I would like to register my objection to the current plans to build on green belt land. in my opinion Warwick District Council has failed to demonstrate that there are any exceptional circumstances that would allow you to build on green belt land. As you are well aware, the National Planning Policy Framework states as follows:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

83. Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or
review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long
term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I would suggest that you look again at the plans for the Green Belt which should be held sacrosanct. Once the principle of development on the Green Belt has been breached, there is absolutely no protection against the future arguments by developers who would want to snatch "just a bit more". They will use our faliure to protect the Green Belt in 2012 as justification for doing so. Whilst not wishing to argue that I therefore support building on the green fields south of Leamington, I put the Green Belt principle first.

I suggest that the council redoubles its efforts to find brownfield sites to build housing on. I am horrified that instead of housing, the old Ford site is to become yet another supermarket. This space could have provided many social rented homes. It is not hard to identify other brownfield sites which should be considered first.

I particularly object to the building on the green belt north of Leamington on the basis that the infrastruture for roads and access from motorways is all in the South. If you allow developments in the Green Belt north of Leamington, it will lead to a totally unnecessary northern relief road, eating further into the green belt land.

The consultation at 7.19, states that the sustainability appraisal of the options showed that focusing development outside the Green Belt had clear advantages associated with the provision of sustainable transport options and reducing the need to travel. Thus the proposed allocation of Green Belt land fails on the review criteria of paragraph 84 of the Framework. Equally it is clear that development of non-Green Belt land to the South of Leamington does meet the review criteria both in offering more sustainable transport options and in using locations outside the Green Belt.

Furthermore, it is not at all clear that the need for housing developments is as high as you make out. I would point out that the most recent housing development on Pottertons fields has not all been sold. This indicates that there may be a problem with the projections of future demand and in particular whether developers will be allowed to take a "if we build it, they will come" approach which is not an approach that is practical with housing. Once built on, the countryside is ruined forever.

I would also point out that there has been an ecological survey by The Habitat Biodiversity Audit Partnership on behalf of the District Council which demonstrates the rich wildlife and ecology of the area. In particular, building on the Green Belt will affect the ability of wildlife to use "wildlife corridors" and the habitat will lose its richness and fail to thrive.