Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 47798

Received: 25/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs MDJ & PL Hurn

Representation Summary:

Past performance is no guide to the future. The projections for growth between 2011 and 2029 are overly optimistic and even if achieved there is no need to develop the green belt to the extent proposed.

Full text:

We have examined the above proposals with great interest and we write as residents of the Milverton area of Leamington Spa for over forty years. We, therefore, have some knowledge of local needs and conditions. We are restricting our comments to the proposals for North Leamington although we expect that there will be common ground with a number of the other sites.

We believe that the options as published are flawed on a number of fundamental grounds.

1. PO1. Past performance is no guide to the future. The projections for growth between 2011 and 2029 are overly optimistic and even if achieved there is no need to develop the green belt to the extent proposed.

2. The proposal to develop green belt land to the North of Milverton and at Blackdown is completely contrary to PO4 D. Furthermore, the paper does not provide the evidence required under NPPF to permit development in the green belt. Where are the 'exceptional circumstances'? The study appears to be highly subjective and indeed selective.

3. Insufficient use has been made of available, non-green belt land to the South of the town. This is also the area where the bulk of the potential employment for the new residents is already located.

4. The need for infrastructure development to service the Milverton/Blackdown proposal will be out of all proportion to any possible benefit. £28 million for a Northern Leamington Relief Road would divert scarce resources from other much needed public investment, let alone ruining the amenity value of space around Old Milverton.

5. There appears to be real risk, if these proposals proceed, of North Leamington and Kenilworth coalescing at some point in the future with the consequent loss of identity and in direct contravention of one of the basic tenets of local planning.

In summary, we object in the strongest possible terms to these seriously flawed plans. One of the goals of the NPPF is to protect communities and green belt land from unpopular local plans. The present proposals seem to flout that goal at almost every turn.

A great deal of time, money and energy has already been expended by the Council but that is no reason to proceed along the lines proposed and ruin the future amenity of many local residents.