I still do not believe that you have even attempted to make a valid case for the scale of the development you propose, a scale which appears to be based on figures plucked out of the air rather than on reasoned calculations on what the area needs and can comfortably sustain. Furthermore, no account seems to have been taken of properties in the district that are standing empty or derelict, even though the refurbishment of such countrywide, has been urged by the Audit Office. Also, and most puzzlingly, you are persisting in ignoring the results of your own 'Options for Growth' consultation exercise of May 2008.
It is very bad that nearly all of these alternatives are greenfield sites; I strongly believe that brownfield sites, of which there are over 23 hectares within towns and villages, should not only figure, more in the proposals but should take precedence. Besides the contributions that greenfield sites can, as Hilary Benn has pointed out, make to the Nations future food security, they are also of immense amenity value, and surely these very important considerations mean that every possible effort should be made to conserve them. I also believe that a few large developments will overburden the physical infrastructure in those places where they are made, but more, smaller areas spread around the district would not have that effect.
These considerations lead me to support the development proposed on previously developed land at Thickthorn Kenilworth. However, I cannot support the large developments proposed South of Sydenham; at Glebe Farm, Cubbington; at Loes Farm, North Warwick; at Hurst Farm, Burton Green; or at Baginton Airport, though smaller developments at these sites would be acceptable. The Sydenham and Cubbington developments threaten the village statuses of Radford Semele and Cubbington respectively, and would lead to those villages being absorbed into the Warwick/ Leamington conurbation. If the one at Burton Green includes Halls of Residence for the University then housing in the local towns would be freed for families. If, Heaven forbid, the large development at Sydenham goes ahead, and the school is rebuilt, guarantees should be obtained from the developer that the school buildings should be of the highest quality in design, materials and construction, to meet the needs of education in the 21st Century, and steps should be taken to ensure that the developer honours this commitment.
These smaller developments are more in line with Option 5 from your 'Options for Growth' public consultation exercise, and are described in more detail in Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council's 'Alternative Option'. I believe it is essential that you read that document to inform your deliberations before you consider your final 'Core Strategy'. You should also acknowledge that by virtue of the fact Option 5 had by car the most public support it should be given due respect and weight, rather being dismissed out of hand.