(iv) Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash

Object

Representation ID: 5964

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Lisa Hartill

Object to sites south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash:
Sheer volume of housing - causes problems for traffic congestion and schooling. Infrastructure requirements won't be considered until post consultation. Would schools be accepting children from first day house purchased? When families move in, where will children go to school? Primary school availability already huge problem and will only get worse before it gets better even if new schools are built. Problems with roads will be huge particularly at peak times.
Areas of restraint put in place when Warwick Gates was built to protect area from over development. Situation hasn't changed, Whitnash still needs protecting. Why are these areas to be developed first and not last?
No consideration to maintaining individuality of Warwick and Leamington or Warwick and Whitnash. What about maintaining the green field areas between Leamington and Bishops Tachbrook? Will Bishops Tachbrook eventually merge with Leamington post 2026?
M40 plays a role in choosing where to build but north Leamington could just as easily take a large number of houses with improved A46 and M45 access. It is also closer to Coventry where people may seek work. Have other areas truly been considered or are south Leamington options just easier?
Houses should not be built giving access to railway station as South of Warwick Gates, East of Europa Way and Woodside Farm are not particularly close and traffic heading towards town in rush hour and on Saturday morning is horrendous.
Kenilworth should be considered for more housing now that it is to have a railway station. Has this been taken into account?
If south of Harbury Lane continues as a preferred site, could a train station south of Whitnash be considered similar to successful Warwick Parkway?
At Woodside Farm, houses were proposed but refused in 2007 due to the quality of agricultural land - can this now be ignored?

Support

Representation ID: 5997

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 6074

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6189

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Object

Representation ID: 6206

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mrs J E White

Ten minute journey takes an hour. Grossly irresponsible to build new houses and businesses in Whitnash/Warwick area. Roads not adequate for volume of traffic. Also consider toxic emmissions from stationary cars.

Support

Representation ID: 6259

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

Agreed

Object

Representation ID: 6316

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Cheatle

There is very little green space left and ample housing.

Object

Representation ID: 6345

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6390

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ed & Zoe Rycroft

Number of people: 2

Lots of building has already happened around this area, behind ASDA. No more houses are needed in this are of Leamington. You are simply eroding the country side bit by bit.

Object

Representation ID: 6443

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

Whitnash is fully developed already

Object

Representation ID: 6503

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs J A Hattersley

Object to site at:
East of Whitnash.
Represents development three times bigger than Warwick Gates.
Understand that this does not include need for supporting infrastructure and provision for more offices, factories. Further land and outlay required for schools, sports fields, and other leisure facilities, shops, surgeries, churches, car parking (including park and ride), not to mention utilities, sewage and flood prevention from a greatly increased urban footprint. What consultation taken place with Severn Trent etc?
Serious impact on M40 junctions and town centres of Leamington and Warwick. Congestion at start and end of working day already bad with limited bridges over and under rivers, canals and railway lines will become worse. Those living in towns will be trapped by increased gridlock and historic buildings will be subjected to greater risk of traffic damage and air pollution.
Development at Woodside Farm will detract from Mallory Court Hotel which is successful business in pleasant environment attractive to visitors and provides local employment.
Extensive development along Harbury Lane will spoil countryside as it will be along ridge line and will impinge and impact on Bishops Tachbrook.
Wholly inappropriate to consider release of land at Finham to Coventry City Council for their own buidling requirements. Coventry will still have economic benefits of having district residents using their facilities.
Consider it appropriate to develop relatively small housing development at Hatton Park and share requirement around other small pockets of land to spread impact.

Object

Representation ID: 6538

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Anne Steele

Object to site at:
South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Why only one option offered when there were other options.
Plan is developer/landowner led - they are ones asked to identify areas for development. Areas in question are obviously already in land bank or under option. Concerned that developers may have been given assurances concerning planning consent, perhaps not from local, but national govt. WDC should select appropriate sites after consultation with Town and Parish councils and the public.
Where are the people to live in new properties? No concrete proof of projections.
Led to believe that there is a housing waiting list of 500,000, yet local people will not be given priority as housing associations can offer homes to anyone on their waiting list. Is this going to be the same mistake as was made at Warwick Gates - moving people to a strange area away from families and into an area where employment is at a premium.
To allow building of majority of housing in this area will have detrimental environmental and socal impact on already overstretched community. If there is a need for housing at top of quota then small areas of development spread throughout district will have lowest impact on existing communities.
Whitnash and immediate areas have already suffered from Warwick Gates, Tachbrook allotment and South Farm developments. Roads chaos particularly at school and rush hours.
Schools are full to capacity.
Police, dentists, doctors and hospital facilities are already overstretched. Where are plans to ensure adequate services.
High increase in population where employment opportunties are decreasing adds to strain on public finances. Since plan was prepared, world has suffered economic meltdown and will take a long time to recover. In this area commercial land lays undeveloped and buildings empty. Employment has been lost with demise of AP, Fords, Wolseley and IBM.
Priority should be given to brown field sites thus protecting green field and agricultural land. Govt. stated that we must produce more of our own food so it would seem ridiculous to use available agricultural land for building.
Nothing has changed since govt. Inspector found two years ago that the land at Woodside Farm and between Whitnash and Radford Semele was unsuitable for development.
More recent development is the new proposed railway station at Kenilworth - suggest development here makes more sense.
Studies are only now being carried out into effect of preferred option on areas involved - should have been done before. How can one be asked for an informed opinion when there are no impact studies available and no information to support large-scale population increase in one area? It would appear that these will be left to the whim of developers - not good enough.

Object

Representation ID: 6586

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs C Gregson

Object to sites at:
South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Woodside Farm
West of Europa Way
Major development has taken place in last ten to fifteen years - enough is enough.
Plans are going ahead too quickly. No consideration given to major infrastructure - water, drainage, sewage, roads and transport needs, schools, healthcare, community facilities et al. Surely plans for these need to be in place before considering viability of site. Existing resources already stretched and don't have capacity to take on more.
Impact studies are urgently needed into all these areas and into environmental issues. Certainly study into traffic needs to take place during term time.
Delay of six months needed for research to be carried out, results published and consultation period launched.
Population forecasts thought to be flawed and should be subject of legal challenge.
Option numbers have changed between consultations which is confusing or misleading.
To make consultation meaningful, it is essential that public are provided with pros and cons and rationale for options chosen and those rejected for each option previously consulted upon.
Why is Finham site not being used for Warwick Districts needs to spread load more equitably, particularly as this was the publics preference following the previous consultation.
Sites are in current area of restraint. Simply to remove designation and then compound it by developing this area first, is a travesty. Protection was given for good a valid reason.
Object particularly and specifically to land west of Europa Way. Area gives much needed green breathing space to south of Warwick and Leamington. Would ask that this area be removed from any development plans and preserved as area of restraint.
People are feeling frustrated and angry about process. Clear perception that this is a 'done deal' - to dispel this and reinstate trust, consultation process needs to be stopped and legal challenge started, carry out credible impact studies, research infrastructure needs and costs and bring this information to public arena for truly democratic process to be entered into. Should present number of viable options giving proper weight to public opinion and only then begin any sort of decision making process.

Object

Representation ID: 6589

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs C Gregson

Object to sites at:
South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Woodside Farm
West of Europa Way
Major development has taken place in last ten to fifteen years - enough is enough.
Plans are going ahead too quickly. No consideration given to major infrastructure - water, drainage, sewage, roads and transport needs, schools, healthcare, community facilities et al. Surely plans for these need to be in place before considering viability of site. Existing resources already stretched and don't have capacity to take on more.
Impact studies are urgently needed into all these areas and into environmental issues. Certainly study into traffic needs to take place during term time.
Delay of six months needed for research to be carried out, results published and consultation period launched.
Population forecasts thought to be flawed and should be subject of legal challenge.
Option numbers have changed between consultations which is confusing or misleading.
To make consultation meaningful, it is essential that public are provided with pros and cons and rationale for options chosen and those rejected for each option previously consulted upon.
Why is Finham site not being used for Warwick Districts needs to spread load more equitably, particularly as this was the publics preference following the previous consultation.
Sites are in current area of restraint. Simply to remove designation and then compound it by developing this area first, is a travesty. Protection was given for good a valid reason.
Object particularly and specifically to land west of Europa Way. Area gives much needed green breathing space to south of Warwick and Leamington. Would ask that this area be removed from any development plans and preserved as area of restraint.
People are feeling frustrated and angry about process. Clear perception that this is a 'done deal' - to dispel this and reinstate trust, consultation process needs to be stopped and legal challenge started, carry out credible impact studies, research infrastructure needs and costs and bring this information to public arena for truly democratic process to be entered into. Should present number of viable options giving proper weight to public opinion and only then begin any sort of decision making process.

Object

Representation ID: 6595

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Martin & Kim Drew & Barnes

Object to sites at:
Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane
South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane
West of Europa Way
4200 houses next to Bishops Tachbrook will overwhelm the village making it into a suburb of Leamington and Warwick eradicating its character, reducing quality of life and destroying rural setting.
Development would be contrary to vision.
Such disproportionately large housing development will create soul-less commuter estate lacking identity and social cohesion and will be natural breeding ground for anti-social behaviour and a dormitory for Birmingham and Coventry.
Recent housing needs survey carried out a Bishops Tachbrook identified requirement for 15 dwellings, not 4200.
Infrastructure and local services - police, healthcare, schools, nursery care, water & sewerage will be not cope with such a huge increase in population. Emergency access to Warwick Hospital will be endangered owing to further congestion of road bridges in Warwick and Leamington.
Bishops Tachbrook already a rat run for commuters and parents delivering children to school because the promised infant school at Warwick Gates was never built.
4200 new homes equates to approx. 8000 vehicles. Roads and bridges will not take increases in traffic. Not to mention massive increase in pollution.
Historical precedence confirms infrastructure promises are not fulfilled or are delayed.
Where will newcomers work? Preferred Option highlights deficit of 20 ha of available land on which to build employment premises.
Recognise the need for new housing although the figure questioned.
Alternatives:
Disperse small numbers of new homes in all villages
Build new halls of residence at Warwick University and release student rented houses in Leamington.
Utilise land north of Leamington around Blackdown and towards Stoneleigh - why is this land sacred green belt but not that near Bishops Tachbrook.
Utilise Ford foundry and Peugeot plant sites.
Use WDC area in Finham that Coventry covets to meet own housing targets.

Object

Representation ID: 6605

Received: 12/08/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs G Lloyd

Not good at letter writing but agree with leaflet enclosed which states:
No to becoming another suburb of Leamington.
No to destruction of Tachbrook Valley.
No to putting lives in danger by gridlocked roads to the hospital.
No to increasing rat runs through the village
No to overcrowding doctors surgeries, hospitals, schools and nurseries.
No to increased pollution and the elimination of more green spaces.
No to overloading sewerage systems and reduced water supplies.
No to massively increased traffic congestion.
Says
Yes to supporting alternative options by building at Finham.
Yes to using existing homes - more halls of residence at University to free up student lets and require fewer houses to be built.
Yes to small scale housing in the county.
Yes to building on brown field sites at Coventry Airport, former Peugeot site and Arches area of Leamington.

Object

Representation ID: 6611

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: James Mackay

Object to objectives and content of preferred options:
Underlying theme of strategy is rapid development of employment, retailing, tourism and housing. Sustainability is seen only as a qualification.
Completely different strategic objectives and detailed proposals, directed towards sustainability, should replace existing Core Strategy.
Population 'projections' which lead to development proposals are not forecasts with any realistic basis - assumes continuing in-migration at rate between 2001 and 2006 when house building was allowed to greatly exceed local needs. Demonstrates false and circular arguement that population growth was driven by house-building not the other way round. Should be based on local needs otherwise Warwick and other towns in the district will become part of increasingly sprawling West Midlands Conurbation, based on growing and unsustainable car use and destroying qualities of County's towns.
Above all, local need is for affordable housing, sustainably sited. Extensive greenfield development necessitating high car use would not permit either affordable or sustainable life styles.
Requires local employment, retail, education, health and leisure provision. Strategic objective for rapid growth in retailing floorspace in Leamington conflicts, leading to weaker Warwick Town Centre and greater reliance on transport to meet shopping needs.
10,800 new homes is excessive and proposed distribution is unsatisfactory. Forecast for brownfield site development is too low based on those previously achieved. A reappraisal of availability is needed leading to substantial upward change to brownfield forecast. This would reduce number of houses required on greenfield sites.
Strongest objection to excessive house-building on greenfield land south east of Warwick, between it, Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook - would severely damage both town's setting and through traffic generation.
Strongest concern for town's setting from 1,250 houses on land between Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Myton Road - classified as Area of Restraint in 1995 local plan. Given extent of development on greenfield sites since then, this is even more important. Each of urban areas has its own identity and loss of green open space would result in single, characterless sprawl.
This land and other sites further south would be heavily car-dependent with requirements of a flexible job market, two-income households, choice of school places, increasing concentration of retailing competing major centres, many out of town and the desire to enjoy a range of far-spread leisure activities. Suggestion that houses will be close to work so that people will walk to work, unrealistic.
Assertion that infrastructure needs could only be assessed once preferred option confirmed is ludicrous. Limitations of transport infrastructure serving sites is implacably worsened by geography: the Avon crossed only at Castle Bridge, Warwick and Prices Drive, Leamington is absolute barrier and already saturated by traffic. Availability of infrastructure - transport, energy, water, sewerage, educational and social needs is essential and choice cannot be made until after their appraisal is completed. Concerned at absence of such an appraisal, the damaging impact of development of these sites on Warwick Town Centre through the generation of traffic will be overlooked. Development would increase total load on already congested urban and main road network so that journeys from and to new developments will be diverted in search for least congested route adding to traffic in Warwick Town Centre where it is confirmed that the impact of traffic must be reduced. Town centre roads already form part of Air Quality Management Area where pollution exceeds legal threshold and Air Quality Action Plan requires reduction in traffic for health of residents.
Europa Way site is proposed for early development. This would be unsatisfactory, enabling development here to precede that in Coventry and inhibiting brownfield site development in Warwick District. Any greenfield site development should be at the end of the plan period when development of brownfield sites is exhausted.
Weaknesses in policies for conservation of listed buildings and protected townscapes and for the provision of affordable housing. Object to these weakenesses and concerned that the existing local plan policies covering them may become unenforceable after 2011.
Withdraw this preferred option, reconsider policy objectives and content and prepare revised option taking account of objections.

Object

Representation ID: 6648

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dominic Ashley-Timms

The specific areas I object to are, the housing proposals on:

1) Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane

And also:

2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick

My objections are based on the following:

* On the recent Housing Needs Survey conducted in Bishops Tachbrook, 500 of the 750 homes in the village responded and told us that only 15 new houses were needed in the village. Therefore we do not need 4200 new homes.

* 4200 houses between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates threatens the very existence of Bishops Tachbrook as a village. If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook.

* Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.
* I think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".
* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need.

* The increase in traffic arising from at least 8000 new cars in this area will result in pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are grid locked, your proposed development is situated right along these roads, simply adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

* With the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms, employment opportunities for incomers are diminishing. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London.

* There seems to be poor sense carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population that works elsewhere. Remaining agricultural land should be preserved.

Q1. Why did you decide not to create a brand new settlement within the district (like Southam) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the road network are very easily accessible? Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? Your "Preferred Option" was not the public's preferred option in the initial consultation so why have you ignored our views?

Q2. Why have you reserved land at Finham for the Use of Coventry to meet their housing demands and to count towards satisfying their quota and not included this area as a potential for ameliorating the demands place on WDC?

Q3. Why isn't the brownfield site where the Puegot plant was located being considered for housing development?

Q4. Why isn't all housing demand placed upon the region not being centred around Coventry? Here is a city that badly needs an influx of new workers to the region, development of employment opportunities, retail centres and urban regeneration if Coventry is to emerge as a 21st century City. Why are new developments instead being concentrated around the rural and medieval towns and villages of Warwickshire?

I do believe that some housing may be needed for organic growth within individual communities; however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people. I urge you to rethink the Options radically; and focus imaginative thinking on leading the region in the regeneration of brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 6658

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Laura Ashley-Timms

Objections to Large Scale Housing Developments in the following areas:

1) Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane
2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick

I am writing to object to the plans to further develop the area between Bishops Tachbrook, Warwick Gates and Whitnash.

This area is on the edge of several historic cities and does not have the road systems or broader infrastructure (especially schools and hospitals) to support such widespread growth. The maternity ward at Warwick hospital has already been closed down this year and it only takes a minor incident or a heavy downfall of rain in this area for the entire area to become either gridlocked or flooded. Additional pressures do not make sense.

What seems particularly unreasonable is the need to exert this level of extreme housing development on one of the last villages left in the proximity to Leamington. Bishops Tachbrook would effectively become a suburb of Leamington with this in-fill plan and would lose its identity.

In addition we have a major regional centre in need of resources, development and investment minutes up the road with a fantastic road and rail network, namely Coventry. I would expect there are a number of well sized brownfield sites around Coventry, as well as some large industrial sites on the outskirts of the town (e.g the old Peugot plant) that could easily accommodate such development projects.

The area around Warwick and Leamington and especially Bishops Tachbrook should be reserved for small scheme local developments (e.g. 5-15 new homes at a time or individual projects) that can be easily accommodated into our village without negatively impacting existing residents. All other options in these towns should be limited to brownfield sites.

Thank you

Object

Representation ID: 6665

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Hardeep Lider

I am writing this letter in order to express my strong objection to the following Core Strategy Preferred Options document:
Land at Woodside Farm north of Harbury Lane,Whtinash
Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Land at Lower Heathcote Farm south of Harbury Lane
Land west of Europa Way Warwick

My objections are based on the following reasons:

* There have already been 2 major developments in the area:South Farm and Warwick Gates. Any further major housing development would have a devastating effect on public services.
* As a resident of Whitnash I have seen the strain Warwick Gates has put on schools, traffic,doctor/dental surgeries, hospitals, sewage works,flooding etc and further development would be irresponsible as we simply do not have the infrastructure.It is already a nightmare around Tachbrook Road/Landor Road during the school run /rush hour. I still remember all the false promises that were made when Warwick Gates was built regarding extra schools and public services.
* No infrastructure findings on schools,traffic environment have been made public of the potential impact of all this extra housing
* Brownfield sites within Leamington and Coventry Airport should be explored and developers should not set house building policy.
* Why is such a massive development being considered when we are losing hundreds of jobs in the area ?(AP,Ford,Wolseley,C&G.HSBC to name a few)
* The environmental impact will be huge to this already well developed area .You will destroy what makes this area attractive in the fist place.
* The council should legally challenge the amount of houses the government has demanded we build in the area. We live in a democracy and should not be dictated to in such a fashion.

Support

Representation ID: 6695

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Comment

Representation ID: 6714

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Heritage & Culture (Museums)

Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
There is no known archaeology on the site. Historic Landscape Characterisation does not identify this as a sensitive area in HLC terms. Whilst not objecting to the principle of development on this site, this should be subject, given the possibility of previously unknown remains existing on a site of this extent, to a programme of archaeological assessment and, if appropriate, mitigation; this may require preservation in situ across parts of the site should significant remains be found.

Comment

Representation ID: 6763

Received: 06/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Commissioning, Planning & Partnerships Service, Children, Young People & Families]

The local community and catholic primary schools are both full and predicted to be so when this development is scheduled. An estimated 40 primary school places would be required, plus 6 fte early years places.

At secondary school level the local school has spare capacity at this time but the overall demand for secondary school places from this and other developments in the Europa Way, Harbury Lane area will have to be taken into account. The development could be expected to generate some 28 secondary school pupils plus 7 sixth form pupils.

It is understood that this number of houses may grow and from a purely school organisation this may be helpful as a figure in the region of 700 to 800 houses would make the development of a larger, 2 FE primary school site more viable for that area. Clearly the secondary, post 16 and early years implications indicated above would also be significantly greater.

Object

Representation ID: 6781

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Linda Bromley

We object to Warwick District Council's preferred option, now Plan 5, for the building of houses south of Warwick. We are very concerned that you are asking the public for their comments when you have not given us the information we need to make those comments, i.e. on the proposed infrastructure to support this development. We believe that Plan 5 will have an extremely detrimental effect on Warwick as a whole. We should like to make the following observations and request that we receive responses to the questions asked.

1. WDC had 7 options and the public consultation identified Plan 1 which has now been renumbered 6. Why did you decide against Plan 1? At which point did option 1 change to south of Harbury Lane? Two of the current identified sites were not in the original consultation. In June this year, sites you would not consider are suddenly your preferred option. Who asked you to bring those two sites forward to this review? Why were the public not consulted on these sites in the first consultation? Why did you ignore the result of the consultation and who decided on option 5 which was the most unfavoured of the public's choice? Is it because developers have an option on the land? Why are developers taking precedence over people? Has any of the land been purchased by developers?

2. In the South West, South East and East there have been successful legal challenges. Are you planning such an action to the West Midlands strategy? Please keep me informed when you decide on this.

3. Why are you not building on brown field sites before green field?

4. In the earlier consultation in 2008 we were told only 2,700 houses were to be built on greenfield sites. Why has this suddenly erupted into 5,000? Who made this decision?

5. Why are you removing an area of restraint? An area of restraint is part of a planning agreement. 1e was an area of restraint. How can the planning agreement be broken? Why is it suddenly not an area of restraint now but the first to be developed? Why would you not put an area of restraint last in order to have a chance to protect it? This area will remove the identity of Warwick Gates, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook and become one huge continuous urban sprawl and adversely affect the quality of life of residents.

6. Who will pay for an extra sewage pipe for the proposed new housing? Who will pay for the necessary extra water pipes and power lines to be laid?

7. Are you buying time until the next General Election?

8. Why was a traffic study carried out by Highways in the school holidays? Are you going to have another traffic study carried out? How are you proposing to improve the already congested traffic situation when we have pinch points at the historic bridges which cannot be enlarged? Please let me know the outcome of any further study. When are you going to carry out studies on access, schooling, utilities provision, especially sewage, policing, employment, medical provision, the impact on our hospital, community activities etc.? Can you guarantee that a new school will be built? How will the results be publicised? We should like to be kept informed on the progress of these studies and as soon as you have the results.

9. Why have you identified the areas for housing development before you have looked at the infrastructure necessary? If it is realised that this option is unable to be delivered because of lack of infrastructure, what other options will you consider?

10. How can we trust the planners and developers regarding infrastructure to be in place when we have seen promises reneged on at Warwick Gates (still no school) and Chase Meadow (sports provision for them allocated at St. Nicholas Park and still no community centre)? There are still 700 houses to be built at Chase Meadow.

11. There appears to be a difference in the projected number of affordable homes - is it 40% or 50%?

12. Why have you not allocated more housing to villages?

13. Why have you not spread the housing around the District? Housing development should be proportional across the District and not to have any impact on any particular area. Why have you put all this housing in Warwick and not around Leamington or Kenilworth or along the A46 corridor where there is employment and infrastructure in nearby Coventry?

14. Why have you ignored the Government's Cave Report which stated that 4,000 houses should not be built in one area?

15. Why have you not challenged the projected growth rate figure of 40,000? Why have you simply accepted this? Have you examined the population figures and assessed the 40,000 growth? Did you not argue that Warwick has had its fair share of housing and there has been an unusually large amount of major development over the last few years, i.e. Hatton, Pottertons, Chase Meadow, Warwick Gates, apart from in-filling in many brown field sites? Are the West Midlands Regional Office aware of this? Warwick's percentage of housing development is far higher than that in Leamington and Kenilworth.

16. How have you identified who wants these houses? Aren't you just encouraging people to migrate from other areas into Warwick? Isn't the real reason for city migration and not natural population growth? Why are you ignoring GOWN's advice to reduce migration? Are you challenging these figures?

17. Will you allow further consultation within the 6 months' deferment which you have now requested? Please keep us informed on the Panel's decision on the 6 month deferment request.

18. Why, when Kenilworth have a new rail station planned, no traffic congestion and none of the problems that Warwick has and can support the infrastructure, are they not allocated some of the housing development?

19. Why is no new housing allocated for Cllr. Doody's ward of Radford Semele?

20. Why have discussions taken place with developers before any consultation with the public?

21. Why is Warwick Fire Station proposed for closure when 4,200 more houses are proposed for development in Warwick?

22. Why did you state that there is employment at the University of Warwick when you knew that there is a major redundancy programme currently ongoing there?

23. Why are you proposing to build on flood plains? Householders will not be able to get insurance. In planning law, any flood alleviation schemes have to be approved by the Environment Agency but don't have to be implemented until the end of a development. The development could take years or not ever finish, such as Pottertons or Chase Meadow, and meanwhile residents are at an increased risk of flooding. Will you make it a condition of any development that flood alleviation measures are put in place before development begins?

24. Are you going to carry out a full and proper appraisal of Warwick District's Housing and Employment Land Requirements, for the period up to 2026?

25. Why are the Executive Committee being allowed to make the decisions on the Core Strategy? Why are our elected members not allowed to decide on these issues?

Object

Representation ID: 6790

Received: 29/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Roberts

Development south of Leamington Spa does not provide the required solution that the government and the local council are looking for:

Employment use:

Will encourage more commuting
South of Leamington has already seen massive development.
Low business demand e.g. Gallagher Industrial park.
Busy road network.
Poor existing utilities.

Residential:
Loss of attractive rural setting
Lack of schooling
Lack of jobs
House types not addressing affordability.
Infrastructure would not cope.

Local Authority:
Going against previous public opinion.
No evidence other public services have been consulted.

Alternatives:
Brownfield sites, particularly in Coventry.
Use existing stock -many for sale
Developing a new town.

Object

Representation ID: 6809

Received: 13/09/2009

Respondent: Dr Caroline Robinson

We wish to object to the overall plan to build 8,100 new homes in the Warwick area, and specifically on the area of restraint, phase 1E on the Core Strategy Preferred Options document (Plan 5).

Firstly we would point out the lack of dispersal of the planned development (namely 1A,1B,1E,1F,2F and 3F). The planned development is focused almost entirely on land south of Warwick .This area has already been significantly developed in recent years, exerting pressure on existing services and infrastructure.

We wish to object specifically about the development in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area had been identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa, to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl. The Core Strategy Preferred Option would severely damage the character of this area.
Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way (1E) is rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken Trust and Henry viii Trust. There are also wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc.

We object to the fact that the area of restraint (1E) is one of the first to be developed under the proposals, and should with immediate effect be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found, and the potential change in government and associated policies occur.

The plan has been presented to the public with a total lack of detail or alternative development options for public consideration.
There has been no plan for the infrastructure in terms of drainage, sewerage, roads, public transport, schools and hospitals, as confirmed by councillors in the public meeting on 17th August 2009. Nor have there been impact studies on traffic, schools, drainage, sewerage, hospitals or employment. Traffic in South Warwick is already at saturation, with Myton Road being virtually impassable between 8am-9am and 4pm-6pm. There is no capacity on the roads for another 8,000 car journeys focussed on peak time. This will not only have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of current Warwick residents, but also on Warwick's capacity to bring in tourism.

Current plans also include additional development for 'Employment use' in areas 1E,1F,2F and 3F. Given the number of vacant industrial and office buildings in Warwick, as pointed out by councillors in the public meeting on 17th August 2009, we would question the need for such development, and therefore object to it.

In addition, development on the area of restraint (1E) threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the run off is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields.
It has been shown that any earthworks in the area floods houses. Myton Gardens was flooded .when one development was carried out. More recently a property on Myton Crescent was flooded when building work was done at the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road .


The Schools in the area are oversubscribed . There is no capacity for extra cars etc at the stations for commuters. The hospital would require significant expansion.


We wish to see the whole plan withdrawn and an alternative presented that reflects the overwhelming opinion of the Warwick population (as evidenced by the public meeting on 17th August 2009), and that will preserve the character of Warwick as a historical county town.

Object

Representation ID: 6817

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Boyle

Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the "Core Strategy Preferred Options" document dated June 2009. I specifically object to development of the following 'Green' sites and the focus of my discussion concerns the 4,000 houses proposed on these sites:

1) Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane
2) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
3) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
4) South of Sydenham, east of Whitnash

I believe that many of the issues associated with the above 'Green' sites also apply to the following 'Amber' sites:

5) Former Fords Foundry, Leamington
6) Station Approach Leamington
7) Warwickshire college, Warwick New Road

Subject to satisfactory resolution of the traffic, education, health and employment issues attached I do support the proposals to develop the following areas:

8) Thickthorn, between Kenilworth and the A46
9) South of Finham, west of the A46

Other developments in the west of the district close to the M40 corridor should also be considered.

My views are based on the following areas which I describe in more detail in the attached appendix:

* Emissions
* Amenities
* Traffic
* Utilities
* Education
* Flooding
* Low Cost Housing
* Employment

The Preferred Options Paper does not address these areas of concern adequately. Nor do I believe that the council has adequately consulted the relevant agencies, if at all. I appreciate that many of these issues are outside of the control of the District Council, but nonetheless it is the duty of the council to consult the affected agencies and to commission impact assessments and feasibility studies to ensure that its proposals are realistic and achievable. The council has a duty of care to its current and future residents to ensure that quality of life in the district is not reduced by its proposals. Therefore it must fully address these issues before proceeding with its proposals.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and outline how the council will address these issues before it adopts the proposals.

Yours sincerely


Stuart Boyle

Appendix

Emissions

The preferred options paper refers to the Code for Sustainable Homes requiring all new homes built after 2016 to be zero carbon. It is disappointing that the proposals will allow a large development to the West of Europa Way to proceed ahead of this deadline and thus add to the district's emissions.

The paper fails to grasp the significant issues surrounding zero carbon developments and the need for a holistic approach in planning to ensure that objectives are met. It is unlikely that new housing will have a gas fired boiler in each property as is common at the moment. Other more novel solutions will be required.

Such large developments offer the opportunity for district heating and hot water schemes supplied from a central combined heat and power station. The power station could be fired by gas or by renewable or semi-renewable fuels such as bio-fuel, bio-gas or refuse. The Princes Road site has existing refuse management infrastructure and presents an opportunity to develop such a plant to supply heat to the Station Approach, former Ford Foundry and Warwickshire College developments.

However, the Europa Way and Harbury Lane developments are too far away to be supplied with heat from the Princes Road site and the use of part of this land for power generation will be unacceptable to nearby residents due to noise and the noxious nature of renewable fuels. For these sites the widespread use of heat pumps and solar hot water heating, should be considered, using gas boilers only in the coldest months. Ground source heat pumps are preferable as they are quieter than air source devices and also more efficient. However, ground source heat pumps require large plot sizes to avoid the ground freezing in winter.

The council should commission an energy study into the new developments in the context of zero emission housing. The study should consider alternative heating solutions and whether it is feasible to accommodate the proposed number of houses.

Roughly a third of emissions come from transport. It is therefore important that the Council considers why residents use their cars as they go about their daily activities. The plan should be strategic rather than reactionary and consider how housing, schools, shops and employment are combined to reduce car journeys and the need to use vehicles at all. This particularly concerns the school and employment issues described below.

Amenities

As an edge of town development the existing Warwick Gates development is remote from many day to day amenities such as schools, hospitals and shops. Consequently many residents are reliant on cars. The proposed development on the south side of Harbury lane will be similarly remote from local amenities and these residents will also be dependent upon their cars.

For this reason the proposed developments are less suitable for non-car users such as pensioners, the disabled and the socially deprived and therefore these developments are less suitable for low cost housing.

Traffic

During morning and afternoon rush-hours, there is frequently congestion on Myton Road, Harbury Lane and Gallows Hill. Europa Way is congested from Myton Road to the M40 Junction 14 resulting in stationary traffic on the inside lane of the M40 which presents a significant hazard to motorway traffic.

The new A46 flyover under construction at M40 junction 15 will ease traffic flow between the A46 and the M40. However, I believe that this will increase congestion on the south side of Leamington as traffic destined for the business parks and industrial estates on the south side of Leamington and Warwick will approach from the M40 rather than through Warwick.

The addition of 4,000 properties south of Warwick Gates will add around 8,000 cars to these already congested areas. The creation of residential and/or business access along Europa Way and Harbury Lane coupled with noise and safety related demands for lower speed limits on these roads will further impede the flow of traffic.

The District Council must consult with the County Council and Highways Agency on traffic flow on local main roads and the M40 before confirming their proposals. Particular attention needs to be given to how traffic flows through Warwick during M40 incidents and how the river and railway barriers to traffic in Warwick can be eased. I believe that the A46 corridor to Coventry and the M40 corridor to Birmingham are more suitable areas for development.

Utilities

Much of Warwick and Leamington is supplied with water from Strensham, near the M5/M50 Junction. 4,000 new houses will almost certainly require additional pipelines to Strensham and development of the Strensham site. The sub regional water cycle study should consult Severn Trent on the feasibility of supplying these developments in the proposed timescales and what interaction there is with development proposals elsewhere in the West Midlands.

E.ON Central Networks and National Grid should also be consulted on the feasibility of supplying gas and electricity to these large developments. In particular will the Emscote Road substation need enlargement to accommodate the new load and by what route will the cables to supply the new developments be routed? The use of heat pumps on both gas and electricity demand also needs to be included in those consultations.

Primary Schools

The Warwickshire School Organisation Framework 2005-2010 assumes approximately 3 pupils per year group per 100 houses developed. Thus the proposed development of 4,000 houses on the south side of Warwick and Leamington will require approximately 120 places per year group. The council must consult with the Local Authority on schooling for 840 additional primary pupils.

The table below lists primary schools within three miles of the proposed developments. There is spare capacity for around 35 pupils per year group at primary level but only at the further and generally unpopular schools in the area. It is reasonable to expect that if children from the new developments attended these schools then they would travel by car.

2005 capacity (7 years) Number on Role in 2008 Approximate capacity per year group (7 years)
Bishops Tachbrook 210 202 1
Briar Hill/ St Margaret 270+360 266+356 1
St Josephs 210 208 0
St Patricks 210 143 10
Whitnash 280 115 23
Total 35
Given the limited land and often restricted road access to existing schools it is unlikely that these schools could be expanded to accommodate further classes.

The intention should be to educate children at local schools to allow the establishment of new communities on the proposed developments. Failure to do this will means that neighbouring children attend disparate schools, as has happened on Warwick Gates, which impedes the building of a local community among neighbours. The new schools should be central to the proposed developments to give focus to the community. Children will also have shorter journeys to school and will be more likely to walk or cycle in line with government health and emissions policies.

Importantly, the new schools must be completed and available with the completion of each phase of housing. If housing is completed before school facilities then children will be forced into schools much further from their homes. It is unlikely that parents will relocate their children back to a 'local' school once they have been established elsewhere.

Secondary Schools

The council must consult with the Local Authority of the location of schooling for approximately 960 additional secondary pupils.

The following table lists secondary schools in Leamington and Warwick within three miles of the proposed developments. It shows adequate capacity within this distance but all of these schools are a considerable distance from the proposed developments.

2005 Capacity
(6 years) Number on Role in 2009 Approximate spare places per year (6 years)
Aylesford 1189 774 69
Campion 845 471 61
Myton 1330 1330 0
Trinity 1279 937 57
Total 187

The new North Leamington School has spare capacity of approximately 300 students. This new school together with Trinity represents considerable capacity in the northern half of Leamington Spa. Therefore new developments on the north side of Leamington and Warwick such as at Milverton would be more appropriate.

Flooding

The proposed development areas south of Harbury Lane extend to the Tach Brook between Bishops Tachbrook village and Warwick Gates. The council should not permit housing so close to a natural water course due to the risk of flooding, not only to the proposed developments but also downstream due to faster run-off from developed land compared to the existing fields.

The current climate already produces a number of heavy rain events each year which can lead to flooding. The number of these events is expected to increase over the next few decades due to climate change and therefore water retaining buffer areas around existing water courses should be preserved.

Low Cost Housing

The council has stated that it requires 50 percent of the new developments to be low cost housing. I object to the creation of up to 2,000 low cost houses in one area. Such a development would create an area of relative depravation and poverty. It would have a high concentration of health and crime problems and would increase demand on local services for little additional council tax income.

New low cost housing should be dispersed for better integration with the community. It should also be developed closer to town centres to facilitate habitation by non car owners. The ex Ford foundry, Station Approach and Warwickshire College sites are more appropriate for low cost housing development.

Employment

Companies such as National Grid and Wolesely have moved large offices and warehouses into Warwick District during the last decade. However, often this hasn't created new jobs in the district but instead relocated jobs from outside. Consequently we now have several thousand employees living outside the district who commute into it to work. This dislocation of employment from housing exacerbates traffic congestion, increases emissions and wastes a lot of resident's time.

I object to the creation of an additional 10,800 new properties within the district where there is no plan for increasing employment by a similarly large scale. Indeed, the recent economic crisis has significantly reduced employment in the district due to the contraction of the automotive industry. The proposed developments will create dormitory areas for people working outside of the district, chiefly in Coventry and Birmingham. It would be more appropriate for new housing to be created closer to these conurbations and where people work.

Development along the A46 nearer to Coventry at Thickthorn and Finham is appropriate. Consideration should also be given to creating new communities in the west of the district along the M40 corridor to Birmingham. The council should also consult with the regional development authorities on how to create employment within the district rather than how to import employment and traffic from elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 6834

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Paul & Luisa Hodge

Firstly we would point out the lack of dispersal of the planned development (namely 1A,1B,1E,1F,2F and 3F). The planned development is focused almost entirely on land south of Warwick .This area has already been significantly developed in recent years, exerting pressure on existing services and infrastructure.

There has been no plan for the infrastructure in terms of drainage, sewerage, roads, public transport, schools and hospitals, as confirmed by councillors in the public meeting on 17th August 2009. Nor have there been impact studies on traffic, schools, drainage, sewerage, hospitals or employment. Traffic in South Warwick is already at saturation, with Myton Road being virtually impassable between 8am-9am and 4pm-6pm. New housing on Myton Park as well as the new Lidl store have further exacerbated traffic problems during the last two years, and now we find more new housing being planned on the area of restraint and on the Ford foundry - both sites yards away from Myton Road. Myton Road is home to four schools: whilst some children do walk or cycle the majority are driven to school - a pattern which is unlikely to change bearing in mind that three of the schools are private schools and pupils come from as far afield as Banbury to attend these schools. I attach photographs taken during September which show a typical congested Myton Road, and other major routes in Warwick.. There is no capacity on the roads for another 8,000 car journeys focussed on peak time. This will not only have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of current Warwick residents, but also on Warwick's capacity to bring in tourism.

We wish to object specifically about the development in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area had been identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa, to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl. The Core Strategy Preferred Option would severely damage the character of this area.
Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way (1E) is rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken Trust and Henry viii Trust. There are also wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc.

We object to the fact that the area of restraint (1E) is one of the first to be developed under the proposals, and should with immediate effect be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found, and the potential change in government and associated policies occur.

Current plans also include additional development for 'Employment use' in areas 1E,1F,2F and 3F. Given the number of vacant industrial and office buildings in Warwick, as pointed out by councillors in the public meeting on 17th August 2009, we would question the need for such development, and therefore object to it.

In addition, development on the area of restraint (1E) threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the run off is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields.
It has been shown that any earthworks in the area floods houses. Myton Gardens was flooded .when one development was carried out. More recently a property on Myton Crescent was flooded when building work was done at the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road .

We wish to see the whole plan withdrawn and an alternative presented that reflects the overwhelming opinion of the Warwick population (as evidenced by the public meeting on 17th August 2009), and that will preserve the character of Warwick as a historical county town.

Support

Representation ID: 6870

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Binswood Allotment Society

support

Object

Representation ID: 6881

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Higgin

On the recent Housing Needs Survey conducted in Bishops Tachbrook, 500 of the 750 homes in the village responded and told us that only 15 new houses were needed in the village. Therefore we do not need 4200 new homes.

o 4200 houses between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates threatens the very existence of Bishops Tachbrook as a village. If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook.

o Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.

o We think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

o Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need.

o The huge increase in traffic arising from at least 8000 new cars in this area will result in pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are grid locked, your proposed development is situated right along these roads, simply adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

o With the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London.

o We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.

Why did you decide not to create a brand new settlement within the district (like Southam) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the road network are very easily accessible? Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? Your "Preferred Option" was not the public's in the initial consultation so why have you ignored our views?
I do believe that some housing maybe needed for organic growth within individual communities; however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people not imposed from the Government in a top-down approach as it is at the moment and certainly not to the numbers you are suggesting.
We urge you to rethink the Options radically; to look again at regeneration possibilities in the towns, to work with owners and developers on imaginative schemes to bring forward brown field sites for housing development.