Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

It would be an equitable and rational proposal to distribute the housing required to meet whatever target for the next 15 - 17 years is decided upon for the Warwick District, throughout the towns and villages. I therefore support planning for growth in our villages and support the proposal that the mix of houses should include sufficient affordable housing. This would enable the rebalancing and revitalising of village communities to avoid the progressive ageing of the population, withdrawal of services and all the other disadvantages this would bring.
Since there is such an issue over the provision of suitable sites in our main towns, there is a strong case for extending the policy beyond the ten Primary and Secondary Villages so that villages take a larger proportion of the whole. It is noted that many of the settlements are in the green belt and there is reluctance to breach the green belt policies. However, it should be recalled that forty years ago when it was created the intention was to avoid urban coalescence. It has been successful in doing that but at the same time it has also contributed to the arrested development of villages and other settlements to their detriment. The Minister has conceded that the greenbelt may be amended where there are exceptional reasons to allow development and it is clear that unless housing targets are reduced for the district or more development is allowed in villages there will be damaging pressures to develop in our towns with serious consequences to heritage and conservation not to mention the impacts caused by excessive traffic. Surely the exceptional reasons required for a change.
It is arguable therefore that the plan to deliver 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% of the total) through village development is under ambitious . Looking at table 2. Villages and Number of Dwellings - if we take the upper figure shown for the Primary and Secondary Villages we are looking at 1200 dwellings not 1000. If you looked for building opportunities in the next 10 villages surely a further 300 houses could be added to the total bringing it to 1500 dwellings raising the village contribution to 22.6% of the overall requirement. Housing in the smaller villages should help encourage and/or support the facilities and services these rural areas need.
Turning to the allocation of housing shown under 2.14 Under RDS4 of the revised Development Strategy, we see that:
Brownfield sites are to yield 380 dwellings ( 5.7% of overall requirement)
Sites on the edge of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash - 4550 dwellings( 68.6%)
Sites on the edge of Kenilworth - 700 dwellings ( 10.6% )
Village development - 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% )
At the latest count Warwick had a population of 30,114 and Kenilworth 22,413. It is inequitable that Kenilworth should get away with such a low figure in comparison. In our towns there are not the same criteria for expansion as in the villages. Different factors come to bear and the question is not about supporting services but more of finding areas suitable physically and environmentally suitable for development and an equitable plan would be for our towns to take new development in proportion to their size rather than overwhelming Warwick with the product of new developments whether it be traffic, school children or patients for our doctors' surgeries. The green belt is used as an expedient excuse for dumping of 4500 houses on the southern edges of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash. After 40 years the time is overdue for a review of the green belt. It has become anachronistic and it is clearer by the year that there is a need to re-balance our communities where the imposition of the green belt has inflicted an out of balance settlement pattern on us. Just look at Leamington, where successive developments forced to the south leave its southern suburbs artificially remote from the core services they need which are to be found in the town centre.
Sadly, the imposition of these out of date green belt policies is now seen by many of us living in Warwick and the south as being used as an excuse used by politicians from Kenilworth for pressing more development on areas far from their homes and wards in Warwick and other southern settlements.
All in it together? No way in this case.

It would be an equitable and rational proposal to distribute the housing required to meet whatever target for the next 15 - 17 years is decided upon for the Warwick District, throughout the towns and villages. I therefore support planning for growth in our villages and support the proposal that the mix of houses should include sufficient affordable housing. This would enable the rebalancing and revitalising of village communities to avoid the progressive ageing of the population, withdrawal of services and all the other disadvantages this would bring.
Since there is such an issue over the provision of suitable sites in our main towns, there is a strong case for extending the policy beyond the ten Primary and Secondary Villages so that villages take a larger proportion of the whole. It is noted that many of the settlements are in the green belt and there is reluctance to breach the green belt policies. However, it should be recalled that forty years ago when it was created the intention was to avoid urban coalescence. It has been successful in doing that but at the same time it has also contributed to the arrested development of villages and other settlements to their detriment. The Minister has conceded that the greenbelt may be amended where there are exceptional reasons to allow development and it is clear that unless housing targets are reduced for the district or more development is allowed in villages there will be damaging pressures to develop in our towns with serious consequences to heritage and conservation not to mention the impacts caused by excessive traffic. Surely the exceptional reasons required for a change.
It is arguable therefore that the plan to deliver 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% of the total) through village development is under ambitious . Looking at table 2. Villages and Number of Dwellings - if we take the upper figure shown for the Primary and Secondary Villages we are looking at 1200 dwellings not 1000. If you looked for building opportunities in the next 10 villages surely a further 300 houses could be added to the total bringing it to 1500 dwellings raising the village contribution to 22.6% of the overall requirement. Housing in the smaller villages should help encourage and/or support the facilities and services these rural areas need.
Turning to the allocation of housing shown under 2.14 Under RDS4 of the revised Development Strategy, we see that:
Brownfield sites are to yield 380 dwellings ( 5.7% of overall requirement)
Sites on the edge of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash - 4550 dwellings( 68.6%)
Sites on the edge of Kenilworth - 700 dwellings ( 10.6% )
Village development - 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% )
At the latest count Warwick had a population of 30,114 and Kenilworth 22,413. It is inequitable that Kenilworth should get away with such a low figure in comparison. In our towns there are not the same criteria for expansion as in the villages. Different factors come to bear and the question is not about supporting services but more of finding areas suitable physically and environmentally suitable for development and an equitable plan would be for our towns to take new development in proportion to their size rather than overwhelming Warwick with the product of new developments whether it be traffic, school children or patients for our doctors' surgeries. The green belt is used as an expedient excuse for dumping of 4500 houses on the southern edges of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash. After 40 years the time is overdue for a review of the green belt. It has become anachronistic and it is clearer by the year that there is a need to re-balance our communities where the imposition of the green belt has inflicted an out of balance settlement pattern on us. Just look at Leamington, where successive developments forced to the south leave its southern suburbs artificially remote from the core services they need which are to be found in the town centre.
Sadly, the imposition of these out of date green belt policies is now seen by many of us living in Warwick and the south as being used as an excuse used by politicians from Kenilworth for pressing more development on areas far from their homes and wards in Warwick and other southern settlements.
All in it together? No way in this case.

It would be an equitable and rational proposal to distribute the housing required to meet whatever target for the next 15 - 17 years is decided upon for the Warwick District, throughout the towns and villages. I therefore support planning for growth in our villages and support the proposal that the mix of houses should include sufficient affordable housing. This would enable the rebalancing and revitalising of village communities to avoid the progressive ageing of the population, withdrawal of services and all the other disadvantages this would bring.
Since there is such an issue over the provision of suitable sites in our main towns, there is a strong case for extending the policy beyond the ten Primary and Secondary Villages so that villages take a larger proportion of the whole. It is noted that many of the settlements are in the green belt and there is reluctance to breach the green belt policies. However, it should be recalled that forty years ago when it was created the intention was to avoid urban coalescence. It has been successful in doing that but at the same time it has also contributed to the arrested development of villages and other settlements to their detriment. The Minister has conceded that the greenbelt may be amended where there are exceptional reasons to allow development and it is clear that unless housing targets are reduced for the district or more development is allowed in villages there will be damaging pressures to develop in our towns with serious consequences to heritage and conservation not to mention the impacts caused by excessive traffic. Surely the exceptional reasons required for a change.
It is arguable therefore that the plan to deliver 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% of the total) through village development is under ambitious . Looking at table 2. Villages and Number of Dwellings - if we take the upper figure shown for the Primary and Secondary Villages we are looking at 1200 dwellings not 1000. If you looked for building opportunities in the next 10 villages surely a further 300 houses could be added to the total bringing it to 1500 dwellings raising the village contribution to 22.6% of the overall requirement. Housing in the smaller villages should help encourage and/or support the facilities and services these rural areas need.
Turning to the allocation of housing shown under 2.14 Under RDS4 of the revised Development Strategy, we see that:
Brownfield sites are to yield 380 dwellings ( 5.7% of overall requirement)
Sites on the edge of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash - 4550 dwellings( 68.6%)
Sites on the edge of Kenilworth - 700 dwellings ( 10.6% )
Village development - 1000 dwellings ( 15.1% )
At the latest count Warwick had a population of 30,114 and Kenilworth 22,413. It is inequitable that Kenilworth should get away with such a low figure in comparison. In our towns there are not the same criteria for expansion as in the villages. Different factors come to bear and the question is not about supporting services but more of finding areas suitable physically and environmentally suitable for development and an equitable plan would be for our towns to take new development in proportion to their size rather than overwhelming Warwick with the product of new developments whether it be traffic, school children or patients for our doctors' surgeries. The green belt is used as an expedient excuse for dumping of 4500 houses on the southern edges of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash. After 40 years the time is overdue for a review of the green belt. It has become anachronistic and it is clearer by the year that there is a need to re-balance our communities where the imposition of the green belt has inflicted an out of balance settlement pattern on us. Just look at Leamington, where successive developments forced to the south leave its southern suburbs artificially remote from the core services they need which are to be found in the town centre.
Sadly, the imposition of these out of date green belt policies is now seen by many of us living in Warwick and the south as being used as an excuse used by politicians from Kenilworth for pressing more development on areas far from their homes and wards in Warwick and other southern settlements.
All in it together? No way in this case.