* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

* The local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by about 2030. But the District Council proposes more than 12,000. 4,500 of them are south of Warwick.

* Development would fill a vast area of farmland between Warwick, Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook, massing new housing estates (falsely labeled 'garden suburbs') into a single built-up area. Agricultural land would be lost as sites for the mass house builders, leaving brownfield sites underexploited.

* The rapid growth in population would put undue pressure on the hospital and local schools, perhaps even on water supplies and drainage. The greenfield development would be car-dependent and unsustainable.

* Traffic on existing roads would become much heavier, with no new infrastructure but many more multi-lane traffic-light controlled junctions - at Bridge End, Castle Hill and the foot of Smith Street as well as on Europa Way and into Leamington. As a consequence, journeys would be slower and congestion worse. The pollution in Warwick's town centre streets and homes would become materially worse.

* Development would be car-dependent, contrary to national and local transport policies, and not sustainable.

* WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 in the Revised Development Strategy for the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

* The proposed requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period, given the Barford's status as a "Secondary Service Village", would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School which does not have the scope for further extension. Therefore, any development of new housing would not be sustainable in terms of primary education facilities being available to all children in the village.


Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm the representations have been successfully lodged.