Dear Mr Elliott,

I would just like to concur with Mr Steeles thoughts regarding the distribution of any new housing.

The 2013 Local Plan that has so unfairly targeted the south of the district needs to be thoroughly re-thought out. In the same way that residents of North Leamington/Warwick objected to the 2012 Local Plan, so too now are the residents of South Leamington regarding the revised 2013 Plan.

It seems that Warwick District Council wants to try and dump large numbers of houses/developments wherever they can. Having been foiled in 2012, they changed the Plan to the next available area of land. If the 2013 Plan is similarly withdrawn, will the area to the west of Warwick, or East of Leamington towards Southam/Harbury be the next to be targeted?? Don't think that there would be no opposition if these areas were targeted.

This could rumble on and on - yet Mr Steeles alternative proposal makes good sense. The housing numbers required quoted by WDC are open to debate, and it is the opinion of many that these numbers have been very largely over estimated. I believe also that the WDC has failed to take into account the large number of derelict and empty properties around the district which should be returned to full use before any new houses are considered. There are also many private houses that are let to (transient) students in the district that could be brought back into use for people who wanted to live in them as their every day home.

Any residual housing numbers that are left after everything else has been taken into consideration could be evenly distributed around the district, in small developments that could benefit local builders (and hence the local economy) rather than national developers with no ultimate interest in the area, other than the next swathe of land they can get their hands on and bury beneath more bricks and concrete for their own profit!!!!!

Spreading the developments thinly will mean no need for vast changes to the road infrastructure, and no significant burden on existing services (such as schools etc) in comparison to what is currently proposed. The effects on each local area will also be minimal, and the character of the areas largely unchanged.

Warwick District covers a significantly large area that should be able to absorb this (including Green Belt areas), and a proposal such as Mr Steeles should not be dismissed, but should be actively considered and pursued. It would not destroy Warwick district - but the Local Plan as it stands in 2013, would do considerable long term damage to the areas south of Warwick and to Whitnash, and this must be avoided.

As the deadline for the end of the consultation period nears, I urge you to please take account of the views of your residents - the fact that both North and South Leamington/Warwick residents have objected so fiercely to the 2012 and 2013 Local Plans respectively, suggests that Warwick District Council is pursuing a policy that is out of touch with those same residents.

We have not simply objected, but have presented an alternative proposal that could satisfy your requirements, and spare us the destruction of large areas in our immediate locality. This could also save significant sums of money by drastically cutting the potential changes to the road networks, reduce the need to build other new infrastructure, and money saved could be used to improve existing infrastructure and services. As I said previously, contracts to build large numbers of small developments could be given to local building companies, which will further boost the local economy.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen McFadden,


----

Dear Mr Steele,

Thank you for your comments below. I shall ensure they go into the overall consultation analysis and be brought to the attention of Councillors.

I would add that a public inquiry is envisaged for the Local Plan as a mater of course.

Yours sincerely,


Chris Elliott
Chief Executive


---

Dear Mr Elliot,

I have just seen your reply to Anne Horsley regarding Green Belt Issues.
What you have said there, and in this reply to myself is unsatisfactory because it does not give a good reason for using or not using Green Belt in the two cases in question.
All we can see in your statements is that when it suits your argument you will allow use of Green Belt land or not.

You say you could not justify use of land in the Green Belt north of Leamington. Yet you can justify the draconian solution to site most of the housing south of Leamington. The fact that one is Green Belt and the other not is a moot point, and under the circumstance it should not have been given so much priority. What you have failed to take notice of is 'proportionality'. In the words of this extract from the Document 'Human Rights'.

<How does the Human Rights Act affect me? *
When it comes to decision making, the rights of one person often have to
be balanced against the rights of others or against the needs of the
broader community (there is more detail on this in Part 3). But if you
have to restrict somebody's rights, you must make sure that you are
not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Any restriction must be no
greater than is needed to achieve the objective. This is called 'proportionality'.> End of Extract

You are 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' by allocating most of the housing needs on the community south of Leamington and Warwick.
The good reason you could not find to use Green Belt land North of Leamington (and/or many other possible areas in my alternative plan suggestion) is to protect the Human Rights of the community who's lives are to be made hell. Accordingly you have failed to use 'proportionality'.
Accordingly the Human Rights of all individuals in the community will have been violated and restricted. It is the right to enjoy the benefits of living in a urban community of their choice,, free of stress and threat from the un-proportional amount of houses now being planned. This could and still should be avoided by applying a policy of proportioning the need to provide land for future housing needs over a larger area within the District. If this means violating the Green Belt Issue then so be it. It is after all only temporary as you have just illustrated with the Gateway project. (Again you have not given a good reason for ignoring the Green Belt rule).

A public enquiry seems inevitable. If WDC had included the alternative of spreading the housing in Green Belt it too would lead to a public enquiry. This should not be a reason against it.
A simple and logical reason would be to try and be fair to everyone in the District and expect them all to take their share of housing needs. The solution you have adopted is treating the South of Leamington as 'not being very important'. On the other hand it is favouring the north of Leamington for the sake of the Green Belt. We do not buy that reasoning.

Summarising the foregoing, If the housing requirements were allocated proportionally throughout the District you would be balancing the rights of those living in the Green Belt (i.e the right to never have any houses imposed in their locality or any other reason) against the awful consequences our community is now threatened with. You may not recognise the need to be fair in applying Planning rules. However there is the morality of what you are doing. What is most important, Care for the community or applying rules?

Ray Steele C. Eng., M.I.Mech.E.


---

Dear Mr Steele,

Again I understand your logic. However, the National Planning Policy Framework does give protection to Green Belt land and does say that land which is non green belt should be developed first in preference. The difficulty we therefore have is that we tried to demonstrate special reasons to develop land north of Leamington but could not justify it.

We are making some green belt releases around Kenilworth because there is where else is available to provide more housing for that town. The same is true for a number of villages.

I have discussed the Local Plan with Chris White MP. Whilst I understand the concerns raised the Local Plan is hardly dictatorship. It is a policy process that sees seeks to resolve how we use a precious resource, land, for a range of purposes. Inevitably there are arguments over how we do this, that is what is called democracy.

Yours sincerely,


Chris Elliott
Chief Executive


---

PLANNING

Boles: Build on boring fields
Nick Boles, the Planning Minister, has said that developers should be allowed to build on fields if they are "boring". In a letter to Anna Soubry, the Health Minister, he said that people must be realistic about the need for more housing, which will mean building on "environmentally uninteresting" green spaces. Mrs Soubry had warned Eric Pickles' Communities Department that housing was being built on the Green Belt despite assurances from David Cameron that it will be protected. She described the situation as "intolerable" and said that planning inspectors were forcing local councils to accept more housing and build on Green Belt. Mrs Soubry wrote: "In short, assurances about localism and continuing protection for the Green Belt at ministerial level are flying in the face of advice from the inspectors leaving local authorities with no alternative but to agree to development on Green Belt land." Mr Boles, responding on behalf of Mr Pickles, said: "Given a 2m increase in our population over the last ten years and historic under-provision of housing we have to be realistic that not all the housing that we as a country need can be on brownfield land. In some places, this may mean building on low quality, environmentally uninteresting fields. In exceptional circumstances, it may involve a Green Belt review."
The Daily Telegraph, Page: 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Elliot,
The above was passed onto me today and interestingly it refers to the Green Belt.
With reference to my suggestion of spreading the housing needs over the whole of the District, this would need land attached to and around all of the 90 or so sites named by the village or hamlet. This is mostly Green Belt so those places are already in Green Belt land. The proposal would only require 4 or 5 houses to be built at each place. The great advantage is of course that these houses would only be built as needed. This is in stark contrast to the Local Plan that is totally committing and giving cart-blanch to developers to flood communities with houses that are not proven or even needed at this moment. Certainly not right now. It is irresponsible speculative building.

A point of notice. Ask any builder if he will build you a house. His answer may be "I will start tomorrow"! So where are all these people asking to have a house built? This is not an entirely frivolous remark.

I requested the other day that you discuss this with Chris White MP to talk about the pressure being placed on District Councils to provide a plan and the associated threat to override their planning objections. We cannot accept this threat as it is not democratic and amounts to dictatorship.

What I am saying is that the community expect to be protected from irresponsible development brought about by government pressure. It needs those in parliament to listen to the people and then form a balanced view.

Regards

Ray Steele


---