North of Milverton, Leamington Spa
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47873
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Jim and June Doull
Number of people: 2
Whilst recognising the need for a "Town Plan" to meet the future housing needs in Royal Leamington Spa, we are appalled that green belt land is even being considered when other options are available.
Urban sprawl is not the answer; running the risk of linking one town to another destroys the feeling of community identity.
Building of such a scale on land to the North of the town would most certainly require a relief road requiring even further destruction of our valuable countryside.
Whilst recognising the need for a "Town Plan" to meet the future housing needs in Royal Leamington Spa, we are appalled that green belt land is even being considered when other options are available. Urban sprawl is not the answer; running the risk of linking one town to another destroys the feeling of community identity.
Land development to the South of the Town would make more sense. The motorway road and rail links are already established providing good links to other parts of the country and industrial parks in the area, thus eliminating the need for employees to live too far from their place of work.
Building of such a scale on land to the North of the town would most certainly require a relief road requiring even further destruction of our valuable countryside.
Please think very carefully before destroying our countryside - it can't be replaced.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47874
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Norman and Wilga Brown
Number of people: 2
North Leamington's Green belt provides a buffer between the towns and villages to the North. The area is used for walking and the villages are unspoilt. Old Milverton and the surrounding green belt in particular is outstanding and should be kept as a heritage area for the generations to come.
Local Plan has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances in accordance with the NPPF as there is sufficient land outside of the Green Belt that has not been included in the preferred options.
We strongly object to to the proposals for the development of the Green belt land in North Leamington .
We understand the NPPF states that Local Plans must accord with its principles and that 'exceptional circumstances' be shown ,i.e. only where there are insufficient and available sites outside the Green belt . We understand that the Council has identified available land east of the A452 and south of Heathcote but these have not been included in the Preferred Option sites. This area has a large ready built comprehensive shopping centre and is well served by large Supermarkets, food outlets and and modern industrial estate, car showrooms -- presumably providing much needed employment to the residents of all these proposed 1980 households .There are also several schools in the vicinity.and a large and busy recycling facility all generating traffic. The already constructed motorlinks to the M40 are fast and efficient needing no expensive tearing up of the valuable land available. South Leamington does not run the danger of urban sprawl as there are no large towns and few villages in the vicinity.
North Leamingtons Green belt provides a buffer between the towns and villages to the North. The area is used for walking and the villages are unspoilt . Old Milverton and the surrounding green belt in particular is outstanding and should be kept as a heritage area for the generations to come Such villages and areas now enjoyed by the many are the result of wise decisions made by enlightened councillors over the years.
We believe that these plans are seriously flawed and that good sense will prevail
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47875
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Ms Sally-Anne Winston
This land has great recreational value to the local community.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the five purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land forever.
As there are alternative sites outside of the Greenbelt, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt.
I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for the Local plan.
This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the five purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land forever. Specifically, it:
* Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
* Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
* Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47878
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Simon Evans
This land has great recreational value to the local community.
This area fulfils the 5 purposes of Green Belt set out in the NPPF.
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt.
As there are alternative sites outside of the Green Belt, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries.
I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan.
This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
* Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
* Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
* Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt. These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy). Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.
Logic and rationale aside, finally, this area is loved by all the residents as it is and provides great pleasure to this very close community. Given the more appropriate development sites I truly hope that the voices of this community are heard and that you reconsider this disasterous proposal. Please reconsider your Preferred Options.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47881
Received: 08/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Katrina Crawford
Opposes development of Green Belt land in North Leamington.
An important local amenity for walking.
There is suitable non green belt land available to the south of the Town.
The NPPF principles should be adhered to where the development of Green Belt land is concerned.
I am emailing to express my opposition to the proposed development of Green Belt land in North Leamington to prevent the Urban sprawl and keep an important local amenity for walking. The open Green Belt space is so needed in the area.
I understood that Green Belt land should not be built on if other suitable land is available and that other suitable land is available to the Council in South Leamington.
I urge you as my MP and Town Councillor act on my behalf to ensure the NPPF principles are adhered to where Green Belt is concerned and appose the proposal of development of Green Belt in North Leamington.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47882
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Karen Wylde
This area is an asset to Leamington Spa.
It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners riders and cyclists and should be preserved at all costs.
It would be shameful to build here until you have exhausted all alternatives and checked that the number of houses you require is needed !
Old Milverton Redevelopment
This is my letter of objection to building on Green Belt Land in Blackdown and Old Milverton as shown in the 2012 Preferred options Plan. This area is an asset to Leamington Spa. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners riders and cyclists and should be preserved at all costs. It would be shameful to build here until you have exhausted all alternatives and checked that the number of houses you require is needed !
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47898
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Stoneleigh & Ashow Parish Council
Sites are in the narrow Green Belt between Kenilworth & Leamington, there cannot be a need here as there available sites outside of the Green Belt.
Allowing development here along with large development proposed at Gateway, HS2, Stoneleigh Park would destroy the valuable rural environment which maintains the spatial integrity of nearby small villages.
The proposed new road would negatively impact the area towards Guys Cliffe.
Traffic model is necessary to consider combined impacts of all development in this area. Congestion is Stoneleigh is already unacceptable at peak times.
Local Plan
We object to the choice of Milverton and Blackdown as preferred sites for new housing because:
1. They are in the Green Belt and specifically in the narrow Green Belt between Kenilworth and Leamington. There cannot be shown to be a need to build here as there are other sites not in the Green Belt which are available.
2. There is an obligation to prevent urban sprawl and allowing development in this area, for which there are already several large developments proposed (Coventry Gateway, HS2, continuing development at the University, Stoneleigh Park and Abbey Park) would destroy the valuable rural environment which maintains the spatial integrity of the small villages (Leek Wootton, Hill Wootton, Old Milverton, Stoneleigh, Ashow and Stareton).
3. The proposed new road necessitated by the developments would negatively impact the area towards Guys Cliffe. In a period of Council cut backs one would need to question the wisdom of proposing such a costly project especially when considering how much the Rugby relief road ran over budget.
4. A traffic model to consider the combined impacts of all the developments proposed for this area is urgently required before any of them are given the go ahead. We are advised that this has not been carried out. The traffic congestion in Stoneleigh is already unacceptable at peak times and this must be taken into consideration before any further development in the greenbelt is permitted.
We object to the size of the proposed development at Thickthorn.
1. Whilst it has long been acknowledged that the area up to the A46 would be a possible location for housing, the extension of this site to now include the Rugby Club and the cricket club land is not acceptable. It is essential that these facilities remain close to the population to permit access by foot and cycles and to reduce the need for motor car use.
2. There have been problems with flooding in Ashow caused by the run off from the existing housing on this side of Kenilworth and the drainage off the A46. Measures proposed to solve this existing problem have still not been fully implemented. Further development, on any scale, cannot be permitted until a full assessment of the drainage requirements has been carried out.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47905
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Clare Evans
The Green Belt land in this area is an asset to Leamington Spa and Kenilworth. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders and cyclists and should be preserved at all costs. What is the point of designating any land as greenbelt if council's can build on them, when there are alternative brownfield sites South of Leamington. It would be shameful to build here until you have exhausted all alternatives and checked that the number of houses you require is needed.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47908
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Margot Law
One of the main reasons for choosing this property to reside in, was the amazing views across the fields and the reassurance then that Green Belt land was sacrosanct. It seems now that the term Green Belt no longer has any relevance or worth! An important factor is the existence of a protected species of newt, It is my understanding that only authorised personnel are permitted to handle these creatures. The resulting devastation of these and other wildlife seem to contravene attempts to protect fauna. The agricultural land periodically falls victim to flooding, surely unsuitable for housing. Furthermore, there is danger of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth merging.
Scanned Email
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47909
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Julia Davies
The prospect of destroying Warwickshire countryside, cutting down trees and killing wildlife is a disgrace and should not be allowed to happen.How will the surrounding road structure cope with the substantial increase in traffic? Why destroy the countryside when there was a substantial amount of land at the Fords Foundry site, close to the town centre and all amenities. Yet a further supermarket has been allowed to take this over. How many supermarkets does a town need? I would like to know how many small traders, who also employ staff you are putting out of business as they cannot compete with large supermarkets.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47912
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: B. H. Bennett
Proposed development of new housing on Green Belt land to the North of Leamington Spa is objectionable and outlandish. The purpose of defining Green Belt is to retain agricultural value, recreational assets, natural beauty and prevent urban sprawl. Such a development would create a great deal of further chaos and congestion on the roads, which can already be witnessed at peak times. A relief road is proposed to compliment such development which would cut through swathes of land of extreme natural environment and beauty which would be outrageous. I understand that there are numerous parcels of land to the South of Leamington Spa which have not been listed as Green Belt.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47918
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Gillian Hayward
This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists. It is also prime food producing agricultural land which once destroyed can never be replaced. According to the NPPF the fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fufils the 5 purposes of Green Belt set out in the NPPF. There are other non Green Belt sites to the South that could be developed, from the 2009 Core Strategy, with existing employment opportunities and infrastructure.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47922
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: S.J. & E.J. Heritage
Number of people: 2
It defies sense that designated Green Belt land should be developed when there are other more suitable options available. Our strongest objection is that the infrastructure in North Leamington will clearly not cope without massive additional investment. There are other areas on the southern side of Leamington that already have a much better infrastructure, without the constraints of North Leamington that could be sensibly developed
Scanned Letter.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47924
Received: 25/09/2012
Respondent: D. J. Payne
Strongly object to proposed development plan on Green Belt land in North Leamington. One can assume that it was designated as Green Belt after careful consideration of all relevant factors. Why is this original work now being ignored? Nothing has changed since the 2009 Core Strategy, so what justification is there to disregard all the work that was carried out and resulted in the Green Belt Classification? Whilst I understand that more houses have to be built, such building must be carried out on Brown and White field sites before any consideration is given to using valuable Green Belt land
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47933
Received: 29/07/2012
Respondent: Jo Ciriani
Objects to development at North Milverton as the area is an asset to Leamington Spa. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, and cyclists and should be preserved at all costs. It would result in destruction to wildlife, ruined skyline and a loss of precious English countryside.
I am writing to oppose the Council's plans to develop on greenbelt land as shown in the 2012 Preferred Options booklet.
I object to building on greenbelt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton, because this area is an asset to Leamington Spa. It is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, and cyclists and should be preserved at all costs.
Aside from this, there will be destruction to wildlife, ruined skyline and a loss of precious English countryside.
I would suggest that other areas could be developed if there is a need for additional housing.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47941
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Verity Pullen
Objection on the grounds that the land is used by the local community, goes against the National Planning Policy Framework, other sites exist which are not in the greenbelt and plenty of brown field sites exist which could be used instead. It was also suggested that decisions taken now would limit options in the future.
I object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Councils's Preferred Options for the Local plan.
This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government attaches great importance to Greenbelts and that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Greenbelt in Old Milverton and Blackdown fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPPF and therefore should remain as open Greenbelt land for ever. It
* Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
* Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
* Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a
historic town)
* Helps urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land
There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Greenbelt.
These sites, which are mainly to the south of Leamington, were included in Warwick District Council's previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy).
Employment opportunities and infrastructure already exists here, and this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As there are alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by altering the Greenbelt boundaries in Old Milverton and Blackdown and allowing development on this land.
There are plenty of brown field sites that could be used instead. Instead of allowing another supermarker to be built at the Ford Foundry that area should have been considered for housing. Protect the countryside or we wont have any left for the next generations. Be wise about this.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47947
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Sara Millington
This land is Green Belt and farmland, producing valuable crops many people use it for recreational purposes. Surely, there is land in South Leamington which would be suitable for housing where the infrastructure is already in place rather than violating this much loved and much enjoyed part of Warwickshire.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47952
Received: 26/07/2012
Respondent: Rachel Stevens
Green Belt protection is fundamental. Where is the justification for merging Kenilworth and Leamington when other options are available. The Green Belt is a well-used amenity and proposed developments 4 and 5 will remove this much loved open space. Why do you consider that there is to be a need for over 8,000 dwellings by 2029, working in a school it is apparent the birth rate does not reflect this, supported by secondary place availability. At the Potterton site, a majority of units remain empty. It is apparent level of demand does not exceed supply is the demand projection accurate?
Scanned Letter.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47956
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Graham Hanson
The development map shows that the council are trying to win approval for building on Green Belt when White and Brown land was already set aside from the 2009 plan without justification. Why are we trying to build more houses than is required by the National Plan. If National Plan numbers are adhered to then no extra land is required saving building a new road plus other infrastructure projects to support over 1400 houses in what is currently Green Belt. The Green Belt area is enjoyed by many local residents and should be preserved for the future.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47963
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Ben Lane
There are other sites, which can be developed that are not in the Green Belt. These sites mainly to the South of Leamington were included in Warwick District Council's 2009 previous plan. So what has changed? Employment and infrastructure already exists there, this land should be used in preference to the Greenbelt.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47980
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: D. N. J. Green
The Green Belt land borders Lillington and New Cubbington, it provides a 'green lung' of open countryside for the benefit of many thousands of residents. This valuable amenity would be lost forever if the proposed development is allowed to proceed. Development of Green Belt can be permitted if 'exceptional circumstances' exist and no other suitable land is available. However, the council's own plans already show adequate non-Green Belt land South of Leamington to be available, which has close proximity to existing infrastructure and employment opportunities. The threatened Green Belt provides much amenity and adds much character its loss is inexcusable.
Scanned Letter.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47998
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: A P Spiller
Object to Old Milverton and Blackdown development.
Green belt means land to be kept free for people and creatures to walk on and live in and enjoy.
Breaks a promise and substitutes noise, poisonous fumes and other pollution.
Green belt lungs of built up areas.
Destructive proposals not even necessary.
I am writing to protest against the proposals to build on green belt land, and to drive a road through Old Milverton to join the A452 and the A46.
What does 'green belt' mean? I thought it meant land which was to be kept free for people and other creatures to walk on, live in and enjoy. Your proposals will not only break what I thought was a promise, but will substitute noise, poisonous fumes, and many other sorts of pollution for fresh air and pleasant surroundings. It is perhaps trite to say that green belt land represents the lungs of built up areas, but it is neverthless true.
Your destructive proposals will not only cause misery, but are not - as far as I can see - even necessary.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47999
Received: 09/07/2012
Respondent: John Ciriani
Objet to Old Milverton development.
Do not accept spreading the pain. Only allow building on brown field sites.
Protect green belt until all other exhausted.
Improtant for all people not just builders profit.
Where is proof that new houses needed? Lots of unsold property available.
Leamington would almost join with Kenilworth and lose identities.
I wish to make my objections known about the massive building proposal at Old Milverton.
I do not accept that the "pain" should be shared across the area. I suggest that we should only allow building on
brown field sites or sites that have been previously built for industrial use that are no longer required.
We should protect the Green Belt and only use the area when all other land is exhausted.
It is important for all the people who live in the area to protect our Green land from builders who just want to make a profit
and do not care for the environment.
Where is the proof that houses are required? If there is a demand then there would not be empty new houses
now in the area. I give the example of the old Potterton site where the majority of dwellings remain unsold.
There is no proven evidence for the large number of houses quoted as being required in the area.
The increased housing and development would allow Leamington to nearly join with Kenilworth and then both would lose their identity.
This development should not be allowed to happen as it is bad for everyone.
We should refer back and use the " 2009 Core Strategy" . It has infrastructure land available as well as good access to town centre and Motorways.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48008
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Mr & Mrs J. A. R. Garvey
Fundamental reasons to support our objections:
1. Land has recreational value.
2. Fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl.
3. Prevents merging of Leamington and Kenilworth, helps preserve setting and character of Leamington.
4. Green Belt helps safeguard countryside from encroachment and helps maximise wildlife habitats.
5. The proposals ignore WDC's study of the Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.
6. NPPF requires 'very special circumstances' for development in the Green Belt.
7. Land South of Leamington was identified and is still available for development.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48010
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Claire O'Connor
I object to the proposed development of Green Belt land to the North of Leamington, overall I find that insufficient planning evidence exists to justify the proposed development on Green Belt land.
1. Green Belt land should not be developed when other suitable land is available in Leamington for development.
2. The proposed plan will lead to coalescence of urban areas.
3. The local infrastructure is not sufficient to support development.
4. The plan proposes 1,370 excess dwellings over and above projected requirements.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48011
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Garrett O'Connor
I object to the proposed development of Green Belt land to the North of Leamington. Insufficient planning evidence exists to justify the proposed development.
1. Green Belt land should not be developed when other suitable land is available in Leamington for development.
2. The proposed plan will lead to coalescence of urban areas.
3. The local infrastructure is not sufficient to support development.
4. The plan proposes 1,370 excess dwellings over and above projected requirements.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48012
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Alexandra Gilchrist
The stipulated area is prime agricultural land, used not only for farming purposes, but also as a local amenity. I acknowledge the need for housing in the area but it would be more appropriate to use Brown or White field sites. I can see that new land is easier and more profitable for developers to build on, but can only hope that WDC will put the beauty of the area, requirement for agricultural land, wishes of residents and commonsense above the profit motives of national and local building firms.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48016
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Tawna Wickenden
It is my passionate belief that Green Belt land should be sustained for the preservation of wildlife habitat and recreational and educational enjoyment. As no 'very special circumstances' have been presented for the development of the Green Belt space, I can see no reason to seek this as the obvious choice for the proposed plans. Previously developed land has already been identified which is still available. The proposed development would further encourage an urban sprawl between Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth. Furthermore in the current economic climate many can ill afford to purchase homes, is it practical to build more?
Scanned Letter.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48018
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Joan & George Payne
Number of people: 2
Objection to the proposal for houses and commercial premises in the North Leamington area. We support the need; however object to the location of this project on a Green Belt site. Available land has already been identified in other areas that do not require sacrificing Green Belt land, which was designated to protect our living environment. Although estimated building requirements appear to support this massive programme, we feel they may be too excessive in view of Government determination to reduce immigration. Developing on the Green Belt will result in urban sprawl and the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth.
Scanned Letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48020
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Christopher Lacey Clark
Number of people: 2
Whilst recognising the need for new housing in order to fulfil the government objective. I would like to stress the importance of protecting local communities from any developments, which could cause a loss of identity and countryside by joining up existing urban areas.
Proposed development does not support government policy to empower local people and protect their access to countryside relaxation areas. Over the years, we have enjoyed the peace and serenity of Old Milverton and still do as a walking area. We should like to believe that this beautiful area of country will remain unspoilt for future generations.
Scanned Letter