
The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural and present policies respect this. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. The green land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly.

The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built is much too high. Less than half that number would meet local needs. It is wrong to forecast as far into the future as 2029, and to allocate greenfield land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build when.

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.

Transport: sprawling development is inevitably car-dependent. The transport strategy is car-based, just squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network, bridges over the River Avon, and parking. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and could not have good public transport. It has long been obvious that the current road infrastructure within the Warwick South Area does not cope with present levels of traffic and so to propose this level of additional build would appear reckless and ill considered. It is fine saying that this will be addressed, but how? This area does not lend itself to the building of large arterial road networks. Please protect the history of our area.

Air Quality: pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than is legally permitted. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would also be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged. Worse, the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened.

The historic environment would directly be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places: in Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, on Castle Hill, and at St John's; and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way, giving no impression of the beauty of the spa town.

Other Infrastructure: While in theory development would be conditional on it funding schools, and health care facilities, the Council's predicted funding and provision has a woeful shortfall and is not enough. There would also be risks to water supply, sewage and drainage.

There are better alternatives: lower housing numbers to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford, instead of encouraging in-migration; gradually releasing land for development as demand grows; giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations; building homes close to jobs; and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development. Every area of Warwickshire should take it's share of these new houses however, currently, these proposals would appear to be being bullied through by an Executive committee who are acting as Nimby's. It is time that fairness was considered. Current proposals are not fair!

The possible Gypsy and Traveller sites are concentrated in the same area, again because such strong protection is given to the Green Belt and so little to our green land. Again, not fair.

The consultation process and the politics of the situation also give rise to concerns, but these are matters to be pursued by other means.


Question:
Where would all the people moving to this proposed build work? Concentrating the majority of these new houses in one area is wrong. The old "local plan" was ludicrous but this is worse, please reconsider before it is too late.