PO7: Gypsies & Travellers

Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above Strategic document that was sent out for consultation in May 2012. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to your emerging Local Plan.

Having reviewed the Preferred Options and supporting documents we have the following comments to make.

Summary
We welcome that the importance of Climate Change adaptation and especially flood risk are recognised in the preferred options and will form a key focus for the emerging Local Plan.

We have made comments based around the following other issues for Warwick:

* Water Quality
* Water Resources
* Flood Risk
* Waste

These key issues are all key components in dealing fully with the impacts of Climate Change and we support the Local Plan ensuring all these environmental issues along with Green Infrastructure as a whole contribute to Climate Change Adaptation within the District.

We would like to offer our continuing support in the development of the Warwick District Local Plan as it moves towards publication of the next consultation document. We are happy to engage with you on the issue of policy focus and specific wording after this consultation process is complete as you consider the responses move the plan making process forward. We can also assist you in identifying cross boundary environmental issues which would need to be addressed to fulfil the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate.

Objectives
We support the over-arching objectives of the emerging Local Plan in sections:
* 4.11 Carbon emissions and use of natural resources and adapting to the impacts of Climate Change in regards to flooding. We would also encourage the consideration of impacts on water quality in assessing the impacts of climate change.

* 4.12 We support the Plans recognition for the planning of the appropriate infrastructure in the District to support the desired level of growth and environmental protection with regards to water provision and waste water treatments as well as waste and linking these to making the District more adaptive to Climate Change.

These particular objectives provide a strong platform for the protection and enhancement of the environment and Climate Change mitigation and should clearly link the environment to promoting sustainable economic growth in Warwick District.

Climate Change
The National Planning Framework states that the Planning System should contribute to protecting and enhancing our environment and help to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We support the work undertaken by the council on mitigation and adaptation to climate change and the commitment to a climate change policy (PO12) which seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and promote renewable and low carbon energy production. We also support this policy's recognition of Climate Change Adaptation in seeking to require that development is designed to be resilient to and adapt to the future impacts of climate change.

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
We support the councils view that a policy framework be set in place to ensure all new developments and buildings are designed to be resilient to and minimise the future impacts of climate change such as heat and water stress, increased subsidence, flooding and extreme weather events. We would suggest that the factors summarised in the Local Plan from the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy by linked clearly to the issues which would be impacted upon directly. This would include flood risk, efficient use of water resources, the impacts of the urban heat effect and the protection and enhancement of water quality and biodiversity through the provision of well planned Green Infrastructure.

We have broken down our comments to the separate topic areas of Flood Risk, Water Quality, Water Resources and Green Infrastructure (including Biodiversity) but all inseparable from the over-arching issue of Climate Change.

Flood Risk
It should be noted that Climate Change could increase rainfall and river flows with increasing intensity and scale and so there could be an increase in both pluvial and fluvial flooding. We currently factor in an increase of 20% on currently flood modelling to account for the predicted impacts of Climate Change.


It is important to flag up that under the issue of Gypsies and Travellers (Page.31) there is no mention of the location of sites and pitches with regard to flood risk. Safety is paramount for these members of society and they can be vulnerable to the effects of flooding so allocation of these sites should be located primarily in Flood Zone1.

As a point of clarification, on Page 97 Para 18.5. the 2nd point reads - "To ensure that new development does not increase surface water flooding". We would recommend that this point should be amended to say "To ensure new development does not increase flooding from pluvial (surface water, run off) and fluvial (river) sources", as both types of flooding pose a risk to the District and wider catchment.

Looking at flooding on a catchment basis, development and defence strategies in Warwick District could have impacts on the wider Avon and other catchments. These impacts could be felt into Stratford and Wychavon Districts so a strategic view of flooding must be encouraged. By taking a more catchment based approach to the issue of flood risk, relationships with neighbouring authorities both upstream and downstream of the District will be identified and taken into account, therefore again supporting the Duty to Cooperate requirement.

Page 98 Para 018. 1st line reads, "new development will take place on sites outside of flood risk zones as far as practicable". We suggest that in line with the NPPF it may be better to amend the sentence stating that "no development in Flood Zone 3 unless it is water compatible." as Flood Zones 1 and 2 are developable subject to satisfactory drainage provision.

With regards to Para 18.10 and the description the role of the SuDs Approval Boards (SABs). They are still emerging after some delays, but they will be active in due course when the Lead Local Authority take on this function.

The Development Sites.
The development sites all appear to have avoided major flood risk issues as there are minimum sections of flood plain identified within them.

There are areas susceptible to surface water flooding identified for the majority of the sites but these should be identified and assessed in any site specific Flood Risk Assessments and these should consider all forms of flooding. We do not see any show stoppers associated with this aspect but in order to ensure surface water and flood risk is managed effectively in the District we recommend that surface run off be addressed in Policy PO18. We therefore suggest that PO18 where it addresses SuDs schemes should also include the commitment to ensure all new development achieves Green Field rates of surface drainage.

Water Quality
We are pleased to note that the issue of Water Quality and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are addressed in the supporting text to Policy PO18. However, we would encourage these issues to be fully addressed in Policy PO18 and suggest a policy be taken forward which insures no development should be allowed without provision of the necessary infrastructure to ensure no deterioration of local water bodies and such development should seek opportunities to make a contribution to the WFD objectives contained in the relevant River Basin Management Plan. Currently, PO18 makes no reference to wastewater, sewerage capacity and sewage treatment capacity at local treatment works.

We also suggest that the council work with Severn Trent Ltd and ourselves to consider the information in the sub-regional Water Cycle Study (March 2010) is still the most up to date and relevant to support the emerging Local Plan. It could be assumed that such a review should draw the same conclusion as the March 2010 document in that overall Water Quality is generally poor quality in terms WFD classification due to high phosphate levels, invertebrate/fish failures etc and these failures are caused from sewage treatment works and diffuse pollution from urban and rural sources. The majority of waterbodies are of poor - moderate status with only 4 waterbodies currently at Good Ecological Status/Good Ecological Potential (if heavily modified), Finham Brook and Radford Brook are two, the others being canals.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan
The supporting IDP states:
"As part of this funding cycle STW are currently making improvements to Longbridge sewage works (Warwick) to improve its efficiency and add further capacity and it is anticipated that this will be completed by 2014. They also have an existing ,discharge consent‟ to increase the capacity of Finham sewage works by 15%."

This statement needs to be confirmed with regards to the Finham works as this also serves Coventry as well as parts of Warwick District. Coventry has its own growth and development which could also impact on any free discharge and treatment capacity at the works. Both the Longbridge and Finham works ultimately discharge into the River Avon which means we strongly recommended that the council consider the whole Avon Catchment with regards to waste water treatment and WFD and this would also help the Duty to Cooperate requirement with regards to water quality. Finham STW is still a concern being a large STW with a Phosphorous removal consent limit already so it may be required that we have to Consent below 1mg/l in order to achieve no deterioration to the waterbodies for WFD.

Water Resources
Water conservation is addressed in Policy PO18 and we endorse the efficient use of water, especially in new developments, but we recommend that the plan includes specific targets, i.e. which level of the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM ratings to be achieved. Specific water use targets would strengthen the policy and give a clear steer to developers. At the moment the CSH levels are recommended in the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan only and we would like the council to consider bringing these into Policy.

It is noted that in the Draft Infrastructure Plan (and WCS) it recommends CSH level3/4 as a minimum and that the Council aspires to achieve CSH level 5/6. To achieve level 5/6 developers may need to use rainwater/greywater harvesting systems. Since the WCS was published the Agency has published 'Energy and Carbon Implications of rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling' (August 2010) (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0610BSMQ-E-E.pdf ) which highlighted the high carbon emission associated with the use of recycled/ rainwater for anything more than outdoor use. This may influence the CSH level 5/6 aspiration. Our position statements on rainwater harvesting can be found at: Rainwater Harvesting Position Statement

If all cost effective water efficiency measures have been considered, rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling systems can be a useful means of reducing demand for mains water. It may be possible to make additional water efficiency savings from retrofitting surrounding properties with water efficiency devices and working towards water neutrality.

Each domestic rainwater harvesting (for more than just garden use) or greywater reuse should be examined on a case by case basis as their effectiveness varies considerably depending on scale, location and design.

As a guide, rainwater harvesting systems may be appropriate where:
* all feasible water efficiency measures are already in place;
* the planned system is cost effective (including ongoing maintenance costs);
* the planned system will be competently maintained and monitored;
* energy use and carbon emissions are minimised;
* they offer a more sustainable solution to manage surface water run-off than could be provided by other SuDS approaches.

The most recent and comprehensive guidance on rainwater harvesting systems is from BSI - BS 8515. On greywater it is BS 8525. Some case studies are available from:

Harvesting rainwater for domestic uses: an information guide (Environment Agency)
Conserving water in buildings, Chapter7: using greywater and harvesting rainwater (Environment Agency)
Greywater: an information guide (Environment Agency)
UK Rainwater Harvesting Association website
BSI British Standards: BS8515 - Rainwater harvesting - Code of practice and BS8525 - Greywater systems - Part 1: Code of practice

Waste
Development of additional housing and employment land will have implications for managing the waste arising from the new developments, both in terms of construction phases and during occupation. It is important that County and District work together to ensure waste is managed in a coordinated way, and if additional waste management infrastructure is required, the timing of new developments is phased accordingly.

As waste will arise during construction, and from new homes and businesses. There is an opportunity to consider the design of communities and supporting services to minimise waste arisings and encourage and enable waste to be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy - reduce, re-use, recycle, recover, with landfill as the last resort. We support the comments in the IDP in that the council will ensure that sufficient infrastructure is in place to meet future demand for waste collection services in residential and commercial uses through the provision of household and commercial waste and recycling bins. We would recommend that in the design and layout of new housing incorporate waste recycling and collection issues such as by providing sufficient space for the collection of various waste streams.

Waste management should be considered alongside other spatial planning concerns such as transport, housing, economic growth, natural resources and regeneration, recognising the positive contribution that waste management can make to the development of sustainable communities.

We hope you find the above comments informative. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us

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.

scanned letter

See Attachments

scanned form

We are writing to object to the proposal for 3,330 new houses in Warwick. In objecting we refer to the National Planning Policy Framework which "aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of up-to-date plans".

Population Growth

The NPPF states that there should be a clear strategy "taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities".

Why has the number of 10,800 new homes (up to 25,000 more people) been proposed which is the same number as proposed in the Core Strategy and was strongly resisted by Warwick District Council at that time? The West Midlands Regional Office was vehemently criticised by WDC for producing these flawed and untenable figures. Your figures do not comply with WCC population figures and are therefore unreliable. A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause immense damage to the character of the County Town. Migration from other areas into Warwick's more attractive green environment has produced most of the population growth. The provision of more houses will encourage more migration and Warwick will no longer be an attractive area. The new Plan should cater for LOCAL needs not migration into the area. You have included figures to cover an increase in students but they should be housed near the Universities not in the District, especially in south Leamington. Increasingly high concentrations of students in certain areas is an issue of concern.

Regarding your assumptions on the demand for housing, given that more than 50% of national population growth has been from immigration over the last two decades, and the government has publicly stated it wishes to greatly reduce this future net immigration, why is Warwick District planning for an even greater level of growth over the next 15 years, than has been experienced in the recent past? Warwick District population has increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately twice the rate of increase for Warwickshire, twice the national average increase, and over three times the increase for West Midlands. Warwick has had its fair share of development over the years with major estates at Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow (with further development allocated), Hatton Park, along the Myton Road and many other infillings. This is far greater than other areas in the District and history has shown that the necessary infrastructure has never been put in place. The NPPF (48) states that Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply". 1,224 properties have planning permission or a planning brief at the moment and yet you do not appear to have taken these into consideration. This would equate to a two-year supply of houses. We do not believe our authority has identified and brought back into residential use the 300-400 empty houses and buildings (NPPF 51) to the extent they should have done.

We believe that the only motivation for WDC producing such figures for demand is the income that will benefit WDC in New Homes Bonus, rent, rates, council tax monies etc.

Brownfield Sites

The NPPF (111) states "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land."

So why are we not making it a priority to develop brownfield sites first and regenerate poorer housing in urban areas? The Ford Foundry site is a prime example of revitalising an eyesore of a brownfield site to vastly improve the area and bring it back into good use. There are many more examples of brownfield sites in Warwick District which could be regenerated.

Gypsy Site

We suggest the land adjacent to Junction 15 of the M40 might be a suitable site. There is little nearby existing housing, but a public bus service and good road access

Green Belt

The NPPF (79) states "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

An incredible 37% of the 11,000 homes proposed for Warwick District are to be built on the land south-east of Warwick, covering nearly all of the green space between the Banbury Road, Greys Mallory, Europa Way, Myton and the Technology Park. This would mean estates more than three times the size of Warwick Gates, Woodloes Park or Chase Meadow!

The NPPF (76) states "By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances". "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances." (NPPF 83) Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt is that "there is nowhere else to build" (your quote at the Warwick Society Meeting).

NPPF (88) states "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.." The exceptions given in NPPF 89 and 90 do not apply in your proposed Local Plan. Our Green Space is already designated.and we are objecting to this scale of development which will undoubtedly impact negatively on the character of Warwick and the quality of life of existing residents. Why are we facing urban sprawl rather than the housing being spread equitably around the District as you stated was your aim? The previous Core Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. Yet in the new Plan less than 10% of housing is proposed for villages, some of which, such as Barford, would welcome more homes including low-cost housing to build up sustainable communities with schools and facilities and meet the need for affordable rural housing. Those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there would then have the opportunity to do so. We would propose that at least another 1,000 could be spread around the villages and the number proposed for Warwick reduced.

The area to the west of Europa Way was identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl. The District has 85% green belt but 45% of this is to be built on, thus reducing the gap between conurbations. The green space threatened is valued rich agricultural land, essential for food self-sufficiency, environmentally precious landscape with many wildlife habitats and biodiversity including badger setts and also prevents coalescence which you declare is one of your aims. Our existing green space provides open space, sports and recreation and such land, including playing fields, should not be built on!

Alternative Sites

The previous Core Strategy identified several other sites with potential for housing. Local villages where there are good transport links and the potential to improve road access should be developed rather than the urban fringe development of Warwick. The Warwick Parkway area provides a first class rail link. Hatton has a station and easy access to the A46 and Barford has immediate access to the M40 and A46. Two other areas of potential for large scale housing provision are Radford Semele and Lapworth which already have infrastructure to cope with further development, with good public transport, roads and a railway station.

This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Milverton and Warwick would therefore be required. Although you state that there are three gas lines near Bishops Tachbrook. I can see from the map that there is an area to the west which could take some housing whilst avoiding the gas lines. There are other areas which were identified in the Core Strategy options which have not been considered this time, such as the A46 corridor and further development at Sydenham. The commercial units at Sydenham have mostly closed and been boarded up and would offer an ideal brownfield site for development.

Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt, against the National Planning Policy Framework is that "there is nowhere else to build". This argument is totally flawed and I would expect the Inspector to find this Plan unsound if only on this issue.

The NPPF (17) states that planning should be "empowering local people to shape their surroundings."

Why has this amount of housing been proposed for South Warwick when the previous consultation on the Core Strategy produced a 97% response in overwhelming opposition to housing here (700 objecting to the Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Banbury Road area.. Why were those results not heeded when you devised the new Plan? These plans do not reflect the aspirations of the community as the Government intended in the Localisation Act.

 
Flood Risk

The NPPF (94) states that "Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk". Also "Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk....." and (NPPF 99) "When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure." We already have existing green infrastructure to mitigate against water run-off and flood risk but you are proposing to build on it!

The NPPF (101) states "The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test." There are other available sites as already stated. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall." (NPPF 102) You have not carried out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment before allocating these sites for housing.

Europa Way and an area to the south of Gallows Hill are in flood zones and at significant risk of flooding, yet housing is proposed in Flood Zone 1, adjacent to Zones 2 and 3. Areas at risk of flooding have always been designated areas of restraint but you are dispensing with these. More concrete on green fields here which currently soak up heavy rainfall must increase water run-off and impact on the areas of Warwick which already suffer from flooding, especially around Myton Road and Bridge End. This is contrary to NPPF 100 "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere." The previous Core Strategy decided that this area may not be needed for development in the future being an area of restraint and the worst area for infrastructural needs. Development is not necessary in these areas of flood risk and should be avoided, certainly not put into the first phase for building. Home-owners would also face being turned down for insurance in postcodes where there is flood risk. This problem will possibly increase next year when the agreement between the Government and the Insurance Association ends. The Portobello development, built on a flood plain, is a prime example where many of the apartments are still unsold. This area you have designated for building is vital for flood alleviation and should not be built on at all. At the very least it should be the last designated site.

Density

Garden Town suburbs sound admirable but naiïve when you look at the number of buildings proposed and the impact on the environment. This concept did not materialise in Warwick Gates or Chase Meadow and developers will build at high density for increased profit margins. 1,100 houses were first proposed for Chase Meadow and now it is to be 1,600. WDC has no budget for tree maintenance and developers cannot be relied upon to carry this out, as we have seen in other recent developments. After 14 years Chase Meadow still has unadopted roads, only just received its link road to the local school and the prospect of a community centre for sports provision and social interaction. Developers will not be persuaded to build at 30 units per hectare and there is no means of insisting on this. This is just a red herring in our opinion, as are green wedges since you admitted that where these are proposed, you will be reliant on private landowners to permit their development. Once again, funding for this would be dependent on developers' contributions and these monies, being in short supply, would be diverted for other more essential infrastructure.

Why are we allocating housing for the Coventry Gateway project? It should be up to Coventry Council to provide for this. They should also provide more dwellings for Warwick University students which would free up hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes. WDC have recently been forced to change their planning policy because of the problematic increase in HMOS in the District.

Infrastructure

The NPPF (17) states that strategies should "deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet Local needs". Also (NPPF 162) "Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:

* assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands and

* take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."

Yet you confirm that infrastructure will not be put in place before building commences but that you hope that infrastructure will be provided from developers' contributions, whilst admitting that this may not raise enough to cover escalating costs of new roads, bridges, schools, extra health provision, policing, fire service, community centres etc. If left to developers, history has shown this may not happen. Infrastructure needs will then be prioritised and some areas may miss out. You have admitted that infrastructure proposals will be prioritised and there will be a cut-off point when the money runs out. We have seen no architects' proposed site plans showing each area with all the necessary infrastructure in place. You have provided no idea of potential costs at all. You have provided no results of studies at all. Warwick has already lost its police station and fire station, roads are completely congested at peak times, schools are drastically oversubscribed and have no places (particularly Myton which is the catchment area), the hospital is at breaking point and cannot cope with the load, having day surgeries and evening clinics to clear backlogs and lack of parking leads to innumerable late attendance for appointments, and the police haven't a clue how they can cope with more communities. Utilities such as water, sewers, electricity provision will have to be provided at escalating massive cost.

CIL

The NPPF (175) states "Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place."

You have not provided information on these charges at all. We do not believe that there will be anywhere near the amount of funding available from CIL to cover the above extra infrastructure needs, especially new roads, bridges, schools and hospital.

 
Air Quality/Traffic

The NPPF (17) states that the Plan should "support the transition to a low carbon future" and contribute to "reducing pollution". Also "Local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (NPPF 95)

The NPPF (17) states that policies should "recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality". (30) "Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion". Also (NPPF 124) "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

The traffic congestion that Warwick already suffers will increase by a possible 6,000+ extra cars from extra South Warwick housing alone, let alone the increase from 10,800 new homes, bringing with it increased pollution in areas where air quality is already over the limit. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. Air quality remains in breach of these regulations and will become toxically high with the 27% increase in traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. There is no management plan to address these levels. The County Council admitted that air quality will suffer as carbon emissions will increase in surburban sprawl. You admitted that you did not know how the carbon emissions could be reduced by the 20% currently necessary. It therefore seems incredible that the large-scale housing developments on the edge of Warwick are suggested with a likely 40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years. This will inevitably add to the congestion and air pollution; so why is it in the plan on this scale?

The NPPF (34) states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised." "A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan" (NPPF 36). All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan". We have not seen such a Travel Plan.

Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way are all highly congested with long queues or at a standstill at peak times including the Town centre and often emergency vehicles cannot negotiate a way through, even via the pavements. If the closed Warwick Fire Station were to be relocated at Queensway, their vehicles would experience increased problems and response times would be worsened. There is a suggestion that Europa Way could be widened but this would exacerbate bottlenecks when the traffic reaches the roundabouts. The County say they can mitigate but not contain the resulting increase in traffic and admit there are places where congestion will worsen.

Historic Environment

Pinch points at bridges cannot be alleviated and the 300-year old Castle Bridge already carries 20,000 vehicles per day and cannot sustain an increase in traffic without threat to its very structure. We should be trying to reduce this traffic to prevent the bridge collapsing, not increase it. The NPPF (112) states "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional." The precious historic and listed buildings in Warwick are being damaged by traffic vibration and pollution and this problem will only worsen. Increased commuting traffic must not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. Danger to schoolchildren and others is currently problematic on our roads and will be exacerbated near schools such as at Woodloes and Aylesford/Newburgh.. We are given no concrete proposals for new roads, only ideas. A North Leamington relief road suggestion could cost £50million+ and the idea that the A452 could be routed to the Fosse - one of the most dangerous roads in the County is preposterous. The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and on to the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road with the addition of Morrisons and the proposed trading estate and Aldi supermarket all exiting out on to the double roundabout system. The present Plan does not address these traffic problems sufficiently and should be "refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe (NPPF 32).

Conclusion

You state that in 2026 Warwick District will be renowned for being "A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities....." In our opinion this could not be farther from the truth.

The above comments demonstrate that this Plan is seriously flawed. It is not specific to the needs or the character of this area and the necessary infrastructure is not deliverable. We believe the Planning Inspector will declare it unsound. It cannot be justified as "the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence" and it is not "Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework." (NPPF 182)

This Plan should be completely revised taking account of the above, specifically reducing the numbers of housing proposed for Warwick.

I look forward to your response to the comments contained in this letter.

Whitnash Town Council respond to each of the Preferred Options in turn, and
make comments in respect of the Vision and Objectives.
Vision and Objectives
We broadly support the Vision and Objectives for the Local Plan, but reserve
our position on the level of housing supply, for the reasons set out in our
response to PO1 below.
PO1 - Level of Growth
In principle we agree that sufficient housing should be provided across the
District to meet future housing needs. However, we are unable to comment on
the proposed level of an average provision on 555 per annum on allocated
sites, plus windfalls, as housing numbers are an immensely technical issue.
Notwithstanding this, we are very concerned that Warwick District and
Coventry City Councils are failing to exercise their statutory Duty to Cooperate
under the Localism Act 2011 by not addressing the important matter
of cross-boundary housing need.
We are concerned that, in its current state, the proposed strategy will be
found to be "unsound" by the Inspector at the eventual Examination. This
could well result in additional housing provision having to be made, and this
would have clear implications for non-Green Belt areas, such as those
surrounding Whitnash.
We therefore urge the District Council to effectively exercise the Duty to Cooperate
with Coventry in respect of cross-boundary housing provision at this
WHITNASH TOWN COUNCIL
Franklin Road Town Clerk
Whitnash Mrs J A Mason
Warwickshire Email: jenny.mason@whitnashtowncouncil.gov.uk
CV31 2JH
Telephone and Fax: 01926 470394
2
stage, therefore preventing the danger of the Local Plan being found
"unsound" in the future and the Council having to consequently revise its
strategy and land allocations.
PO2 - Community Infrastructure Levy
We fully support the District Council in seeking to introduce a CIL scheme as
the Town Council considers it vital that full and appropriate infrastructure
provision is made, in advance of development wherever possible. It is
essential, however, that the funds raised are used to develop infrastructure in
the areas where the impacts will be felt, irrespective of Town and Parish
administrative boundaries.
We look forward to seeing and commenting upon the Infrastructure Delivery
Plan in due course.
PO3 - Broad Location of Growth
We support the strategy to make Green Belt releases to the north of
Leamington. For the first time in many years, this will allow a spatial
rebalancing of the urban form and provide for significant development in areas
away from the southern edge of the Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash urban
area.
Apart from relieving some of the development pressure on the south, it also
represents sensible planning practice by creating a more rounded and
balanced urban area, enabling greater accessibility, especially for the town
centres, and should enable more effective transport planning through
maintaining a more compact urban form with Leamington and Warwick Town
Centres as two central hubs.
Past development allocations had resulted in Leamington Town Centre
becoming increasingly less "central" to the urban area as development
extended to the south. The proposed strategy ends this practice and is
therefore welcome.
PO4 - Distribution of Sites for Housing
At this Preferred Option stage, we do not have detailed proposals for any of
the sites covering, for example, access arrangements, amounts of
employment land, types and forms of community facilities to be provided, and
such like.
Therefore, we wholly reserve our position in respect of objection to, or support
for, any of the sites and we will make strong representations in this respect at
the Draft Local Plan stage.
However, we have a number of concerns in respect of several of the sites. We
draw these to the District Council's attention at this stage so they can be
addressed in formulating detailed proposals.
3
Education Provision
A general comment we wish to make is that it is critical that detailed
consideration is given, up front, to the level and location of future school
provision, both Primary and Secondary.
In Whitnash we have suffered from the lack of provision of a Primary School
at Warwick Gates. The draft Development Brief included a school, but this
was subsequently deleted as the County Council, as LEA, took the view that a
better option was the expansion of the existing three schools in Whitnash. As
this was, in planning terms, "policy neutral", the District Council amended the
Development Brief accordingly and deleted the school site.
This has led to problems for the residents of Warwick Gates and we would
seek to ensure that such a situation does not arise again through this Local
Plan process.
Our comments on education more specifically related to individual sites as
follows.
Sites 2 and 3 - if these sites progress, these should be seen as incorporating
a possible location for a Secondary School.
Site 6 (Whitnash East) - we understand that access could only be achieved
through the Campion School site. We are concerned that the school should
remain viable and continue to be located where it is.
Site 10 (Warwick Gates Employment Land) - consideration should be given to
siting a Secondary School on this land, given its advantages in terms of
accessibility from across the south of the urban area. The opportunity should
also be taken to explore the siting of a Primary School on the site, to meet the
needs both of existing Warwick Gates residents and also the needs arising
from any additional housing, on the site itself or in the vicinity.
Site 2 - Myton Garden Suburb
Our concern in respect of this proposed allocation is that its development will
result in the coalescence of the three components of the urban area, Warwick,
Leamington and Whitnash. We consider that this will result in a loss of
individual identity for the three towns.
Site 3 - South of Gallows Hill
We raise the following concerns in relation to this site:
* The land is extremely prominent in the landscape and will be highly
visible when entering the urban area from the south
* The site does not represent a logical extension of the current urban
form. It is in no way "rounding off" and would constitute a "peninsula" of
development extending to the south
4
* It would have a negative impact upon the setting of Warwick Castle
Park
Site 6 - Whitnash East
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We are not convinced that access to the site is feasible. Our
understanding is that the South Sydenham development constituted the
maximum number of dwellings that could be accommodated off a cul-de-sac.
Given that access to the site via Church Lane or Fieldgate Lane is clearly not
feasible, access would have to be achieved via land within Campion School.
As this would involve relocation of school buildings, we are sceptical that the
number of houses proposed could fund the necessary works required to
achieve this solution
* Given the above issue, and our earlier comments on the wider subject
of education provision, we do not wish to see the future location of Campion
School prejudiced by this development
* There are, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, substantial
areas of both historical and nature conservation interest. Any development
must not have an adverse impact on any of these cultural, historic and natural
heritage resources
* In the event that the site is developed, we would wish to ensure that
sufficient community facilities are provided within the development and also
that adequate footpath and cycleway links are provided between the
development and the existing community of Whitnash
Site 10 - Warwick Gates Employment Land
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* The site appears to be proposed for development at an extremely low
density. We make this observation elsewhere in respect of other proposed
allocations. We are concerned that, to accommodate the projected housing
need, land is allocated at appropriately high density, thus reducing the overall
level of new land that is needed
* This site is currently a high quality employment land allocation and we
understand that a reason the land has not been developed is landowner
aspirations, rather than demand for such a site. It is essential that the Local
Plan provides a balanced supply of employment land to meet all sectors of
demand, if economic growth and prosperity is to be fostered. There is
currently no other site in the urban area that offers this amount of land area in
such an accessible location. We are therefore concerned at its proposed
reallocation from employment to housing
5
Site 11 - Woodside Farm
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We fail to see how two access points could effectively be achieved to
this site. We do not consider access from Harbury Lane to be feasible due to
the existing road alignment. We doubt whether access could be achieved
from Tachbrook Road due to the proximity of the Ashford Road and Harbury
Lane junctions to the north and south of the site respectively. Construction of
a roundabout at the Tachbrook Road/Harbury lane junction would offer
potential for one access point, but we are concerned about the impact of such
construction on the important oak trees in the vicinity
* We also doubt whether the development could carry the cost of such
highways works. The option of gaining access via Landor Road is utterly
unacceptable due to the road alignment and lack of vehicle capacity.
Furthermore, it appears that physical access could only be gained through
demolition of existing buildings
* In the event that a single access point was sought, we consider that
this has the potential to isolate the housing from the existing community and
also lead to unnecessary and unsustainable vehicle movements
* The site would be highly prominent in the landscape - there is
therefore a concern about visual impact
* The presence of underground High Voltage electricity cables will limit
the site layout
* There is considerable local opposition to the proposed allocation of the
site. It is our duty as a Town Council to inform you of this high level of
opposition
Site 12 - Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane
The raise the following concerns regarding this site:
* We consider there to be fundamental access problems and have
concerns about the capacity of the Coppice Road/Morris Drive and Whitnash
Road/Golf Lane junctions to accommodate the additional movements
generated by the development, especially at peak periods
* We are concerned that, at a proposed level of 90 dwellings, the site
density is too high. This would be a prestigious site and the proposed density
should reflect this. Our argument does not run contrary to that made in
respect of other sites, where we consider the density to be too low, as
provision needs to be made at varying densities to reflect different sectors of
the housing market. This includes provision of sheltered housing and singlestorey
dwellings on appropriate sites. This may or may not be the case at
6
Fieldgate Lane, but should certainly be considered across the portfolio of
proposed housing allocations
PO5 - Affordable Housing
We support the provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing but would
seek this to be distributed across all sites to ensure the development of
socially balanced communities
PO6 - Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes
We support the Preferred Option PO6.
PO7 - Gypsies and Travellers
Given that Whitnash has experienced particular problems through unlawful
traveller encampments in recent years, we support the principle of the
Preferred Option of proper site provision
PO8 - Economy
We support the principles of PO8. However, we reiterate our concern that
appropriate levels of employment land should be provided, in the right places,
and this should constitute a balanced portfolio of sites to meet as wide a
variety of needs and demands as possible
PO9 - Retailing and Town Centres
We support the principles set out in PO9
PO10 - Built Environment
We support the principles set out in PO10
PO11 - Historic Environment
We support the principles set out in PO11
PO12 - Climate Change
We support the principles set out in PO12
We will seek to ensure that any future development in Whitnash seeks to
reduce the Town's overall carbon footprint through the application of
sustainable development and design principles
PO13 - Inclusive, Safe and Healthy Communities
We support the principles set out in PO13
7
PO14 - Transport
We support the principles set out in PO14 with the exception of the section
relating to High Speed 2.
Whitnash Town Council neither objects to nor supports HS2
We urge the District Council to ensure that the final Infrastructure Delivery
Plan takes full account of public transport needs and the principles and
policies set out in Warwickshire County Council's Local Transport Plan 3
PO15 - Green Infrastructure
We support the principles set out in PO15
PO16 - Green Belt
We support the limited release of Green Belt sites as set out in PO16 as this
will create a more balanced and sustainable urban area and urban form
PO17 - Culture and Tourism
We support the principles set out in PO17
PO18 - Flooding and Water
We support the principles set out in PO18

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Scanned representation

See attached representations.