presented by objectors to these proposals are compelling. The District Council's calculations appear to be based on what would sell if built, rather than what is actually needed. This might appeal to the vanity of some councillors and officers, in increasing the population base of the council, but would adversely affect the attractiveness of the district and would be particularly detrimental to existing residents.
Although this might increase the Council Tax base of the District, it would undermine the viability of the town centre and old suburbs, potentially leading to neglect and loss of attraction to the town.
The proposed development is not sustainable. Firstly, there is little likelihood of people choosing to live in the new houses working locally. There is only a very small allocation of employment land, while allocations from the last and the previous local plans are still not being taken up and are being canvassed for a change in allocation from employment to housing. Other current employment land is being proposed for housing development (Such as the Eagle site) This means that the ratio of housing to employment is constantly being eroded, leading to the prospect of Warwick and Leamington becoming dormitory towns. Even if the (disputed) prospective jobs at Coventry Gateway are factored in, residents of south Warwick would have to drive around 10 miles to work there. There is a limited number of crossings of the Avon and the Leam which are already highly congested at morning and evening peaks. The existing infrastructure cannot cope without more traffic needing to make these river crossings. The situation would only be mitigated by the brutal Arup proposals, so that the ambience of the town, with higher pollution, noise and vibration would be set on a downward spiral.
We consider that the proposals for development allocations south of Warwick will be unacceptably detrimental to Castle Park and to the setting of the historic town and should be abandoned.

We wish to respond to this consultation with considerable objections to the proposed development allocations south of Warwick and Leamington.
We also wish to make it clear that, as a result of the agreement between the Garden History Society and the Association of Gardens Trusts, this should be considered as a response from the Garden History Society.
The objections relate to:
* The impact of development adjacent to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park (area 6 in the WDC leaflet, but area 14 in the Arup traffic document)
* The impact of traffic generated by all of the south Warwick proposed development, and of the proposed mitigation measures in the Arup traffic document as they affect both Warwick Castle Park and the historic fabric of Warwick itself.
* General observations on the justification for the proposed allocations and the economic impact. These are within our remit inasmuch as the background calculations have led to the pretty pass in which the future of the setting of Warwick's heritage now finds itself. In that respect we consider we are entitled to comment.
1. IMPACT ON WARWICK CASTLE PARK
Warwick Castle Park was initially created in 1743 to form a landscaped setting for Warwick Castle. It was developed incrementally during the time of the first Earl (Francis Greville, d1773) as the gardens were progressively extended. The park, in its form up to 1773 was much influenced by Capability Brown, brought in to advise and supervise much work from 1849 onwards.
The second Earl (1773-1816) was responsible for the extension of the park to the east, creating the present boundary, and the further extension of the gardens, closing Castle Street and creating Castle Lane adjacent to the present line of the castle wall. It might be supposed that the present line of Banbury Road was simply devised to enclose the enlarged park and particularly a greater length of the Ram/Tach Brook so that its lake could be lengthened and widened by enlarging its dam.
In fact, examination of the boundary demonstrates that it was carefully aligned to be part of the design of the park. The road rises from the viaduct which crosses Ram/Tach Brook to the ridge of Temple Hill, from which it can be seen to be aligned directly on the spire of St Nicholas's church.
The "Approach" to Warwick Castle formed part of the plans of the second Earl from as early as 1773, when he discussed them with other proponents of the "Picturesque" style, so there can be no doubt that the alignment of the road which formed the perimeter of the park was as much a part of the design of the park as the rides and walks within it.
The Castle first comes into view, in a way which was clearly planned, on the approach to Castle Bridge. The bridge had been enabled by an Act of Parliament of 1788, when the line of the road from the Asps had been completed, and was encouraged by an engineer's report to the council, that the only way to avoid the continuing maintenance problems of the old bridge was to re-locate it upstream of the castle mill. Apart from £1000 paid by the town council, whose responsibility the bridge legally was, the expense of the work was undertaken by the second Earl. It is therefore quite clear that the alignment of Banbury Road from the Asps to Castle Hill was part of the designed landscape of the park, culminating, after the bridge was completed, in the creation to the new gatehouse on Castle Hill and the present entrance drive.
The development of the eastern side of Banbury Road as a "garden suburb" would therefore be extremely detrimental to the historic landscape of the Grade I registered park.
2. IMPACT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE SOUTH WARWICK PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
The Arup traffic impact and mitigation study essentially demonstrates why development in this location should not take place.
This is a document of which Arup, as its authors, should be ashamed, and the County and District Councils, as its commissioners should be ashamed to have accepted. People with two degrees find it virtually impenetrable, and it is disgraceful that such an obscurely written document (and ill-proof-read, with sentences without verbs, for instance) should be offered for consultation by the public.
However, it is apparent that Arup are offering mitigation proposals for the adverse traffic impact of the proposed development, without which the impact would be even worse.
These mitigation proposals are totally barbarous and unacceptable for the environment of a county town which has main roads passing over one of the most famous viewpoints in the country, and along historic streets crammed with listed buildings.
The fact that such measures are proposed in mitigation demonstrates that the development which makes them necessary should not and cannot proceed.
The setting of not only the castle and its park, but of the whole town, is defined by the presently open areas of the proposed development and the tree-line highways of the approach roads to Warwick. In recent years this has been defiled by widening and the creation of a turning lane at Ram Brook (apparently implementing an old permission to prevent its expiry) and the new junction at Gallows Hill (apparently not needing consultation because purely highway works).
The highway works proposed by the County Council to mitigate the proposed development would have an infinitely more devastating impact on the setting of the town. The widened junctions and increased lanes would make it much more difficult to experience the famous views on foot. The view from the bridge and the entrance at the 1800 gate house would lose their impact. The open space of St Nicholas Park, protected by covenants when initially transferred to the Council, would cease to have the semi-rural character with which it was planned.
The economy of Warwick town centre depends significantly on visitors. Many businesses would fail to prosper without the addition of tourists, while others would not exist at all. It takes little effort in examining websites and twitter feeds to see that in recent years Warwick has pulled itself up by its bootstraps and made itself into a vibrant community, with a heavy reliance on "cafe culture" promoted in the previous Local Plan. But it is dependent on the ambience of the town to continue to thrive. The leisurely but quality environment on which these trends depends would be totally undermined by the level of traffic forecast in the Arup report. The so-called mitigation measures which it outlines are entirely directed at improving traffic flow, with no consideration of the impact on quality of life and the environment of the town. The beneficial results of the recent work on High Street and Jury Street in making the roads ore inviting to cross, would be lost.
It seems most probable that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the delicately balanced economy of the town, leading to reduced maintenance of historic buildings as more of them became difficult to let.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
We find that the closely argued calculations of the real need for housing development in Warwick District as presented by objectors to these proposals are compelling. The District Council's calculations appear to be based on what would sell if built, rather than what is actually needed. This might appeal to the vanity of some councillors and officers, in increasing the population base of the council, but would adversely affect the attractiveness of the district and would be particularly detrimental to existing residents.
Although this might increase the Council Tax base of the District, it would undermine the viability of the town centre and old suburbs, potentially leading to neglect and loss of attraction to the town.
The proposed development is not sustainable. Firstly, there is little likelihood of people choosing to live in the new houses working locally. There is only a very small allocation of employment land, while allocations from the last and the previous local plans are still not being taken up and are being canvassed for a change in allocation from employment to housing. Other current employment land is being proposed for housing development (Such as the Eagle site) This means that the ratio of housing to employment is constantly being eroded, leading to the prospect of Warwick and Leamington becoming dormitory towns. Even if the (disputed) prospective jobs at Coventry Gateway are factored in, residents of south Warwick would have to drive around 10 miles to work there. There is a limited number of crossings of the Avon and the Leam which are already highly congested at morning and evening peaks. The existing infrastructure cannot cope without more traffic needing to make these river crossings. The situation would only be mitigated by the brutal Arup proposals, so that the ambience of the town, with higher pollution, noise and vibration would be set on a downward spiral.
We consider that the proposals for development allocations south of Warwick will be unacceptably detrimental to Castle Park and to the setting of the historic town and should be abandoned.