Dear Sirs,

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North LeamingtonGreen Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.

It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North LeamingtonGreen Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.

I would also like to make the following points:

1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis iscurrently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currentlyproposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.

2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in theGreen Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well asproposed development in villages.

3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes thatmost of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g.industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.

4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned withineasy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.

5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in thedistrict as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.

6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to theexisting houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.

In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Beltwould be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.

Development in the South reduces traffic congestionand reduces air pollution, it enables better provision ofpublic services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.