Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 54961

Received: 14/07/2013

Respondent: Mrs Anne Steele

Representation Summary:

This should be a plan to provide affordable housing for local people as and when it is required, it is not.

It should provide work for local builders and not see the import of a developer's workforce.

This is merely a plan that fits nicely into the requirements and planning of big Developers and Landowners who are willing to sell.

The result will be an influx of people from Birmingham and Coventry who will then commute to their employment area on roads not equipped to take the extra traffic. This problem of housing need is exacerbated by the high level of multiple occupancy dwellings within the area serving the local temporary student population. If these properties were available then the need for housing would not be so urgent.

The revised Local Plan Proposals of June 2013 that set a target of 12,300 new households in the district by 2029 is too high. The target should be contained within 5,400 houses which are the best projection arising from actual births, deaths and migration in the last 10 years and trends emerging from the changing economic circumstances since 2008. Until this is agreed new applications for houses should be deferred.

Full text:

This should be a plan to provide affordable housing for local people as and when it is required, it is not. It should provide work for local builders and not see the import of a developer's workforce. This is merely a plan that fits nicely into the requirements and planning of big Developers and Landowners who are willing to sell. The result will be an influx of people from Birmingham and Coventry who will then commute to their employment area on roads not equipped to take the extra traffic. This problem of housing need is exacerbated by the high level of multiple occupancy dwellings within the area serving the local temporary student population. If these properties were available then the need for housing would not be so urgent.

Any local plan should be fair to all residents this is not. It places something like 70% of the proposed development in one area instead of spreading it fairly throughout the district. Areas north of the river are being protected whilst those south are not. The argument used by WDC against using greenbelt land is inconsistent as they are quite happy to approve the use of a large area of greenbelt land to facilitate the Coventry Gateway another project at the moment under scrutiny.

The infrastructure of the whole area south of the river has been under tremendous pressure for a number of years. The proposed road alterations and introduction of traffic lights and traffic calming will not lessen the impact of the increase in traffic from all the developments in the plan. At least 12,000 houses, if not more, with at least 2 cars per establishment it must be obvious the chaos that will ensue.

The resultant increase in pollution from this influx of vehicles will be detrimental to the population, with the resultant pressure on our already fully overtaxed medical facilities. Warwick Hospital is already working to full capacity how can the facilities there be expanded?

The revised Local Plan Proposals of June 2013 that set a target of 12,300 new households in the district by 2029 is too high. The target should be contained within 5,400 houses which are the best projection arising from actual births, deaths and migration in the last 10 years and trends emerging from the changing economic circumstances since 2008. Until this is agreed new applications for houses should be deferred.

As it stands the 2013 Local Plan is a plan to encourage urban sprawl. There will be one massive housing estate stretching along the edge of Whitnash, Heathcote and Warwick, with the subsequent loss of local countryside, agricultural land, and significant open space. Future generations will inherit a massively overdeveloped area and communities blighted by the effects. I think Warwick DC have opted for the easy option - let's dump it all south of the river in one massive sprawl rather than accept there will be more detailed effort to find favourable less intrusive sites. Large Developers are only interested in managing large construction sites to maximize their profits our Planners should not have this as their first priority rather than what is best for the community as a whole.







Anne Steele OBJECTION TO THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY LOCAL PLAN page 2 of 2


The sprawl is already happening, take a walk down Gallows Hill and count the number of cars parked on the grass verges opposite The Warwick Technology Park. Already this area cannot cope with the vehicles required by employees. Hasn't anyone done the maths more than 12,000 dwellings with say on average 3 people per household that's more than 36,000 people?

Schools in this area do not have the spare capacity to absorb pupils although I am aware there are proposals to build schools but I am sure that the houses will come before the schools so where will those children go whilst waiting for the new build? There is no guarantee that the proposed schools will be built. Adding temporary accommodation to existing schools is not acceptable. There will be a significant effect on catchment areas with parents unable to obtain places for siblings of children already at the same school. This is already happening as a result of the recent Warwick Gates development.

There will be an effect on water supplies and drainage. This has been experienced with the Warwick Gates development and such a large area will no doubt have a more dramatic effect. An area can cope with small pockets of construction but not on the scale proposed in the 2013 Local Plan. I have no technical knowledge to quote on this point but can only comment from experience. I understand that Warwick Gates was built on an area with a history of flooding.

The environmental impact on the area seems to have been treated lightly. The whole area has a significant wildlife population Muntjac deer, Hedgehogs, birds not to mention the flora. Also there is the aspect of possible flooding with such a large amount of green land being covered with tarmac and concrete.

Any house building in Warwick District should be fairly spread throughout the district and not confined to one large swath of land as is proposed and be within a more realistic requirement prediction which I believe is available.

I urge Warwick DC to be open minded, listen to the views of residents who will have to live with the effects of any future plans and realize that this plan is unacceptable, withdraw it, and refuse all the various planning applications relating to it, namely:
W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0606 - 720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane
W/13/0603 - 370 homes on land west of Europa Way/South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)
W/13/0464 - large Retirement Community development on Gallagher Land near Heathcote
W/13/0858 - up to 100 homes at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash

Warwick DC should adopt the same policy and also refuse any new applications relating to the following:

Myton Garden Suburb - upto 1250 homes
Further development South of Gallows Hill - upto 260 homes
Former Severn Trent Sewage Works - 225 homes
Further development at Grove Farm - 375 homes
Whitnash East/South of Sydenham - 500 homes