Woodside Farm (South of Whitnash)

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AS MY OBJECTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT REFERRED TO IN THE
PREFERRED OPTIONS BOOKLET
PO 4 LOCATION 11 WOODSIDE FARM, TACHBORK ROAD

1. The land in question is at the highest point of Woodside Farm and is the gateway to Whitnash and also Leamington Spa. The effect of the proposed development would be visually offensive.

2. To provide access to the site will require the removal of established woodland and cause extra pressure on an already extremely dangerous and busy junction.

3. Concreting over this area will cause flooding problems to the Harbury Lane and Tachbrook Road.

4. The increase in population will cause increased pressure on schools, already bearing the brunt of the failure to provide a new school when Warwick Gates development took place. Whitnash parents are having their choice of schools restricted and this planned development will only make matters worse.

5. Traffic in Whitnash is causing problems parking at schools at drop off and pick up times.

6. The access from south of the river to hospitals, police and fire services additional development will only make this more of a problem.

7. Green space in and around Whitnash is shrinking. The sports facilities provided to offset the requirements when Warwick Gates was built are a farce boarded up and little used for anything but dog walking and unauthorized parking for caravans.

8. Whilst appreciating that Woodside Farm is actually with the Bishop Tachbrook boundary it is the existing population of Whitnash who will feel the pressure as with Warwick Gates. More development in this area is undesirable.

9. My final point is actually a question WHY when a Government Inspector found in favour of NO development of Woodside Farm in the Regional Spacial Strategy Programme, has this site been included the Preferred Option Plan?

Scanned Response Form.

Scanned Response Form

* 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.

Scanned form.

Scanned form.

As scanned.

As scanned.

Scanned Response Form

See attached

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

scanned form

scanned form

Elevation of the land, if developed, at the highest point of Woodside Farm will cause a 'blot on the landscape' visible to all entering Whitnash.
Access to Woodside Farm could mean removal of woodland and road widening on an already busy road network at Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane junction.
The steep incline of the land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean flooding of Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite being a modern junction.
The land at Woodside Farm has underground power cables making this area unsuitable for development.
A Government Inspector found in favour of no development of Woodside Farm in the Regional Spatial Strategy programme. The arguments are the same against development so what has changed and above all why is it in phase 1?
What will happen with Schools? Local schools have already been over extended. When Warwick Gates was built it was to include a school. Existing schools cannot be safely extended further and what will happen about catchment areas for local children?
Traffic in Whitnash area is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roads are becoming increasingly blocked at these times.
When Warwick Gates was built Whitnash should have had local police, additional schools and access for fire. Police have just been moved north of the river forced by police cuts. Now we are told that if the development happens, they may come back.
Access to hospitals, police, fire etc which are all north of the river, are only accessible by 5 extremely busy bridges. When Warwick town centre was closed and Fords factory site was being developed the area was chaos highlighting what additional traffic would do to these already congested bottlenecks.
In respect of empty houses and commercial premises, it is not known if these are taken into account in the numbers of future housing and factory developments being planned.
There are virtually no green spaces left around Whitnash. The playing field at Harbury Lane is a white elephant provided to placate residents when Warwick Gates was built. It is little used for sport/recreation, boarded up due to vandalism and a hazard with dog waste etc.
The Government recommends no urban sprawl, well what is happening at Woodside Farm is exactly that.
If any development has to happen at Woodside Farm then it should be a drastically reduced number of houses at low level around the boundary of Tachbrook Road and Harbury Lane. The land at high level should be left as green space for local residents and thus not cause an unsightly entry into Whitnash.

Time after time officials (including government inspectors) have said it is inappropriate and unsuitable to build on this land. It will add to urban sprawl (government recommends no urban sprawl) and will be unsightly for all (just look at the building in Harbury on raised land on edge of village).
The area is already under great strain. Our children cannot get into our local schools, our journeys to work are hampered by congestion. The final green parts around Whitnash will be removed. It is already unsafe for children to walk to school owing to all of the traffic coming from Anderson Drive and Warwick Gates developments- not to mention Dobson Lane houses. No more.
All facilities for Whitnash residents are north of the river - fire, police, hospital, leisure facilities. More houses will mean more traffic heading north. North of Leamington Spa has good access to these facilities as well as easy access to the A46 - a gateway to Coventry and M40 and south.
Build on brownfield, use empty houses, use flat land (i.e. white elephant playing fields on Harbury Lane)

A Government Inspector found in favour of no development of Woodside Farm in the Regional Spatial Strategy programme. The arguements are the same against development so what has changed and above all why is it in phase 1?
Traffic in Whitnash area is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roads are becoming increasingly blocked at these times.
A steep incline of the land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean flooding of Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite being a modern junction.

Green fields having already been taken opposite my property, I object to now the possibility of being surrounded on all sides by development.
My house was the last building adjoining and facing open fields. This constitutes a massive blight on my property.

Access to Woodside Farm site could mean removal of woodland and road widening on an already busy road network at Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane junction.
What will happen with schools? Local schools have already been over extended. When Warwick Gates was built it was to include a school. Existing cannot safely extend further and what will happen about catchment areas for local children?
Traffic in Whitnash is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roady are becoming increasingly blocked and dangerous.
The Government recommends no urban sprawl, well what is happening at Woodside Farm is exactly that.

I am strongly objecting to any potential development of Woodside Farm. I am a mother of three small children under the age of 6 and I worry about how congested our local schools are. We already have Warwick Gates putting pressure on school places, this would just add to the problem.
My husband and I moved to Whitnash to appreciate the natural openness that we have at the back of our home. This is providing the kind of lifestyle I want for my children. At the moment we feel safe in home and I would not feel safe if the land behind my home was to be developed.
We should be protecting what is left of the green land around Leamington and Woodside Farm is a beautiful area that is appreciated by the residents of Whitnash. At the moment my children love looking at it, and this would change.
There are so many empty properties that are derelict around Leamington and also some empty, unsightly buidlings. These should be top of any agenda to improve and put back into use, rather than the destruction of any green land.
Please do not develop Woodside Farm. It would be an ugly addition that is unnecessary to what is a beautiful place to live.

This development will be taking away some of the last green space in Whitnash. It is one of the highest points in Whitnash so will be a blot on the landscape.
The roads are already busy since the Warwick Gates was built and are very dangerous at school times.
All the emergency services are north of the river and the bridges to access them get extremely busy at all times of the day. We've seen the chaos that can happen when we had the floods.
What has changed since the Government Inspector was in favour of no development on this land and why is it in phase 1.

Local schools have already been over extended. When Warwick Gates was built it was to include a school. Existing schools cannot be safely extended further and what will happen about catchment areas for local children?
Traffic in Whitnash is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roads are becoming increasingly blocked at these times.
If any development was to happen at Woodside Farm then it should be a drastically reduced number of houses at low level around the boundary of Tachbrook Rd and Harbury Lane. the land at high level should be left as green space for local residents and thus not cause an unsightly entry into Whitnash.

I wish to make objection to proposed development of Woodside Farm on the following reasons:
1. The Government Inspector ruled out development of Woodside Farm in the regional spatial strategy programme. Since that time there have been no major changes in the situation, so that decision should stand.
2. Access to Woodside Farm, wherever it was sited would create a dangerous junction, and would inevitably increase congestion on the Tachbrook Road and create more traffic at the junction with Harbury Lane.
3. Many roads in Whitnash were constructed when the area was developed as a housing estate and they are too narrow for the through traffic that has resulted from the construction of the South Farm estate. Note that part of Landor Road had to be completely reconstructed, due to damage from heavy goods vehicles traffic when the South Farm estate was developed. Development of Woodside Farm could only increase traffic in the town of Whitnash.
4. There is already dangerous congestion in Whitnash when children are being delivered/collected from school. Here the narrow roads around the schools mean that there is excessive parking on the pavements. More houses mean more children and more congestion at school times.
5. The land at Woodside Farm has underground power cables, which make it unsuitable for domestic housing.
6. Any development on Woodside Farm would only worsen the flood risk on the Tachbrook Road and adjacent to the Harbury Lane junction.

Recent substantial housing developments adjacent to proposed segment of Tachbrook Road, Harbury Lane, Ashford Road, leading to Landor Road is already causing significant additional traffic between these areas at peak times of commuting and runs to overstretched school resources. The higher risk of danger resulting from the proposed development at Woodside Farm would be increased further.
Such increase in traffic mobilisation utilising the existing road network risks congestion to unacceptable levels but also to residents accessing other services provided by wider Whitnash area. Similarly, the key access to hospitals, police or fire is north of the river via numerous bridges which are already prone to bottlenecks at peak times and when works are in progress.
Accumulated housing and commercial development means we have to preserve what little green space in the area designated Woodside Farm. Any building development whatsoever on the elevated land of Woodside Farm should be avoided as this would not only destroy the little remaining green space and woodland vista for local residents to enjoy, but would also create an unsightly entry into Whitnash.
The reality of urban sprawl that has encroached Whitnash up to the Tachbrook Road - Harbury Lane crossroads (from Warwick direction) and the increased pressure this already places on the road, infrastructure network and services stretched, should be recognised. No further building development should take place as proposed so this area of Whitnash may retain its last vestige of green space.

Local schools are already over extended with Warwick Gates children.
Existing schools cannot accommodate extra children or school run traffic.

Elevation of the land, if developed, at the highest point of Woodside Farm will cause a 'blot on the landscape' visible to all entering Whitnash.
Access to Woodside Farm could mean removal of woodland and road widening on an already busy road network at Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane junction.
The steep incline of the land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean flooding of Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite being a modern junction.
The land at Woodside Farm has underground power cables making this area unsuitable for development.
A Government Inspector found in favour of no development of Woodside Farm in the Regional Spatial Strategy programme. The arguments are the same against development so what has changed and above all why is it in phase 1?
What will happen with Schools? Local schools have already been over extended. When Warwick Gates was built it was to include a school. Existing schools cannot be safely extended further and what will happen about catchment areas for local children?
Traffic in Whitnash area is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roads are becoming increasingly blocked at these times.
When Warwick Gates was built Whitnash should have had local police, additional schools and access for fire. Police have just been moved north of the river forced by police cuts. Now we are told that if the development happens, they may come back.
Access to hospitals, police, fire etc which are all north of the river, are only accessible by 5 extremely busy bridges. When Warwick town centre was closed and Fords factory site was being developed the area was chaos highlighting what additional traffic would do to these already congested bottlenecks.
In respect of empty houses and commercial premises, it is not known if these are taken into account in the numbers of future housing and factory developments being planned.
There are virtually no green spaces left around Whitnash. The playing field at Harbury Lane is a white elephant provided to placate residents when Warwick Gates was built. It is little used for sport/recreation, boarded up due to vandalism and a hazard with dog waste etc.
The Government recommends no urban sprawl, well what is happening at Woodside Farm is exactly that.
If any development has to happen at Woodside Farm then it should be a drastically reduced number of houses at low level around the boundary of Tachbrook Road and Harbury Lane. The land at high level should be left as green space for local residents and thus not cause an unsightly entry into Whitnash.

Elevation of the land, if developed, at the highest point of Woodside Farm will cause a 'blot on the landscape' visible to all entering Whitnash.
Access to Woodside Farm could mean removal of woodland and road widening on an already busy road network at Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane junction.
The steep incline of the land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean flooding of Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite being a modern junction.
The land at Woodside Farm has underground power cables making this area unsuitable for development.
A Government Inspector found in favour of no development of Woodside Farm in the Regional Spatial Strategy programme. The arguments are the same against development so what has changed and above all why is it in phase 1?
What will happen with Schools? Local schools have already been over extended. When Warwick Gates was built it was to include a school. Existing schools cannot be safely extended further and what will happen about catchment areas for local children?
Traffic in Whitnash area is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roads are becoming increasingly blocked at these times.
When Warwick Gates was built Whitnash should have had local police, additional schools and access for fire. Police have just been moved north of the river forced by police cuts. Now we are told that if the development happens, they may come back.
Access to hospitals, police, fire etc which are all north of the river, are only accessible by 5 extremely busy bridges. When Warwick town centre was closed and Fords factory site was being developed the area was chaos highlighting what additional traffic would do to these already congested bottlenecks.
In respect of empty houses and commercial premises, it is not known if these are taken into account in the numbers of future housing and factory developments being planned.
There are virtually no green spaces left around Whitnash. The playing field at Harbury Lane is a white elephant provided to placate residents when Warwick Gates was built. It is little used for sport/recreation, boarded up due to vandalism and a hazard with dog waste etc.
The Government recommends no urban sprawl, well what is happening at Woodside Farm is exactly that.
If any development has to happen at Woodside Farm then it should be a drastically reduced number of houses at low level around the boundary of Tachbrook Road and Harbury Lane. The land at high level should be left as green space for local residents and thus not cause an unsightly entry into Whitnash.

Elevation of the land, if developed, at the highest point of Woodside Farm will cause a 'blot on the landscape' visible to all entering Whitnash.
Access to Woodside Farm could mean removal of woodland and road widening on an already busy road network at Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane junction.
The steep incline of the land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean flooding of Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite being a modern junction.
The land at Woodside Farm has underground power cables making this area unsuitable for development.
A Government Inspector found in favour of no development of Woodside Farm in the Regional Spatial Strategy programme. The arguments are the same against development so what has changed and above all why is it in phase 1?
What will happen with Schools? Local schools have already been over extended. When Warwick Gates was built it was to include a school. Existing schools cannot be safely extended further and what will happen about catchment areas for local children?
Traffic in Whitnash area is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roads are becoming increasingly blocked at these times.
When Warwick Gates was built Whitnash should have had local police, additional schools and access for fire. Police have just been moved north of the river forced by police cuts. Now we are told that if the development happens, they may come back.
Access to hospitals, police, fire etc which are all north of the river, are only accessible by 5 extremely busy bridges. When Warwick town centre was closed and Fords factory site was being developed the area was chaos highlighting what additional traffic would do to these already congested bottlenecks.
In respect of empty houses and commercial premises, it is not known if these are taken into account in the numbers of future housing and factory developments being planned.
There are virtually no green spaces left around Whitnash. The playing field at Harbury Lane is a white elephant provided to placate residents when Warwick Gates was built. It is little used for sport/recreation, boarded up due to vandalism and a hazard with dog waste etc.
The Government recommends no urban sprawl, well what is happening at Woodside Farm is exactly that.
If any development has to happen at Woodside Farm then it should be a drastically reduced number of houses at low level around the boundary of Tachbrook Road and Harbury Lane. The land at high level should be left as green space for local residents and thus not cause an unsightly entry into Whitnash.

Elevation of the land, if developed, at the highest point of Woodside Farm will cause a 'blot on the landscape' visible to all entering Whitnash.
Access to Woodside Farm could mean removal of woodland and road widening on an already busy road network at Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane junction.
The steep incline of the land at Woodside Farm, if developed, would mean flooding of Tachbrook Road/Harbury Lane, areas that already flood despite being a modern junction.
The land at Woodside Farm has underground power cables making this area unsuitable for development.
A Government Inspector found in favour of no development of Woodside Farm in the Regional Spatial Strategy programme. The arguments are the same against development so what has changed and above all why is it in phase 1?
What will happen with Schools? Local schools have already been over extended. When Warwick Gates was built it was to include a school. Existing schools cannot be safely extended further and what will happen about catchment areas for local children?
Traffic in Whitnash area is already congested and becoming dangerous especially at peak times and school pick up times. Roads are becoming increasingly blocked at these times.
When Warwick Gates was built Whitnash should have had local police, additional schools and access for fire. Police have just been moved north of the river forced by police cuts. Now we are told that if the development happens, they may come back.
Access to hospitals, police, fire etc which are all north of the river, are only accessible by 5 extremely busy bridges. When Warwick town centre was closed and Fords factory site was being developed the area was chaos highlighting what additional traffic would do to these already congested bottlenecks.
In respect of empty houses and commercial premises, it is not known if these are taken into account in the numbers of future housing and factory developments being planned.
There are virtually no green spaces left around Whitnash. The playing field at Harbury Lane is a white elephant provided to placate residents when Warwick Gates was built. It is little used for sport/recreation, boarded up due to vandalism and a hazard with dog waste etc.
The Government recommends no urban sprawl, well what is happening at Woodside Farm is exactly that.
If any development has to happen at Woodside Farm then it should be a drastically reduced number of houses at low level around the boundary of Tachbrook Road and Harbury Lane. The land at high level should be left as green space for local residents and thus not cause an unsightly entry into Whitnash.