(vii) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick

Comment

Representation ID: 6717

Received: 05/11/2009

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

Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
The Warwickshire Historic Environment Record indicates the presence of archaeological sites, including cropmarks of unknown date. Historic Landscape Characterisation indicates an area of planned enclosure and large post-war fields.
Whilst not objecting to the principle of some development, this should be subject, given the existence of archaeological interest and the possibility of further, previously unknown, remains existing here, to a programme of archaeological assessment and, where appropriate, mitigation; this may require preservation in situ across parts of the sites should significant remains be found.

Comment

Representation ID: 6758

Received: 06/11/2009

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

Europa Way - 1250 homes in Phase 1

The local secondary school and primary schools are all over subscribed and it is forecast that there would be no surplus capacity in secondary or primary to serve this extensive development.

An additional 248 primary school places (including provision for a site for a 1 FE -210 place primary school plus early years provision) would be required from the start of the housing project to be in place by the time the first home on the site is occupied. 35 early years places would also be required.

The development is forecast to generate 177 secondary school places. Further, 42 post 16 places will also be required.

This development, together with the other proposed sites in Whitnash etc will require the provision of an additional secondary school preferably located in the lower Heathcote Farm area rather than Europa way. The best estimate is that an additional secondary school would need to be in place by 2015/16.

Object

Representation ID: 6784

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?

We look forward to your responses on the above and to being kept informed and updated on any developments in this matter.

Object

Representation ID: 6805

Received: 13/09/2009

Respondent: J A & P L 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: 6812

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: 6820

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: 6828

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Paul, Elizabeth & Thomas Karnik

Both me, my wife and family would formally like 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)

How the Baroness has the nerve to overrule the area of restraint beggars belief and is completely unacceptable, and she should be told so. If you could be so kind as to give me her full name and title I will communicate to her directly my displeasure at her outrageous decision.

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 strongly 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. This was identified by my lawyers when conducting a search when looking to move here and was a prime reason in the decision to buy the house in which I now live.
The Core Strategy Preferred Option would severely damage the character of the area and create urban chaos and loss of identity of the two towns.
Furthermore, the land west of Europa Way (1E) is rich agricultural land which has been served well under the careful stewardship of the Oken Trust and Henry VIII Trust. The local farmer also serves the land well and its wonderful to hear the sounds of the country on a summers morning when waking up. You are threatening to completely destroy this with your proposal. There are also wide green hedges providing habitats for many wildlife species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, deer as well as newts and hedgehogs. Its also a wonderful rural area where walking the dog is an absolute pleasure.

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 to protect this area until a viable alternative is found, and the probable and most welcome change in Government occurs, as the shadow secretary has already indicated that when they come to power they will cancel all these strategies. Stopping this now will save the council taxpayers of this district significant sums of money - my money!

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, hospitals, or other public services as confirmed by the councillors at the last two public meetings. Nor have there been any impact studies on traffic, schools, drainage, sewerage, health provision or indeed employment. You said yesterday that you HOPE employment would be encouraged into the area - its no good hoping, you must have a clear plan and you do not have one. Traffic in South Warwick is already past saturation point, with both the Myton Road and Europa Way being virtually impassable between 8am-9am and 4pm-6pm. There is absolutely no capacity on these roads for a further 1250 houses on option 1E or the additional houses being proposed in the south of Warwick at peak time. If any studies are done during these times (and not during school holidays I may add) they will easily confirm what I am saying. This will not only have a detrimental effect and impact o the quality of life of myself, neighbours and current residents of Warwick, but also on Warwick's capacity to attract 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 councilors at the public meeting on the 17th August 2009, we would question the need for further development and therefore object to it. As I said earlier you need more than hope to attract business to the area - you need a plan.

In addition, development of the area of restraint (1E) threatens local houses with a real risk of 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 old Trinity School site. Developing the Myton Road site would threaten ALL of the houses south of the Myton Road. I also give you notice that if this development is built then I expect the council to provide insurance cover should I be unable to obtain cover due to flooding as you have been warned.

The schools in this area are well oversubscribed so where will the extra children be educated?
Warwick Hospital would require significant expansion to cope with the additional population, is there a budget for this?
There is no capacity for extra cars and people at the stations for commuters. When they got off the trains they would not be able to get where they need to because of the congestion.

In closing I trust and hope as elected representatives of the people of this district that you listen to what you are being told by the people who vote you in.
This government is on its last legs and the opposition has already said they will scrap these proposals and others like them, so stop this proposal now.
You should conduct your affairs with the public in mind, not the shameful greedy antics and wants of developers who are only looking to make handsome profits. Nothing wrong with making profits but not at the expense of public opinion and quality of life for the people who currently live here or those who may wish to move here in the future

We wish to see the whole plan withdrawn and an alternative plan presented that reflect the overwhelming opinion of the Warwick Population (as evidenced by the public meetings on the 17th August 2009 and 17th September 2009) and that will preserve the character of Warwick as a beautiful and historical county town, one which we all should be proud of.

Object

Representation ID: 6838

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: 6875

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Binswood Allotment Society

support

Object

Representation ID: 6884

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.

Object

Representation ID: 6893

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Mr J P Garrett

Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the "Core Strategy Preferred Options" document dated June 2009.

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, I fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need.

* 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.

* 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.

* I 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.
I 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.
1) What happened to local democracy? How can The District Council blatantly side with Central Government and the quango of an unelected regional assembly in forcing through such a blatantly undemocratic strategy? This strategy will have a detrimental effect on Warwick Gates, but its shock waves will also be felt in Bishops Tachbrook, Whitnash, Warwick, Kenilworth and further afield across the district.
2) Warwick Gates children already have to travel out of the catchment area to primary schools, so use some of the land near the estate to build the school you should have included for our children when the development was first proposed.

3) Use Brown field land within larger population centres such as Coventry, Leamington and near Warwick Parkway Station and The A46 first, for factories and businesses, so as to protect the countryside for residents of Warwick Gates, Bishops Tachbrook and Whitnash. Some of this land is already prone to flooding, so why not enhance the natural habitat rather than destroy it. Destroy it by building homes and businesses that will be at risk of flood damage.

4) The developments proposed for South of Warwick Gates will also have a negative effect on the value of our houses, increase traffic congestion and lower air quality. In short, it will leave us with a poorer general quality of life than we currently enjoy.

5) Our local doctors surgeries are already at capacity and facilities at Warwick Hospital have been steadily downgraded during the last five years, with a view to Wallsgrave Hospital serving the whole of Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth and Coventry. Add this to the extra traffic on the roads and there is serious likelihood that lives could be lost as a result of this development.

Support

Representation ID: 6923

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land West of Europa Way
The Parish Council would support development of this site only on the condition that all other all other employment land in the district has been fully developed and has a high occupancy. Hence, Phase 1 should only consist of brownfield developments and this site should not enter the programme before Phase 2 or even Phase 3. By that time, it will be possible to verify the current population estimates for that time period to confirm whether further expansion is justified or not.

Comment

Representation ID: 6946

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land West of Europa Way
If after the rigorous analysis of all existing development sites, and the provision of accommodation at Warwick University, the housing allocation cannot be met, then the Parish Council acknowledges that this site has least amenity value of those under consideration in South Leamington, since it is between development to the east of Europa Way and to the west of the Myton Road. However, in order tp maximize the use of the site if it has to be used, the proposed development density should be significantly increased raising the number of homes from 1250 to 2400.

Support

Representation ID: 7002

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported but concerned at the loss of a 'Green lung' to this area

Support

Representation ID: 7031

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Old Milverton & Blackdown JPC

Because this land is to the south of the conurbation from which it is best served by major roads, especially the M40 Motorway.

Object

Representation ID: 7097

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire

West of Europa Way. This land has been an area of restraint for perhaps twenty years. Again it is good farming land which has produced wheat this year. It is a vital -green wedge' extending into Leamington and retaining some separation between southern Leamington and Warwick.

Object

Representation ID: 7112

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: The Warwick Society

Object to site west of Europa Way. Was classified Area of Restraint in local plan, which stated such areas important for proper structure and character of towns. Purpose now more important. Each of urban areas is distinct place with own identity. Separation of towns by green open space essential for wellbeing. Show self-restraint in reviewing Plan, and continue to attach vital role as breathing space between towns.
This land and other proposed greenfield sites on the fringe of urban area would be heavily car-dependent. Suggestion that houses will be close to work and people will walk is unrealistic.

Comment

Representation ID: 7114

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: The Warwick Society

Note that Europa Way, Myton Road, Gallows Hill triangle is proposed for early development. Would be entirely unsatisfactory, enabling development to precede that on more difficult sites in Coventry and the other cities; and inhibiting drawing-forth of brownfield sites within Warwick district. Should any greenfield site eventually be allocated for development such an allocation should only be made provisionally for the very end of the plan period, and after brownfield sites have been exhausted.

Object

Representation ID: 7194

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Object to all sites around Whitnash, Bishops Tachbrook, and Watwick Gates.
Problems with traffic, schools etc. Cannot cope with more houses.
Try to get children into local schools, drive around roads, walk paths, cross roads, use buses and local facilities before suggesting more housing. Area is above capacity.
New housing alwaysin Whitnash area, let other towns take strain. Hope infrastructure will be provided in any new development.
Whitnash was village but has grown and lost its heart. Involved in community life so able to comment on what would not work. Schools a particular problem with children having to travel to schools outside local area due to lack of places and pupil priority.

Object

Representation ID: 7209

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: W R Bethall

Against further housing in Whitnash and surrounding area.
History of new development south of Leamington and Warwick and development of green spaces between Whitnash and urban area.
Problems with roads and worsening conditions if more development takes place. Worry about where access will be for new development.
Extra schools needed. Warwick hospital unable to expand leaving local patients having to attend hospitals in Coventry in future.
RSS requires land at Finham and within Warwick district to be available for Coventry overspill. Enough is enough.

Object

Representation ID: 7240

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J E White

Whitnash is big enough. To build more housing, let alone business premises, would turn it into an urban sprawl, totally lacking in identity.

Support

Representation ID: 7389

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Europa Way Consortium

Agent: Entec UK Ltd

The Europa Way Consortium fully supports the identification of Land West of Europa Way as a Phase 1 site for residential-led, mixed-use development. Preliminary appraisal work has shown the site is largely free from physical, environmental or visual constraints.

The Consortium's vision is to:

'A community focused, sustainable, residential-led development, fully integrated with the existing town and creating new homes, jobs, social, and recreational opportunities within a high quality environment to the benefit of both existing and future residents, and providing a model for growth in the District.'

Object

Representation ID: 7426

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: N Bliss

I wish to object to the overall plan to build 8,100 new homes in Warwick and specifically on the area of restraint, phase 1E on the 'Core Strategy Preferred Options' document Plan 5. There are many reasons why this should not go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 7427

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr A Dobrovin - Pennington

Object to this area of restraint being built on

Object

Representation ID: 7503

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupiers

object

Object

Representation ID: 7571

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Support

Representation ID: 7586

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Agent: Framptons

In its capacity as landowner, this land is appropriate for a housing allocation as part of a sustainable urban extension. The County Council is willing to work alongside a consortium of landowners in order to bring forward the allocation. This can be made available to contribute towards housing land supply within the period 2011-2016.

Object

Representation ID: 7644

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

In terms of land allocations, we do feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the wider regional picture and that too much details is provided on the strategic sites. We feel that there are other more suitable sites available and that at this stage the plan should be more general in terms of its direction for growth without site specific details being put forward. If these are not deliverable, as we understand has yet to be proved, then the plan may generally not be deliverable and sustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 7677

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

Would support development of this site only on condition that all other employment land in district has been fully developed and has high occupancy. Hence, Phase 1 should only consist of brownfield developments and this site should not enter the programme before Phase 2 or even Phase 3. By that time, it will be possible to verify the current population estimates for that time period to confirm whether further expansion is justified or not.

Comment

Representation ID: 7693

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Environment & Economy Directorate

Focussing growth in this location will:
- Facilitate short trips to the existing employment sites to the south of Warwick and Leamington and minimise through centre traffic;
- Allow good access to Leamington rail station, without impacting on the town centre network;
-Allow longer distance car trips to access the motorway and trunk road network, minimising the impact on the local & town centres road network.
Traffic mitigation measures could include improved bus services, urban cycle network & traffic management; virtual park & ride facilty; bus priority lane & dualling on/of A452; cycle parking at Leamington rail station; and a new linkfrom J14/M40 to C209.