BASE HEADER

I have recently received a lot of inflammatory literature in the mail regarding the New Local Plan.

For the most part this literature seems in the sort of reactionary "change is bad" idiocy that typically stands in the way of progress.

I would like to take time to say that I am firmly in favour of these developments with several provisos:

1) I feel it is absolutely essential that additional primary schools are built (e.g. the ones in "Map 3: Sites South of Warwick and Whitnash")

2) ...and that an additional secondary school is built (again, see "Map 3: Sites South of Warwick and Whitnash" )

3) I also feel that there must be adequate provision for cycle paths throughout these new areas (i.e. children should be able to cycle around Leamington / Warwick area without having to go on main roads, especially to get to their schools)

4) there should be some commitment to providing good public transport links

5) I feel very strongly that there should be adequate leisure space for people who wish to engage in non-mainstream sports such as mountain biking, skateboarding etc.

(minor rant warning!) As someone who has been skateboarding for over 25 years, who has lived in Leamington for 16 years, and has travelled to many other council funded facilities in other areas of the country; I can confirm that Leamington / Warwick / Kenilworth have a shockingly bad history with Skateboard facilities. The existing facilities around here are a joke - the ones at St Nicks in Warwick in particular are more or less unusable. All it would take to fix this is to engage with someone who knows what they're doing (me for example!) and we could have had facilities that are twice as good as those we have for half the amount of public money that has so far been spent...

6) some provision should be provided to generate as much of the extra energy these homes will require as possible in ecologically friendly ways - i.e. wind farms, solar, etc. as opposed to nuclear or fossil fuel.

7) I'm sure I'm not alone in having mixed feelings about the issue of providing sites for gypsies / travellers from public funds. In the balance, I have no problem with public money paying for places for them to use as long as the arrangements in general benefit mainstream society at least as much as they benefit the people who will be using them.

For example - by use of the amenities they understand that they should behave in a considerate manner, not leave a mess, and so forth. Ideally they should also contribute some nominal small ground rent for the suites they use so that some of the costs of administering and upkeep of the sites can be covered.