Loes Farm (North of Woodloes)

I object for the following reasons:
- Negative effect on the rural North entrance to Warwick, with development located on brow of hill
- Destruction of valuable Green Belt that is frequently used by the local population for walks
- Will classify as 'urban sprawl'
- 2008 biodiversity assessment classed the site as 'unfavourable for development' (there are known to be at least 2 species of bat, and various moth and butterfly species on the site)
- Destruction of ancient hedgerows & trees
- Increased pressure on local schools

The objection is specific to the development on the Loes Farm plot, which from attending a consultation it was apparant that the area of land is steeped with history, not to mention trees that will be destroyed and which no doubt have Tree Protection Orders and destruction of habitat, bats, badgers etc etc (councillors did not seem to have the answers when questionned).

The siting of houses alongside historical buildings such as Guys Cliffe etc would be unsightly.

The surface water run off from a new development would be increased giving increased concern to flood risk to properties such as the Saxon Mill and areas of land lower than the development.

Although no specific details on proposed new road infrastructure it was apparant that councillors proposed Primrose Hill as the main thoroughfare to and from the new development on Loes Farm, the road is not suitable to carry this increased congestion and would prolong noise levels to neighbouring properties, increased traffic volume is increased danger to young children who use the road to cross to and from the local schools/shops etc.

Road networks to and from Leamington (such as Greville Road) will not be able to accomodate increased traffic flow, already congested.

Visually the new development would stand out like a sore thumb to the left on A46 when driving toward Warwick from Coventry currently the area is covered with woodland with a view of St Marys Church.

The hospitals and schools will be put under increased strain from the developments, loyal existing residents of Warwick will suffer.

Increased housing means more competition to existing home owners with the risk of property prices having to drop to be more competitive, existing residents of Warwick will suffer.

Warwick is gradually losing its identity as a small town and will soon become the next Leamington...where does it stop!!?

The greenbelt should not be built on, brownfield sites etc should be the first objective, if these can not be accomodated by Warwick...go elsewhere!

Details of trees which will be fowled to accomodate the new development have not been stated...if trees are fowled views will be of the new housing development from Primrose Hill!?

I have concerns about the increased traffic in and around the Woodloes and on the Coventry rd which already becomes congested at peak times of the day. I also do not want to lose an area that provides within close walking distance a safe place for the people of the Woodloes to walk and enjoy the countryside.

I certainly do not support the development proposal at Loes Farm because of the following:

Merging with Leek Wooton - another village's identity lost.

Under pressure on the infrastructure

The destruction of green field sites

The traffic congestion between Warwick and Leamington Spa as well as local roads is already poor

Wildlife and hedgerows need protecting

Schools, doctors, hospitals are already overstretched

Woodloes Park Estate is already large enough, and urban sprawl must not be allowed

There are concerns locally as to whether the transport infrastructure and the health and education provision are adequate enough to support this development.

What is really required is more affordable housing. Loes Farm will be a prime site with high-end homes and therefore unlikely to be affordable to first-time buyers.

This representation is to object to the proposal to build new houses on the Loes Farm site (Warwick). New housing will undoubtedly generate more traffic. Where is access and exit from this new site going to be. Will it be a new huge island which will encompass the entrance to Woodloes Avenue North where it joins Primose Hill. Primrose Hill is now continuously, relentlessly and heavily used by traffic all day every day. Placed as it is in the middle of an already large housing estate, this road out of necessity has a large footfall use to gain access to the local shops, the local school and bus stops. All persons wishing to use any of these facilities have to cross this busy road. There is only one pedestrian crossing along the whole stretch, and very limited speed control. I think it is unacceptable to increase the pressure on this road. Another factor is how the local school will cope with an undoubted increase in children. This proposed plan will cause erosion of a beautiful green site, the destruction of mature trees, hedgerows and wildlife, and will put too much pressure on local amenities such as schools. It will bring with it more pollution from increased traffic. More thought should also be given to congestion. Most mornings there seems to be almost "gridlock" on or around the Coventry Road Island at the entrance to Woodloes Park. The possibility of even more traffic using this area is ludricrous and would be a nightmare to all users.

We cannot see that provision of 180 houses warrant the "special circumstances" needed to change the use of Green Belt Land which currently provides a natural environment between Warwick and Leek Wootton. In order for residents of this new development to reach local amenities, they would be in need of a car which would significantly impact on the safety of families who already run the risk of crossing Primrose Hill, a road which is busy at any time. Increased traffic would bring increased noise and pollution to the area which would affect the quality of life of existing residents.

I wish to object to Map 2 containing the above sites and in particular the site at Loes Farm, north of Woodloes adjoining Warwick Bypass. The land is Green Belt and was so designated to prevent the outward expansion of urban areas and the move towards coalescence between towns, in this case between Warwick and Kenilworth. I believe that when one buys a house in a development contained by Green Belt then one has a reasonable expectation that such land will not be developed. Warwick district has the benefit of many non Green Belt sites, generally to the south of the district where residential development could take place without sacrificing Green Belt land. A development in this location would close the gap between Warwick and Kenilworth and add a large scale residential development to those already existing hence prejudicing the setting of a major historic town. In relationship to my own housing location, the development would destroy the rural setting of the part of Woodloes in which I live and would lead to my property and others being lost within a very large modern development.

Further additional concerns relate to traffic. Already the roads leading into Warwick from Kenilworth and Leamington Spa are heavily congested and, in particular, there are serious traffic problems at St Johns where the roads from the two towns meet. At busy times, there is also congestion at the main roundabout connecting Woodloes to the Kenilworth/Warwick Road. This problem will be exacerbated. Any possible relief to these traffic problems would appear to be a very long way ahead, if they are to occur at all.

May I suggest that a suitable not Green Belt site on the south side of Warwick, where traffic improvements have already been undertaken, is land at Longbridge which has the additional benefit of being a site contained by the M40 and Castle Park and existing development thus ensuring that its scale will be kept in check. In addition to being non Green Belt, it does not threaten any coalescence between towns.

I should be grateful if the above comments could be taken into account in the next stages of the consideration of the proposals.

I wish to object to Map 2 containing the above sites and in particular the site at Loes Farm, north of Woodloes adjoining Warwick Bypass. The land is Green Belt and was so designated to prevent the outward expansion of urban areas and the move towards coalescence between towns, in this case between Warwick and Kenilworth. I believe that when one buys a house in a development contained by Green Belt then one has a reasonable expectation that such land will not be developed. Warwick district has the benefit of many non Green Belt sites, generally to the south of the district where residential development could take place without sacrificing Green Belt land. A development in this location would close the gap between Warwick and Kenilworth and add a large scale residential development to those already existing hence prejudicing the setting of a major historic town. In relationship to my own housing location, the development would destroy the rural setting of the part of Woodloes in which I live and would lead to my property and others being lost within a very large modern development.

Further additional concerns relate to traffic. Already the roads leading into Warwick from Kenilworth and Leamington Spa are heavily congested and, in particular, there are serious traffic problems at St Johns where the roads from the two towns meet. At busy times, there is also congestion at the main roundabout connecting Woodloes to the Kenilworth/Warwick Road. This problem will be exacerbated. Any possible relief to these traffic problems would appear to be a very long way ahead, if they are to occur at all.

I should be grateful if the above comments could be taken into account in the next stages of the consideration of the proposals.

I wish to object to Map 2 containing the above sites and in particular the site at Loes Farm, north of Woodloes adjoining Warwick Bypass. The land is Green Belt and was so designated to prevent the outward expansion of urban areas and the move towards coalescence between towns, in this case between Warwick and Kenilworth. I believe that when one buys a house in a development contained by Green Belt then one has a reasonable expectation that such land will not be developed. Warwick district has the benefit of many non Green Belt sites, generally to the south of the district where residential development could take place without sacrificing Green Belt land. A development in this location would close the gap between Warwick and Kenilworth and add a large scale residential development to those already existing hence prejudicing the setting of a major historic town. In relationship to my own housing location, the development would destroy the rural setting of the part of Woodloes in which I live and would lead to my property and others being lost within a very large modern development.

Further additional concerns relate to traffic. Already the roads leading into Warwick from Kenilworth and Leamington Spa are heavily congested and, in particular, there are serious traffic problems at St Johns where the roads from the two towns meet. At busy times, there is also congestion at the main roundabout connecting Woodloes to the Kenilworth/Warwick Road. This problem will be exacerbated. Any possible relief to these traffic problems would appear to be a very long way ahead, if they are to occur at all.

I should be grateful if the above comments could be taken into account in the next stages of the consideration of the proposals.

Building on Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances with a list of exceptions, that do not include housing or commercial development. The Councillors, at the consultations, admitted that other options were available, options which did not touch Green Belt, and, that that an already public voted for option which provided the required housing numbers, had been discarded - so why is Green Belt even being considered anyway ? These questions must be answered before an unlawful assault on any Green Belt.

I wish to object to the proposed development of Loes Farm (north of Woodloes) on several points inc;

1. The impact to living standards due to the increased amount of people using the same infrastructure.

2. The additional increase of traffic on the local road network adding to already congested routes into Warwick, (A429 route)

3. The loss of access and enjoyment of a local green space for many residents.

4. Building on designated green belt land which in turn will destroy local wildlife habitat.

The Loes Farm proposal is a blatant disregard for green belt guidelines - leading to urban sprawl.

I understand there are other brown field sites that could be developed and that some of these areas are not attractive to developers as they will make less profit. The financial gain of the developers should never be a reason to avoid development in that area. If this development goes ahead it will reduce the value of Woodloes properties - leading to a general breakdown of this micro economy.

This development reduces the distance between Warwick and Leek Wooton considerably and will ultimately set precedent that may lead to the incorporation of this historic village

The morninng traffic flow into Warwick is already too heavy and adding more homes to this area will be detremental to traffic flow. This surely cannot be resolved by re-developing the Woodloes roundabout as the bottleneck at St Johns still exists

The scenic A429 approach into Warwick is a real selling point for the town and a new development here will remove that.

The creation of homes in this area is too far removed from the main employment centres. The additional Carbon Footprint of all those communters could be avoided at other sites.

Using this area on the edge of Warwick is highly likely to increase the amount of commuter traffic in the town. Suggested public transport options are unlikely to reduce the quantity or cars on the roads, given that many people living in the new housing would be working relatively nearby. New roads will therefore have to be constructed at considerable cost to accommodate a small number of houses.
There have already been several road traffic accidents on Primrose Hill. Inevitable increased traffic flow on on this road will make this road more dangerous than it already is.

Access to this site from Primrose Hill will increase traffic along an already busy residential road where there have been traffic fatalities in recent years. The increase in stop-start traffic caused by a new roundabout will increase greenhouse gas emissions and will also affect the health of local residents as well as increasing the risk for pedestrians trying to cross this already busy road. The road is already heavily queued at both end roundabouts at rush hours and plans to "improve" the roundabout at the Coventry Road are unlikely to alleviate the congestion caused by increased traffic queueing to enter and exit Woodloes, along with existing traffic from Spinney Hill and Coventry Road (town centre direction). The planned development is Green Belt land and building on this would damage the biodiversity, in particular grass species, trees and ancient hedgerows. Insufficient information about this proposal was available at the recent public meeting on Woodloes - questions asked by the public were avoided; the meeting was not publicised; the council representatives were apparently not in posession of basic relevant factual information and presented contradictory evidence (new denial of TPOs, claims of vast leaflet drop advising of meeting) that suggested strongly that they are planning to proceed with this plan, offering little advice or help to residents wishing to object.

Warwick District Council
Local Plan
Preferred Option 9: Loes Farm AKA Woodloes Park

Having recently been made aware of this proposed development I would like to strongly object to the proposed building of 180 houses with 40% of them being earmarked as affordable.

I purchased my property in 2006 with the understanding that it was positioned within Greenbelt land. My non working farm with its 4 acres of land was once part of the Loes Farm estate. I already suffer with one of my boundary lines running alongside the A46 Warwick Bypass with my other main boundary line running along the edge of the proposed development for approximately 0.28km meaning the impact of this 'Preferred Option 9' hits me more than anyone else in the area.

I have reviewed as many Warwick District Council reports as possible and have been lucky enough to be included in a strong local community consultation, which has the spirit to approach the so called 'Preferred Option 9' with a well thought out and common sense approach to the District Councils local plan goals.

My observations.

Greenbelt:
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.

Green Belt serves five purposes:
* To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
* To prevent neighboring towns merging into one another
* To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
* To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
* To assist its urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

The Greenbelt in Guys Cliffe - Loes Farm fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt set out in the NPP Framework and therefore should remain Greenbelt land for ever. It prevents the unrestricted sprawl of Warwick north from merging into Leek Wootton and then ultimately Kenilworth. These policies help safeguard our countryside from encroachment.

It preserves the phenomenal setting and special character of Guys Cliffe (one of two Geological Designated Sites within Warwick as outlined in Warwick District Councils Green Infrastructure Study 2010) and is now the only remaining rural entrance to the County Town of Warwick.

I find that this proposed destruction of a significant portion of Warwick's Green Belt will impact massively on both current and future generations.

This site has great recreational value to the local community. It is enjoyed by many runners, horse riders, walkers and cyclists. With Woodloes Lane forming part of the Millennium Way its removal will greatly effect the scenic path through the Heart of the England countryside.

The proposed site is a very small option in comparison to other preferred sites and some of the sites that the District Council have ruled out (which is still not fully clear why in some instances). It will not be able to take on a character of its own, as it will become an extension of the Woodloes Housing Estate.
Warwick Districts Green Space Strategy for 2012 - 2026
Section 1.4 - Value of green space states:
The green spaces in and around our towns and rural areas, improve the health, wellbeing and quality of life of individuals. Their place is at the heart of our communities, helping to make them stronger and safer and ensuring that the places in which we live and work are more sustainable and attractive.

They inspire young and old alike, shaping our views on where we live and who we are, encouraging responsibility, self-worth, environmental stewardship and civic pride.

Green spaces are important to people and the environment for a host of reasons and provide places:
* Where people can become healthier;
* Where the natural and built environments can connect;
* Where people can meet, engage and integrate;
* That helps us learn social skills with our peers;
* That stimulates minds, helping us explore and learn new skills;
* Which can help counteract the effects of climate change;
* That act as a focus for community events and activities;
* That host and preserve our shared cultural heritage;
* That contributes positively to the conservation of habitats and species;
* Which enhance the visual value of our landscape and townscape.

Some wonderful words but really does lack substance and understanding from some of the councilors and planners I have spent time listening to over recent weeks.

There seems to have been vast amounts of sites surveyed over the last 10 years. One of those reports is the Warwick District Habitat Assessment under taken in 2008 makes reference to 39 sites with over 1872.8 hectares to there credit.

'Proposed Option 9' - Woodloes Park/Loes Farm (MAP 22) within that report shows the initial site area being proposed at 33.5 Hectares available which I'm now told has dropped to circa 12 Hectares. With the vast level of sites available offering 1853.3 Hectares, I see very little common sense being applied to the selection of 'Proposed Option 9'

I believe there has been a lack of consideration of less sensitive sites, such as those noted below:

Baginton/ Coventry Airport
Hampton Magna
Hatton
Barford
Baddesley Clinton
Bubbenhall
Eathorpe
Hampton on the Hill
Offchurch
Stoneleigh
Lapworth
Leek Wootton
Norton Lindsey
Rowington
Shrewley
Burton Green
Bishop's Tachbrook
Kingswood
Harbury
Radford Semele & several other villages, including places nearer to Coventry - where there is likely to be considerable new employment opportunities in the future.

Biodiversity
Warwick District Habitat Assessment shows (Map 22) a high level of ecological significance due to the number of mature trees, old pasture grassland, water bodies and the species rich hedgerow. The grassland within this parcel is significant due to the presence of mature anthills and ridge and furrow. The statement 'This grassland dominates the parcel and therefore the parcel is not favorable for development'.

The meadow habitat is significant and consists of butterfly and moth species (which include a species thought until recently to be extinct in Warwickshire), and the site contains at least 2 species of bat, a colony of native bluebells, and is rich in bird life including woodpeckers and 2 species of owl (with occasional barn owls in addition). National Policy states that land of lower biodiversity value should be used ahead of land of higher biodiversity.

There are 13 significant trees of which at least 3 are over 100 years old, and the hedgerows date back to the 1700s. All of which, if removed, will have an adverse impact on the adjoining Guy's Cliffe Park and Garden identified by English Heritage as a site of special historical interest. It is only Warwick Castle that surpasses these credentials in our Warwick.

Other considerations:

* Obviously the increased pressure on local schools and social infrastructure seems to have been lightly considered.

* Pressure on the local road network, including the assumed access on Primrose Hill along with the Coventry Road will be unbearable and the road infrastructure needed to accommodate these 180 houses does not provide a positive outcome for any local community.

* If there is to be more employment opportunities at Stoneleigh, Coventry Airport and Coventry Gateway then place the housing as close to these sites as possible as the reduced fuel cost to the employee and the reduced CO2 will obviously benefit ALL. Local employment opportunities are largely situated south of the river. Here you will also find vibrant businesses looking to expand their work force. Additionally, with the smart use and promotion of the empty premises in Heathcote, Sydenham and Tachbrook commercial development areas can become a huge solution to the local plan. This would surely reignite the plans to focus on the nearness to employment opportunities to housing development south of the river (having previously been shelved due to lack of vision).

* With the Police head quarters at Leek Wootton & the Fire Station at Leamington both closing, who will provide the emergency services in this grossly enlarged area (Coventry is too far for anyone to respond quickly) plus the ambulance station & hospital are both already working at capacity.

Whilst I fully understand why there is a need for the Local Plan, I do believe there are many, many other solutions before you need to take this beautiful landscape out of Warwick's limited collection.

Please reconsider your Preferred Options.

We wish to register our objections to the proposed development of 180 houses , on land owned by Loes Farm, as part of the Warwick District Council's new Local Plan. We understand the site will be on the field on the other side of Woodloes Lane opposite Congreave, Drayton Court and Eliot Close from the cottage to the bypass.
This area was not included in the previous local plan- why now?
In an Ecology survey 2008 the land was deemed unfavourable for development- what has changed?

1. This site has been classified Green Belt for many decades. It allows the separate character and identity between Leek Wootton and Warwick to be maintained. If this site is developed then at some point in the future the areas between Kenilworth, Leek Wootton and Warwick will disappear and will be seen as a suburban extension of Royal Leamington Spa.
2. The Loes Farm site is classed as an area of historical, landscape significance. It is claimed that the development will not be seen from the Coventry Road. We wish to point out that our house on Drayton Court can be seen. Therefore any houses built on the brow of the land rise will be clearly seen from the Coventry Road and once built the landscape will be changed forever.
3. There is a proposal that access to this site will be from a new roundabout on Primrose Hill, Woodloes Park, opposite Woodloes Avenue North. Traffic from the proposed development would generate about an extra 200 vehicles, all of which will have to travel along Primrose Hill. Traffic turning left would create extra pressure on the Woodloes Roundabout on the Coventry Road adding to the existing congestion. At peak times traffic is bumper to bumper and gridlocked. Also there will be extra pressure at the junction of Woodloes Avenue South which already suffers from queues and is a site of accidents. Traffic turning right would create extra pressure on the Cape Road junction and the roundabout on the Birmingham Road. Extra traffic would also make it harder for pedestrians' safety in crossing Primrose Hill.
4. The proposed site is of special environmental significance with ancient hedgerows and Oak trees and their attendant habitats. We have Bats flying in this area. We understand there may be two species of bats living here. All the wildlife and habitats will be destroyed by this development and cannot be replaced.

The destruction of this Green Belt space and its consequences on the environment/habitats to provide this proposed development is not justified. There are still brown field sites and possible redevelopment of existing buildings ( eg site of the Ridgeway school, the empty offices in Northgate Street) which could provide the space/accommodation for these 180 homes/families without destroying the Green Belt areas and the character of Warwick.
Please note the foregoing and register our objections to the proposed development of land on Loes farm.

Please take this email as my opposition the New Homes planned for Loes Farm. I moved into a property backing onto the farm 5 years so to be able to enjoy a good family town life but also be close to the country.

The land behind us has old hedgerows/trees and is full of wildlife in its natural habitat. To destroy this and lose another Greenfield site, for which Woodloes still holds its values would be forever unfavourable. I am sure that the other sites are better suited and have had more recent developments built.

I write to strongly oppose the building of 180 houses on the Loes Farm site in Warwick for the following reasons


1. The sprawl of the Woodloes Estate is big enough already.

2. Warwick should not run into Leek Wootton and then Kenilworth as it has done with Leamington Spa

3. Access is completely unsuitable and the Coventry Road is busy enough already.

4. Before any more housing is developed "All" available housing should be inhabited and finished to an appropriate standard unlike the old Potterton's site.

5. More discussions with local people are held to make sure that new sites will work with co-existing communities and all relevant amenities

6. Most importantly the destruction of prime green belt land is unacceptable. Land mostly untouched since the middle ages that supports mature trees and ancient hedgerows.

7. That, Councillor Caborn is the true meaning of leaving a legacy behind for future generations - not a concrete jungle!!!


Warwick District Council is not thinking about our County town and local people!

I just wanted to lodge my complaint about the vast number of houses that you are proposing to build. Already the road from Leek Wootton to Warwick in the mornings is at a standstill from 7.50am onwards. With the increased traffic that will be caused by the houses that are going to be built travelling to work for many people will be even worse. I appreciate that a new road is going to be built to join the A46 at Leek Wootton but there is still going to be the traffic from the north woodloes area and Leek Wootton that you haven't taken into account and made provision for.

Leek Wootton is a beautiful village with a community feel that already suffers from noise pollution from the current A46. Carving another road through Hill Wootton/Leek Wootton will spoil a beautiful village. Not to mention the impact further housing will have on the village.

Housing Allocations.
We are concerned at the inclusion of Map 2 in the full document, which appears to include land not shown in the preferred options Map 4. Does this mean that sites shown on this map could potentially be reconsidered as development options?

South of Gallows Hill, west of Europa Way. Option 3.
This site bounds Warwick Castle Park along much of its eastern perimeter.
Development up to Banbury road would be extremely detrimental to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park. You will be aware of the history of Warwick Castle Park. The new line of Banbury Road, from the Asps into Warwick was constructed in order to enlarge the park, to enable the construction of the much larger lake, New Waters, which actually extended across the new road, but finally, it was part of the design of the park itself. The second earl, who was responsible for the enlargement of the park was working on his design for the approach to the castle from 1777. Instead of the town and castle coming into view all at once, as it had formerly done, the alignment and landscaping of the road produced a progressive unveiling, beginning with the spire of St Nicholas church which appears in the centre of the line of the road. Gradually parts of the town appear, and then the explosion of the view of the castle from the bridge. This magnificent effect would be irreparably damaged if development were permitted on the scale indicated and so close to the road. This is the setting of the park, the castle and of the town itself.

The eastern verge of the road is well treed over much of this length, but the views between the trees are long ones, as the land is comparatively high. The Technology Park is itself a regrettable but moderate intrusion and the recently constructed access to a caravan park which actually sits on part of the park, and about which we were never consulted, is visual vandalism. However, the existing small suburbs emerge discretely from the landscape and do not offer the visual competition that a mile of sprawling suburb on elevated ground would bring.

We therefore strongly recommend that this option be withdrawn or the boundaries be reconsidered, allowing the immediate view from the road to be rural in character and so respect the setting of the park.
Designating the edge of the development as "amenity" land would not be an acceptable alternative, as this would create suburbia just as much as houses would.

Loes Farm. Option 9
We observe that this proposed allocation has been reduced from the original, presumably to avoid inclusion of the registered landscape of Guys Cliffe. However, the setting of the landscape is wider than the designated area. Contrived views within and out of the gardens are a major characteristic of the landscape. The Register description enumerates the land acquisitions made by Bertie Greatheed in order to create small areas of parkland. Loes Farm was bought for this purpose from the Earl of Warwick in 1824. It gave him control of views to the west of the house, including of the Como Pit, and to Gaveston's Cross. The buildings of Loes farm are mentioned in the register description as an incident in the view.
The development of this part of Loes Farm would therefore have a detrimental impact on the historic designed landscape. It would impinge on important views, and would bring development right to the walls of the kitchen garden, which dates from before 1786.

We are therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of this site within the preferred options for development.

Other sites
We hope to see more information about the proposals for infill sites in the towns and villages. As the proposals now stand there is the potential for damage to the character of neighbourhoods and adjacent sites. Examples are the well-treed Riverside House site which contributes substantially to the character of New Milverton, and the vague nomination of a hundred houses for Barford, where the locally registered landscape of Barford House is already under siege by a development proposal. We hope that this land will not be assigned for part of the allocation.

There are likely to be similar sites in the other named villages also exposed to damage. It is important that there be design guidance for the development of some infill sites in the towns and in the villages in order to achieve the best outcomes.

Policies
We are pleased to see the intention of excluding garden land from development.

We are also pleased to see the intention expressed in PO 11 to provide policies to protect the historic environment, though we are alarmed that the failure to include draft policies in the present consultation document may result in hasty and imperfect drafting at the next stage.

We hope that the policies that are produced will be at least as strong as those which currently apply. We appreciate that the present recommendations for integrated protection of heritage assets will require considerable re-drafting of the current policies. We also hope that adequate provision will be made for the inclusion of built structures in the local listing regime, as this could give protection to some garden structures which are currently vulnerable.

Scanned Letter

Scanned Letter

We write regarding your proposed plans to develop housing near Loes Farm, Warwick.

Below are some of our objections:

This would be an extension of Woodloes Park and make houses currently situated on the edge of the estate suddenly in the middle of one new estate.

It would have an adverse impact on the only remaining rural entrance to Warwick.

This land is currently home to various wildlife including species of butterflies and moths and 2 species of bats.

The roads would not be able to cope with the additional vehicles. We are especially concerned about Primrose Hill which is already busy and has speeding vehicles.

We think this would cause unnecessary destruction of the green belt.

I am writing to state my opposition to the new local plan which appears to completely contradict the proposals set out in the previous local plan of 2009. Land identified for development then is still available. Now there is to be wholesale development of the green belt north of Leamington Spa and Warwick when this does not seem to have any justification. What are the exceptional circumstances which are supposed to justify such a development? At the meeting I attended at the Warwick Society the only explanation put forward by the planning officer and councillor present was that it would be more profitable for developers! This seems to me to be outrageous! The land previously identified in 2009 is still available and would be easier to develop with existing infrastructure such as roads and access to the M40.

The new proposals impact on areas of Green Belt land which have a high value in preventing urban sprawl between Kenilworth and Warwick/Leamington. Once violated the Green Belt between the historic towns would be liable to repeated further incursions by planners and developers as the principle that Green Belt land should not be built on would be broken forever. The countryside would no longer be protected from encroachment. In the case of the proposed development on Loes Farm the green lung for Woodloes would be lost and the establishment of "parkland" in the remaining space would be like creating a green desert. The amenity value of Woodloes Lane would be destroyed for the runners, walkers and cyclists who now use it. The lane is part of the Millennium Way which is supposed to be a scenic path through the Heart of England! The phase 1 ecology survey of 2008 states unequivocally that this is a special area! What "exceptional circumstances" justify its destruction? The woodpeckers both green and greater spotted which breed here will be disturbed and displaced. There are at least 2 species of bat, great crested newts and a wide variety of birds, with sparrowhawks and buzzards indicating the health of the wildlife pyramid here, all of which merit protection!

Access to the Loes Farm site is proposed from Primrose Hill where it will scythe through ancient hedgerow. The new junction or roundabout will clearly lead to more traffic exiting and entering Woodloes Park onto either the A429 or the Birmingham Road when traffic is already a problem there! The police speed check is sited at exactly the place identified for access indicating police concern about traffic trough the estate at precisely this point.

The new houses at Loes Farm would be seen from the A429 on the hill overlooking the road and would hardly maintain the historic character of Warwick. It is this hiil which effectively screens existing houses from being seen from the Coventry Road. Crossing the road and walking on the footpath to Milverton would presumably lead to more new houses and a new road built on difficult, expensive terrain over the River Avon floodplain. I don't believe that £28 million is a justifiable expense for an access road. Surely any new roads required south of Leamington would not need to be built on flood plain and be much cheaper. I would support development on the former Ridgeway School site although this will again lead to more traffic entering the A429 Coventry Road as this is a "brownfield" site.

The proposals also include "out of town" retail developments threatening the survival of the central shopping areas in Leamington and Warwick. Shops, including excellent independent ones, are clearly struggling at the moment in both town centres. Would it not make better sense to help and encourage town centre shops? I intend to look carefully at the proposals for Warwick town centre because of this and comment in due course.

Finally, the number of houses proposed seems excessive. More than 11,000 new homes for Warwick and Leamington when Coventry, which is 3 times our size is only proposing 17000? Stratford district is only proposing 8000 for a similar area to our own. Why has a buffer of 1400 extra homes been included? Surely this indicates excessive development when new homes already built cannot be sold! I sincerely hope that my views will be taken into consideration and not consigned to the bin as inconvenient.

I wish to register my objections to the Preferred Options of the New Local Plan, which have come as a complete shock to me when the previous plan seemed so eminently sensible! Although I'm not a constituent of Jeremy Wright MP I support much of what he has written in this weeks' Leamington Courier. Why has development been moved from areas adjacent to Warwick Gates to Green Belt land north of Warwick and Leamington? How exactly have the projections for the numbers of houses needed been arrived at? They do not seem to have paid any attention to the consultations in which 58% of respondents said that the lower growth option was preferable.

I wish in particular to comment about my own local area and the proposal to build 180 houses at Loes Farm. They would be built on the hill or ridgeline, which is what anyone entering Warwick from the north along the Coventry Road sees. This is against the NPPF, which says that the historic character of our towns should be preserved. The last plan stated that the area was "unsuitable for development' and I would like to know what has changed! I understand that the Local Plan of 1949 refers to the undulating land as a "beautiful buffer" for Warwick.

Woodloes Lane, with its view of open fields has always been a favourite walk of mine since moving onto the estate in 1978. This is because of the clearly very old hedgerow, which runs either side of the lane. This habitat supports and encourages a wide variety of wildlife. I expect a new full biodiversity assessment would be needed but I believe that there are for example 280 species of moths, including one previously thought to be extinct; 16 species of butterfly, great crested newts and at least 2 species of bat. The Millennium Way runs up the lane and there are a wide variety of birds living in the area. Green woodpeckers can be seen feeding on the ants in the field and I'm told that there are rare yellow ants living there. Aren't areas of such great biodiversity meant to be safeguarded in the National Policy Planning Framework? Isn't there also legislation which protects ancient hedgerows?

I understand that access to the Loes Farm site is proposed via Primrose Hill, which will cut straight across the old hedgerow I've mentioned above. What consideration has been given to the additional traffic the new estate will generate onto Primrose Hill and out to the Birmingham and Coventry Roads? Traffic at the roundabouts off the estate is congested already at peak times. Whether a roundabout or a new junction is built traffic hazards will obviously increase. The junction with Woodloes Avenue South is notorious for accidents already and this could be another such problem. Presumably this is why a police presence with a "speed trap" has been needed just where the access is proposed.

I refer again to Jeremy Wright's "Westminster Briefing" column where he identifies the councils' failure to consider other sites first whether brownfield or those previously identified for development south of the two towns. I believe these must be properly considered first before any incursion is made into Green Belt land. For this reason I'm not opposed to the eventual development of the former Ridgeway school site and equally near to Woodloes.

In conclusion, I believe there are many good reasons not to include the Loes Farm site in the final plan.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

1. There is far too much development in Warwick. 40% of the proposed development is within or on the boundaries of Warwick town. This is disproportionate, and calling the developments 'garden suburbs' does not make it any more acceptable.

2. Warwick has already had two large developments; Chase Meadow and Warwick Gates. Why is it selected to take the bulk of the next phase of development? Other areas, Kenilworth for example, have been left relatively free of development, yet is hoped that many of the new employment opportunities will be created in Coventry, which is much nearer to Kenilworth.

3. Warwick is a very congested town because of its old streets and the necessity to cross the river by bridge. There is little that can be done to relieve that. Wider roads in the areas imediately surrounding the town may move traffic more quickly over a short distance , but the fact remains that Warwich snarls up on a daily basis already and short of demolishing old, existing buildings to accommmodate increased traffic, Warwick will become a traffic nightmare.

4. I have recently become aware of the term 'green wedges' It means, I assume, that the green belt has had chunks taken out of it. I accept that not all green belt land can be kept sacrosanct, but I object to green belt land being used before brown belt land has been exhausted. It is disingenuous to say that all the land is potentially available to developers and they can decide which bit to develop. Which would you choose? It is the green belt that will be gobbled up first. If the current plans go ahead there will be no visible break in development between Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash.....not even a green wedge.

5. The planning document admits that there is already a problem of air quality in Warwick. In some places pollution levels are dangerous to health. The planning document also says that there is little possibility of reducing the problem because of the road layouts and the old buildings. Why make it worse?



COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC DETAILS


6. I have already mentioned air quality. My particular area of concern is round ST John's where it is accepted there is a serious problem. In that imediate area there is a Children' Centre and housing for old people, both of whom are particulary vulnerable to air pollution. You state in your document that little can be done to improve the situatio, yet you propose to build at Loes Farm and Guy's Cliffe. It is likely that traffic from these two areas, plus the increased traffic from other developments around Warwick, will only add to congestion on the Coventry Road junction further endangering the health of the very young and the old.

7. Loes farm has been suggested for development before. It has been surveyed and found to be rich in biodiversity and to have ancient ridge and furrow markings. It is a site of botanical and historical interest, and as such should not be considered for development.

8. Guys Cliffe is another site of historical interest surrounded by woodland and in an elevated position. Development here would impact adversly on a site which is rich in local legend and history. Because of the elevation of the land and the proposed new road it would also be highly visible and add to the traffic problems and air pollution mentioned previously.

9. Warwick's crown jewel is the Castle. Warwick's most iconic view is of the castle from the bridge over the Avon; an old bridge, built to accommodate the traffic of a small market town over a hundred years ago. Will it withstand the onslaught of all the cars that will come into Warwick from its vasly increased size? The beauty of Warwick is that it has a river in its heart. That is a geographical feature which no planner can alter. But planners can ignore it, and this local Plan seems to have done just that.

And finally I appreciate that Warwick district is obliged to come up with a plan that Central Government will accept as sustainable, but just look at the map of preferred sites on pages 5 and 6 of your booklet. Warwick town is being asked to accept too much of the proposed development.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

1. There is far too much development in Warwick. 40% of the proposed development is within or on the boundaries of Warwick town. This is disproportionate, and calling the developments 'garden suburbs' does not make it any more acceptable.

2. Warwick has already had two large developments; Chase Meadow and Warwick Gates. Why is it selected to take the bulk of the next phase of development? Other areas, Kenilworth for example, have been left relatively free of development, yet is hoped that many of the new employment opportunities will be created in Coventry, which is much nearer to Kenilworth.

3. Warwick is a very congested town because of its old streets and the necessity to cross the river by bridge. There is little that can be done to relieve that. Wider roads in the areas imediately surrounding the town may move traffic more quickly over a short distance , but the fact remains that Warwich snarls up on a daily basis already and short of demolishing old, existing buildings to accommmodate increased traffic, Warwick will become a traffic nightmare.

4. I have recently become aware of the term 'green wedges' It means, I assume, that the green belt has had chunks taken out of it. I accept that not all green belt land can be kept sacrosanct, but I object to green belt land being used before brown belt land has been exhausted. It is disingenuous to say that all the land is potentially available to developers and they can decide which bit to develop. Which would you choose? It is the green belt that will be gobbled up first. If the current plans go ahead there will be no visible break in development between Warwick, Leamington and Witnash.....not even a green wedge.

5. The planning document admits that there is already a problem of air quality in Warwick. In some places pollution levels are dangerous to health. The planning document also says that there is little possibility of reducing the problem because of the road layouts and the old buildings. Why make it worse?



COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC DETAILS


6. I have already mentioned air quality. My particular area of concern is round ST John's where it is accepted there is a serious problem. In that imediate area there is a Children' Centre and housing for old people, both of whom are particulary vulnerable to air pollution. You state in your document that little can be done to improve the situatio, yet you propose to build at Loes Farm and Guy's Cliffe. It is likely that traffic from these two areas, plus the increased traffic from other developments around Warwick, will only add to congestion on the Coventry Road junction further endangering the health of the very young and the old.

7. Loes farm has been suggested for development before. It has been surveyed and found to be rich in biodiversity and to have ancient ridge and furrow markings. It is a site of botanical and historical interest, and as such should not be considered for development.

8. Guys Cliffe is another site of historical interest surrounded by woodland and in an elevated position. Development here would impact adversly on a site which is rich in local legend and history. Because of the elevation of the land and the proposed new road it would also be highly visible and add to the traffic problems and air pollution mentioned previously.

9. Warwick's crown jewel is the Castle. Warwick's most iconic view is of the castle from the bridge over the Avon; an old bridge, built to accommodate the traffic of a small market town over a hundred years ago. Will it withstand the onslaught of all the cars that will come into Warwick from its vasly increased size? The beauty of Warwick is that it has a river in its heart. That is a geographical feature which no planner can alter. But planners can ignore it, and this local Plan seems to have done just that.

And finally,,,,I appreciate that Warwick district is obliged to come up with a plan that Central Government will accept as sustainable, but just look at the map of preferred sites on pages 5 and 6 of your booklet. Warwick town is being asked to accept too much of the proposed development.

I wish to strongly object to the New Local Plan being proposed in Old Milverton and Blackdown.

Firstly, Green Belt Land is irreplaceable, when lost, it has gone forever! We are a small island and all Green Belt land Land is precious and we must fight for every inch!
The NPPF states that Green belt Land is there to prevent towns merging and to protect the countryside from encroachment. We have some beautiful greenbelt land in this area and everything must be done to avoid destroying this land.
A huge amount of wild life and their habitats would also be destroyed.
In 2009 a Core Strategy was identified and is still available for development with a certain amount of infrastructure, including access to the M40 already in place, so why is it necessary to demolish other areas, including GreenBelt Land?
In Blackdown there are a tremendous amount of people who enjoy activities in this area by cycling, walking and running, not to mention the people who ride horses in this area, all this would be lost should your plans go ahead.
Agricultural land would also be badly hit in Blackdown and Old Milverton, there already plans afoot to develop Stonleigh Agricultural Centre, so why are more employment facilities needed?
Your plans for a dual carriageway on the A452 from Kenilworth to Leamington are unnecessary, the road is busy in the rush hour but after that traffic is normal. The continuation of the dual carriageway into Stonleigh Road and down through Old Milverton would destroy the area completely.
By building a dual carriageway you would be encouraging more traffic to use the road and where would the cars end up? I think Kenilworth and Leamington would be swamped with traffic!
The dual carriageway would greatly change the appearance between Kenilworth and Leamington by removing all the hedgerows and greenery and turning the area into concrete. Who will be paying for this road to be constructed?
I question the need for the large amount of housing proposed for North Leamington, the building of thousands of new homes would only increase the congestion and totally change the beauty of the area.
Proposed housing at Lowes Farm would be a travesty and again, unnecessary, when other land is already earmarked in south Leamington as being suitable for housing.

scanned representation.