Dear Warwick District Council,
I am writing to express my serious concerns about aspects of the Local Plan. I do appreciate that there has to be a Local Plan and that at least some new homes have to be built in the general area. I also appreciate the difficulties you face in trying to reconcile so many competing demands, both local and national. Nevertheless, I strongly feel that, in its current form, the Local Plan will damage the quality of life and health of residents and schoolchildren, commuters and tourists in Warwick, and also risk damaging local wildlife and plants, and beautiful and historic buildings (and the views from them and approaches to them) which are not just valuable in their own right, but play a central role in the local economy.
My concerns are as follows:
1) As I understand it, 4,000 new houses are proposed for south of Warwick, 3,195 of these on the land stretching from the Gallows Hill fork off the Banbury Road up to Europa Way. This intense concentration of new homes will hugely increase traffic along the Banbury road route to Warwick town centre, and exacerbate already severe traffic flow problems. The traffic lights proposed to replace the Bridge End/ Myton Road roundabout and the Castle Hill gyratory will mean that much of this traffic will be idling or stationary for periods.
2) This will result in increased air pollution which will affect residents in Bridge End, Mill Street, Smith Street and St Nicholas Church Street (and I understand that air pollution is already at or even over the legal limit in Warwick Town Centre). It will also affect the visitors to the Castle and St Nicholas' Park who bring so much to the local economy. And I am particularly concerned about the effect on children: in this area are Myton School, Warwick Preparatory School, King's High School, Warwick School and at least two nurseries. These schools have playgrounds and playing fields bordering the affected roads and we can expect to see an increase in asthma. Also, a large number of children walk to school and they will also be affected - I see no allowance in the Local Plan for the needs of pedestrians. We do not want to discourage this activity: it helps to increase fitness and prevent/reduce obesity (my sense is that there are fewer overweight children in Warwick than in many places, and we want to keep it that way). Also, if parents feel that air quality is so poor that they have to drive their children to school, this will only make the traffic even heavier. Children cannot vote or put in bids for contracts, and we have a clear ethical imperative to make their well-being a top priority.
3) Increased pollution will also affect wildlife (and plants) in the park and in the wood at the top of Bridge End by the bridge. In this wood I have spotted, amongst other creatures, hedgehogs, toads and bats.
4) Increased noise pollution will also decrease the quality of life for residents and wildlife, and impact adversely on the tourist experience.
5) The increased volume of traffic (and often stationary traffic) on the 18th Century Grade ii* Avon Bridge is likely to put it under intolerable strain: it has a 7.5 ton weight restriction. It would be a tragedy if such a beautiful, historic and iconic structure had to be replaced, and it is to be profoundly hoped that such a replacement is not a covert part of the Plan.
6) Increased pollution will also be detrimental to the historic buildings of Warwick Castle, Warwick Town Centre and Bridge End.
7) The Phase 3 Transport Assessment acknowledges the potential for problems caused by the increased traffic flow. It states that 'routes into and through the town (Warwick) are likely to suffer substantial increases in the overall level of delay'; it also says 'increased congestion and reduced speeds ... occur within the town centre (slow moving and idling traffic being a major contributor to air pollution.' And it admits that 'there are a number of assumptions that have been included within the modelling that may require further detailed analysis.'
8) Great care needs to be taken to ensure that the views from Warwick Castle remain largely green; the approach to Warwick is also an important part of the visitor experience (as well as contributing to the quality of life of local residents, schoolchildren and workers) and needs to remain attractive. At the very least there needs to be a protective landscaped strip along the eastern side of the Banbury Road. Indeed, I believe such a strip is required by the Ribbon Development Act of 1935. Tourism is so important to the local economy - let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg!
9) It is unfortunate that recent traffic 'improvements' in the area, such as the confusing and dangerous mess by the Princes' Drive Waste and Recycling Centre, do not inspire confidence.
To sum up: as I said at the outset, I do appreciate that the District Council has a very difficult job on its hands and I am sympathetic to these difficulties. But I also believe that the above points show that there are powerful legal, ethical, economic, aesthetic and historic arguments against the Local Plan in its current form, and I would urge Warwick District Council to think again. The current plan may be good for builders, but it is not good for existing residents, schoolchildren, tourists and workers in Warwick. It is not even going to benefit the new residents if they have to struggle to get into the shops and other amenities.
So: is this high number of new houses really necessary? Are there not any existing buildings that could be reused? And, above all, why is there such an unbalanced concentration of new building just off the Banbury Road? Many of the problems would be reduced if the new houses were more evenly spread around the district.
With many thanks for your time and attention in addressing my concerns,
All good wishes,