(iv) Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash

Object

Representation ID: 4678

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Miremadi

Object to South of Sydenham, east of Whitnash site:
Historic area and evidence would be lost forever.
Bishops Tachbrook would be submerged into urban sprawl. People choose to live in villages to get away from built up areas.
Surprised local amentiies considered sufficient support for increased population.
Many other locations within Leamington that should be considered for building and large scale developments should be located close to Coventry to take advantage of amenities and employment opportunities.
More student accommodation at University would save cost of transporting students from Leamington.
Very little in the way of new housing needed in Bishops Tachbrook. Village and surrounding roads already suffer from too many cars taking short cuts.

Object

Representation ID: 4685

Received: 02/10/2009

Respondent: Hassan Miremadi

Object to site at:
Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Historic area with evidence that would be lost forever.
Deplore idea that Bishops Tachbrook would be submerged into urban sprawl. People choose to live in villages to get away from built up areas.
Surprised that local amenities considered sufficient to support increase in population.
Many other locations within Leamington for further building and large scale developments should be located near Coventry where amenities and employment exists.
Should be student accommodation built at the University to reduce transporting students from Leamington.
Very little new housing needed in Bishops Tachbrook
Village and surrounding roads already suffer from too many cars taking short cuts.

Object

Representation ID: 4705

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

Is this land green belt or 'arable'

Object

Representation ID: 4788

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Higgins

Object to 10,800 houses in particular those south of Warwick/Leamington:
Developers having options on land no basis on which to plan future housing development.
Ensuring quality of life of future and existing residents paramount - at least maintained, preferably improved.
No established infrastructure plan to support each possible housing development. Should have been available to public when assessing development areas.
Contrary to alleged government directive, designated area of restraint should be respected as have been identfied for good reason.
Wish to see Preferred Options withdrawn and alternative more meaningful proposals including infrastructure proposals presented for meaningful public consultation and objective decision process - preserving quality of life now and for future generations.

Support

Representation ID: 4810

Received: 18/10/2009

Respondent: Ian Frost

Support there are no 'urban separation' issues here.

Support

Representation ID: 4868

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

Whitnash is fully developed already

Object

Representation ID: 4913

Received: 01/10/2009

Respondent: Paul & Catherine Watkins

Object to sites near to Bishops Tachbrook:
The main road to Leamington is already congested morning and evening.
School places are difficult to obtain and there are few vacant seats available for purchase on secondary schools bus service.
Sainsbury's car park is often overcrowded - would there be applications for more supermarkets?
Increased traffic causes pollution.
Water, including drainage and sewerage resources. Emergency services, NHS facilities, GPs Hospitals.
Any current plans or guidelines to compensate homeowners for loss of value of home which, when purchased, was in rural setting, but may become part of extended suburb?

Object

Representation ID: 4925

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Clinton G Perry

Object to sites at Bishops Tachbrook/Warwick Gates area:
Would cause considerable disruption to strained services. Congestion on local roads. Proposed development would sustantially increase demand on one of busiest routes into and out of area. Dread to think what effect additional traffic will have. Resulting growth in regions carbon footprint.
Loss of employers locally reduce available jobs. Additional 4,200 households will compound matter - forced to commute for jobs.
Development of this magnitude will increase demand on schools and services. Schools already oversubscribed. School at Warwick Gates didn't materialise. Local doctors, dentists and hospitals are overstretched - how much more can they take?
Proposal makes extensive use of green sites where these are in short supply. Surely more effective to spread development out over wider number of sites. Adding 10 or 20 properties onto existing sites would spread burden placed on infrastructure, minimising congestion and reducing impact on beautiful part of UK.
Housing needs can still be met - suggest Peugeot factory at Ryton.

Object

Representation ID: 4935

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sukhjeet and Uinkar Dhillon

Object to sites in Harbury Lane and Whitnash area:
Why has only one option been consulted on and how did council decide on this?
Why have council not challenged figures?
Consultation period is too short and should be extended by six months.
Proposed development will cause flooding.
Businesses moving out of area, resulting in job losses and people relocating. This will result in more houses and commercial buildings becoming vacant. Council should consider using these.
Brown field sites should be used.
There will be a huge increase in pollution.
Warwick Gates demonstrates impact of large-scale development - congestion on roads, burden on schools and services. Impact studies needed:
Traffic in area at peak school and work times
Effect of wear and tear on roads from additional traffic - who will bear long term cost?
Schools already struggling to meet local residents needs.
GP services, dentists, hospitals, police and fire services.
Has council calculated cost of Severn Trent supplying water - who will bear long term cost?
Why does council feel preferred option is to dump all development in our area?
If development goes ahead there will be little or no green buffer between Warwick Gates dn Bishops Tachbrook, just an urban sprawl. There is no green buffer between Warwick and Whitnash.
Seems ridiculous plans refused for sports complex on Bericote Road amid concerns with effect on farmland, disturbance to livestock and local residents, lack of public transport and traffic worries. These objections would apply equally to huge housing estate around Whitnash.

Support

Representation ID: 4948

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

Qualified YES - - It is impossible to give a reasoned response without knowing the infrastructure implications etc.

Object

Representation ID: 4987

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs P E Hunt

Object to sites at Bishops Tachbrook/Warwick Gates:
Infrastructure - roads busy and dangerous. Volume of traffic accessing M40 would increase considerably. Pollution would be made much worse by inevitable increase in traffic.Warwick towns roads are already struggling with traffic for castle events. Increasing the volume of traffic will cause gridlock.
Ancient buildings of Warwick - important to preserve our history. Traffic pollution causes irreparable damage.
Ancient bridges - inevitable damage from increased traffic.
Kenilworth - increase in traffic along with Thickthorn development will affect more than Kenilworth residents.
Longbridge roundabout - long tailbacks now. Additional volume of traffic will increase queues.
Flooding - Knock on effect of flooding to services and infrastructure will increase with additional housing.
Hospital and emergency services will need to expand to cope with additional residents.
School places already oversubscribed with children having to travel distances to school as no local places.
GPs and police will need to increase numbers to deal with extra population
Employment - that generated by development will end when contract complete leaving more unemployed. Govt. should be supporting existing businesses and safeguarding jobs.
Brownfield sites - developing these wouild lessen impact on green land and have reasonable infrastructure - Fords Foundry
Kings Hill Finham - should be used for Warwick's need not Coventry's, is better suited to development and was most popular public choice when previous consultation carried out.
Preservation - Should be trying to preserve historic towns, buildings, villages, not putting them under threat. Many empty buildings and sites that could be developed before considering green land.
Recent survey showed Bishops Tachbrook needs 15 houses only. New development should be small scale and spread out across villages.
Quality of life for new residents?
Those living in villages wish to live in a village not a town.
Green belt was considered of great importance but this has no meaning now.
Removing trees, hedges and building on open spaces increases effects of global warming.
Building on large scale is contrary to vision.

Object

Representation ID: 5004

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Misses PK and EM Kennedy

Object to sites south of Harbury Lane and Whitnash:
Why has public preferred option of Finham been rejected?
Why has Finham been given to Coventry when it is not in Warwickshire?
What has Coventry given/paid for site?
Why does district council wish to disregard it's vision?
Not opposed to small housing development spread between villages which, plus brown field sites, could address large part of housing requirements.
Commuter traffic for M40 tends to use Bishops Tachbrook morning and evening making roads very busy. Increase in traffic will result in gridlock. What proposals are there for improving public transport and public access to railway station, motorways etc
Utilities would need updating/improving to cope with increasing demands as would medical and social service provision. hospitals, GP surgeries, chemists, dental surgeries, community services and social worker provision.
Local schools unable to place children currently. What proposals are there to address now and in future?
Will new housing development include shops and extra post office or will residents have to travel? Law enforcement?
Does council propose to improve and increase employment opportuntiies? Not cheap to live in Warwickshire and limited or no employment will result in houses not selling.
Ignoring health, wellbeing and environment of community and ecological balance of wildlife. Increased pollution, traffic problems, destruction of rural and green field sites. Loss of unique characteristics and identity of villages and areas affected by development.

Object

Representation ID: 5048

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 5082

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: James Pinkerton

Object to sites south of Leamington:
Why is Warwickshire County Council proposing to allow the land at Finham to be used by Coventry to meet its needs?
Why are proposed brownfield sites such as Peugeot site being ignored?
Why are houses proposed to be built where needs survey has identified need for 10's not 1000's?
What road and service infrastructure is planned - schools already at capacity and previous large developments have promised new schools but never delivered them. Large increases in traffic a concern as no-where on any plans are there details of how this will be managed.

Object

Representation ID: 5099

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Patrick Ring

Object to sites south of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington:
Local support was for Finham site during consultation. Land has just been donated to Coventry -at what price?
General infrastructure does not exist for education, health or high use roads. No dedicated extra lane from Leamington to Harbury Lane planned to prevent deadlock.
School that wasn't built at Warwick Gates put pressure on surrounding schools. 6,200 new homes will have no extra educational provision.
Larger health care facilities will not have personal touch.
Look at basic infrastructure before asking public opinion.
No local need for housing and no extra employment opportunities available.
Do not want village (Bishops Tachbrook) turned into dormitory town for Coventry when there is room at Peugeot site.

Object

Representation ID: 5131

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

Green field site. Limited employment opportunities = commuter accommodation.

Object

Representation ID: 5132

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs ME Shaw

Object to sites south of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington:
No evidence for vast numbers of new houses talked about.
Infrastructure cannot cope with more, roads, schools cannot cope.
Water supply problems following development at Warwick Gates eventually sorted out, but likely to return with further building. Surface water on roads still a problem and leads to blockage of drains and local flooding.
Loss of valuable agricultural land at a time when it is needed to grow more food.
Lot of disused buildings have now been renovated but pockets of land remain. Ford foundry earmarked for commercial but cavalier with green belt, so should accept. Building in small pockets or on brownfield sites more difficult but need to be more innovative.

Object

Representation ID: 5208

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sonia Owczarek

Gross overdevelopment of this area. Should concentrate more on brown fill not green fill/desecration of green belts.

Support

Representation ID: 5212

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

Relatively small amount of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 5342

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

No farmland should be lost to development

Support

Representation ID: 5393

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5525

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5629

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Zoe Rycroft

Object to
Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Area south of Warwick/Leamington has seen largest amount of development in recent years. Warwick Gates built against wishes of local people. New proposal will destroy what is left of local community. Don't agree new houses needed but it is time other areas in the district, particularly along A46 to north and villages played their part once brownfield sites have been utilised and only if there is still a need.
Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education perfomance. Proposal is same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton Park all put together. What kind of community is likley to be born as result? Especially as 40% is to be social/council housing in an area with poor public transport links to the areas giving the best support to underprivileged.
Re-development of A46/M40 interchange (J15) will provide easier access to both motorway and rest of A46 for those living in north Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry therefore providing housing to north of Leamington won't mean additional traffic driving through the town as it will be quicker to travel along A46. By locating housing along A46 corridor toward Warwick Parkway, the north of Leamington and up to Coventry, people will be more likely to use the interchange at J15 designed to cope with the volumes of traffic to be experienced.
Coventry airport for sale and should be used to take more of Warwickshire's allocation.
North Leamington School not detailed in preferred option as in green belt and not suitable for development yet Thickthorn is in Core Strategy and is also in green belt. As a former school with good links to A46 and easily accessible part of town, it should be considered before anything else.
Preferred option says that WMRSS is wanting to reduce amount of migration from Coventry to Warwick District yet growth is based same levels of migration as before. If they are 'unrealistic' then why houses being forced upon us? Plenty of houses for sale in the district and figures would suggest that no building is required south of Warwick Gates or along Europa Way.
Recent needs survey shows that Bishops Tachbrook needs only 15 new houses in the village. therefore 4200 new homes are not needed between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. These houses would threaten the existence of Bishops Tachbrook as a village and it would become another suburb of Leamington reducing quality of life here, in Warwick Gates and Whitnash.
So many new homes contradict vision of Warwick District Council.
Remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.
Utilities are all stretched to limit now. Hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river. Emergency cases will take longer to get treatment. Police thinly spread already, especially on Friday/Saturday night.
Huge increase in traffic, air quality reduced. Peak times roads are almost gridlocked. No suggestion that traffic problems will be fixed even for when development is complete.
Planned area already has recent development in addtion to Longbridge and Tournament Fields.
Business demand - not likely to recover for some years. Gallagher Industrial Park has seen no development and no one wants to develop Ford foundry. With Spa Park and Tachbrook Park underway there remain empty plots which could have business development on them without developing green field developments.
Schools - many at breaking point. Warwick Gates families have to bus children to Warwick and further afield. Development would require massive school building plan to meet education demands locally. County council has no such plans.
Most popular sites from previous consultation no longer 'suitable' and most popular were south of Coventry at Finham, south of Coventry at Baginton, south of Coventry at Kirby Corner and east of Stratford Road, Warwick.
Look at regeneration opportunities in towns and bring forward brownfield sites. Be realistic about investment and don't put forward new areas to develop when others have been vacant for years.

Support

Representation ID: 5656

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5700

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft

Object to
Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Coventry airport is for sale and should take more of Warwickshire's allocation.
Migration out of Birmingham and Coventry means increased social deprivation in those areas leading to increased crime, fewer jobs and poorer prospects for for residents leading to increased benefits, reduced quality of life and increased sickness resulting in additional health care costs. By regenerating urban areas, they can be turned into vibrant cultural centres that have modern character and positive outlook. Companies then choose to invest and create jobs.
North Leamington school has undergone huge development and old school is for sale - not included in SHLAA. Why? is in green belt but so is Thickthorn and this is proposed development. Should be developed before anything else as a previously developed site with links to A46 and in part of town with easy access.
Redevlopment of A46/M40 J15 means that access will be easier for those in north Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry. Providing housing stock in north Leamington will mean traffic travels along A46 rather than through town.
Assumption that those living in new houses will work on new industrial estates next door - not realistic. People will travel to work where they are best qualified or where they can earn the most money and will drive there.Will also buy houses where they can afford them. Large proportion of people living in Warwick Gates commute elsewhere to work.
Situating new housing close to J13 is highly inappropriate and dangerous with queues at evening rush hour likely to back onto the motorway along slip road.
Locate housing aliong A46 corridor toward Warwick Parkway, north of Leamington and towards Coventry where people are more likely to use J15 which is designed to cope.
Figures are incorrect and based on previous levels of migration when we are supposed to be getting less migration than before according to RSS. Why still forcing this number of houses upon us? Warwick only needs in the order of 4000 houses based on organic growth rate over 30 years rather than 5 years when irregular growth spurt due to frantic building. No additional housing needed either south of Warwick and Leamington or around Kenilworth or elsewhere in the district other than on brownfield sites.
Area south of Warwick and Leamington has seen largest amount of development in recent years at Warwick Gates. New proposal will destroy what is left of local community. Even though don't agree more housing needed it is time that other areas, north of the town along A46 and villages, play their part and allow organic growth once brownfield sites utilised and only if still a need.
Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to antisocial behaviour and poor education performance. Proposal size of Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton Park put together - what kind of community will be born as result?
Recent housing needs survey shows Bishops Tachbrook's need to be 15 new homes. No need for 4200 between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook which would threaten village.
Contradicts vision .
Remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.
Utilities, police, dentists, doctors are all stretched to limit. Hospitals only accessible across congested river bridges - how long will it take for emergencies to reach medical resources. Police thinly spread across town, especially Friday/Saturday nights.
Huge increase in traffic and air pollution in Warwick and Leamington - at peak times roads are gridlocked. Proposals along same roads adding to congestion. Providing more jobs will encourage more people into the area, putting further strain on transportation network and increasing CO2 emissions.
Greater pressure on utilities away from traditional urban centres.
Empty plots on existing business parks which could be built upon without taking up more green field developments. Do not make this area appealing to outside businesses at present.
Previous consultation public support was for south of Coventry, Finham, south of Coventry, Baginton, south of Coventry, Kirby Corner and east of Stratford Road, Warwick. Majority of respondents said not to build on green fields.
Told in current climate no-one wants to develop Ford foundry .
Re-think options and look at regeneration possibilities in the towns to bring forward brownfield sites and challenge predicted numbers for growth.

Object

Representation ID: 5703

Received: 12/10/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S and J Haigh

Number of people: 2

Object to housing proposals south of Warwick and Leamington for the following reasons:
1. Recent surveys have shown that there is no demand for new homes between Warwick Gates and Bishop's Tachbrook.
2. The houses are a threat to Bishop's Tachbrook as a village.
3. There is no sense in building on green field land.
4. The huge increase in traffic will add to already congested roads.

Support

Representation ID: 5767

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5848

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Any new housing in Campion School's Catchment area does not get my support. With extra housing in Warwick, kids in Whitnash etc will only have Campion and it too will be oversubscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 5893

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C G Price

Extra housing would again lead to more traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 5922

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

Object.