Blackdown

I wish to object most strongly to the proposed local plan for Warwick District. My main reasons for objection are as follows:

National Planning Policy Framework requires "Very Special Circumstances", and these are not met
* The fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
* The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt. It also requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. According to Warwick District Council the special circumstances are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built.
* However, in the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council) land south of Leamington (not in Green Belt), was identified and is still available, for development. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure (roads etc) to support the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the town centres.
* Therefore, the previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy) is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are wrong.
* Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.

The Green Belt should be maintained
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's study of the Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value
* The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out five purposes for Greenbelt land. In summary these are, to prevent urban sprawl of built up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, to protect the country side from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land. The Greenbelt land identified for development in the Preferred Option does carry out these purposes and its development would therefore be contrary to the NPPF.
* The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.

Recreation Value of Old Milverton and Blackdown should be maintained
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders, and cyclists. It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to be enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park land would detract from, rather than enhance its value.
* Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation. If the proposals go ahead it is only a matter of time before it is also absorbed by Leamington.

Proposed New Roads would be inappropriate
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.
* The dual carriage way will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateway to Leamington and southern gateway to Kenilworth.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. Traffic flows tend to be north to south rather than east to west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns. If the development does not go ahead the road will not be required.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* If the proposed development is concentrated in the South of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost than the £28m allocated to construct a "Northern Relief Road".

New Out of Town Stores would be inappropriate
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area an attractive place to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.

Loss of high quality Agricultural Land would be inappropriate
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Blackdown and Old Milverton

Number of Homes included in the Forecasts is unnecessarily high
* Warwick District Council has added nearly 1400 homes to the number that it anticipates will be required so as to include a "buffer" in the forecasts. If this "buffer" is removed from the forecast there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals.

We would like to state our objections to the proposed development of the north Leamington Green belt.

We feel that the suggested developments in North Leamington and Blackdown completely fly in the face of the government's policy that greenbelt land is to be protected at all costs unless there is a demonstration of 'exeptional circumstances'.

Leamington is a beautiful town with great diversity and beautiful parks and up until now good access to the countryside. We do not want Leamington to blend into other villages and towns to become a sprawling conurbation.
As soon as the greenbelt land is developed with the proposed bypass it is just giving the green light to develop ever further north and to join with Kenilworth etc.
There are very few easily accessible country walks from the centre of leamington and if you develop these for housing we will lose access to our beautiful countryside.
North Leamington is a very family orientated area and with a young family ourselves we chose to buy in this location 3years ago because of the access to the fields etc. We are most concerned about the traffic, pressure on open spaces for leisure activities, risks of cycling on the roads etc all increasing.

The land south of Leamington is already designated as white belt land and therefore has no reason not to be developed further than already proposed if deemed necessary to help with the need for more homes in the area. We do however question the need for the total number of new homes proposed especially as there are many flats unsold and flats above shops unoccupied as well as the rapid rate of closure of the high street shops suggesting lack of consumers.

Please don't ruin our town anymore. Your proposition is proprosterous and will destroy our beautiful countryside, the outlook of our town and the freedom of our families.

I am writing to object to the proposed changes to the Green Belt around North Leamington. I have lived in the area off Old Milverton Road since 1978 and during that time the Green Belt has been vigorously protected to prevent it spreading towards Kenilworth. From what I have read about the current proposal the encroachment into the Green Belt is both inappropriate and unjustified. I am advised that the proposals ignore Warwick District Council's own study of the Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that both areas had high Green Belt value. This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
It is my understanding that Green Belt land should only be put forward in Very Special Circumstances such as there are no alternative sites available for development. Surely the Council's main priority should be to help urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land?
It is also my understanding that there is land available in the south of Leamington which is not protected Green Belt and which has previously been identified for development but which has not been included in the current plan. Why is that? Blackdown and Old Milverton have always been primarily farming areas and employment requirements have gravitated to the south of town with its better employment prospects, its infrastructure and easier access to the motorway system. Adding more housing and employment facilities in North Leamington will only add to the existing overloading of the road system around the Kenilworth Road and building a Northern Relief Road will only push the congestion further into Leamington centre. The budgeted cost of the relief road is £28 million - can the town afford such a gamble with very scarce resources in these tight times?
It has been suggested that developers may make more profit from building in the north Leamington area and that has been a reason for the council to ignore its own policy to stop urban sprawl that would harm the open nature of the open countryside. Developers' profitability is not a Very Special Circumstance.
I believe that the Council's population projections are based upon the boom years and that the population growth now is unlikely to require the quantity of housing that is being suggested. The projected quantity of new housing required appears to have come about because the Council has included a buffer or contingency of 1400 houses. If that contingency is removed there would be no need to develop either Blackdown or Old Milverton.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I write to you to formally object to the plans for the above development for many reasons. Firstly and most importantly, greenbelt land is protected from development and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The current circumstances are not exceptional.
Secondly, other land that is not protected greenbelt land has been identified in the Heathcote area and this would seem to have been dismissed by the Council. This again would support the first point that the circumstances for the plans are not exceptional.
The site of the old Ford Factory had not been built upon for a considerable time and is now being developed into another supermarket, despite a major superstore being not a minutes walk away on the Shires retail park. Currently, there is 100,000 square feet available on that site for development.
Thirdly, the existence of a natural barrier between Leamington Spa and Kenilworth will be lost and increased traffic will lead to further damage to what will be left of the environment and the wildlife. The influx of new residents will place a strain on the Hospitals within the immediate area. It would also appear that no attention has been paid to the enormous cost of building roads and so on, when alternative sites already exist.
Finally, to return to the original point of the land proposed for development being greenbelt land. I asked my 8 year old daughter what she thought of the proposals, her answer was, 'Isn't greenbelt land forever?' That is exactly what this piece of land should remain, there for our children to benefit from and for generations to come.

I strongly object to the proposals on the grounds that the situation has not changed since the 2009 Core Strategy, so there cannot be any justification for these fundamental changes at this time or on greenbelt land when other options exist.

I am writing to object strongly to the proposed development of green belt land in Old Milverton and Blackdown.

As a resident of Leamington Spa for the past 68 years I have always appreciated the open space, recreational and exercising facilities created by green belt land.

I always thought that when an area was granted Green Belt status it was illegal for this status to be changed except for very exceptional circumstances. Looking at the area of Leamington as a whole I am surprised that the council have not seen fit to look at different areas where the impact of additional housing would not be so great.

The proposal as it stands would result in the urbanisation of Leamington and Kenilworth, a move which would result in these two towns losing their individual identities. It would also result in the communities of Old Milverton and Blackdown being lost.

I strongly urge the Council to reconsider their planned proposal.

For many decades the Greenbelt has provided a barrier to urban sprawl. To allow housing development at the above two sites would reduce the area for exercise and recreation i.e. walking to Saxon Mill. WDC has not demonstrated that there are 'exceptional circumstances' requiring these developments as there is non-Greenbelt land available; east of Europa Way and south of Heathcote which could be used for housing development without any infringement of Greenbelt land!!!!!

I wish to vigourously object to the building on green belt land in Blackdownand Old Milverton.
The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development.Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built.In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Wawick District Council) land South of Leamington was identified, and is still available, for development. This land is east of the A452 Europa Way and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it.It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
*The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The policy of "spreading it around" again is not planning policy but a political one. Thus the legality of the councils desicion making process comes into serious question.
*The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concludedthat these areas had high Green Belt value.
*Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns.The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth toless than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to dual carriage way will not help traffic flows.At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
*The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth, it will change the character of Leamington for ever,.
*A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required.The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; west.The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
*A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
*The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
*There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton
*The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, riders, and cyclists.
It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick.Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park would detract from rather than enhance its value. There is no infrastructure problems to the previous chosen development sites in South Leamington.
*Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026.If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals. There has been in recent years an exceptional growth in Leamingtons population partly because of Europe. However this has now levelled of. There are not hundreds and thousands of homeless people sleeping in the streets of Leamington at night, so I seriously question the need fordevelopment ofsuch a scale. The prime minister recently stated that people should no longer except free housing there friends and family should assist, by carrying out such a development the council is not working to the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying, I for one will be writing to him to inform him of this. Further more there has been an extra approximately 500 student beds places created/about to be created in Leamingtonin purpose builtbuildings this year alone. This means talking to local agents that small houses are now not being rented by students and about an extra 100 5 bed homes are sitting empty this year, they are going to be either rented out to private tenants or DSS tenants or sold of private individuals or families, I feel the council has missed the point that about 500 extra beds spaces houses will be available this to the community, as student population is down by about 10% this year nationally, furthermore with the increase in fees this year, there is likely to be an even further decrease in the student population freeing up more housing.
To summarise I am objecting on the below grounds
1.Local amenity taking away our local open public space
2.Green belt, not adhering to policy when you have already suitable land for development.
3.Over provision of housing, as the sires previously declared suitable will inevitably be still developed, and student houses becoming available.
4.Coalescence of urban sprawl,towns will soon be close together losing their identities, which makes Leamington so special
5.Infrastructure. No need to spend £28 million on new road when there is infrastructure in place at the previous south Leamington sites declared suitable

I wish to vigourously object to the building on green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.
The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Wawick District Council) land South of Leamington was identified, and is still available, for development. This land is east of the A452 Europa Way and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
* The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The policy of "spreading it around" again is not planning policy but a political one. Thus the legality of the councils desicion making process comes into serious question.
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.
* Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns. The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth, it will change the character of Leamington for ever,.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, riders, and cyclists.
It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park would detract from rather than enhance its value. There is no infrastructure problems to the previous chosen development sites in South Leamington.
* Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026. If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals. There has been in recent years an exceptional growth in Leamingtons population partly because of Europe. However this has now levelled of. There are not hundreds and thousands of homeless people sleeping in the streets of Leamington at night, so I seriously question the need for development of such a scale. The prime minister recently stated that people should no longer except free housing there friends and family should assist, by carrying out such a development the council is not working to the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying, I for one will be writing to him to inform him of this. Further more there has been an extra approximately 500 student beds places created/about to be created in Leamington in purpose built buildings this year alone. This means talking to local agents that small houses are now not being rented by students and about an extra 100 5 bed homes are sitting empty this year, they are going to be either rented out to private tenants or DSS tenants or sold of private individuals or families, I feel the council has missed the point that about 500 extra beds spaces houses will be available this to the community, as student population is down by about 10% this year nationally, furthermore with the increase in fees this year, there is likely to be an even further decrease in the student population freeing up more housing.
To summarise I am objecting on the below grounds
1. Local amenity taking away our local open public space
2. Green belt, not adhering to policy when you have already suitable land for development.
3. Over provision of housing, as the sires previously declared suitable will inevitably be still developed, and student houses becoming available.
4. Coalescence of urban sprawl, towns will soon be close together losing their identities, which makes Leamington so special
5. Infrastructure. No need to spend £28 million on new road when there is infrastructure in place at the previous south Leamington sites declared suitable

I wish to vigourously object to the building on green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.
The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Wawick District Council) land South of Leamington was identified, and is still available, for development. This land is east of the A452 Europa Way and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
* The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The policy of "spreading it around" again is not planning policy but a political one. Thus the legality of the councils desicion making process comes into serious question.
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.
* Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns. The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth, it will change the character of Leamington for ever,.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, riders, and cyclists.
It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park would detract from rather than enhance its value. There is no infrastructure problems to the previous chosen development sites in South Leamington.
* Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026. If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals. There has been in recent years an exceptional growth in Leamingtons population partly because of Europe. However this has now levelled of. There are not hundreds and thousands of homeless people sleeping in the streets of Leamington at night, so I seriously question the need for development of such a scale. The prime minister recently stated that people should no longer except free housing there friends and family should assist, by carrying out such a development the council is not working to the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying, I for one will be writing to him to inform him of this. Further more there has been an extra approximately 500 student beds places created/about to be created in Leamington in purpose built buildings this year alone. This means talking to local agents that small houses are now not being rented by students and about an extra 100 5 bed homes are sitting empty this year, they are going to be either rented out to private tenants or DSS tenants or sold of private individuals or families, I feel the council has missed the point that about 500 extra beds spaces houses will be available this to the community, as student population is down by about 10% this year nationally, furthermore with the increase in fees this year, there is likely to be an even further decrease in the student population freeing up more housing.
To summarise I am objecting on the below grounds
1. Local amenity taking away our local open public space
2. Green belt, not adhering to policy when you have already suitable land for development.
3. Over provision of housing, as the sires previously declared suitable will inevitably be still developed, and student houses becoming available.
4. Coalescence of urban sprawl, towns will soon be close together losing their identities, which makes Leamington so special
5. Infrastructure. No need to spend £28 million on new road when there is infrastructure in place at the previous south Leamington sites declared suitable

I have read with interest the new local plan for housing and other developments in the Warwick area, particularly the green belt land north of Warwick and Leamington. I understand that the Council is planning to develop housing on three large areas of green belt: Blackdown, Old Milverton and the Woodloes Estate. I have some concerns about these proposed developments.

In my understanding, land set aside as "Green Belt" is set aside for the very purpose of keeping it from development, except from in "exceptional circumstances". In this case, I do not consider the exceptional circumstances given as justifiable for the developments. Firstly, the projected population growth that the Council gives is based upon outdated calculations from a period of growth which exceeds current figures. I have noted particularly that the Potterton Estate in Warwick, which was started four years ago and has only half been built, is still noticeably unfilled at the present, despite more being allocated to social housing than originally planned. This would indicate a considerable slowdown in the need for extra housing.

Secondly, any extra housing of the volume proposed would create a need for more facilities, such as extra schools, roads and shops, which would in turn require further land space. This extra space would no doubt also have to be Green Belt land. Of particular concern is the Council's assertion of the need for a North Leamington Relief Road, which I consider as entirely unnecessary due to the adequacy of the Warwick Bypass (A46). There are also not enough public spaces in the area to cope with such a rise in population; present footpaths, which are set across private farmland, provide limited access to outdoor space.

Thirdly, with employment prospects in the northern area already limited due to the economic slowdown and a lack of industry, the previous plan of development in the south of Leamington would be a far more suitable option. This is due to the employment prospects created by the Tachbrook Park industrial area and other new developments, such as the new Morrisons Supermarket. It is also worth mentioning that the road infrastructure in the south of Leamington is more substantial and better suited to cope with a population increase.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that development in the south of Leamington, particularly west of Europa Way and near to the present Warwick Gates estate, would be far more suitable than the north, due to better existing infrastructure and more employment opportunities, provided that enough consideration is given to accessible green space. The south, also being not designated Green Belt, would be easier to get planning permission for and would save valuable Green Belt land from development. Merging Leamington Spa and Kenilworth into one large urban sprawl with this development would harm the character of the area, which is what the Green Belt land was originally set aside to prevent.

I sincerely hope that the Council will take into account my concerns about these proposed developments.

I understand there is a plan to develop the open ground around Old Milverton and Blackdown.

As a local resident, I object to this.

I board guide dogs for the blind when they are in training, and this area is the only area within walking distance which is suitable to exercise them.

I understood this is a Greenbelt area, so the boundaries should be modified only in exceptional circumstances. I understand there is land to the south of Leamington, not in a Greenbelt area, which was previously identified and is is still availlable for development; so the circumstances are not "Exceptional".

Additionally, building 3000 new homes north of Leamington will have a major effect on congestion.

Please reconsider this plan.

I would like to submit an objection to the proposed new development in north Leamington. Our town is surrounded on all sides by open countryside and this is part of it's beauty. If the plans go ahead this environment will be lost for ever. Whilst I realize new affordable homes are required the journeys to local jobs need to be affordable too. Please reconsider these plans and develop near and in town and on main bus routes from the town. We all need to enjoy these surroundings, including those who chose to live and work locally.

Having considered the proposals we would like to object as follows:-

We understand the need for more housing, but this should be in areas already available for development, not encroaching onto Green Belt.

There may not be many Brownfield or similar category sites, but what is there should be built on before any Greenfield land is utilised. Land has been designated Green Belt for a specific reason, that it is not to be built on. So why try to change this?

More recent development of the town seems to have been weighted on the south side. This is logical as it offers easier access to the motorway, train station, two large supermarkets and employment. With the advent of the new Morrisons store, it would be totally illogical to build houses on the north side when more than adequate facilities will exist on the south side.

Movement from north to south of the town is limited through just four road bridges across the river, and these are already over capacity at peak traffic times. They were not designed to carry the current levels of traffic, let alone an increase.

We would not support any road development along the scale suggested. New roads are expensive and no doubt would involve building a bridge(s), and along with a Park and Ride, would absorb yet more Greenfield land. So it is not just land required for housing; where would it end?

It would appear that the proposed building at Milverton and Blackdown, is just to spread the development to the north as well as south of the town.
A sort of balancing act? And yet the main access to transport and road connections are to the south of the town? To be realistic, we might support some limited building of a small number of houses in this area, say up to 50, provided this would not require the building of any commercial development - eg supermarkets.

In summary :

It only makes economic sense for further housing development to be limited to south of the river (which also happens to be non Green Belt land) and
where much of the infrastructure and facilities already exist. Whereas
developing a whole new area of housing plus infrastructure on the north side would seem to be a waste of public money.

We 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.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

With regard to Warwick District Council's New Local Plan and Preferred Options: I support the numerous objections of the residents of Old Milverton, Blackdown and the views of Jeremy Wright MP in the Courier of July 20th. The source of WDC's evidence for future population growth was successfully (and evidentially) challenged at the Parish council meeting on 16th July. The NPPF is referenced by WDC's new Proposed Local Plan regularly but the content is selectively ignored:
Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy
* The development of this area will keep infrastructure developments in urban areas and ignore the employment and housing requirements of more rural communities.
Section 4 - Promoting Sustainable transport
* It will increase private traffic through areas used by families and schoolchildren and ignores the requirement for sustainable well-placed transport networks.
Section 5 - Supporting High Quality Communications Infrastructure
* It ignores the need for public transport and high-speed broadband in smaller rural areas.
Section 9 - Protecting Greenbelt Land.
* It dismisses the high value of greenbelt land directly in contradiction of the NPPF.

I refer you to the foreword in the NPPF and its Core Planning Principles. Please follow the requirement of consultation by acting upon the objections of members of the local community with as much vigor as you have done with landowners and development firms. Most of the developers and landowners, particularly in Old Milverton, do not live locally. Financial gain on their behalf does not come with a qualitative cost.

Contrary to Councilor Doody's apparent advice of the 16th of July this year, I will be sending copies of this letter and its objections to my local Members of Parliament. I do not share his alleged opinion that my elected political representatives and their governing processes are a waste of time. I have attached further explanation of my objections below.
Section 9 - Protecting Greenbelt Land.
The area of greenbelt on which development is proposed was identified as such in the last local plan. It was confirmed as of high value by WDC's study of greenbelt not very long ago.
To develop this greenbelt area is to poorly site several thousands of residential houses at the opposite end of town from their road and rail links, main shopping sites and other amenities.
The proposals are contrary to the National Policy Planning Framework's Guidelines on Protecting Greenbelt Land. 'Very special circumstances' do not exist. More suitable land with better transport and amenity links has been identified in south Leamington, closer to most of the aforementioned developments (including new development at the old Ford foundry) which is not green-belt.
The proposed local plan would destroy greenbelt land which for the most part is currently good, economically productive farmland with public access for recreation and provision of views, wildlife habitat, and a barrier for the protection of further farmland that currently prevents urban sprawl.
I hope that the council does not consider the financial gain proposed by development firms more important than the social, environmental and economic needs of its future residents or the benefits derived by current residents from the green-belt land.
Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy
The smaller villages surrounding Leamington Spa have become commuter dormitories due to lack of infrastructure development and withdrawal of services. The proposed plan will set in motion their complete assimilation into the greater urban area.
The proposed development areas in Warwick University, Coventry Airport and Stoneleigh Park would afford the opportunity for local employment to some of these villages and negate the need for a large, counter-productive block of development to service them. This has obvious economic and ecological benefits.
I agree with the NPPF that there is a need for controlled rural development, it is needed in order to arrest the decline of rural communities, not to write them off completely and leave them years behind their urban cousins in order to maximize on private industry profitability.
Section 4 - Promoting Sustainable transport
Traffic on the Old Milverton and Kenilworth roads is already significant. The proposed northern relief road will do nothing but compound the poor placement of houses and park-and-ride by increasing traffic from north Leamington, through Old Milverton and through housing estates in Milverton where it already conflicts with pedestrian traffic of school children. Flow the other way will increase traffic from north and west Leamington to transport links off the A46 through the same areas.
Expanding the existing Kenilworth-Leamington road to dual carriageway will have a massive impact on long-standing greenbelt and increase traffic from the A46 through Blackdown towards Stoneleigh-park and the routes above.
Development should be concentrated to the south of Leamington keeping the destinations of park and ride nearer to the rail links in Leamington and Warwick, motorway links, shopping, amenities and better transport links which all exist to the south.
This approach would support the NPPF's aims whilst allowing for the larger developments to be focused on land to the south of Leamington and other already brown-field sites. It would also add to the revitalization of Leamington's old town.
Section 5 - Supporting High Quality Communications Infrastructure
The proposed plan states that it has chosen to concentrate development in areas where transport, amenity, communication and recreation already exist. This is clearly not the case as the infrastructure developments in the greenbelt area are huge. They are designed solely to support the proposed expansion of the urban area.
The proposals contain no mention of improving transport infrastructures such as bus, and cycle routes outside of their urban expansion; no mention of high-speed broadband in outlying villages (particularly in green-belt) and only a slight nod in the direction of community led housing - without attempting to include affordable rural housing.
Green-belt in this case is a rural environment; one which is protected for the good of the character, appearance and health of the towns it surrounds. It also contains a working populous who are to be penalized for the sake of convenience and private company income.
One of these villages is now home to 3 generations of my family. I feel that providing a future for my children offering variety and opportunity rather than conurbation and limited options is something worth discussing properly.
Developments over the last 30 or so years have changed the face and character of this area completely. Their continuation is detrimental to the character, nature and vivacity of the area. I would hate to see The NPPF ignored to further add to the urban/rural division and creeping conurbation of the area inflicted by previous planning strategies.

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.

Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I wish to object to the proposed development in Old Milverton and Blackdown contained in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options local plan.
The National Planning Framework ( NPPF ) states that the Government attaches great importance to Grre belts and that the fundemental aim of the Green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
The Green belt 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.
It prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth.
It 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, which should be used in preferrence to Greenbelt sites.
The NPFF states that Green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and as there are alternative sites there are no such circumstances to build on this land.

I believe that the previous plan (the 2009 Core Strategy) is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the" special cicumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are wrong. This land (not in the Green Belt,) South of Leamington was identified and is still available for development.

I ask you to reconsider your preferred options.

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, cyclists and of course, the wildlife.
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.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I am writing to oppose the Warwick District Council's Preferred Options Local Plan, which is proposing a large expansion of housing in the Green Belt north of Leamington Spa.

Green belt, as per the Governments National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is designated to prevent the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevent neighbouring towns from merging, safeguard the countryside from encroachment, preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

By developing the proposed sites around Old Milverton in North Leamington, it will ignore the Councils own study of Green Belt land at Old Milverton and Blackdown, which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value, as set out by the NPPF. It will also bring Leamington Spa and Kenwilworth closer towards merging, the boundaries between the two towns being less than 1.5 miles.

The land is currently an important open space for all residents of North Leamington, enjoyed by walkers, cyclists and many others for recreation. The proposed building and road development would substantially limit the amount of land available to be enjoyed and turning some of it into maintained parkland would still detract from the value it has as countryside.

Warwick District Council has previously identified (2009 Core Strategy) areas that could be developed that are not on Green Belt land and have not been included in the new proposals. As such these areas should be developed before consideration of developing on Green Belt land according to the NPPF. According to Warwick District Council, these areas are easier to develop, have much of the necessary infrastructure already in place, as well as existing out of town shopping centres. However they have been overlooked as they are not seen to be as 'attractive' to developers who would make less profit.

I hope that you will consider my views and those of many others who are objecting to this abuse of the governments National Planning Policy Framework, by retracting the proposal to develop the land north of Leamington Spa at Old Milverton and Blackdown and consider again already viable non-Green Belt options.

The New Local Plan - Objection to Development of the Green Belt in North Leamington.

Common sense and concern for present and future generations dictate that the green belt should be conserved and only used for development when no other suitable sites are available - in this case sites are available to the south of Leamington outside the green belt.
Building that is proposed on the Milverton and Blackdown sites will be seen as an act of vandalism in the future.
No one is looking ahead. The proposal is an invitation to future councils to eat further into the green belt until there is none left between Leamington and Kenilworth as has happened between Leamington and Warwick now a continuous urban sprawl.
Green Belt must be sacrosanct - Why?
Councils must avoid short termism. They are responsible for the future of our children who, it is now understood, should wherever possible have easy access to the countryside - trees, fields and fresh air - everybody's right.
Development of the green belt involves destruction of hundreds of prime oak trees, miles of hedgerows and thousands of species of plants , animals, birds and invertebrates which depend on clear air, space and greenery. The native Oak tree is estimated to provide habitats for some 35,000 different species which are wholly or partially dependent on it.
For some time now we have been able to monitor people walking - with and without dogs - throughout the year at just one point of access to the Green Belt namely the Northumberland Road / Bamburgh Grove entry. As many as 20 - 30 people daily can be seen using the footpath across to Old Milverton and on fine summer days and weekends as many as 100 will use the path, some making their way through to Guys Cliffe. The recreational and scenic values offered by this important area alone will be lost if the new plan is goes ahead.
At a previous location some 50 years ago it became apparent that, after blocks of around 1000 houses were scattered around the countryside , the sites were non - sustainable and shops soon closed , communities requiring at least 2500 homes for shops ,restaurants / take-aways ,medical services, pubs and churches to function successfully. Splitting the Blackdown and Old Milverton developments simply repeats those mistakes becoming small development dumps from which people need to escape.
Any successful development of a new village requires a definable centre and thoughtful road systems not just straight lines. The roads serving these areas are already choked during rush hours and the proposed plan will make the situation much worse especially on the A452 Leamington towards Kenilworth and the A46. What are the exact proposals for easing the added congestion that will inevitably occur. An exact plan is needed not merely a wish list. The proposed new road through Old Milverton will surely kill the village. Is that what the council wants?
There are no extra jobs in these areas nor will they be created once the houses are built. At least South Leamington has better access to the town and jobs.
Developers love building on Green Belt - it is a cheap and easy option maximising their profits whilst destroying the environment.
There are many weasel words in the document. Affordable housing - for whom? First time buyers / social housing - who decides? Sustainability - a meaningless word suggesting care and consideration - clearly not the case. Words covering a multitude of sins giving developers a free rein.
Surely before consent for development is even considered ,we must look to the next 5, 10 or 15 years. What is bound to happen is that having ruined the Green Belt on the north side of Leamington and built houses in numbers too small to support a viable community, other developers will turn their attention to land already identified by planners outside the green belt to the south of Leamington. The council will find it impossible to resist their demands to develop this land because the Government has announced a presumption for development , so that on appeal the council will have no grounds for refusal . So we will ultimately be left with a vandalised Green Belt and the south side will be developed anyway - we must therefore never build on green belt which should be kept in trust for future generations.
We are certain that the councillors who have put forward this dreadful plan cannot be familiar with the tranquil beauty of our local countryside. To this end we are enclosing photographs taken this year to illustrate the devastation that is proposed .
These piecemeal plans must be rejected out of hand and we plead that the Councillors THINK AGAIN.

I object 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 for ever.
It:
1. Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
2. Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
3. Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
4. Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
5. 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.

I am writing again having attended the public meeting at Old Milverton St James's Church.
I would like to thank Mr Bill Hunt for his clear explanation of the current position with the Local Plan Preferred Options. Even though he was unable to satisfactorily answer most of the key questions, he was respectful to the public views and attempted to explain the Council's position.
He was unable to explain what has changed since the extensive 2009-2010 Core Strategy studies and this is a basic requirement as set out in the NPPF:
The NPPF requires that if the Council is considering any changes to the Green Belt boundary, that it sets out whether any major changes have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary (para 82).
The Core Strategy had identified over 11,000 housing sites without infringing upon the Green Belt. The new preferred option has over 40% of the required 8,500 housing sites in the Green Belt.
He suggested that the three main gas pipes identified crossing one site was a change (it is unbelievable that this was not discovered during the earlier studies); he considered that the additional infrastructure required to develop sites south of Leamington would be slower to implement than those needed north of Leamington ( this is obviously inaccurate): and he suggested that one large site was harder to market than numerous sites ( the 2009-10 proposals included a good number of sites that were at some distance from each other).
These arguments do not stand up and a Public Enquiry will dismiss them as not being exceptional enough to overturn the Green Belt policies. Please see the conclusions of the recent Cheltenham Green Belt Public Enquiry - the first to have been based on the new NPPF policies.
He was unable to explain why the 2010 Joint Council (including Warwick DC) study of the Green Belt fringes was ignored.
The largest site proposed for development north of Leamington was identified in your own recent study as an absolute priority to remain in the Green Belt for protection.
When questioned on the costs and practicality of the Northern Relief Road, he suggested that it was not essential even if the development sites in the Green Belt went forward.
This may be true, but the Green Belt development will be certain to have a dramatic impact at the right-angled bend at the village green in Old Milverton, and on the two 'pinch-points' on the Stoneleigh Road - the top of the hill in Blackdown village where the width, bend and site lines make it a hazard for speeding traffic; and the historic old bridge in Stoneleigh which is unable to cope with any additional traffic being loaded onto this route. I do not think the full implications of these costs have been considered in your site evaluation.
The range of studies which have been presented to justify the Local Plan proposals are extensive but unsatisfactory in their findings. Two examples are:
The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (May 2012) studies are particularly unsatisfactory as they present a very limited analysis of each site with no attempt to evaluate the implications or comparisons or costs of each measure. No infrastructure, social or environmental costs for the development of each site have been estimated. How is it possible to evaluate or compare sites if these considerations are not assessed? It seems that all sites assessed have been included in the Local Plan - there is no reassessment of the many other sites selected as part of the 2009-10 Core Strategy. There are no site options to be considered. This is certainly one of the poorest UK examples of urban growth site assessments in recent years.
The Garden Towns, Villages and Suburbs prospectus (May 2012) promotes the concept of sustainable development but fails to provide any new thinking on layouts, adaption to micro landscapes and environments, or how to accommodate large numbers of social housing. There has been no attempt to consider who pays the extra capital and on-going management and maintenance costs for the proposed additional public facilities - at a time when we are cutting back on public expenditurecould they even be included? Even though the document is well illustrated, showing huge numbers of trees, it provides a poor model for sensitive landscapes and boundaries with existing communities.
With the inability of Council officers to explain the reasons for these flawed proposals and the poor quality of some of the documents presented to justify the Local Plan, we can be certain the a Public Enquiry will require dramatic changes.
How will the Council be reflecting the views and recommendations resulting from this 'consultation' process?

04 July 2012

Development Policy Manager,
Warwick District Council,
Riverside House,
Milverton Hill,
Leamington Spa, CV32 5QH.


Dear Sirs,
Re: Warwick District Council Local Plan Preferred Options

I am writing to object to the proposals set out in the WDC Local Plan Preferred Options May 2012 document.

In particular, I object to your proposals for potential development in the Green Belt north of Leamington and Warwick.

1. Over the last 60 years the Green Belt policies have been one of the most successful and beneficial planning policies implemented in England, and it should be defended to avoid any weakening of this guidance.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 is very clear on this matter and even its definition of 'any exceptional circumstances', where Green Belt designation can be reconsidered, do not cover the conditions proposed for the Warwick District Council area.

2. The NPPF identifies five purposes (para 18) -
to check sprawl; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging; to safeguard the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging development elsewhere.
The WDC Local Plan Preferred Options for developing the Green Belt north of Leamington/Warwick, do not assist the achievement of any of these purposes.
3. The NPPF requires that if the Council is considering any changes to the Green Belt boundary, that it sets out whether any major changes have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary (para 82).
WDC has not identified any 'major changes' that have occurred since the Local Development Framework Core Strategy studies 2009/10.

4. WDC repeats that both the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (May 2012) and the Joint Green Belt Study (January 2009) with other non site specific documents have guided the selection of sites. There is no explanation why all the sites that WDC identified after detailed studies for the Core Strategy were not included.
The SHLAA is a limited appraisal as there has been no attempt to comparatively value the different measures, and it does not consider the likely additional site related costs - infrastructure (roads and utilities), the wider impact on the local community, or the Green Belt considerations. The SHLAA is only a site by site appraisal and there is also no full explanation as to how these assessments have guided the selection of the strategy. One wonders how objective this appraisal is, as half the partnership team were either developers or their agents with interests in particular sites.
The Joint Green Belt study is likely to be more objective, but in some cases its findings have been ignored. Again this was not a site selection study for the growth of Leamington/Warwick as it did not consider non-Green Belt land. All it was able to suggest was that some sites could be reconsidered in comparison with non Green Belt sites, and that other parts of the Green Belt should in no circumstances be considered for development.

As a result WDC have selected sites in the Green Belt without fully reviewing all the non Green Belt sites, from a limited and very selective site appraisal, and have ignored the findings of their own extensive studies for the Local Framework Core Studies and the combined local authority Joint Green Belt study.
The Local Plan Preferred Options document only provides rate of growth options and does not provide the opportunity to consider any locational options or alternatives to development in the Green Belt.

I also object to the recommended road projects to the north of Leamington/Warwick that have been identified as preferred options.
The road proposals include the 'Northern Relief Road', a widened route from the Jet roundabout in Kenilworth along the Kenilworth Road to the Lillington Avenue junction in Leamington; a widened route from the Blackdown roundabout to the Bericote Road roundabout along the Stoneleigh Road; and a Park and Ride area near the Sandy Lane/Kenilworth Road roundabout.
The additional traffic flow calculations and assumptions (Warwick District Council Strategic Transport Assessment Modelling April 2012) - which could be questioned, are based on the assumption that the Green Belt development proposals are fully implemented, though the massive costs of this road infrastructure have not been considered as part of the site appraisals.

1. The alignment of the Stoneleigh Road is completely unsuitable for upgrading because of its physical conditions and constraints and any attempt would destroy the Blackdown community - further costs you have not included in your sites appraisal.

2. The so-called 'Northern Relief Road' would only benefit a small percentage of car users in this area and could not be much of an alternative route for traffic between Leamington and Warwick as it repeats the A46 route and would be unlikely to take any traffic away from the Emscote Road.

3. The proposed 'Northern Relief Road' will be a major cost - capital, environmental and social. Taking this road down the hill to the north of Old Miverton, across the flood plain and river, and creating a new junction onto the already multiple A46 junction, will be a frightening cost to load on such a short length of road and has to be added to the site development costs - as it is not needed otherwise. The environmental impact will be dramatic and the effect on the Old Milverton community will be unacceptable. A major impact could also occur at the old bridge in Stoneleigh - has this cost been considered?

4. Widening the road from Kenilworth into Leamington is an unnecessary cost and an environmental disaster - consider the trees, farmland and front gardens that would be lost. Widening roads can speed-up traffic, but it does not resolve congestion. Any congestion at morning peaks on the Kenilworth Road into Leamington is a result of the junctions, lights and pinchpoints from Lillington Avenue southwards.

I consider that development in the Green Belt to the north of Leamington/Warwick on the 'preferred sites' will have an adverse impact on the town centre economy - both the shopping centre and the attractions for heritage tourism.


1. Proposals for significant shopping in a newly developed area north of Leamington will have an adverse impact on the Leamington and Warwick town centre shopping economies.

2. Even with new employment land identified, there will still be a need for a significant percentage of potential new 'Northern' residents to travel across the town centre to the current and proposed major employment areas to the south of Leamington/Warwick. This will lead to increased town centre traffic congestion and make it a less pleasant place to visit.

3. Tourists and visitors wishing to enjoy the attractions and heritage of Leamington town centre currently can approach from the north through countryside (Green Belt) and an attractive tree lined road before passing the white eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings on the Kenilworth Road. The whole positive experience would be lost if the proposals proceed for housing, employment areas, park and ride and road widening removing many trees along this route.
4. WDC have stated in the Preferred Options document (page 17) that "many felt that increasing sprawl around the existing towns would damage the rural setting of the towns to the detriment of both their economies and their environment." This obviously would be a particular concern if development of the Green Belt occurred to the north of Leamington/Warwick.


I will be grateful if you would respond to these concerns as soon as possible. In particular, to explain what are the major circumstances that have changed since the long preparation of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy in 2009/10, and why you have chosen to ignore some of the findings of this Core Strategy and the Joint Green Belt Study 2009.































Hill House
Stoneleigh Road
Blackdown
Leamington Spa
CV32 6QR

18 July 2012

Development Policy Manager,
Warwick District Council,
Riverside House,
Milverton Hill,
Leamington Spa, CV32 5QH.

Dear Sirs,
Re: Warwick District Council Local Plan Preferred Options

I am writing again having attended the public meeting at Old Milverton St James's Church.
I would like to thank Mr Bill Hunt for his clear explanation of the current position with the Local Plan Preferred Options. Even though he was unable to satisfactorily answer most of the key questions, he was respectful to the public views and attempted to explain the Council's position.
He was unable to explain what has changed since the extensive 2009-2010 Core Strategy studies and this is a basic requirement as set out in the NPPF:
The NPPF requires that if the Council is considering any changes to the Green Belt boundary, that it sets out whether any major changes have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary (para 82).
The Core Strategy had identified over 11,000 housing sites without infringing upon the Green Belt. The new preferred option has over 40% of the required 8,500 housing sites in the Green Belt.
He suggested that the three main gas pipes identified crossing one site was a change (it is unbelievable that this was not discovered during the earlier studies); he considered that the additional infrastructure required to develop sites south of Leamington would be slower to implement than those needed north of Leamington ( this is obviously inaccurate): and he suggested that one large site was harder to market than numerous sites ( the 2009-10 proposals included a good number of sites that were at some distance from each other).
These arguments do not stand up and a Public Enquiry will dismiss them as not being exceptional enough to overturn the Green Belt policies. Please see the conclusions of the recent Cheltenham Green Belt Public Enquiry - the first to have been based on the new NPPF policies.
He was unable to explain why the 2010 Joint Council (including Warwick DC) study of the Green Belt fringes was ignored.
The largest site proposed for development north of Leamington was identified in your own recent study as a priority to remain in the Green Belt for protection.
When questioned on the costs and practicality of the Northern Relief Road, he suggested that it was not essential even if the development sites in the Green Belt went forward.
This may be true, but the Green Belt development will be certain to have a dramatic impact at the right-angled bend at the village green in Old Milverton, and on the two 'pinch-points' on the Stoneleigh Road - the top of the hill in Blackdown village where the width, bend and site lines make it a hazard for speeding traffic; and the historic old bridge in Stoneleigh which is unable to cope with any additional traffic being loaded onto this route. I do not think the full implications of these costs have been considered in your site evaluation.
The range of studies which have been presented to justify the Local Plan proposals are extensive but unsatisfactory in their findings. Two examples are:
The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (May 2012) studies are particularly unsatisfactory as they present a very limited analysis of each site with no attempt to evaluate the implications or comparisons or costs of each measure. No infrastructure, social or environmental costs for the development of each site have been estimated. How is it possible to evaluate or compare sites if these considerations are not assessed? It seems that all sites assessed have been included in the Local Plan - there is no reassessment of the many other sites selected as part of the 2009-10 Core Strategy. There are no site options to be considered. This is certainly one of the poorest UK examples of urban growth site assessments in recent years.
The Garden Towns, Villages and Suburbs prospectus (May 2012) promotes the concept of sustainable development but fails to provide any new thinking on layouts, adaption to micro landscapes and environments, or how to accommodate large numbers of social housing. There has been no attempt to consider who pays the extra capital and on-going management and maintenance costs for the proposed additional public facilities - at a time when we are cutting back on public expenditure. Even though the document is well illustrated, showing huge numbers of trees, it provides a poor model for sensitive landscapes and boundaries with existing communities.
With the inability of Council officers to explain the reasons for these flawed proposals and the poor quality of some of the documents presented to justify the Local Plan, we can be certain the a Public Enquiry will require dramatic changes.
How will the Council be reflecting the views and recommendations resulting from this 'consultation' process?

I have recently heard that Warwick District Council are planning to build housing and a retail park on the greenbelt land around Blackdown & Old MIlverton, and that this plan includes making part of the Kenilworth road a dual carriageway.

I would like to register my objection to the development for the following reasons:

* This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
* To prevent the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth, and their loss of independent identities.
* "Out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
* Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation.

The NPPF states that Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. I hope you can take my objection seriously into consideration along with any others you have received.

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.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

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.

Please reconsider your preferred options.

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.
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.
Greenbelt boundaries were put in place for a reason - please don't ignore them and ruin the beautiful countryside of our county.
Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

I am writing to object to the proposed development of the Greenbelt North of Leamington Spa in Old Milverton and Blackdown.
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. This land has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, riders, walkers and cyclists.
We need to keep our green space...hence the name Greenbelt!
Thank you very much

I object 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 for ever.
It:
1. Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
2. Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
3. Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
4. Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
5. 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.

I object 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 for ever.

It:
1.
Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
2. Prevents
the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
3. Helps safeguard the
countryside from encroachment
4. Helps preserve the setting and special
character of Leamington (a historic town)
5. 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.

I object 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 for ever.
It:
1. Prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
2. Prevents the merging of Leamington and Kenilworth
3. Helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment
4. Helps preserve the setting and special character of Leamington (a historic town)
5. 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.