B. Category 1 and 2 Villages

It makes far more sense to start again so to speak, in a location where you can get the infrastructure right from the beginning.

Seems a sensible approach providing no Green Belt land outside the existing village envelope is taken.

It is not realistic to expect villages to be able to sustain this level of growth - even those with CURRENTLY adequate infrastructure. If the 500 homes proposed is contuinued then at least it should be distributed across the Cat 1 villages pro-rata according to size and not a blanket 100 per village. Barford is the smallest of the Cat 1 villages and in the published Sustainability Appraisal achieves the third worst score, with only Rowington and N/Lindsey scoring lower. Whilst the village has fought hard over the years to maintain its sutainability a large increase at this stage would not be sustainable, particularly relating to our very successful school.
Any proposed increases should and must take account of recent developoments and increases in village size to ensure that changes over relatively short periods are not so extreme as to distort the community balance.
Proposals currently in the pipeline should be full taken into account when counting the allocation to each village.

Para 7.18 makes it clear that dispersing development around the District on small/medium sites would not work - and yet that is precisely what is proposed for many of the villages!

Tha classification of villages appears to have been carried out in a purely arbitrary way, simply as a "box ticking" exercise without considering many of the relevant factors. In other words, a village is listed as Category 1 (capable of sustaining moderate development) if it has "a broad range of services and public transport to the towns" without taking any account of infrastructure limitations, or of the adequacy of the public transport. [Presumably one bus per week would suffice!] In the case of Hampton Magna, the sewers are already running at capacity and further housing would require a larger sewer all the way to the Longbridge treatment works, at enormous cost. The surrounding roads are already severely congested at peak times due partly to the nearby Warwick Parkway railway station and partly to parents from other developments such as Hatton Park and Chase Meadow - neither of which have schools - bringing their children to the school in Hampton Magna. Infrastructure levies from 100 houses would not begin to address the infrastructure inadeqacies, and the demands from the additional housing would simply make the situation far worse.

Significant growth in villages will cause strain to infrastructure such as employment, transport and schools which will vary from village to village. An arbitrary distinction of category 1 and category 2 is too simplistic a measure and growth in the villages should be assessed individually. Consideration should be given to employment facilities within the villages and public transport to reduce car journeys and consequent pollution. Any growth in villages should be phased over the duration of the plan so that the new housing can be gradually assimilated into the village community.

The total number of houses recommended for rural locations is 830, 500 + 'about 330'.
In para 7.38 the transport modelling ranged from 0 to 400 houses in rural areas - but did not consider double that amount. The effect of building houses in rural areas is to place additional multiple requirements on transport and infrastructure which will not be easy to satisfy.

Support the principle of residential development in Category 1 and 2 villages

The nominal figure of 100 new dwellings per village is assumed to be a guide since each village is unique in character.
Some residents might think it unwelcome, but it could so easily be regarded as a wonderful opportunity to explore what benefits this could bring to the village. Questions should be asked of land owners, developers, architects and landscapers, how best to accommodate this within one or more sites - seek to determine what each of these professionals can do for the village rather than allow them to treat it as just another job of building a quantity of houses.

As mentioned in ojection to PO3.Significant developement in the villages will unacceptably change their character. Providing the necessary infrastructure would be either too expensive or totally impossible.

BRA is opposed to village envelopes being changed by WDC merely to enable new developments to occur. These village envelopes have evolved over a number of years to maintain open areas and views which are crucial in maintaining the character of each village. Any development should be initiated by the village and encouraged by the village - if imposed it will not be successful.

I support 'organic' and limited growth of village populations as long as the village character is not overwhelmed.

Missed opportunities to add homes to several close villages, e.g. Bubbenhall and Baddesly Clinton.

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

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

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

Scanned Letter

Scanned Response Form

PO1 Preferred Level Of Growth

In summary we agree with the option for the Local Authority to go for a moderate growth. There may be evidence to suggest that higher growth is required but in these challenging economic times and the practical and political pressure the Local authority will be under in making this decision, we believe the moderate growth option is a more realistic and such a pragmatic approach is likely to be achievable.

PO2 Community Infrastructure Levy

We support the idea to bring in a CIL.
One item that is missing from the document is any indication towards New Homes Bonus. This is something we would support as a revenue stream and serve to reinforce your support for Affordable Homes (paid on non s106 schemes only). Again the NHB could be shown to assist in the provision for extra care (under PO5)

PO3 Broad Location of Growth

We support the Preferred option for Growth.

PO4 Distribution of Sites for Housing

We support the establishment of new boundaries. RSL's would like to be involved in discussions with Parish Councils from an early start to dispel the myths around affordable housing and this could assist the provision of housing in these areas.

PO5 Affordable Housing

We agree with the 40% affordable housing on new residential developments with the exception where the scheme is to be delivered as a 100% affordable housing scheme, in these cases the properties can be dealt with under a separate planning condition .
We agree with the housing being held in perpetuity but we would draw attention for a balance. In many cases RSL's will need to show a level of asset churn. The asset however can be ring-fenced to be used soley for the provision of future affordable housing in the district.

In rural terms we support a certain level of market housing but it should be on a case by case basis given the likely high land and sales values generated in many of the District's villages

There is no reference to new Affordable rents. The document does refer to affordability however, but with no mention of the level of affordable rents and with many areas of WDC the level of rents can vary greatly within a 1 mile radius (Micro Markets) Therefore we would recommend some primary data in the document to support your arguments.

PO6 Mixed Communities & Wide Choice Housing

Employment is very high on everyone's agenda currently and there are many threads that tie housing/ construction to this. There are opportunities through apprentices and other work opportunities that can be brought about by new housing and this could be a opportunity to ensure this happens on future sites.

Homes for older people and the link to the Extra Care rented opportunities will remain difficult to deliver with the decline in grant funding form the HCA, & Warwickshire CC .

PO16 Greenbelt

Again we support the option for Green Belt but we would like to be involved in any discussions with parish councils or other interested parties to outline what is affordable housing and dispel any myths.

I wish to raise a number of points about the recently published proposals in the new local plan.

There are a number of local villages mentioned in which you propose to allow development of new houses, but I do not think you have enough villages on your list. I note that Ashow, Bagington, Bubbenhall, Hill Wootton, Offchurch, Stoneleigh or Stareton are not mentioned and even my own village of Old Milverton is not on the list.

There are local areas for future employment growth like Stoneleigh Park, University of Warwick and Coventry Airport all close by so surely it makes sense to distribute new housing around the district rather than concentrate it all in a couple of areas. This would even stimulate local community life and steer away from the trend of dormitory villages for wealthier individuals.
Any increase in road traffic would be spread far more evenly, rather than concentrated at one or two pressure points.
I have spoken to a few people in my own village who would welcome some new houses as the increase in population would lead to a more vibrant community life.

On a different matter I wish to raise my concern about the proposed Northern Relief Road.

Are you aware that the proposed route will cross the River Avon flood plain at a particularly wide point ?
This area has been known to flood at least three times a year and the wildlife corridor which has been established along the Southern side of the River Avon where the proposed route will cross will be decimated.

We represent the West Midlands HARP Planning Consortium which includes all the leading Housing
Association Registered Providers (HARPs) across the West Midlands. Our client's principal concerns are
to optimise the provision of social / affordable housing and to ensure the evolution and preparation of
consistent policies throughout the region.
PO1: Preferred Level of Growth
The preferred level of growth identified would fail to meet even the basic level of affordable housing need
identified in the 2012 SHMA of 698 affordable dwellings per annum. For this reason Preferred Option 1 is
not supported. Our previous representations to the 'Helping Shape the District' consultation indicated that
the preferred options should be based on a full, robust evidence base, and the Council now has this to
rely upon.
The decision to bring forward a very basic level of housing growth across the District is likely to result in a
much lower level of affordable housing being brought forward over the Plan period than is necessary due
to significant viability constraints on development. The SHMA notes:
"Given the viability of residential development within the District and the availability of funding for
affordable housing, it is unrealistic to assume that all housing needs can be met. ... the supply of
affordable housing is likely to fall short of identified needs. The Council should look to maximise provision
of affordable housing where possible, including in working proactively with developing RPs ...." [Our
emphasis]
The implications of providing just 4,320 affordable dwellings over the lifetime of the plan needs to be
considered as part of the wider housing target. This reduction in the general housing target, and
subsequent reduction in the deliverability of affordable dwellings is very significant and will have a further
detrimental impact on housing waiting lists and affordability across the district. A single affordable
dwelling was completed in the monitoring period 2010/2011. With significant uncertainty as to general
development viability and the Affordable Housing Viability Assessment indicating variable viability across
the district, it is important for the Council allow sufficient flexibility in the housing land supply target to
secure affordable housing.
The Local Plan should be aiming for a much higher figure to take account of the need not only for
affordable housing delivery, but also to plan for economic growth across the district. We recommend that
a minimum target should be that set out in the SHMA, of 11,900 dwellings; the SHLAA indicates a more
substantial 13,385 dwelling capacity across the District to 2029 which could accommodate that minimum
target.
Unit 2 Eclipse Office Park Staple Hill Bristol BS16 5EL
T: 0117 956 1916 E: all@tetlow-king.co.uk
F: 0117 970 1293 W: www.tetlow-king.co.uk
2
PO2: Community Infrastructure Levy
We support the Council's intention to bring forward CIL.
PO3: Broad Location of Growth
We support the Preferred Option for growth. We do however recommend that the Council clarify that the
hierarchy will allow for development at smaller villages. The NPPF states:
"In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities
should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs,
particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local
planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate
the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or
maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements,
development in one village may support services in a village nearby." (NPPF, paragraphs 54 and 55)
By the use of this minor textual change, the Council will signal flexibility to development at villages with
housing need but where there are no infill opportunities. As shown above, this approach is in line with the
NPPF and the Council's own commitment to meeting housing need across the district. The Council can
control the extent of development at rural villages by requiring this to be proportionate in scale to the
settlement size and housing need.
PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing
B. Category 1 and 2 Villages
We support the establishment of new village boundaries to enable development to come forward at rural
villages. In addition to discussion with Parish Councils, Warwick District Council should also ensure
consultation with local landowners and developers, including HARPs, to support development in the most
sustainable locations. We support the removal of land within village envelopes from the Green Belt.
D. Development on Greenfield Land
We support the proviso that affordable housing development will be permitted on greenfield land.
PO5: Affordable Housing
A. Affordable Housing on Housing Development Sites
We support the Council's intention to seek 40% affordable housing delivery from new residential
developments, as this is supported by the Affordable Housing Viability Report. The thresholds for urban
and rural areas are also supported, as this strikes the right balance between seeking affordable housing
from a high number of developments, whilst still making allowance for viability considerations.
We note the Council's intention to require affordable housing be retained in perpetuity. The NPPF
requires only that affordable housing delivered on rural exception sites be subject to this condition and we
advise therefore that the Council adopt this approach.
3
B. Affordable Housing on Rural Exception Sites
As per our comments above, we recommend a word change to state that rural exception schemes will be
permitted at village locations where housing development would not normally be permitted. This would
support the provisions already set out under this Preferred Option.
We strongly support the allowance of some market housing under this Preferred Option to support the
delivery of affordable housing. This is in line with NPPF definition of rural exception sites which states:
"Small numbers of market homes may be allowed at the local authority's discretion, for example where
essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding."
We are however concerned by the imposition of a 30% cap on the level of market housing to be permitted
to cross-subsidise affordable housing delivery. The reason for the level of the cap is not explained in the
justification section, nor is it discussed in the Affordable Housing Viability Report. It would be useful for
the Council to set out its reasoning for the cap figure as without this the policy is unjustified.
PO6: Mixed Communities & Wide Choice of Housing
B. Lifetime Homes
Whilst we support the Council's intention to seek a proportion of new residential developments as
meeting the Lifetime Home standards, a formal policy in the next draft of the Local Plan should recognise
the potential for those standards to change, as new standards could be implemented at a later date,
rendering the Local Plan outdated and ineffective.
C. Homes for Older People
We strongly support the Preferred Option for all strategic sites to include an element of Extra Care
housing. We also support the Council's intention to make allowance for Retirement Villages and
Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs). Locational factors, such as proximity to local shops
and public transport, should not be as strict as for general market housing, as Retirement Villages and
CCRCs typically provide a suite of on-site facilities which reduce the need for site residents to access
local services and facilities, as well as having a nil requirement for services such as local schools.
PO16: Green Belt
We support the Preferred Option for the Green Belt. The requirement however for affordable housing to
be brought forward "through a Neighbourhood Plan" removes the ability for development to be brought
forward on an ad hoc basis - for example where a community does not wish, or have the capacity, to
develop a Neighbourhood Plan. We recommend instead that a formal policy sets out the ability for
affordable housing to be brought forward, including through a Neighbourhood Plan, or otherwise where
there is evidence of need.

Following a review of the Preferred Options, I believe that there are some fundamental flaws in the proposals.

Informing Residents

My initial concern is with the level of marketing surrounding the Preferred Options that has been undertaken. As a resident of Barford I cannot recall seeing anything in the local free press regarding this and merely stumbled across the current consultation process whilst talking to a neighbour. As you are no doubt aware Barford is a very vocal village on issues that will have a major impact on its future and so feel somewhat disappointed that the residents have not be suitably informed on such a major issue in order to shape the village as a whole.

Strategy

Distributed development across the District
Whilst it is acknowledged that a more distributed approach to development is preferable, the weighting of the proposals needs to be considered in more detail.

As a village, Barford's history and character is formed by its organic growth and the fact that it is surrounded by swathes of fields and green belt. Anyone who has had the pleasure of walking around the village and its periphery will appreciate how both interact with each other.

Any large scale development would undermine this character and would infact be detrimental to the area. Barford Village Design statement states that large scale development such as that found at Dugard Place should not be repeated again.

"While small infill does not threaten the overall character of the village, large scale development would be extremely harmful and inappropriate since it would place enormous stresses on the village infrastructure and distort the balance of the community.....Large scale development would be extremely harmful and inappropriate"

This is an adopted document and should be considered carefully when allocating the village a further 100 dwellings through the life of the plan. The village must currently stand at approximately 600 houses, therefore the proposed extension would be an increase of nearly 20%.

One of the aims of the Local Plan is to protect and maintain the character of the District and enhance the assets including the green belt, listed buildings and conservation areas, therefore it seems unreasonable that the Council are proposing a carte blanche for villages on where the development is allocated indeed removing all protection that the Green Belt is afforded whilst decisions are made as to where the preference is to develop further housing. By extending the village envelope and allocating such a large number of houses to the village it would be out of scale with the environs and will have a detrimental impact on the area.

The Green Belt study demonstrates that there are variations in quality of land in the Green Belt and so it would be assumed that these areas that can be found on the whole around the periphery of towns should be the focus of development over any development that is proposed in villages.

It must also be noted that Barford has a core Conservation Area. The 'Barford Conservation Area - Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest' document produced by Warwick District Council clearly states:

"Further infill of new dwellings within the Conservation Area should be strictly limited".

The document also goes on to say

"There are significant open areas within the Conservation Area which should be protected. These include.....the playing fields, open areas and grounds of Barford House".


Ensuring the Countryside and areas of Importance for Wildlife and informal Recreation are Maintained and Improved
As previously discussed, whilst the green belt surrounding the village forms part of the setting that provides Barford with its character, it also houses an abundance of wildlife along with offsetting the risk of flooding, which villagers would confirm has in the recent past been utilised on numerous occasions and has protected the village from flooding of the Avon. Barford is most certainly at a critical point whereby the pressure for development is threatening the natural environment.


Ensure that education is provided for in major new developments
Whilst I recognise that most residential developments will attract planning contributions either in the form of S106 payments or the recently introduced CIL. However the current village school is already at maximum capacity with no further room for extensions, therefore any additional residential development in the village would only seek to exacerbate the current situation. The Preferred Options talks about the importance of the existing community and facilities and services and whether they can meet current and future needs. If the proposed 100 houses are located in Barford, then it can be guaranteed that the services will not meet the locals needs, indeed it will be detrimental to the vitality of the community.

Sustainability
Over the past 10 years the number of dwellings in Barford has grown by in excess of 60 houses with the major input coming from the former Oldhams site. However conversely the provision for public transport has been on the decline. The village is on the whole composed of individuals that are reliant on their cars to go to town, to work and generally live their day to day lives; they do not and cannot rely on local transport. Whilst in theory it could be concluded that the proposed 100 houses would increase the use of public transport and encourage additional routes and frequency of buses, there is clear evidence to indicate that this is not the case. Therefore is should be questioned whether Barford should be considered a more sustainable location as any new homes in the area are likely to increase car-bourne journeys, congestion and pollution in the village.

It must be accepted that one of the attractions of living in Barford for those of a working age is that it is indeed only a mile from the M40 and the A46, with most surrounding towns being 10-15 minutes drive. Whilst it is accepted that there are some employment opportunities within the village, this is limited. The majority of the people are required to commute to the surrounding towns and cities. Therefore any large scale proposals such as this should be located in close proximity to the towns and larger conurbations to ensure that T2 of the WMRS is met, in order to reduce the reliance and use of cars, rather than in the outlying villages such as Barford, which encourages their further use.

Scale of Development
The Preferred Options has identified Barford as a Category 1 village which imposes 3 times as many houses on the village than a Category 2 village. However the categorisation of the villages is somewhat flawed. For example Cubbington has a substantial level of facilities in comparison with Barford, yet it is only required to allow for 30 dwellings.

CF2 of the West Midlands Spatial Strategy (WMRS) seeks to limit housing in rural villages to that which meets the local needs and or supports local services. Whilst it is recognised that a limited amount of affordable housing is required within the area, it cannot be accepted that development to such an extent is required to satisfy this requirement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, whilst it is accepted that additional dwellings are required within the District; too much emphasis has been put on the allocations of residential development in the surrounding villages. It is clear to any of the residents of Barford that the proposed figures that are being discussed would be detrimental to the village as a whole in terms of its character, its wildlife, it's conservation area and the community's services.

Therefore it is proposed that the distribution of the development is reviewed with further consideration and the Barford allocation is reduced dramatically to a figure that is more akin with the existing village and of appropriate scale.

We wanted to provide some general feedback on the plethora of information available related to the New Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. Having attended two meetings in Hampton Magna we are aware of some of the issues that residents are concerned about. We will aim to outline the main issues below and also include our own personal thoughts. However, these are not exhaustive and we should strongly encourage you to speak to your representatives, who attended all of your meetings, to get their feedback on issues that were raised.

Evidence base
We are extremely concerned that the available documents are not fully engaged in "evidence-based" consultation. Specifically, it is our concern that there are limitations in the methodology being used to develop this Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. This is an important foundation to any research, report and future recommendations. The consultation documents lack transparency in terms of the employed methodology. For example, we strongly encourage you to document how you plan to utilise the information gathered at meetings across the district. This is a valuable opportunity to gather qualitative evidence on people's acceptability, satisfaction and attitudes towards the plans. There has been a lot of frustration voiced at meetings related to the apparent failure to consider, appreciate, and operationalize people's views. There is a need to inform people how their views are going to be considered and synthesised to inform your decisions. For example, large scale questionnaires have been undertaken with residents by local parishes (Hatton Park and Hampton Magna) which provide valuable information. People need to feel listened too. It is important you allow people to voice their opinions and acknowledge how they will be considered. You need to empower people. Your research will then be richer and more representative.

We are extremely concerned about the generalizability of your research to date. We strongly encourage you to work more closely with academic departments like Warwick Business School, Warwick Medical School and the Economics department at the University of Warwick. There are clear weaknesses in the rigour and robustness of your methodological approach and evidence base which need to be considered again. Collaborating with an academic department will help overcome some of these problems. They will help with economic modelling, operational research and mixed methodological approaches. How you synthesise the data you collect is crucial. If you have lots of meetings and don't report the views at these meetings then your data gathering is confounded. You may want to host smaller focus groups in different areas, recording information, and thematically analysing the common issues. This is rich qualitative evidence which appears not to have been considered.

Housing in smaller villages:
From a personal point of view we need to express our disapproval over expanding housing in smaller villages like Hampton Magna, Hatton Park and Shrewley. There is considerable worry and upset among residents who live in these areas about potential increased housing on these sites. This would significantly impact on their quality of life. These small communities are already overburden by through traffic and schools are at capacity. Please work closely with parishes and residents before considering any expansion in these areas. They have a good insight into the wealth of issues that you would need to factor into your financial plans to enable these smaller developments to take place.

If some growth does go ahead, the standard of this housing needs to be inkeeping with the housing already in place in these areas. Residents are extremely concerned about the impact this will have on the prices of their existing properties.

Schools and early year care:
More housing does seem to take president in the new consultation. There needs to be greater focus on how schools will be expanded. For example, as you are aware, Budbrooke Primary is at capacity and it takes children from Chase Meadow & Hatton Park. The Ferncumbe Primary School at Hatton is over capacity. How much expansion is needed? Please provide projected statistics of how much expansion will be required in the local schools to accommodate the foreseen housing growth.

Early-year care needs careful consideration at an affordable price. Already many nurseries are at capacity or in considerable demand. The costs are also unmanageable for many parents wanting to return to work after maternity leave.

Respecting our green spaces and green belts:
These need to be respected and the natural habitats for our wildlife maintained. Housing on green belts has resulted in considerable frustration and objection at meetings we have attended, in particular that around smaller villages. Consult with residents please. Muntjac deers, bats, birds of prey reside just outside my property and we are sure that we are not the only people to be fortunate to have this natural beauty around them. Protecting our natural flora and fauna is important.

Transport:
Expanding our road networks is going to be important to deal with the increasing cars on our roads. We also need to consider the impact this will have on noise and air pollution for residents already residing in places of growth. How will this impact on their quality of life? Consult with residents please.

Public Transport:
There needs to better public transport in areas of expansion. More regular bus services, in particular, to train stations and Universities are needed.

Parking:
More affordable parking in town centres and at train stations are urgently needed,

Drainage:
We are extremely concerned about how the current drainage system will cope with expansion. The costs this could involve should not be overlooked. For example, only a small expansion in villages could cause considerable problems (e.g. Hatton Park). Caution is needed and careful mapping of the current foundations is essential.

Employment:
Greater housing expansion requires more employment. Expansion in the health, retail and educational sector presents good opportunities.

Emergency services:
An increase in the population of the District will lead to an increased need for community policing and an increase in the number of local "incidents" to which the policing service will be required to respond. We need to make sure residents are protected from crime.

Healthcare:
Ensuring that GP surgeries and hospitals can cope with the housing expansion will be of upmost importance. GP surgeries are already struggling to cope.

With the exception of the smaller housing growth in the villages highlighted and the issues raised related to evidence base and research methodology, we feel the proposed plans are worthy of further consideration and community engagement.

Document scanned

Scanned Response Form

Thank you for your email of 1st June 2012 re the above subject. The Councillors of Baginton Parish Council
have considered the Preferred Options documentation. We have also attended the WRECF meeting of
28.6.12 and the WDC Proposed Development Forum of 2.7.12. We have debated these issues at various
meetings. We have also attended the Gateway Developers presentation at Baginton Village Hall of 19.6.12
where we gained written feedback from many concerned residents.
This letter sets out our opposition to the Gateway proposals, as presented to residents on 19.6.12, being
included in the Local Plan Preferred Options. It also puts forward our preferences regarding housing need for
the area based, on our current Parish Plan. Whilst the majority of the proposals are satisfactory, in our view,
we are alarmed and concerned by tentative proposals to include the "Gateway" in the proposals, as
illustrated in the Preferred Options documents. We write asking you to consider all our comments below
when making your judgement:-
1. BPC oppose Preferred Options 8.15, 8.18 and 8.42 abstracts of which are in Appendix 1 of this
letter. BPC opposes the inclusion of the Gateway shown in Map 3, an abstract of which is shown in
Appendix 2 of this letter. The Gateway proposals are not appropriate development and should not
be included, for reasons as set out below.
2. The NPPF calls for Protecting the Green Belt in section 9. See abstracts of section 9 in Appendix 3
of this letter. Baginton Parish borders with Coventry City. There is a vital need to prevent the
unrestricted sprawl of Coventry into Rural Warwickshire, safeguard the countryside from
encroachment and preserve the setting and special character of our village, with its Roman Fort,
Castle and Grade 1 listed church amongst other things. The gateway proposal is contrary to these
fundamental requirements of the NPPF. The development encroaches on previously undeveloped
Green Belt fields which provide a vital buffer between rural Warwickshire and Coventry City. It is
essential that this buffer remains. BPC believes that WDC have an ideal opportunity to prevent the
urban sprawl of urban Coventry into rural Warwickshire. WDC should not therefore support the
Gateway project, which must be removed from the Preferred Options and local plan. The
development is in the protected Green Belt with no very special circumstances to justify its
existence. The openness of this Green Belt land must be maintained.
3. The environmental effects of the Gateway proposal have not yet been considered and there are
many reasons why such a proposal is unsustainable development adversely affecting the
environment and contrary to the requirements of the NPPF. There is no need for such a
development, which should be omitted from the local plan.
4. The proposal significantly affects the nationally significant Highways Agency Tollbar improvement
scheme; the affects which need to be clearly annotated in the local plan.
5. The Gateway includes a "smart card" system for allowing Baginton residents access to Rowley
road, but with no details of how this would be run.
6. It is noted the large industrial units are envisaged to have 24/7 operations, yet the environmental
effects of 24/7 HGV operations on local rural and other communities has not been considered.
7. The proposals are unsustainable as they fail to comply with fundamental tests in the NPPF. The
proposals are to develop Green Belt land but with no very special circumstances to warrant such
development. It is both necessary and essential for WDC to consider all other developments with
extant planning permission in the wider area. There are many such developments in the locality and
which are suited to developments of this nature, e.g. (but not limited to) the huge sites at Ansty and
Ryton, both with infrastructure already in place. Preferred Options, section 8.42 (Section 8.33 of the
draft Local Plan) specially refers to the Coventry Gateway project, it specifically states 'To
demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites'. The above clearly
shows that there are alternative sites available with extant planning permission within the subregion,
and further afield, which provide more than adequate development opportunity, so there is
no need for this development. It is essential that the Local plan includes a requirement to review all
existing developable land in the sub-region and further afield, to ensure the proposals are robust.
BPC demonstrates that there ARE other preferable and suitable sites, so the Gateway should be
excluded.
8. There is no need, either economic or otherwise, for the Gateway proposals to be included in the
local plan. There is no case for releasing land in the Green belt for the Gateway development.
9. The development to the north of the A45, in Coventry, can be developed without destroying the
Green Belt to the south of the A45, providing 4000 jobs for the benefit of the region. There is no
need for the Gateway development south of the A45.
10. The provision of "up to" 14000 jobs is inaccurate and misleading. Given that 4000 of the 14000 jobs
quoted are for development north of the A45, within boundary of Coventry, already with planning
permission granted to another developer (Whitley Business Park), it is wholly inaccurate for the
Local Plan to headline up to 14000 jobs. Of the remaining 10,000 jobs, it is highly likely that these
will not be newly created jobs, but in the main taking jobs form elsewhere in the sub region and
further afield. These jobs can and should be created using the vast acreage of sites in the sub
region, and nearby, which are already available, or have infrastructure already in place, or have
extant planning permission, or which are otherwise far more suitable to gain planning permission.
The local plan should quote a realistic level of job creation, within WDC only, accounting for all
other sites.
11. The closing of the Bubbenhall Road and Rowley Road to the general public will destroy the many
local rural businesses which thrive in Baginton Parish, e.g. Baginton Village Store, Hong Kong
House, Smiths Nurseries, Russell's Nurseries, Oak Farm, The Old Mill, The Oak Pub, British
Legion Club and many others. Each would be adversely affected and forced to close with the loss
of jobs, adversely affecting the local sustainable community, contrary to the NPPF. It is absolutely
essential that the Bubbenhall and Rowley Roads be maintained as a pubic right of way with the
present alignment between Baginton and Bubbenhall, to maintain the sustainability of local rural
businesses hence comply with a fundamental aspect of the NPPF.
12. BPC are also concerned that the provision of a new road west of the runway could be put into a
deep cutting which would pave the way for future runway expansion. It is absolutely essential that
the Bubbenhall Road be maintained as a pubic right of way with the present alignment between
Baginton and Bubbenhall, to prevent the Airport from runway expansion in the long term. See old
proposals from September 2002 in Appendix 4 of this letter. BPC acknowledges this is not part of
current proposals but BPC are most concerned that the proposed Bubbenhall Road alterations
could facilitate the opportunity to allow such development in the future. This must not be allowed to
be facilitated, by ensuring the Bubbenhall Road stays as it is and the proposed alterations shown
on the Preferred Options are omitted from the emerging Local Plan.
13. The documents presented do not adequately correlate the requirements of the NPPF with the
proposals for the Gateway. The proposals are not therefore robust in the view of BPC, so the
proposals should be omitted.
14. There is an excellent "Green Infrastructure" opportunity to maintain the undeveloped green belt
green fields which lie to the South of the A45 and which will be adversely affected by the Gateway
project. Instead of the Gateway WDC should give consideration to developing this area under the
Green infrastructure scheme. This will have the advantage of ensuring that the surrounding areas,
such as Baginton Parish, do not suffer from urban sprawl and maintain important opportunities for
Flora and Fauna to flourish. The planted buffer zone to the urban sprawl proposed for the Gateway
is insufficient compensation for the loss of the undeveloped green belt green fields which presently
act as a natural buffer between urban Coventry and rural Warwickshire. It is also far to close to the
Lunt Roman Fort. The Gateway should be omitted from the Local Plan.
15. BPC are very concerned that the Preferred Options summary leaflet makes no mention of the
Gateway development, only showing "highway improvements as per abstract from the summary in
Appendix 5 of this letter, which are as per Map 5 of the preferred options.... This is
misrepresentative of the developer's intentions. The public are not therefore being afforded the
opportunity to see the true extent of the proposals in the summary leaflet, so are not being afforded
the opportunity to comment. This must be rectified by modifying the summary document to include
the developer's true intentions. These are not highway improvements but will destroy public
highway rights of way which are essential for the prosperity of the many rural businesses which
thrive in this area and which will be destroyed by the Gateway development. These are not
improvements but will serve to develop a huge area of green belt land and create urban sprawl,
contrary to the principles in the NPPF. It is essential that these proposals be omitted from the
Local Plan
16. The 12.3.12 WDC map entitled "unrestricted natural and green corridor greater than 2Ha" doesn't
show the green space south of the A45 which forms a natural barrier between Coventry and
Warwickshire, and is undeveloped Greenfield Greenbelt land protecting Baginton from urban
sprawl. The map should be amended, the area recognised as such and the area not allowed to be
developed.
17. Councilors believe that the Gateway proposals, by a private developer who also owns the Airport
and who is also past and proposed Chairman of the Local Enterprise Partnership promoting the
development, are foisting an unwanted and unnecessary development on Baginton village which
will ruin this rural village community, destroy essential Green Belt and destroy its local amenities
and businesses. The quality of life of Baginton and Bubbenhall residents will be significantly
adversely affected by the Gateway proposals. The proposal is against resident's basic human rights
under the Human Rights Act, due to the traffic and operations noise from huge warehouse logistics
development which will run 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with especially adverse effects
at night and weekends. Cllrs anticipate significant HGV traffic movements all night which will be
particularly disturbing to residents.
18. The Gateway development in not sustainable compared with other nearby developments with
extant planning permission, which are sustainable.
19. The proposed smart card access system for local residents and businesses is impracticable and
unworkable, with no one willing to operate it, certainly not Baginton PC. It is understood alternatives
are under consideration but based on what BPC are aware of at this time these proposals are
damaging to the village and must not be allowed to proceed.
20. The proposals put into jeopardy the construction of the Highways Agency Tollbar Island proposals
due to commence early next year. The proposals will not facilitate major improvements to the road
network not already covered by the HA proposals, but will only add to the traffic in this area.. In
addition, the proposals will only add to the traffic in this area, so will not facilitate improvements
over and above what is already proposed by the HA, so the statement must be removed from Para
8.33 of the draft.
21. It is noted from the presentation on the Local Plan by WDC of 28.6.12, at Baginton Village Hall, that
there is 23 hectares of business development land proposed within WDC boundaries separate to
that of the Gateway. Noting that many commercial premises within the sub region, and slightly
further afield in Solihull, lie empty and unused at this time, the additional 23 hectares of business
development land is more than sufficient to satisfy the need for economic growth without the
Gateway project. There is no need for the Gateway project and this must be omitted from the
proposals
22. BPC believes it is entirely inappropriate for WDC to support the C&W Gateway proposals, which
are against the fundamental principles of the NPPF, adversely affects the environment, adversely
affects Parish residents human rights to peace and quiet, will destroy rural businesses based in
Warwickshire, will develop on high quality green field Green Belt with no very special
circumstances, will create urban sprawl and which will jeopardise industrial development elsewhere
in the local area which already has planning permission or has been previously developed and will
destroy the openness of the area, amongst other things. The Gateway should be removed from the
Local Plan
23. Councillors believe there is a clear conflict of interest between the LEP, which we understand is to
be once again chaired by the Owner of both development companies, Sir Peter Rigby, and the
broader requirements of the residents of WDC. BPC Cllrs reinforce the need for WDC to be
independent and not compromise its integrity through the forced will of a developer who is intent on
ruining our unspoiled corner of rural Warwickshire for financial gain. It is wrong therefore to refer to
the LEP within the Local Plan.
24. WDC should modify the proposals to state that its preferred option is to utilise to the maximum
capacity all sites in the sub region with extant planning permission prior to developing any further
site on Green Belt Land. WDC should review all existing developed land within the sub-region. It is
vital that WDC explores and justifies the case for releasing land within the Green Belt when existing
Brownfield and other sites with extant planning permission exist within the sub region remain underutilised
and unoccupied.
25. BPC observes that the Gateway proposals do not protect the character and scale of the village, nor
the openness of the rural countryside around the village, so should be omitted.
26. BPC has already gained written feedback from almost one hundred residents, all of whom believe
the Gateway proposal is damaging to Baginton and there is no justification for ruining the Green
Belt. All wish to see the Green Belt protected. It is essential that WDC takes account of the wishes
of all local residents and excludes this development from the local plan.
27. All the above demonstrates that the Gateway site, which is stated in 8.18 as being "identified as a
site of regional importance for employment to serve the regeneration needs of the Coventry and
Warwickshire sub region" is fundamentally incorrect, fundamentally unnecessary and fundamentally
against most requirements of the NPPF, so should be omitted from the local plan.
Regarding housing policy, Baginton has a Parish Plan and requests that the deliverables in this document be
accounted for by WDC in formulating the Local Plan. In particular please note the below comments:-
28. BPC supports modest sustainable increases to housing in accordance with our letter L075A to
WDC of 8.1.12, a copy of which is enclosed as Appendix 6. This is based on the output from the
Baginton Parish Plan. The Local Plan should include opportunity related to small scale sustainable
development of this nature, to retain the nature and character of the village and help to support the
many local rural businesses in the village. Please note in particular that in all cases any housing
shall be wholly in character with the village, be sympathetic to the amenity of existing
properties/people and shall not interfere with the Green Belt. BPC opposes the Gateway
development on the Green Belt to protect the rural nature of our village, to protect the openness of
the area and to protect the surrounding area from urban sprawl.
29. BPC objects to the classification of villages generally. The Local Plan must not dictate the type of
housing development to villages, but rather should take into account village desires under the
Localism act and in the case of Baginton, our Parish Plan. In this respect we again ask WDC to
account for our letter L075A as point Nr 28 above.
In conclusion, BPC consider that the proposed gateway is entirely inappropriate and ill considered
unsustainable development, contrary to fundamental requirements of the NPPF, with no need given the
significant size and number of underutilised employment creating developments which already exist with full
planning permission in the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region area and further afield. There are no very
special circumstances to develop on the Green Belt, rural businesses need to be protected, urban sprawl
must be prevented and the openness of this Green Belt land must be maintained.
BPC oppose all Gateway development south of the A45 and recommend that the Gateway be omitted from
the Preferred Options and excluded from the Local Plan, with any development limited only to that shown to
the north of the A45, which is within the boundary of Coventry City Council, utilising Ansty, Ryton and other
existing suitable sites for any economic development over and above the 23 hectares already allowed for
within the Preferred Options and emerging Local Plan. Housing policy should follow our recommendations in
Appendix 6 herein.
Please confirm you will consider all the above and confirm you will omit all aspects of the damaging and
unsustainable Gateway development from the emerging Local Plan, within the boundary of WDC.

Letter attached

-PO1 Levels of Growth
The WDC Housing needs assessment and inward migration figures appear incorrect, the arguments are flawed and the assumptions false. The Council must use due diligence to study the paper submitted by Ray Bullen from Bishops Tachbrook which re examines the migration and population data. It also provides updated figures using the newly published Census information which proves that the WDC conclusions are incorrect.
Mr Bullens report provides a much more realistic conclusion of only 5,336 houses needed over the plan period.

PO3 Broad Location of Growth
I am concerned about the over concentration of development in villages along the B4439 corridor to the west of Warwick. This proposal places far too much strain on this rural area and its infrastructure. Any attempt to 'improve' the infrastructure will adversely affect the rural character of this area. Why is development not being spread to also include villages to the East and North of the District ?

PO16 green Belt
I profoundly disagree with proposals to remove Green Belt status from certain villages.
The principles of creation of Green Belt land are still valid today and provide a valuable protection from inappropriate development.
There are many contradictions between the WDC plan proposals and the National Planning Policy Framework which says that Green belt must be protected unless exceptional circumstances exist. PO16 item B directly conflicts with PO16 item C. (page 17).

If any small scale development is allowed in village locations, the type of housing must not be dictated by developers. The local community must be able to determine what is required for local need.

Any development must be planned in a priority order using Brown Field sites first, secondly developing areas close to existing infrastructure, and only allowing any developments in rural and Green Belt areas as a last resort.

See attached letter

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 attached Response Forms

See Attachments

See Attachment