Whitnash East (South of Sydenham)

This is one of the remaining green spaces in Whitnash. Development has robbed Whitnash of its precious open spaces and its individual identity as community. Development has had an adverse impact on Whitnash - its village school identity; its long established village community; its congested narrow road network.The land at Whitnash East includes an ancient (Iron Age) settlement site that should not be abutted by houses. It is on an area known to flood, being part of the brook's flood plain in the dip of the valley. The brook is known to be fed by underground springs.

There has been no change to this building plan what so ever, they still want to rip through Whitnash via Sydenham until they reach Bishops Tachbrook.Building this development will have a tragic negative impact on Whitnash causing an unnecessary urban sprawl.Local facilities such as schools, doctors, dentists etc in Whitnash are struggling to cope now even before this new build.The effect on the wildlife within this area will be detrimental, which has already been seen from the last development.All that is good about Whitnash will be stripped away forever.

Due to local topology, all the surface water in the area between the Golf Club and the railway line gravitates towards Fieldgate Lane. The brook alongside the road takes this water away, under the railway bridge towards the east. When it rains heavily, as it has done recently, the book is full to the top, so it is an important element in the surface water management, but is only just capable of dealing with the water present.

If this land is built on, it will significantly reduce the permiability of the ground, which will mean that rain and other surface water will run off more quickly. Due to the topology of the land, it will drain towards the same brook. This increased flow will result in the water in the section alongside Fieldgate Lane backing up, and overflowing as flash flooding.

In addition to the damage to the properties along the road, the insurance premiums will rise.

Housing allocation here would be appropriate given the better transport links on this side of the urban area. The identification of sites to the south of Leamington as being appropriate is supported by their previous inclusion in the Core Strategy Preferred Options.

This large number of houses will put demands onroads, schools, and health facilites.
Where will the access to the site be?

We welcome the inclusion of the Golf Lane/Fieldgate Lane site as an allocated housing site as set out by PO4. It will play a key role in achieving the plan's objectives, being significant in size but small enough to be delivered without the need for costly infrastructure works. It should, however, be noted that the site is 4 hectares in size, is unconstrained and is therefore more likely to have a development capacity in the region of 100-110 units (allowing for some on-site public open space and landscaping) rather than 90 units as set out in the associated table.

This will cause too much traffic congestion and the local schools will not be able to cope with the amount of school places that they will be expected to provide.

As the proposal remains basically the same so my previous objections accordingly still apply. The scope and nature are totally unacceptable both on aesthetic grounds and on the grounds of the impact on the local infrastructure.
Although Whitnash has developed from an ancient settlement into a small town over many years, it is still one which enjoys its own identity. However, overdevelopment of this site on this scale would irrevocably change our community to its detriment.

It is depressing that land south of Sydenham has been identified for housing. This is in addition to the development of the site known as 'land south of St. Fremund's Way', itself a controversial and much-resented proposal that transgresses against an Area of Restraint . Many objections to the smaller development are based on the potential destruction of wildlife and environmental assets, and the inadequate access to the site. the revised application has made little effort to remedy these problems. The additional development now proposed, over three times larger, will compound these difficulties even further.

Please see attachment in respect of Whitnash East (South of Sydenham), subject to objections about phasing

This site should only be used if it is properly evidenced that building on rural land is unavoidable

Representation to LDF section PO4 relating to area described as 'On the edge of Warwick, Leamington Spa & Whitnash, Whitnash East (South of Sydenham).

Representation

The proposals run counter to many planning principles laid down in Chapter 15 and particularly to the National Planning Policy Framework of sub-section 15.8; see the highlighted items below.

A majority of Whitnash residents live within ten minutes walk of Church Lane, currently the main access route to the area proposed for development. This is the only local green space where residents may walk and cycle in a safe and almost traffic-free environment. The bridleway to which Church Lane leads is the ancient track connecting Whitnash directly to Radford Semele and is thus an important part of the historic environment. Development of this site would completely destroy this unique feature.
This bridleway is much used by residents for general exercise well away from the bustle of the urban area and also for access to the popular Whitnash Brook and its adjacent Nature Reserve. For those wanting a longer walk, beyond the brook the bridleway links to a dense network of public footpaths, tracks and bridleways that are nowhere else found so close to the urban area. The proposed development would discourage walkers, cyclists and equestrians from using this valuable green space as they would have to pass through another long stretch of built-up area to reach open countryside.
Another important feature of this bridleway is that beyond the railway there opens up a very wide and attractive view of the surrounding countryside encompassing Radford Semele, Whitnash Brook, Crown Hill, the ridge on which Harbury stands and Chesterton Windmill. The footpath to Crown Hill runs off the bridleway and from this vantage point there are views to Leamington, Warwick, Hatton, Whitnash, Harbury, Chesterton Windmill and the Cotswolds. These views of our surrounding countryside are invaluable for the well-being of an increasingly urbanised population and would be severely compromised or lost completely should the proposals be put into effect. The network of paths, bridleways and tracks is of great value for educational purposes for, if used imaginatively, they enable local school children to appreciate their natural environment and to come into direct contact with both the stock rearing and arable aspects of local agriculture.
Development of cycle tracks and footpaths from Sydenham into this area together with the excellent public transport links between South Leamington and Whitnash will give residents from these parts of Leamington direct access to open countryside to the benefit of their well-being and will also promote social cohesion and inclusion. (see sub-section 13.1). As regards biodiversity, the area close to Whitnash has been host to a large brown hare population and the presence of otters in Whitnash Brook has been reported, their habitat being under threat should the proposed development take place.
It should be noted that the rising ground to the southern end of the Sydenham district and the railway line running through Whitnash provide clear boundaries to the urban areas and it is hoped that these limits will be respected despite much of the land in the area being in the hands of developers.
To these positive benefits of removing the area from the list of preferred sites for development must be added the negative one of including it. This relates to the tendency of the lower parts of the area to be shrouded in mist in the early hours of the morning and this, coupled with the carrying of emissions from diesel locomotives into this area by the prevailing winds, does not make for a healthy environment in which to build houses.
None of these threats to our green environment can be appreciated by study of maps and plans but only by treading the footpaths and byways that pass through this delightful landscape. It is hoped than this will be safeguarded for the enjoyment of present and future generations.

Change to Plan

In the first instance move the proposed development to Phase 3 to allow mature consideration of the above proposals by all interested parties and ultimately remove this area from the list of preferred options.
To compensate for the loss of potential housing, replace this preferred option by the highest in the list of those considered but which was excluded from the preferred option list. Alternatively, spread the housing around the area, including villages, by making a small increase to the individual allocations.

Whitnash East (South of Sydenham)

This new local plan has just come to my attention this morning via the local Courier newspaper. I have registered but find myself unable to comment. Can you please include my objection comments as this plan will potentially have a huge impact on the environment in my local area.

I object to the proposed housing development at Location 6 (Whitnash East/South of Sydenham) for the following reasons.
The serious impact this would have on the existing facilities and infrastructure.
Sydenham School has just recently been enlarged to enable it to cope with the children already in the catchment area. This does not take into account further housing development. Local schools, with the exception of Whitnash Combined where there are places available further up the school, are at capacity. When the Warwick Gates development was built I understand additional money was provided for the existing schools to be enlarged, however, this has not proved wholly satisfactory as there are instances where first and middle school children have not been placed at their local school but have to travel some distance to school. Whereas this would not be unusual for secondary school children it is not acceptable for younger children. There have also been occasions when children from the same family have not been able to attend the same school. Ideally local children should be given a place at their local school. When looking to enlarge schools in order to accommodate additional children it is clearly not sufficient to think in terms of classrooms but also playground size, playing field size, assembly hall size and cloakroom facilities.
In many cases the houses which have been built are not occupied by families working locally but people who then commute thus causing problems on already busy roads.
The green spaces surrounding Whitnash have already been eroded bit by bit. The area in Location 6 is one of archaeological interest and considerable charm.
It is for the above reasons that I strongly object to further housing development at Location 6.
Location 12 (Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash.)
I object to housing development at Location 12 on the following grounds.
Golf Lane is already a very busy road with a number of residential roads feeding into it. Additional housing would only add to the problem. The local schools which are very popular are already at capacity.
Whilst I appreciate that the Council has to have a Local Plan in place it is my view that Whitnash has already had it's share of housing over the past years and that housing development in Location 12 is not in the interest of either retaining some of the character of the area or of the people already living in Whitnash.

Scanned Response Form

Scanned Response Form

I have 2 main areas of objection to the recently announced preffered strategy

1) The presumption for the need for growth. Land is put aside for jobs, which need more housing for the workers, who need more jobs, so more industry is catered for, which means more housing for workers etc... the cycle goes on.

In my opinion there are areas in the UK where it would be better to encourage more industry and have a surplus of either housing stock or brownfield land. Some of these places are not too far away in the west midlands.

It is also a false perception that new industry creates jobs for local people. Often new people move into the area for the new jobs using up the new housing stock. For instance a large percentage of Warwick gates residents are not originally from the local area.

By increasing housing the council will increase migration to the area and increase the urbanisation pressure.

It is also true that a lot of this housing will be taken up by commuters to Birmingham, London and other locations.

So in summary the vast majority of this expansion is not needed

2) I have particular objection to the Whitnash East proposal. I presume local authorities are still being offerred a new secondary school as part of the scheme in order to gain access to the area. I particularly object to this development because; (some objections presume the same ouline as previous schemes)

a) General traffic
In my opinion this site will generate a lot of traffic with only one obvious access point

b) Traffic on Golf Lane
With a pedestrian access point to the secondary school being located at the end of Golf Lane, many pupils will be dropped off by car in the morning in Fieldgate Lane causing a large amount of peak traffic on Golf Lane. This will be dangerous for pupils of Briar Hill and St Margaret's Primary trying to cross a road with no crossing point to go to their school. This will be increased by the additional fielgate lane proposal

c) Parking around Fieldgate Lane
Cars dropping off/ picking up children in Fieldgate Lane will create a very significant hazard and loss of quality of life for those residents. Again this will be increased by the additional fielgate lane proposal

d) Loss of wildlife habitat
Otters in the brook and foxes, hares, buzzards and other wildlife that is often in the field will lose their habitat.

e) Flooding
Some of the fields in question are often subject to flooding. Any work to reduce their flooding risk could lead to increased risk elsewhere.

f) Primary Schools
The development of Warwick Gates has already led to issues surrounding the shortage of primary school places in the local area. These new houses will be even closer to Briar Hill and St Margaret's Primary so there will be even more parents chasing few places.

g) Loss of community facility for Sydenham
The moving of Campion school will cause increased travel and a loss of a community facility for the existing residents of Sydenham

h) Why does Whitnash always get the new developments
The character of the Whitnash area has already been greatly scarred with the development of Warwick Gates, Dobson Lane, recent Chesterton Heights/Sydenham encroachment on the countryside and extension of the South Farm development. It is time that other areas of district share in the development (if indeed it is truly necessary).
i) Is it needed at all (please see point 1

j) In terms of access to the road network development south of Warwick Gates would be better. I assume this was dropped as a response to the residents organised and vocal objections and political consequences.

* How was the proposed number of new homes to be built reached?
* Will Campion School be relocated?
* It is not fair to keep building homes in the same places, in the white belt. Why can't development take place around other settlements?
* Is there an argument to take more of the greenbelt so that towns like Whitnash can be spared?
* It is proposed to build houses by Fieldgate Lane, yet there is already a surface water drainage problem that will only be made worse when green space is built on.
* What are the plans to accommodate all the extra children? Schools cannot be extended any further.
* Woodside Farm is included in the proposed sites but the owner has said it's not for sale.
* Why aren't some undeveloped commercial sites not being considered?
* There is a risk of coalescence with Radford Semele and Bishops Tachbrook.

Response of the Governors of Campion School to the Warwick District Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation July 2012.

Note: The response refers particularly to the proposals for allocations to the south of Leamington, Whitnash and Warwick and most immediately to Location 6: Whitnash East/South of Sydenham. It does not constitute either an objection or an expression of support.

Response:

The school has, at its heart, the community: that community is both its pupils and staff, and the people of the surrounding area which houses the school. We therefore bear all of these stakeholders in mind in any discussion into which we enter about the proposed redevelopments. These ideas helped us construct our response, below.
Campion's governors recognise that the proposed development of the site at location 6: Whitnash East/South of Sydenham, immediately south of Campion School, will be controversial and likely to polarise opinion among stakeholders in our community. Additionally, the housing allocations in the wider area on the southern side of Whitnash and Warwick would dramatically raise the demand for school places in our area, with implications for the size of Campion School.
Should the final decision be to go forward with this development, Campion school is prepared to work with the changes it will bring and, in particular, to step up to the challenges of growth to provide for increasing pupil numbers, whilst being determined to retain our current strong pupil centred ethos.

We would also wish to increase our role as a focus for facilities to support the whole community.

Scanned form.

Following a presentation of WDC's Local Plan in Bishop's Tachbrook, I have several objections and suggestions regarding the Housing Preferred Option and other matters.

Housing:
With reference to the map P04 Preferred Option sites for expanding housing include sites numbers 2,4,10, 11,12 & 6. These sites will provide land for a proposed 3800 homes. Extrapolating the number of people that will live in these new homes there will be an additional 14 to 15000 more people living South of Leamington and Warwick. These extra people will put a massive burden on the infrastructure such as roads/bridges to gain access to the Town Centres' and emergency services. The Bridge in Warwick and Leamington are already at maximum usage during rush hours and in my opinion would be overwhelmed by this massive increase in population. According to the Preferred option on transport infrastructure there is no provision to build more bridges over the Rivers Leam and Avon. What's more the entrance to Warwick from the south via the Banbury Road will be blighted by such a massive housing estate and will have detrimental effect on tourism.

Furthermore the development (Woodside Farm, Bishop's Tachbrook; area Number 11 on the Preferred Option map) would have a high adverse visual impact as it is prominent ridge and would impair the visual approach to Leamington.

The lack of infra structure provision was also a major objection to the last Preferred Option in the previous spatial framework housing plan. I agree there are now fewer houses envisaged 3800 as against 4500 but the same criticism applies Ie. the excessive strain on existing facilities.

Alongside new housing must be provision for upgraded infrastructure. When previous housing expansion took place, namely Warwick Gates, we in Bishop's Tachbrook, suffered lack of water pressure and problems with sewage because no pumping station was built for a number of years. Road infrastructure too was overlooked causing major problems at the
Tachbrook/Harbury Lane cross roads. Ditto the exit from Gallows Hill onto the Banbury Road. Improvements to these road junctions took many years after the houses and business park were built. Major expansion of the factories at Gaydon has created a huge traffic increase with consequent problems (and fatalities) by vehicles trying to exit Tachbrook on to the Banbury Road. In addition there is also a problem at rush hours caused by vehicles using Bishop's Tachbrook as a rat run.


The decision not to build a new infants school at Warwick Gates caused and still creates major problems with bus access to the school in Kingsley Road (Bishop's Tachbrook) because children have to be bussed here from Warwick Gates.
Infrastructure is either neglected all together or takes many years to implement; meanwhile existing residents have to live with the misery.

The new Preferred Option I believe will cause major problems owing to the bridge bottlenecks in Leamington and Warwick and lack of concrete plans to enhance infrastructure to cater for the increased population.

If more housing is required there must be adequate infrastructure built in parallel with housing construction. The proposed Developer Infrastructure Levy will certainly not pay for new bridges or better health provision etc. And waiting for the increased population tax revenues to pay for it will take far too long, leaving existing residents to suffer severe curtailment to the quality of their lives.

I would also question the need to build 555 houses per years from 2014 -2029. The ONS and economic projections based on historical growth rates do not take into account the envisaged stagnation in economic growth throughout the UK for the foreseeable future plus the negative growth effects of an ageing demographic. Apart from Jaguar Landrover at Gaydon most of the envisaged commercial expansion is planned for the Gateway area around Baginton/Ryton. This would entail commuting again from South of the Rivers to the North, further compounding traffic problems over the aforementioned bridges. Therefore it would be better to build more housing nearer the Gateway Area

Also there is a "Green" imperative that demands fewer commuting miles by car in order to reduce emissions etc.

In addition, building more houses attracts more people i.e. it is a self-fulfilling strategy, not based on projected growth grounds alone. As Leamington/Warwick is an attractive area more people will move here to take advantage of the new housing and the increase in population would in turn diminish the attractiveness that created the initial demand and further increase commuting miles out of the area to other centres of work.

If more housing is required (the number should be far less than the projected 555 per year) it would be best to maximize all available brownfield sites in the suburban areas. It was a great pity that yet another supermarket was granted permission to build a giant shed on the old Ford Foundry site when this entire area could have provided an admirable housing development.
Brownfield sites that would provide excellent housing are:
1. The old telephone exchange in Leamington
2. Garage opposite Covent Garden multi story (Leamington)
3. Quarry Street Dairy Milverton
4. Linen Street car park (Warwick)
5. Police station Warwick
6. Fire station (Leamington)



Housing continued...

Further sites
Land could be released for housing at Bubbenhall and Baddesley Clinton if they were classed as Category 1 or 2 villages


GREEN WEDGE
The proposed Green wedge stretching from Radford Semele, between Harbury Lane & Bishop's Tachbrook to Banbury Road should be extended Southwards to encompass Oakley and surrounding area.

In addition, I would like to reaffirm opposition to any plans to revive development between Harbury Lane and Bishop's Tachbrook as was proposed in the previous Preferred Option

PO1 Preferred Option: Level of growth
I consider that the proposed level of housing growth of 555 homes per year is not supported by all the evidence available. The mathematics of the calculations are not shown so they cannot be checked easily.
The baseline population on which the future need is apparently calculated is the ONS estimate of 138,670. Since those calculations the 2011 census has measured it at 136,000.
The initial stage of consultation gave a range of growth possibilities and the clear majority of respondents opted for the lower growth levels which would more reasonably reflect the inevitable organic growth in our population due to increased longevity, better health and changes in birth rates along with some inevitable inward migration.
Residents made a clear choice to accept lower infrastructure gains in return for limiting growth and specifically avoiding more growth in excess of local need.
Approximately 250 homes per year would appear to be more than adequate to meet these need if more adventurous use of brownfield urban sites was made..

PO2 Preferred Option: Community Infrastructure Levy
The current market conditions demonstrate that because developers are not confident in the ability of customers to buy, and sites that already have planning approvals are not proceeding.
CIL should be used on a local benefit to relieve effects of or immediately related to development proposal areas.


PO3 Preferred Option: Broad location of Growth
I supports the dispersal of additional housing that cannot be located on urban brownfield sites so there is a small effect on a number of places, rather than a large effect on a few. In general, this will reduce travel and demand for traffic improvements, use existing educational, health and other community facilities where there is available capacity to do so.
The NPPF para 54 requires that in rural areas, local authorities should be responsive to local circumstances, planning housing development to reflect local needs. In para 55, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

PO4 Preferred Option: Distribution of sites for housing
Location 1 Sites within existing towns. This is the best option. If it were possible, all the housing required should be in existing towns and dispersed therein, to make the least demand on support infrastructure and reducing traffic movements.
Location 2 Myton Garden Suburb. No objection.
Location 3 South of Gallows Hill/West of Europa Way. This development must not take place. It is a criminal intrusion into the rural southern setting of both Warwick and Leamington with important implications for the setting of Warwick Castle and its parkland. It will create a natural infill area for later development until eventually all the area south of Warwick and Leamington id completely filled.
The additional traffic from the proposed 1600 homes plus employment on a road system that is already struggling will impose even greater stacking effects back through the village of Barford which already suffers enormous amounts of rat-running from commuters trying to avoid the daily J15/Banbury Spur commuter
The numbers show that it is not needed and the council needs to bold enough to decide to continue the Green Wedge through to Castle Park.
Location 4 Milverton Gardens. 810houses + community +employment + open space.
and
Location 5 Blackdown. 1170 houses+ employment +open space + community.
These two sites may well be cases where the Greenbelt policy could be relaxed with limited overall damage whilst providing essential housing land. There would be limited damage to the settlement separation intentions of the Greenbelt policy.


Location 6 Whitnash East/ South of Sydenham. 650 houses + open space and community facilities
No specific comment but is this really required?
Location 7 Thickthorn, Kenilworth 770 houses + employment +open space + community
Use of this as part of the policy for dispersal of the housing required is supported.
It is, better to use this site than land of rural, landscape and environmental value elsewhere in the district. It is the only contribution to the preferred option plan located in or near Kenilworth.
Location 8 Red House Farm, Lillington 200 houses + open space.
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 9 Loes Farm, Warwick 180 houses + open space
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 10 Warwick Gates Employment land 200 houses + open space.
No objection.
Location 11 Woodside Farm, Tachbrook Road 250 houses + open space
There seem to be merits in using this site as it extends previously developed land towards a natural boundary (Harbury Lane) and is hence self-limiting.

Location 12 Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash 90 houses + open space
No objection.
Locations 13 &14 Category 1 & 2 villages Category 1, 5 villages at 100 and category 2, 7 villages at between 30 to 80 in each plus 8 category 3 villages within the existing village envelopes.
These are very significant increases for many of these villages! Do the category One villages really NEED to take 500 in total or 100 each. In Barford's case this will be an 18% increase in the number of dwellings, and that on top of a recent development of approximately 70 homes. I would suggest that the total Cat One numbers should be significantly reduced and that numbers should then be spread pro-rata over all the Cat one villages according to current house numbers of population number to give a more equitable spread and certainly to keep the increases at or below the district wide increase.
Considerable attention should be paid to the Sustainability Assessments included in the plan where it should be noted that Barford, a Category one village based on its facilities scores the THIRD WORST Sustainability score of all the villages assessed (Cat one, two and three) with only Rowington and Norton Lindsey scoring lower.

Furthermore despite having a very successful school there is considerable doubt about how such numbers could be accommodated and the amount of harm that would be inflicted on currently resident families and pupils of such increases.


PO5 Preferred Option: Affordable housing
I have considerable concerns that the 40% requirement is considerably in excess of the real need for "social housing" and as such will drive up the costs of market homes to such a degree that all homes will become significantly less affordable. It is perhaps appropriate to consider what is trying to be achieved and to review the way in which Affordable Housing need is actually measured - specifically it seems that those in need are counted before their need is actually validated whereafter the real need is actually considerably less and they are re-routed to more conventional housing sources.
PO6 Preferred Option: Mixed communities and a wide choice of homes
Regarding retirement housing of various sorts must be provided as part of a whole-life

PO7 Preferred Option: gypsies and travellers.
The Gypsies and travellers remain and always will be a problem. Most tax-payers are at a loss to understand why they must be treated differently to everyone else when they could acquire land and pursue the planning process just like everyone else.
The proposal to "provide sites" will bring out the worst elements of the NIMBY culture and blight certain areas.
It is my opinion that the problem needs solving by primary legislation not the current soft PC approach. This is a job for central government, no doubt through "Europe".

PO8 Preferred Option: Economy
Employment need only be provided/attracted to match our population. The previous stage of the consultation gave a clear indication that the majority were preferring to accept lower growth rates of housing, employment and infrastructure. That choice must be selected and a focus on consolidation rather than growth should be the watchword. We are a low unemployment area and any extra employment provision will bring with it a proportionate housing demand and inevitably more houses, which is not required.
The Gateway project may still materialise and this will make extra demands as some of the jobs will no doubt be attractive to our residents in addition to bringing in new workers. Provision should be made for housing local to that site and not for such workers to be subsumed into the wider WDC area.

PO9 Preferred options: Retailing and Town Centres
The support retailing and town centres is welcomed and should be vigorously pursued by both planning policy and fiscal incentives. There must be adequate town centre parking provision to support town centre businesses.

PO14 Preferred options: Transport

Access to services and facilities.
Clearly, it is essential to provide sufficient transport infrastructure to give access to services and facilities. The amount of work required is dependent on the level of growth selected. If the low growth scenario is chosen in preference to the current preferred option, then the infrastructure improvements will be much less and probably not much more than is currently necessary to resolve existing problems. This would be less costly and less inconvenient to the public than major infrastructure improvements.

Sustainable forms of transport.
The best way is to keep as much new housing provision as possible in existing urban locations because people are then more likely to walk, bus, bike to work, shops, school etc.


PO15 Preferred options: Green Infrastructure

The policies set out in PO15 are supported


PO16 Preferred options: Green Belt

The NPPF states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. I believe that it may be a proper time to review the Green belt to ensure that it is appropriate to the current situation and not merely being carried forward, just because it has always been so. Some relaxation within villages and on the edges of the major settlements would make massive contributions to the housing need whilst doing little harm to the concept of ensuring separation between settlements.

Removing Green Belt status from rural villages would allow currently unavailable infil land to make a significant contribution to housing numbers whilst improving the sustainability of those villages. Barford, not in the Green belt has had considerable infil in the past and as such is relatively sustainable whilst actually scoring poorly on the WDC conventional Sustainability Assessment scoring system.



PO17 Preferred options: Culture & Tourism

The preferred option of medium growth seems to be totally oblivious of the value of the approach road from the south to the Castle. It proposes to materially downgrade the approach past Castle Park by building housing along the length of the road from Greys Mallory to Warwick, a distance of about 2.5 km. The views across the rolling countryside to the east of the approach road are an essential part of the character of the district and county about which books have been written.

The low growth option makes that loss unnecessary.

PO18 Preferred options: Flooding & Water

Flooding: Development should take place where flooding is unlikely to occur. The low growth option would make it easier to select sites for development that do not carry this risk.

See Attachments

See attached Response Form and Letter

Scanned representation

scanned form

New Local Plan

Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the "New Local Plan" document dated May 2012.

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

1) Land at Europa Way and Gallows Hill (1600homes)

And also:

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

My objections are based on the following:

* On the Understanding that we need further housing I can appreciate that the land on Europa Way and Gallows Hill (Myton Side) and the end of Harbury Lane could be used this would create basically another Warwick Gates Causing some serious infrastructure problems i.e. Roads Schools etc but to then add a further 1600 homes into the mix is totally unacceptable. This would lead to such infrastructure problems that people would start to leave the area as they could not stand the hassles which is the complete opposite of what is trying to be achieved (in creating a nice environment to live in)

* An additional 3000 houses on the south side of the town creates an imbalance to the area as it would mean that with Warwick Gates and the proposed additions there would be around 4400 houses in that area with only 2 roads to get in to town? Taking an average of 2 cars per family that would me there would be an additional 6000 cars to add to the 2800 already in Warwick Gates. This is an wholly unacceptable and unfeasible suggestion and myself would look at moving it already takes me 25 minutes some days to get from my house to the Coventry road in Warwick.
* Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.

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

* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need. Siting the vast majority of the Housing still fits this problem and increases it.

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

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

Why did you decide not to create a brand new settlement within the district (like Norton Lindsey) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the road network are very easily accessible? A new town there would have fantastic access to Dual carriage ways and the Motorway network a new schools could be planned including Secondary Education as most schools are full already

I do believe that some housing maybe needed for organic growth within individual communities; however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people not imposed from the Government in a top-down approach as it is at the moment and certainly not to the numbers you are suggesting.

We urge you to rethink the development placements radically; to look again at regeneration possibilities in the towns, to work with owners and developers on imaginative schemes to bring forward brown field sites and possibly a new village/town in a rural position for housing developments.