Object

Representation ID: 60246

Received: 25/08/2013

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

Every ward should have the same level of housing growth during the plan. 4,000 units adjacent to Warwick will lead to a 40% increase in the town's population: this is unsustainable in quality of life, transport, air quality, employment, schools, and health infrastructure, and will destroy the character of the town totally, and therefore damage the local economy which depends upon it.

Inexplicable lack of housing growth in and around Kenilworth. The greenbelt should in principle be protected, but not where this protection will cause massive detriment to the life and health of the inhabitants of Warwick.

1,000 houses over 15 years in the villages is inadequate to meet their housing needs or the lack of affordable housing. Suggests a minimum 3500 of the 12800 houses in the plan be developed in the village areas spread evenly across the district. This number could be much higher, built on the existing village fringes. Infrastructure is much more likely to be able to cope with 6-10 new houses per rural ward per annum than the huge estates proposed adjacent to Warwick. Would meet some of the need for affordable rural housing projected, at 67 per year if 33% was "affordable".

Suggests three areas which have been overlooked for large scale housing provision are Bagington, Radford Semile and Lapworth. All ripe for large scale "garden suburbs", supported by business parks, supporting existing shops and schools. Suggest at least an additional 1,000 to 1,500 houses are considered for each ward. Opportunity in Lapworth to build a business park to tap into the proximity to Solihull and at Radford Semile to build a business park dedicated to engineering to tap into the expertise and supply chain associated with Ricardos. Warwick Gateway would be supported by new housing and infrastructure, too. this would mean much smaller developments around Warwick would be required.

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, arguably more so, to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly.

To be sustainable would be better to have more smaller housing developments within walking/ cycle distance of the new job provision; i.e. small estates near small business parks? If not possible, a commitment to provide and subsidise long distance inter nodal commuter bus routes is essential.

Low paid workers will need to be able to commute quickly and cheaply to where the jobs actually are. This can be achieved, by developing inter town express bus routes, integrated with mini bus services which will then serve the local housing areas, funded by the CIL. Lack of effective public commuter transport compounds inequality and creates greater dependency on state subsidies, as those able and willing to work cannot afford the transport to get to the jobs, and the bus services are simply too slow and too infrequent to be a viable alternative. Regular local new commuter train services linking together all the major Warwickshire Towns and Coventry should be a priority, funded by the CIL.

Air Pollution: Parts of WDC already do not meet the Nox emissions EU Directive, including large parts of the centre of Warwick.
40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years will add to the congestion and air pollution.

Historic Distinctiveness and lack of "vision": Believes the plan should do more to promote good design in housing. Should seek to protect the historic buildings in the area and their settings. The Plan needs a clearly articulated "heritage vision". Existing open spaces, sports fields, allotments and parklands should be protected from development, including their settings. An alternative approach could be to build modern squares rather than "garden cities", the higher density and ease of mixed development can lead to more sustainable communities and less urban sprawl.

Affordable Housing: the definition needs broadening. The plan highlights the need for housing for the elderly. One solution to their needs would be to classify "granny flats" or semi separated apartments within houses as the "affordable housing" targets. Multigenerational living should be encouraged as it meets housing need, is sustainable and reflects changing land-use patterns.

Public Space: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on. Any new developments should have additional public space. RDS mentions need for extra public space to accommodate the increase in population but no clear policy to designate all existing public parks as "areas of restraint".

Climate Change: Flooding and SUDS: great care should be given to the siting of all new developments. Consideration should be given to more local flood defences and helping individuals to flood proof their homes.

Fear of Crime: No sex clubs or night clubs should be allowed near housing- they should only be built in non residential areas. No new pubs, bars or hotels should be built or change of use in areas of predominately residential nature, to protect existing residential amenity. Should be the presumption that in residential areas new businesses will not increase the background ambient noise levels. If this cannot be achieved these businesses should be located in designated areas such as retail or business parks.

Good Design: The plan highlights good design and sustainability. All new housing should be built to Parker Morris standards.

Tourism: New visitor accommodation should be examined to see if it would have a negative impact on the existing providers locally as a material planning consideration. Desirable to have a diversity in type and location of accommodation providers