1. Warwick District has already asked for the views of the Warwick. Warwick did not approve the level of new building proposd in the old plan nor where it was proposed to build. Views have not changed.
2.If green field sites are included as well as brown field sites then there must be an assurance that brown field sites will be used first. There is an obvious reluctance to allow building on greenfield sites when other land is available.
3. Everyone acknowledges the need for affordable homes and welcomes the new blood it brings into the community. There is also a financial incentive to build such homes. Yet planners build 'unaffordable' homes in greater numbers to maximise profit. Is there a case, while there is a financial bonus on cheaper housing, to build a higher proportion of affordable homes than the current percentage?
4. Warwick district has suggested where homes might be built. Warwick seems to be subject to the highest level of development. It must not become the dumping ground for new houses. Might I suggest Kenilworth takes a bigger share.
5. Warwick has a unique character, so too do all the other surrounding towns and villages. With the scale of development in the third option each of these separate communities would begin to merge into an area of genteel urban sprawl. Green lungs round each community need to be preserved.
6. We were clearly told at the meeting that the government has an sgenda for growth. We were also told it would be unlikely that data could be produced that would support either option one or two. Where does that leave bottom up planning? It would seem that the only choice you have is to agree with the agenda for maximum growth. I was going to include the word 'sustainable' as well, but that does not seem to be appropriate judging by the level of growth Warwick District seems bent on pursuing.

We accept the need for growth but not at the expense of destroying or altering beyond recognition the town we all love. Listen to us and work with us.