Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 52539

Received: 27/06/2013

Respondent: Mr Roger McEvoy

Representation Summary:

The identified need for 6,630 dwellings in the plan period is spurious, and is based on the premise that the more homes that are provided the more people want to move to Warwick. Similar to road building, ie demand rises to meet capacity-then original problem back again;

Full text:

I OBJECT to the proposed Local Plan on the following basis:
1) To propose that approximately half the total news homes in the plan should be built off
Europa Way and Gallows Hill is simply incomprehensible. No realistic plan would
concentrate so much green field development in a single area of Warwick.
2) The identified need for 6,630 dwellings in the plan period is highly spurious - based on the
premise that the more homes provided, the more people want to move to Warwick. How
does that stack up with road building ‐ the more road space provided, the more traffic is
generated and the original problem is back again.
3) Suggesting that homes cannot be built on the greenbelt is not satisfactory. Not even a child
studying basic geography would draw urbanisation in one area of a city. If the greenbelt is a
no go area (which I don't believe it is) then the number of dwellings in the plan should be
reduced. The greenbelt is an arbitrary line and the A46 goes right through it. The A46 would
provide plenty of existing infrastructure to accommodate new development adjacent to
existing interchanges.
4) WDC squandered the Ford foundry site, a real brown field that could have accommodated
250 dwellings when Morrisons was approved. This site really did meet the requirement for
sustainable development with a rail station 250m away and walking distance to Leamington
town centre. Furthermore, WDC has allowed increased density of the existing south west
Warwick development after outline permissions were granted - what is to stop developers
and WDC agreeing the same for locations proposed off Gallows Hill and Europa Way? The
track record of WDC is poor.
5) I have reviewed the transport assessment accompanying the plan and it appears to simply
involve modifications to existing roads, trying to get more cars per hour over existing
tarmac. No town in mainland Europe the size of Warwick would allow future development
to put such additional pressure on a mediaeval town road network. The town does not even
have a by‐pass since the M40 was built. Adding signals and widening approaches to every
junction and roundabout on the A425, B4100 and A425 is like building an elevated
motorway in the 1970's. It is wishful thinking to assume the new developments will not be
car dependant and traffic will not make Warwick town centre worse.
The development allocation for the south of Warwick town should be reduced by 2/3rds. Why
doesn't the plan include something useful like another fuel filling station in the area? The fuel
station at Sainsbury's is the 2nd busiest in the country (2nd only to a site with more pumps). This is
the most prevalent fact summarising the impact of development over the last 25 years in south
Warwick - the town simply can't take any more development due to physical constraints.