I am writing to voice my objections to the new local plan proposals.

I am a young resident of Warwick and an asthma sufferer. As such, I am particularly concerned about the significant decrease in air quality that the very large development would bring to this relatively small town. Data on pollution available online up to 2010 show that the AQS objective for nitrogen dioxide, a direct result of traffic pollution, is consistently exceeded in many areas of Warwick, by up to 154% (Progress Report 2011, Warwick District Council, April 2011). The addition of such a large development to the town would increase traffic into the centre and increase the pollution levels. A link between pollution and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) (which I am already at a higher risk of developing as an asthma sufferer) has been firmly established (Yang and Holgate, 2013). Furthermore, a link between pollution and lung cancer and asthma have also been suggested, although there is not yet enough evidence to firmly establish this as fact. The cost of COPD alone to the NHS is £1.3 million per 100,000 people (NICE clinical guideline 101, 2011). Thus, any further increase in pollution would not only be a personal cost to individuals involved, but also a major cost to the local NHS. There is a legal requirement for the air quality in Warwick to be improved and this cannot be achieved when adding to the traffic burden of the town. A health impact assessment for this development is of critical importance, before anything goes any further.

Furthermore, statistics were given at a recent local meeting which firmly stated that the projected housing need of 12,300 new homes by 2029 has been massively inflated. It was suggested that the 5,400 new homes needed over the next 5 years could all be built on brownfield sites. In addition, there are currently 1350 homes in Warwick standing empty (www.emptyhomes.com), which have not been included in these calculations. A local planner with an understanding of the local area would not have suggested such a large development in a greenfield site. While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already has the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market.

The land is not greenbelt, but really should be. This rural and agricultural land is important to the county and provides habitats for species of special interest, such as the great crested newt (http://www.ues.org.uk). The area also clearly delineates the boundary between Leamington Spa and Warwick, preventing the urban sprawl that greenbelts were designed to prevent.

Traffic around this area is also particularly problematic. My husband took nearly an hour to travel less than a mile down Myton Road one weekend and queues in this area are the norm. This increased traffic may also damage the local economy as people are prevented from accessing the shops and amenities in town centres. An historic city such as Warwick cannot be allowed to turn into a ghost town. The additional measures needed - traffic lights and signage - would also be an eyesore in this beautiful, old town, particularly around Castle Bridge.

It is my firm belief that the employment opportunities for residences do not exist in the local area. On top of this, Stratford upon Avon District Council also have plans to build a large development of 4600 homes at Lighthorne Heath, some 8 miles from Warwick. This development is better situated, as residents may find employment locally at Jaguar-Landrover. This may reduce the need for housing in Warwick further and should be taken into account when making the projections.

Furthermore, we do not have the infrastructure in terms of water supply, sewage and drainage and the historic town of Warwick cannot be damaged for the sake of this unnecessary development, which in essence is just lining the pockets of the developers and not in Warwick's best interest. A recent development at Warwick Gates did not include the primary school provisions promised, so we are left with little assurance that the school and healthcare facilities can be provided for this new development. Concerns have been raised by people at Myton School and Warwick Hospital as to the sustainability of this development.

I do believe that there are better alternatives to this development, including lowering the housing numbers to meet local needs. Our community is thriving, but there is a need for more affordable homes. However, the town cannot support further in-migration. A better alternative would therefore to be to build small, affordable developments of family homes on brownfield sites. Homes should be situated near to employment, schools, shops and railway stations. Finally, neighbouring local authorities must be consulted and a plan developed that can enhance the local area and not be of great detriment, as, having read this, I am sure that you would agree that this development would be.