PO9: Retailing & Town Centres

I support the fact that the use of out of town centre facilities will be reduced. More focus should be on the centres and suburbs.

Makes sense.

I support the emphasis on town centres but as parking becomes increasingly difficult and expensive a key factor must be provision of safe and efficient public transport, pedestrian and cycle access.

Retai has been a significant industry in leamington and warwick. The balance of attracting trade in favour of developing other business needs to be carefully considered as does the inclusion of park and ride schemes - particularly to the north of leamington where the access route into town is naturally restrictive

The design of any major Leamington retail scheme needs to complement and compliment the town, which has not so far been the case with proposals put forward.

Yes to 'town centres first' providing we can get the parking and public transport right to support it properly. We need to keep town centres alive and vibrant places to be, a proper 'centre' of our communities.

Baddesley Clinton Parish Council would support the preferred option for PO9, particularly that existing town centres remain successful and resistance to future applicatons for out of town shopping.

As with the Economy section of this consultation, the idea of "future retail growth" is probably fanciful and certainly optimistic. With lack of economic growth and rapid expansion of internet shopping, it is unlikely that all the existing empty shops will ever re-open. If new developments are built and operate successfully they would be at the expense of existing retail locations. For example the proposed Clarendon Arcade would reduce the number of shops in South Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth. It should be noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says 'It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full' but does not suggest that retail growth is required. Therefore no provision for improbable retail growth is required.

There should not be such a strong commitment to the town centre. Out of town retail is highly popular because it is convenient. The town centre competes with other town centres and development should be focussed on making people want to visit rather than seeking to deprive them of more attractive alternatives. If retail in the town centre is failing find other uses for the properties - maybe residential?

Whilst the Leamington Society fully supports the "town centres first" principle we believe that the PO9 policy outlined does not reflect the needs, or indeed the views, of the citizens of the district. Neither does it respect or enhance the individuality, historic and cultural nature of our existing town centres.
the Leamington Society urge that the following comments are taken into account before the local plan is finalised.
Please see attachment for details

Noted.

General: The term "preferred options" implies that the decisions have already been made, and that there is little, if any chance of them being changed. This underlines the FACTS that the results of the previous "consultation" have been ignored, so leaving residents with the impression that this consultation will also have no effect.
PO1: 52% of the respondents to the previous consultation opted for the lower number of new houses to be built, on the grounds that this would meet the requirements of current residents and their families. It would not attract further influx of people seeking employment not available in the District, employment which they would only find outside it, further increasing the already unacceptable traffic problems. The Council decided to ignore this view and propose a much larger (100% larger) number of houses. We can only conclude that the Council is bowing to instructions /bribes from Westminster to allow more houses to be built by private developers, since there is no indication anywhere that the Council itself intends to carry out any of this housing growth.
PO2: The infrastructure levy is an essential feature of any increase in the number of houses built in the District. However, it must be levied and spent BEFORE the new housing is occupied. We have already experienced the problems which delaying this expenditure has created in Warwick.
PO3/PO4: There is clearly a preference for a high proportion (almost 50%) of the development to be located in Warwick. There seems very little proposed for the villages. Half the proposed housing development is on the south side of the district. Given that the bulk of the new employment opportunities will not be in the small area of the District, but in the larger employment proposals for Coventry, commuting through the towns will increase, not decrease.
PO5: The balance of the types of new housing should be very carefully scrutinised: too much of recent development has been of small properties and retirement flats, only suitable for short-term occupation by first-time buyers. More of the new housing must be for family use. The proposal that 40% of new housing should be "affordable" is essential, and must be maintained against developers' pressure for its reduction. A better definition of "affordable" is also required
PO6/PO7: Statements of the blindingly obvious.
PO8: The designated employment land must be maintained against the pressure which will be put on the Council by developers. We have already experienced in Tournament Fields the result of this pressure proving effective. There is no indication in the Plan of what percentage of the land will be designated as employment land.
PO9: We note that there will be "support for new retail investment on Leamington Town Centre". Why only Leamington? The other towns are equally deserving of support, though there is no indication that this proposal has any financial backing.
PO10: Forget the concept of "garden towns/suburbs". These were built in an era of weaker planning regulations and allowed a much larger area of land to be taken into use for housing. In the current climate, such land use is not acceptable to the general population. Planning law is about to be relaxed, and the Council must be vigilant in maintaining the quality of development.
PO11: This is a very weak section, "offering help and advice" is not very positive: more concrete proposals, including financial commitment is needed. This is repeated in PO17 where "support" and "seek contributions" are the key words.
PO14 (and un-numbered section following): The road improvements proposed would be of marginal value. The "improvements" to Europa Way and the junctions would be very expensive, and could use up a substantial proportion of the available infrastructure levy, to the detriment of more useful projects, such a schools, health centres and open areas.

I am writing to let you know that whilst I understand you believe the new proposition could be positive for Warwick DC, I strongly object to the proposals for the new houses on our North Leamington Greenbelt, the out of town shopping centre, new supermarket and the feeder road through the fields of Old Milverton on the grounds that: the very special circumstances cited to justify damaging the Greenbelt are invalid.

I also disagree with your statement "if a proposal is not approved, builders will be able to build anywhere they like." Planning permission will always be required and therefore could still be rejected if inappropriate.

I'm amazed that you were able to propose building on the Greenbelt when the Government has recently re-emphasised its protection for the GB in the new NPPF. Even Warwick District Council's objection to HS2, sited the unnecessary irriversable damage to the environment as part of your argument! Clearly the Council have double standards. Especially when you have already previously identified many suitable brown and white field sites, including the ones in your 2009 proposal. Why have these sites now been discounted?


New Out of Town Shopping Centre
The District doesn't need another out of town shopping centre. We already have one out of town shopping centre on the Shires Industrial Estate which is linked to a wonderfully adequate infrastructure. It currently has a large empty unit and room for expansion on the other units (by adding second floors, which some have already done).

What retail businesses do we expect to attract to North Leamington anyway? The usual out of town retailers like Currys, Outlet (inc DP, Topshop, Wallis, Burton etc), Mothercare already have locations in the Shires. Do you want the remainder of the town centre shops to move out and take up residence there, making them ghost towns?

In Leamington Spa town centre there are numerous empty retail units, including the large, not so old shopping centre - Regency Arcade. Shouldn't we be filling these up first? Town Centres used to be the hub of social activity. If you build more out of town shopping centres, you will no doubt kill even more of the local shops in our town centres and people will no doubt loose their jobs. If free parking in town was offered again, this would help jump start inner town spending.

We don't need a park and ride. If you go into town during the day, there are numerous spaces available on the streets - thanks to the parking meters. Also the multi story car parks are never full.

In addition to this, internet shopping is increasing all the time. At present, they say that £1.30 in each £10 is spent online. Shops will be effected and become less desirable should this trend continue, which it almost certainly will. With the above in mind, I believe we need to look at things that will not be effected by the internet like tourism, agriculture and services which we are already good at in Warwick District. Stoneleigh Estate are currently working on a proposition which will create employment and makes much more sense.


New Proposed Supermarket, Blackdown
How many Supermarkets does a town need! I looked on Yell.com and noticed that we already have at least 20 supermarkets in Warwick District.

Even if the new dwellings are built, we already have access to adequate supplies from the existing supermarkets. Tesco Warwick and Tesco Metro (on Leamington Parade) are both under 2 miles away from the proposed development. Tesco Cubbington Road is just over 2 miles away. We also have a huge new Morrisons being built on the old Ford Foundry.

Are we allowing them to build on our Greenbelt as part of a Section 106 agreement, to raise funds for the rest of your proposals? Raising funds is not an exceptional reason to build on Greenbelt land. It is a fact that the Supermarkets kill our local businesses. Greengrocers, butchers, bakers and pharmacies, even news agents are going out of business and our town centres are filled with empty units where they once were.

When I was younger, my mother travelled 3 miles to do her shopping. This was acceptable back then and the likes of Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose etc are killing the local businesses. Look at what's happened on Coten End after Sainsburys moved in! We are in danger of being taken over by the Superstores and killing the soul of our towns.


New Houses In North Leamington Greenbelt

The number:
I understand some new houses may be required but not on the scale you propose. I dispute your calculations on the number of dwellings required. You propose that we need 11,000 over 15 years in addition to the numerous new developments currently under construction which have not been sold or rented.

Since you produced the report, new planning permission has been granted for more and buildings, including the Dementia Unit on Milverton Road. I'm sure there will be more over the next few years in addition to these you are proposing. I would be pleased if the equivellent was deducted from your plan as this was not approved at the time of your plan making.

People extend their houses to make more bedrooms / granny annex's and build new houses on large back gardens all the time, thanks to new planning regulations. Some developments are unfinished because they cannot fund the final stage, due to lack of demand - eg Portabello.

Currently, a large percentage of rental properties in the district are inhabited by students of Warwick University. With tuition fees of up to £9,000 per annum, increasing, it is likely that the number of students are already reducing. Therefore there will be numerous houses and apartments available to rent.

The Government are looking at the housing benefit policy. If this goes ahead, the under 25s won't get benefits and will therefore not be able to afford to rent local houses and apartments.

To help local employment and to preserve our beautiful historic regency town of Leamington, I strongly believe the Council should be looking to improve Warwick District through Urban Regeneration in the very first instance. This would give small local building companies, plumbers and electricians work which is very much in short supply. Surely, we want to support our local businesses first over national building companies.

Currently, there are more houses on the rental market than meet our demands and numerous vacant properties for sale, vacant possession. As an example, there is a 12 bedroom property for a mere £800k on St Marks Road, Leamington. This would make an excellent Residential Home, several large flats or even a good home for several single parent families.

forget the 'big boys' who are not interested in small sites, but look to regional and local builders - who bring added sustainability benefits, such as keeping money local, reducing travel to site and providing jobs within the immediate locality.


The Location
The land you propose to build on in Old Milverton is "A grade" agricultural land which enjoys significant protection from development. It is referred to as 'Best and Most Versatile' land.

The old IBM site is huge and is already well linked to the bypass and services. You could fit over 1,000 family homes on there, even more homes for the elderly. I've heard rumours that ASDA (yet another Supermarket!!!) wish to develop it. Under the circumstances, it would be unethical when you say brown field sites are a priority for dwellings. There is also the old Hobsons Choice public house on Spinney Hill and several sites along the canal (Wharf St, Nelson Lane) which could be developed into desirable dwellings, whilst at the same time, making the area more attractive.

Why do the new developments in rural areas need to be so big anyway? Why not have small developments in each area and spread it out over the district where sites are available? Is it because the developers you have in mind aren't interested in this?

By building the houses, Old Milverton will no longer be a hamlet, which is inconsistent with 7 of 4.11 of your objective. It does not respect the integrity of existing settlements.

In your report, you state that most the employment is in South Leamington. With this in mind, surely the best position for the new houses, to avoid congestion in North Leamington would be South Leamington - Barford even Radford Semille way.

If new rural dwellings are required, they should be kept on a very small scale and in the character with the other dwellings in the settlement, maintaining the charm of each existing development. Large new developments on Greenbelt land are not the answer.

I mentioned the Stoneleigh Development earlier. Should this go ahead, isn't it sensible to find a location in that area for a small percentage of the houses, if only 50 of the dwellings, if you are trying to discourage reduce car usage?

New Proposed Road to Feed Into the A45 from Milverton Road
This proposal is a contradiction to point 7 of 4.11 of your objective. It does not respect the integrity of existing settlements, in particular, Old Milverton Village.
If you are making improvements to the A452, why is this road needed?

Should it go ahead, it will only reduce the distance for users by 2 miles, (2 minutes drive time) if they get off this junction instead of the Kenilworth junction so how can the reduction of valuable agricultural land and destruction of our Greenbelt be justified, financially or morally.

It also goes against objective 13 of 4.12. The road, leading up to the new proposed development is well used by cyclists, joggers, walkers and horse riders at present. Should the proposed road go ahead, the road will become a busy road making it unsafe for current users to enjoy. Especially because there is no pedestrian pathway alongside the road.

As I write, there are already daily traffic jams at the A45 exit by the Saxon Mill on Coventry Road, which will join the feeder road. Having a feeder road will only make this conjestion worse - a contradiction to point 4 of 4.11.

If the Council wishes to ease congestion on Kenilworth Road I believe the Council should provide better bus services in rural areas, especially during rush hours. It would be even more effective if busses had priority over cars on the roads. Also, if the road out of Hill Wooton onto Kenilworth Road was changed so it was left turn only, this would help congestion. Perhaps this could be done on the Kenilworth Road?
Who's going to use it? If it is to help people get to the proposed out of town shopping centre in North Leamington, it will not be required. People in Coventry, Stratford Upon Avon and Birmingham all have more than adequate shopping centres and certainly won't make a special effort to come to ours. Especially as all out of town shopping centres tend to be filled by the same shops.

The suggestion of a feeder road is a further contradiction to objective 4.11.4. The fields surrounding Milverton and Old Milverton (leading down to the Saxon Mill) is already, today, meeting the objective you set in this section and is a much loved and well used, safe route for cyclists, runners, nature photographers, walking groups and dog walkers. People like the route to get escape from urban life and it's important to have this close to North Leamington residents, without having to get into a car. There is nowhere else we can use within walking distance. If you make these changes, a big ugly bypass or any type of road running through this field will most definately make this an unattractive, unhealthy, unsafe option. If you really want to encourage people to be more healthy lifestyles, we need this area to remain untouched. If we loose our open land, we will have to get into our cars to find a similar option.

As a result of the feeder road, there will be additional traffic conjestion where the Rugby Road meets the Old Milverton Road and increased traffic through Milverton (not just from the new houses). It is hard enough now in the mornings to get in and out of the Old Milverton Road to / from Rugby Road. You will need to introduce a new traffic management on the entrance and the Old Milverton Road. Additional crossings will be required to ensure safe crossing for the walking school route for residents of Milverton and Old Milverton and it will become a busy main road.

Again, this will create the opposite of objective 13 of 4.12. The Old Milverton Road is also enjoyed by parents of children, and children attending Brookhurst and Trinity. We use this route to walk into Leamington regularly. It is a nice quiet, low traffic, pretty rural, safe road with a short cut under the railway bridge to Beverley Road. I would not be happy for my young children to use this road if it becomes a busy highway, which will happen if the new proposed road goes ahead. Improvements to this road will be required to keep it safe and so it doesn't become conjested.

Your plan states that Warwick District wants to be low carbon producing. We should look at building and improving cycle paths and public transport links / services. Not building new roads on our Greenbelt and on our limited grade A agricultural land.


Wildlife
We have a family of little owls who nest in our village every year and perch on our Victorian walled garden and surrounding trees throughout the day. Last year we were lucky enough to see a falcon in the garden. Although I don't think they are classified yet as endangered, the numbers are declining rapidly. I presume through over-development of rural areas. The other birds of prey like buzzards and eagles can be seen regularly too. Due to a previous builder's wildlife report not being published, some people believe there is a possibility of great crested newts in the area. I know we have some but as I don't know what crested ones look like, I can't confirm ours are or not. This would need to be verified.


Evidence Pack
Finally, after reading the evidence pack, the questionnaire used, I thought was leading so I think this should be discounted as evidence.


I hope the points raised have been useful and that my objection is registered appropriately. If I need to do this in any different format to make it valid, please let me know.

I am writing in support of the general principles outlined in the new Local Plan.

As owner of the Warwick Arms Hotel in Warwick High Street it is encouraging to see that a priority is "to protect existing visitor accommodation within or adjoining the Districts three town centres unless it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer viable or suitable "

I look forward to being contacted as part of the Visitor and Tourism Strategy Action Plan currently under preparation as mentioned under "other options". I am convinced that this will conclude that there is no "lack of adequate accommodation" in the District.

Furthermore I trust it will highlight the fact that many accommodation providers in the District,often in heritage buildings (essential to the town centre street scenes which attract tourists)need the same level of protection from edge of town Budget Hotels as the retailers referred to in PO3...."we will protect our existing retail uses in town centres and strongly resist any out of town centre proposals that may come forward.

Scanned Response Form

scanned submission

2:2 - Why is the environment not listed as a key priority: without it, all manner of planning applications can be granted which are anti-environmental

Is leisure included in "Health and Wellbeing". If so, this should be made clear.

2:5 - As there is no way the economy can be predicted, there should be a commitment to responding to new opportunities and needs which arise

Can the areas mentioned as requiring regeneration be identified?

I am concerned about the second bullet point under Emphasis on infrastructure, as most areas of the countryside and of importance for wildlife need only a very light touch, if a touch at all. There should be a clear distinction between the approach to parks and managed open spaces, and to wilder areas (e.g. Welch's Meadow would be ruined by heavy handed management).

3:7 - there are elements referred to in this draft plan which need to be prioritised and policy made before March/April 2012; in particular a policy on the concentration of HMOs.

4:6 - the protection afforded to conservation areas should be strengthened, particularly as these cover apparently only 4% of the district

4:8, point 2 - It should be noted that one major contributory factor to the current lack of affordable properties relates to HMOs. The house next door to mine is an example of this. It was owned by an elderly lady who went into residential care. There was a large amount of interest in the property from people who wanted it as a family home, indeed so much interest that it was decided on sealed bids. Because the property needed some updating, and I met several potential purchasers who wanted to restore it to its former self, the highest bidder was, almost inevitably, a landlord who could easily find the finance and would easily recoup the investment by turning it into an HMO. I have seen this repeated time and again in my area of south Leamington where the gains from HMOs has pushed up prices beyond affordable for an individual or family: indeed a local couple I know has not been able to find an affordable small period house and, despite wanting to stay in Leamington, is having to move to Cheltenham to find such a property. In addition to the price problem, most often the conversion to HMO is the cheapest possible and degrades the period property.

4:10.2 - It is right to accommodate university students, but not at the expense of other "settled" residents. South Leamington is at a tipping point where the area could be completely dominated by students The advantages of a large student population tend to benefit the few - landlords and places selling cheap food and drink, whilst the cost and disadvantages are picked up by Council tax payers and local neighbours. It also means that businesses not directed at students tend to stay away. One south town resident recently pointed out that because Leamington is only a student dormitory town rather than a university town, we have generally ended up with all of the problems of a large student population and none of the advantages of the university culture which takes place on campus. I can see no reason why special consideration should be afforded to the University of Warwick in providing accommodation for its students.

4:11 - I agree with all these points, particularly endorsing numbers 7, 9 and 10. It is particularly important in any development not to let the developer be the tail which wags the dog, as the developer will inevitably want to take the easiest and cheapest route in contradiction to the area's best interests.

5-7 - Level of growth:
As forecasting population growth is a very inexact science, the Council should constantly monitor what is actually happening. If the expected population growth is not materialising, planned development should be scaled back accordingly. It makes sense therefore to insist on development of the brownfield sites before eating into Green Belt.

P04:D - Loss of green space should also be taken into account when assessing development of garden land. This space may not be directly accessible to the general public, but if it contributes to the overall feeling of green space which is enjoyed by the general public (e.g. with trees that can be seen from neighbouring streets), it is very important that it is maintained. It is also important for biodiversity and the environment, as gardens are now understood to be extremely important habitats for wildlife.

P06.D - It is most important to identify the locational criteria and to carry out a thorough survey of all HMOs and their residents, not just those which have previously had to get Council approval.

7.59 - We need this policy now!

P08 - We also need a firm policy now regarding the protection of existing employment buildings from change of use, as in my area I can think of several schemes either applyng for or already granted planning permission to change from commercial to residential use. The Plan already points out that f the area population is going to increase, then employment will need to increase as well and it is short-sighted to be allowing commercial property to disappear.

8:21 - Does the projection of additional job requirement take into account that the growth in the older population will automatically mean the release of the jobs these people were doing?

9: Retailing

It is a mistake to be led by the retail "experts" who push for constant retail development schemes in order to compete with neighbouring towns. There is a fine balance between having enough "High Street names" to serve shoppers and having so many that Leamington becomes indistinguishable from any other shopping centre - in which case, why would any non-residents want to come here? The success of the last major retail development - which seems dubious to me - (Parade to Regent Street) should be assessed before rushing into another similar development. Outside shoppers will travel to a shopping centre to find something different and it is this difference which needs to be identified and promoted. These major developments also seem to push up rents for retailers.

13: Inclusive, Safe and Healthy Communities

Developments should not be permitted which will downgrade and produce associated problems to an area, e.g. SEVs.

14: Transport

I suggest WDC promote a car sharing scheme.

P014: How can you plan a retail development in Chandos Street whilst aiming to maintain sufficient parking in town centres. Chandos Street is a much more popular car park than the multi-storeys.

15: Green Infrastructure

A relevant issue is that Network Rail is destroying, and has been for a long time, the natural environment and wildlife habitat along railway lines by felling all the trees and killing undergrowth every year with weed killer.

15:14 - Yes to urban tree planting; concern about messing with the River Leam borders unless already in a well-used managed area.

P017 - I agree with the continued support for the development of a cultural quarter

I believe that existing visitor accommodation should be protected from change of use.

18: Flooding

Planning permission should be sought by someone wanting to pave/concrete over a front garden, as I believe this trend has contributed to flooding problems.

Summary of major concerns

* Restrictions needed on HMOs
* Light-handed touch needed on non-parkland open spaces and riverside
* More creative study of retail demands and opportunities needed
* Although the Plan does seem to recognise this, the expansion of the district must avoid segregating areas into a single use, e.g. residential, employment, etc. Areas are much more interesting and attractive if they include a mix of residential, employment, cultural/leisure, etc. properties.

Preferred Options.
Not should be located could be located.
Not should expect would expect

Part 1 Intro
Local Plan, key to help War Dist deliver its vision for next 15 yrs.
Produced with Police, fire and rescue and health and many others

Part2 our vision for district
To make Warwick district a great place to live, work and visit.
Council and partners trying through the Sustainable Community Strategy.

Try means fail. Do there best is what they mean. I make no comment on
how good this is.

This sets out 4 key priorities and 5 cross cutting themes.

Priorities

Safer Communities
Health and well Being
Housing
Economy, Skills and Employment

Cross Cutting Themes

Narrowing the Gaps
Embedding sustainability throughout.
Families at risk
Engaging and strengthening communities
Rurality

The Sustainable Community Strategy is central to improving life in the
District across all the themes. Supported by series of Delivery Plans
and Locality plans which set out approach to improve areas of the
District.

Local Plan a key element to deliver Sus Comm Strat
Preferred Options for Local Plan have been aligned with Strategy to
ensure it will address these priorities and themes.

Strategy for Future Sustainable Prosperity of District
to deliver vision, Council agreed key principles to develop Local Plan.

These include

Economy
Facilitating growth and development of local economy to support a
dynamic, flexible, low carbon, mixed economy
Agreement to pursue the potential for sub - regional employment
site at the Gateway. The need to provide new employment land in and
around the thee main towns to meet local needs encourage creation
of jobs.

the need are food, water, air etc. This is a want.
local needs. If this is the above ok, if not this is a want.

Commitment to maintain and promote thriving town centres

How does building out of town supermarkets achieve the above ?

Commitment to maintain current strengths in districts economy.
Promoting regeneration of more socially / environmentally deprived
areas and support rural economy

Providing for growth and population changes.
meeting housing of the existing / future population of District including
land for around 550 new homes per annum on new allocated sites
Providing for diversity, including affordable homes for elderly and
vulnerable. Sites for gypsies / travellers and other specialised needs.

If these are green sites Please quote the Green Party's Countryside
policy

Please see above

Providing for neighbourhoods that are well designed, distinctive and
based on principles of sustainable garden towns, suburbs and villages.
Providing home and neighbourhood designs that are sustainable,
low cost and carbon efficient.

Environment
Distributing development across District.
Avoiding coalescence
Ensuring developments based on principles of sustainable Garden Towns,
suburbs and Villages.
Protecting biodiversity, high quality landscapes, heritage assets and
other areas of significance

They have been reading the Green Party's Countryside Policy

Emphasis on infrastructure
Developing an effective / sustainable transport package
Ensuring parks, open spaces, countryside and areas for wildlife are maintained
and improved

They have definitely read the Green Party's Countryside Policy

Ensuring education is provided for in major new developments

Does this include gypsys and travellers

Ensuring community activities, health services and other key services
are provided for in new developments
Develop sustainable communities with strong local centres and / or
community hubs

Done so far
May 2011 Document of key issues and scenarios for growth published.
This was subject of consultation.
Substantial amount of evidence gathered, to help understand changes
locally and what we need to plan for.

Please see above

This information important in helping develop preferred options
December 20011 Council agreed Future and sustainable Prosperity
of Warwick District. This set out key criteria for Preferred Options
Range of options appraised lead to selection of a preferred option
for each aspect of plan
The Government has published National Planning Policy Framework
This underlines importance of well justified upto date local plans and
means local plans play vital role in shaping future of local areas.
Whilst options can be justified. Important to underline they are
suggestions and not proposals for L Plan. The Council also prepared

Infrastructure Plan to go with Preferred Options. This Plan outlines
transport, schools, health open spaces, which is needed to help new

Please see above

communities prosper. More needs to be done on this, but again,
the Council is keen to hear from all interested parties about
infrastructure requirements.

Please see above

For those interested infinding more why these options chosen see
chapter below or www.warwickdc.gov.uk

Following consideration by Executive consultation starts 1st June
to 27 July Council keen to hear from anyone. Consutation is number
of public meetings, exhibitions and roadshows, local press and website.
Following consultation, work undertaken to develop draft Local Plan
with detailed Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Community

infrastructure Levy scheme. Then, approval of Daft Local Plan and

investment strategy, delivery to Council late 2012 early 2013.
Publication of Plan Feb 2013. 6 week consultation March / April 2013
Submission to Secretary of state June 2013
Pre - hearing meeting July / August 2013
Examination Public Hearing October / November 2013
Inspector's report February / March 2014
Adoption Estimated March / April 214.

4 Spatial Portrait, Issues ansObjectives see map 1
Warwick District has a growing, ageing, urban, ethnically diverse
and highly skilled population.
90% of the 138,800 live in Kenilworth, Warwick, Whitnash Leamington
areas. 10% in small villages. Population grown from 124,000 in
2000 12% increacse, forcast to grow 15% in next 15 years.
Compared to other parts Warwickshire,a higher proportion of
working age. Highest rate expected over 65
District diverse population, high proportion non - white 15% compared
to rest of county.
Notwithstanding current economic downturn, district has strong local
economy with skilled population higher productivity, earnings
compared with reginal / national averages
significant proportion of is designated for environmental or
historic value. To protect and maintain the character of District
Local Plan will balance growth and protecting enhancement of
assets.
So it is supposed to be
Areas of historic and environmental importance include 81% 28,000
hectares of Green Belt. 7 sites scientific interest. 15 sites important to
Nature Conservation. 2145 Listed Buildings. 29 conservation areas
4% of District. 11 Registered Parks and Gardens 4% of District.
ISSUES
District faces a number of opportunities and issues, important Local Plan
addresses these. Council consulted on issues facing District during
spring 2011 and thought consultation on following issues identified
important: Effects of recent recession and not knowing economies
future
House prices limit local peoples ability to buy or rent in area, creating
need to provide more affordable housing in towns and villages in the
future.
Please see above
Threat to economic strength of town centres in Warwick,Leam and
Kenilworth from retail and leisure developments elsewhere.
Size and condition of existing community facilities and services
( particularly schools and health - care ) and whether they can
meet current and future needs. Peoples health and well - being
and the need for people ( particularly teenagers and young
people ) to have access to sport and cultural experiences
such as cinemas and community events.
Road congestion and air polution around main junctions along
A46 and M40, routes into towns and in town centres.
Threat of flooding to homes and businesses in some areas
particularly where surface water may flood towns and villages
and concern that flooding will increase beacause of climate
change.
Areas of poverty in Warwick and Leam
Presure for development threatening the high - quality built
and natural environmets in district, particularly historic
areas and the cost of maintaining historic buildings in the areas.
Crime and the fear of crime, paticularly in town centres and the
need to protect the community from harm.
Governments plan ned high speed 2 rail line and possible
effects on the area (government cosulting on this ).
During consutation in spring 2011, number of objectives
identified. These set out key aims Local Plan will seek to deliver.
Following consultation objectives have ammended to take
account of views received and more recent changes ( such as
publication of National Planning Policy framework ).
Objectives have been used to link Council's Stratergy see above.
Providing sustainable of levels of growth in district.
And balance with housing growth to maintain high levels of
employment and deal with unemployment in deprived areas.
Local Plan will identify and maintain flexible and varied supply of
accommodation and land for right businesses.
Support the growth of knowledge - intensive industries, energy
and the rural economy;
improve business growth to support organic growth of local
economy.
Provide a sustainable level of housing balanced with economic
groth to reduce homeless and in unsatisfactory accommodation
to meet needs and help deal with future need for affordable
housing. Local Plan will : identify and maintain


right type, right tenure and in right location.
Make sure that new developments will reduce car use.
this improves air quality and help address climate change
reducing road congestion and carbon emissions, encouraging
people to walk and cycle more. Make sure new developments
are designed and built so they use water more effeciently and
reduce demand for natural resources. Increase renewable
and low carbon sources to reduce emissions.
.Make sure new developments are located, designed and built
so they can deal with the expected effects of climate change
particularly flooding. Make sure new developments are
distributed across district,and located to maintain and improve
the quality of the build and natural environment, particularly
historic areas and wildlife habitats and buildings and
areas of high landscape value. New developments should
respect the integrity of existing settlements. Make sure
new developments are built to high standard in terms of
design and provide incluplacessive liverly and attractive
places where people feel safe and want to live, work and visit
Make sure new developments provide public and private open
spaces where there there is a choice of areas of shade, shelter
and recreation which will benefit people and wild life, provide
flood storage and carbon management.
Make sure , if buildings and spaces particularly in historic
areas need to be adapted to meet the changing needs

Please see above

Check with Police WHITNASH

of the economy a nd to deal with environmental isssues
in a sensitive way 4.12 Enabling infrastructure to
improve and support groth. Enable organisations such
as schools and health service and provide and
maintain improved facilities and services in locations
peopoe can get to and that can meet current and future
needs and support sustainable economic groth in deprived

THIS may be correct, dwellings are another need

Even those sleeping rough go to the Salvation Army
for tents.
areas. Enable energy, communications, water and waste
organisations to improve their infrastructure and services
so they can meet peoples needs. Protect the environment

ALL TOGETHER NOW. Please see above

and contribute towards dealing with causes and contribute
dealing with the causes and mitigating the effects of
climate change.
Enable transport providers to make improvements more
integrated public transport cycling and pedestrians
organisations to improve their infrastructure and services
transport network, support sustainable economic growth.
Enable improvements to be made to the built and natural
environments which will help maintain and improve
historic habitats and their connectivity, help the public
access and enjoy open spaces such as parks and
allotments, reduce the risk of flooding. Keep the effects
of climate change

Any large development should include "green channels" such as persists on the Woodloes park. As well as enabling rented apartments and local shops, to facilitate attractive areas to live in, a wide social mix and reduced environmental impact of shopping trips.

Warwick Town should encourage shops, whilst at the District level expansion by the BIG retailers should not be encouraged.

Existing wild places should be kept, particularly the river side walk between Warwick and Leamington. Potentially the path behind Tesco's could be enhanced from a mud track to a gravel path, similar to that in place where the path passes on the South side of the river by Edmondscote running track.

The plan has several areas shown as Confidential. This is clearly unhelpful from the point of view of commenting on specifics. If the land of or around Jephson Farm (between the river and Myton Road) is proposed to be developed this would be a significant diminution of amenity, and more "paving over of Warwick".

Whilst the plan proposes utilising the Regency Terrace opposite the old Council Courts in Warwick, there appears to be no plans for the Courts themselves? Surely there is scope for, say a Museum of Justice to keep these fine buildings and their historic interior, as well as adding to the vitality and attractiveness of Warwick.

Taking the sections in the plan:
P04: am surprised at just how far you plan to expand Warwick South! At this rate Warwick Castle Park will be a green island ? Assuming you are serious then it is behold that the Castle Park be available as an amenity, to enable the expanded population a proportional access to quality green space/park

P05: Affordable housing - agree.

P06/7/9/10/13/15: agree

P08: see earlier comment

P011: see earlier comment re: County Courts

P012: whilst agreeing climate change is real and has to be addressed, I'm unclear on what 20% reduction means. 20% of what ? will this be an annually revised value? (20% in year1, year2 = 20% of previous year etc, presuming each year is an improvement on the previous)

P014: use of public transport is as much a financial decision as access to it. If it's unaffordable to many it won't get used. By ignoring HS2, does that mean any costs associated with it WILL be met by Central Government then? I don't understand (and you don't explain) the risk of ignoring HS2 (or conversely) the risk/downside if you did plan for HS2.

Any large development should include "green channels" such as persists on the Woodloes park. As well as enabling rented apartments and local shops, to facilitate attractive areas to live in, a wide social mix and reduced environmental impact of shopping trips.

Warwick Town should encourage shops, whilst at the District level expansion by the BIG retailers should not be encouraged.

Existing wild places should be kept, particularly the river side walk between Warwick and Leamington. Potentially the path behind Tesco's could be enhanced from a mud track to a gravel path, similar to that in place where the path passes on the South side of the river by Edmondscote running track.

The plan has several areas shown as Confidential. This is clearly unhelpful from the point of view of commenting on specifics. If the land of or around Jephson Farm (between the river and Myton Road) is proposed to be developed this would be a significant diminution of amenity, and more "paving over of Warwick".

Whilst the plan proposes utilising the Regency Terrace opposite the old Council Courts in Warwick, there appears to be no plans for the Courts themselves? Surely there is scope for, say a Museum of Justice to keep these fine buildings and their historic interior, as well as adding to the vitality and attractiveness of Warwick.

Taking the sections in the plan:
P04: am surprised at just how far you plan to expand Warwick South! At this rate Warwick Castle Park will be a green island ? Assuming you are serious then it is behold that the Castle Park be available as an amenity, to enable the expanded population a proportional access to quality green space/park

P05: Affordable housing - agree.

P06/7/9/10/13/15: agree

P08: see earlier comment

P011: see earlier comment re: County Courts

P012: whilst agreeing climate change is real and has to be addressed, I'm unclear on what 20% reduction means. 20% of what ? will this be an annually revised value? (20% in year1, year2 = 20% of previous year etc, presuming each year is an improvement on the previous)

P014: use of public transport is as much a financial decision as access to it. If it's unaffordable to many it won't get used. By ignoring HS2, does that mean any costs associated with it WILL be met by Central Government then? I don't understand (and you don't explain) the risk of ignoring HS2 (or conversely) the risk/downside if you did plan for HS2.

I am writing to voice my strong objection to the proposals to build on green belt land in and around Leamington, Blackdown and old Milverton. I am bewildered at the reasons put forward and would like to know what the exceptional circumstances are that the council feel give them the excuse to build.

I am not against developments when they are appropriate and necessary and particularly when they are well thought through after extensive research and consideration of alternatives. This does not seem to have happened in this particular case. We currently have the development of the old North Leamington School site which will provide 100's of new homes, just up the road in Cubbington you have a brown field site where the Thwaites plant currently is with lots of derelict unused buildings, this whole site would remove the heavy plant using the old road, stop disturbing the residents and provide for 100's of more homes. The existing plant could be relocated to another industrial site. The south of the town affords additional brown belt land with Harbury Lane being a previous preferred site with developers ready to develop 100's if not 1000's of homes. These would be nearer the M40, train station and the major shopping retail park.

Also the proposal for further commercial properties further perplexes me as the constant empty shop faces we are seeing around Leamington shows that bringing in the 'large chain stores' is affecting the local businesses and subsequently the local communities that prefer to use them. I have previously worked for a long standing local business in Leamington town centre and saw how the shop struggled for customers with larger chains opening in the town centre and Shires Retail Park, surely further more of these will affect the local businesses in Leamington.

I have been a resident on Leicester Lane my whole life and I am disgusted that there are planning applications being made to build on our loved countryside destroying the beautiful land, creating a distinguish between the boundaries of Leamington and Kenilworth. Development here would merge the two towns together and will cause even more disruption to local residents by creating an even further back log of traffic. This would not be simply rectified by turning the Kenilworth road into a dual carriageway, as many people will continue to use Leicester lane and Bericote road as access to Leamington to avoid the Kenilworth road or driving through the centre of town.

I have seen firsthand the affect the Warwick gates development had on residents in Whitnash with many children in Whitnash now not falling into the catchment area for Myton school so being unable to attend the school with siblings, this would create additional stress to parents of children in this area as they may no longer be able to send their children to the local schools in this area having to travel further afield for this.

The green belt land is also home to many wildlife, birds, rabbits, foxes to name a few and also the horses on the paddock, development on Leicester lane and Blackdown will dramatically reduce this and again more children in this area could potentially grow up with the concrete jungle mentality. Leamington is a town NOT a city and over development of our green belt land could destroy the pull that Leamington has for out of Towner's to visit. I ask you to reconsider your plans which do appear to be profit driven and consider saving our 'Important' Greenbelt.

I hope you take my views and those of my fellow residents seriously before blindly agreeing for further detrimental development of our town and would appreciate acknowledgement of this email with a detailed response.

I live just off the Old Milverton Road in Albert Street in Leamington Spa. I've lived here with my family for the last four years and really enjoy the area, it's proximity to the town centre, quiet roads for cycling with my daughter and open spaces and parks. I am very concerned to hear about plans to develop in the area and so am writing to you to record my objection. There are a number of different grounds which I've laid out below:

As far as I can tell from the information that I've seen the proposals will develop a large area of green belt land which is currently used extensively by me and others for relaxing. My family and I frequently walk across the paths to Old Milverton, last year making crumbles from the fruit in the hedgerows and cordial from the elderflower. Alternative open 'wild' spaces are some way away and so developing this land will certainly remove this valuable amenity and the opportunity to teach my children about nature (not to mention the productive agricultural land for the farmer).

As far as I can tell, according to the National Planning Policy Framework, this land is treated as greenbelt and shouldn't be developed unless no alternative sites can be found. However alternative brown field sites have been found, do exist and give better connections to both existing transport routes and the town centre. I understand that this option has not been fully considered because of the perceived need to spread development around, however I cannot see this a) as representing evidence based policy, and b) as exceptional circumstances required in the NPPF to develop green belt land. Indeed I believe development can only take place on green belt land where there are no feasible alternatives - but in this case the feasible alternatives have been identified, just not adequately considered. I understand that this area may be less attractive to developers because it is not such a desirable place to live, but I fail to see this as adequate special circumstances for building on green belt. One of the purposes of the land is to prevent sprawl and disturbance of the character of historic towns and villages - yet the proposal would do just that. Ultimately and most confusingly however, the proposals seem to ignore the studies undertaken by Warwick District Council which concluded these areas are of high green belt value.

I understand the development includes some new out of town stores. I cannot see how this sits with the policy so trumpeted by government of reinvigorating high streets. Indeed only last week I understand the high street in the south of Leamington secured a grant to aid development so how at the same time are there plans aimed at undermining this? The independent retailers which make Leamington and Warwick popular and useful places to shop will certainly suffer the most as their margins are far tighter than the high street chains and ultimately many may have to close, which would be a great loss to the high street and weaken the draw of them for visiting shoppers.

Additional traffic resulting from the development, to and from Leamington on the Old Milverton road would also make this a far more dangerous place to cycle along to the local schools and parks - the current traffic calming measures already do little to reduce traffic and keep it to the speed limit. Developing roads to dual carriageways will only serve to add further traffic congestion to to the Kenilworth Road and Blackdown roundabout, as well as spoiling the currently pretty access to Leamington. Adding an additional road junction to the A46 and associated relief road will only be useful to those who work outside of Leamington and Warwick and will not help to add money into the local economy. Additionally this road is to be created at vast expense, money which would be better spent on ensuring adequate public services, facilities and maintaining existing roads - not to mentions social care and other important public uses. Once built this road would not only invade the delicate ecosystem of the river Avon, but also serve as a marker up to which future developments would gradually creep.

Finally I cannot understand why:
a) these additional homes must be built - apparently purely to serve as a buffer in current plans. Confusing as there are current developments which are still not full and only partially developed, such as the old Potterton boiler site
b) why other existing brownfield sites could not be further developed to reinvigorate local communities and take advantage of what is currently wasteland. This should surely be the first option in all cases well before even approaching consideration of developing green belt. The only motivation I can see is ease and profit for a developer, a developer who has not interest in the long term view of an area and simply wishes to make as much money as possible. Hardly adequate reasoning for such a violation of our natural spaces.

I would be grateful if you could update me at all stages with this development proposal (and am slightly surprised that given the area in which I live is likely to be so significantly affected, I have had no communication from the council about these plans either directly or via local media).

Document scanned

See attachment

The Town Council of Royal Leamington Spa broadly welcomes the Plan, and below gives a more detailed response on particular items of the Plan. We expect to incorporate our vision for Leamington Spa into a Plan for the Town in due course.

Delivering Growth (PO1 & PO3)

We welcome the broad location of growth. We agree that an annual average increase of 600 new homes for the next 20 years is a reasonable and fair target. Many of the Wards in the Town are already densely populated, and we note that the Plan anticipates some growth in these areas.

Affordable housing (PO5)

We approve the requirement that 40% of new homes on developments of 10 or more dwellings, and 5 or more dwellings in the rural areas, should be affordable housing.

Mixed communities (PO6)

We approve the option for a mix of housing, and note that strategic sites will include Extra Care Housing. We believe in a balanced and mixed population and welcome families and single people in all our Wards.

Whilst the Town Council is proud of the diverse population in Leamington, we would request the District Council introduce a policy to restrict the number and density of Student Houses and Houses in Multiple Occupation to ensure that they do not adversely impact on the character of neighbourhoods to the detriment of family households. The Town Council requests close involvement in the input into the policy on mixed communities.

We would also welcome developments that demonstrate a more imaginative provision for students, that are not simply converting existing family housing.

Economy (PO8)

We welcome the proposals to ensure a wide range of employment. We particularly support the regeneration and enhancement of existing employment areas.

The Town Council believes that the Local Plan needs to encourage the continuing growth of the already successful Computer Games industry and the further development of Silicon Spa as the primary UK centre of excellence for the industry. The Local Plan also needs to support further growth in the innovative automotive industry much of which is based in the District or on the edge of the District as this is likely to provide future employment in the Leamington and Warwick conurbation.

Retailing and Town Centres (PO9)

We welcome the support for Town Centre retailing and a Town Centre first message. We believe that the `Town' includes the whole town, and that developments should be considered in the area south of Regent Street, in the Parade and in Old Town.
The Town Council believes that we should promote and support Fair Trade initiatives.

We are committed to strategies that promote the town for retail provision, leisure, entertainment and eating establishments. We can promote our parks and green spaces as important attributes of the Town Centre.

However, we see that `shopping' also includes local shops. The Town Council would prefer there to be a policy on where supermarkets should be located, and that local communities should be consulted about any new proposals for supermarket development.

Historic Environment (PO11)

We welcome the intention to protect the historic environment. We see that this includes the historic areas of the Old Town, and would be pleased to work with the District Council in listing the historic assets, and reviewing the Conservation Area. We are pleased to note the District Council's encouragement of regeneration of appropriate sites within the historic environment. We strongly affirm that the historical integrity of the area is threatened by sex entertainment establishments and oppose any such establishment, which we see as an inappropriate development.
The Town Council supports the Blue Plaque scheme, and the Guild of Guides Walks.

Climate Change (PO12)

As a Transition Town, the Town Council welcomes the intention to include a policy on climate change.

Transport (PO14)

We support the option to minimise the need to travel, and to promote sustainable forms of transport. In addition to the proposals in the Plan, we believe that a higher priority should be given to cycle provision, and to ensuring that all new developments encourage ease of access by bicycles between areas of the District. This includes cycle lanes and provision to park cycles.

Residents should also be encouraged to travel by bus for work and leisure with the encouragement of more quality bus routes into and across Leamington.

Encourage the co-ordination of different forms of transport to encourage more residents to travel by foot, bus, train and bicycle.

Green Infrastructure (PO15)

We welcome the intention to protect and enhance the assets as identified in the Plan. We are pleased to see the introduction of "Green Wedges" as an alternative to areas of restraint.
We would also be in favour of consideration of a policy that considers garden preservation. We support greener neighbourhoods through our tree planting scheme, and through our support of Allotment Societies.

Culture and Tourism (PO17)

We support the intention to develop this appropriately and would welcome opportunities to share ideas on promoting the cultural facilities of Leamington. We believe there is scope for improving the visual impact for visitors to Leamington who arrive by rail or canal.

We are proud of the assets of the Town and are committed to maintaining them as welcoming and friendly venues for residents and visitors.


ADDITION

Evening Economy

The Town Council is concerned that the District Council's Policy on the Evening Economy has not yet been completed and so is not available for consultation. The evening economy is important to Leamington, but unless it is carefully considered it can produce public dangers, so it is important to the Town that there is a well-considered policy in place that takes account of the needs of residents, visitors, the businesses and public safety.

The Town Council of Royal Leamington Spa broadly welcomes the Plan, and below gives a more detailed response on particular items of the Plan. We expect to incorporate our vision for Leamington Spa into a Plan for the Town in due course.

Delivering Growth (PO1 & PO3)

We welcome the broad location of growth. We agree that an annual average increase of 600 new homes for the next 20 years is a reasonable and fair target. Many of the Wards in the Town are already densely populated, and we note that the Plan anticipates some growth in these areas.

Affordable housing (PO5)

We approve the requirement that 40% of new homes on developments of 10 or more dwellings, and 5 or more dwellings in the rural areas, should be affordable housing.

Mixed communities (PO6)

We approve the option for a mix of housing, and note that strategic sites will include Extra Care Housing. We believe in a balanced and mixed population and welcome families and single people in all our Wards.

Whilst the Town Council is proud of the diverse population in Leamington, we would request the District Council introduce a policy to restrict the number and density of Student Houses and Houses in Multiple Occupation to ensure that they do not adversely impact on the character of neighbourhoods to the detriment of family households. The Town Council requests close involvement in the input into the policy on mixed communities.

We would also welcome developments that demonstrate a more imaginative provision for students, that are not simply converting existing family housing.

Economy (PO8)

We welcome the proposals to ensure a wide range of employment. We particularly support the regeneration and enhancement of existing employment areas.

The Town Council believes that the Local Plan needs to encourage the continuing growth of the already successful Computer Games industry and the further development of Silicon Spa as the primary UK centre of excellence for the industry. The Local Plan also needs to support further growth in the innovative automotive industry much of which is based in the District or on the edge of the District as this is likely to provide future employment in the Leamington and Warwick conurbation.

Retailing and Town Centres (PO9)

We welcome the support for Town Centre retailing and a Town Centre first message. We believe that the `Town' includes the whole town, and that developments should be considered in the area south of Regent Street, in the Parade and in Old Town.
The Town Council believes that we should promote and support Fair Trade initiatives.

We are committed to strategies that promote the town for retail provision, leisure, entertainment and eating establishments. We can promote our parks and green spaces as important attributes of the Town Centre.

However, we see that `shopping' also includes local shops. The Town Council would prefer there to be a policy on where supermarkets should be located, and that local communities should be consulted about any new proposals for supermarket development.

Historic Environment (PO11)

We welcome the intention to protect the historic environment. We see that this includes the historic areas of the Old Town, and would be pleased to work with the District Council in listing the historic assets, and reviewing the Conservation Area. We are pleased to note the District Council's encouragement of regeneration of appropriate sites within the historic environment. We strongly affirm that the historical integrity of the area is threatened by sex entertainment establishments and oppose any such establishment, which we see as an inappropriate development.
The Town Council supports the Blue Plaque scheme, and the Guild of Guides Walks.

Climate Change (PO12)

As a Transition Town, the Town Council welcomes the intention to include a policy on climate change.

Transport (PO14)

We support the option to minimise the need to travel, and to promote sustainable forms of transport. In addition to the proposals in the Plan, we believe that a higher priority should be given to cycle provision, and to ensuring that all new developments encourage ease of access by bicycles between areas of the District. This includes cycle lanes and provision to park cycles.

Residents should also be encouraged to travel by bus for work and leisure with the encouragement of more quality bus routes into and across Leamington.

Encourage the co-ordination of different forms of transport to encourage more residents to travel by foot, bus, train and bicycle.

Green Infrastructure (PO15)

We welcome the intention to protect and enhance the assets as identified in the Plan. We are pleased to see the introduction of "Green Wedges" as an alternative to areas of restraint.
We would also be in favour of consideration of a policy that considers garden preservation. We support greener neighbourhoods through our tree planting scheme, and through our support of Allotment Societies.

Culture and Tourism (PO17)

We support the intention to develop this appropriately and would welcome opportunities to share ideas on promoting the cultural facilities of Leamington. We believe there is scope for improving the visual impact for visitors to Leamington who arrive by rail or canal.

We are proud of the assets of the Town and are committed to maintaining them as welcoming and friendly venues for residents and visitors.


ADDITION

Evening Economy

The Town Council is concerned that the District Council's Policy on the Evening Economy has not yet been completed and so is not available for consultation. The evening economy is important to Leamington, but unless it is carefully considered it can produce public dangers, so it is important to the Town that there is a well-considered policy in place that takes account of the needs of residents, visitors, the businesses and public safety.

See attached

See attachment

RESPONSE TO WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN PREFERRED OPTIONS

PO1: Preferred level of growth
I support the preferred option based on an average 600 new homes per annum, as being realistic against current demographic trends and economic growth projections. However, should economic growth trends change in future years the council should seek to respond flexibly as required.

PO2: Community Infrastructure Levy
This new system of raising funding from new developments to support infrastructure developments offers important new opportunities but also presents major challenges. It requires a new set of relationships between district council, county council and other local partners, to not only draw up and agree CIL-funded infrastructure development plans for the district but to create a long-term stable framework for them to be implemented over many years.

PO3: Broad location of growth
I support the preferred option, and in particular that Kenilworth should have its fair share of new housing development (770 homes per Table 7.2) within the total district target. I disagree with the stated view of Kenilworth Town Council that there should be no further development in the town. A vibrant, sustainable community requires some headroom to expand and develop. There is a clear need for a better housing mix in Kenilworth, especially for more starter homes for young people and opportunities for older residents wanting to downsize to smaller properties.

PO4: Distribution of sites for housing
I support the preferred option that Kenilworth new housing development should be concentrated on the Thickthorn site. Kenilworth Town Council has stated a preference for 700/800 houses to be distributed across the town, but has admitted that this cannot be done while meeting their own criteria. These mixed messages only serve to confuse local residents.
Concentrating new housing development in one Kenilworth location provides the opportunity for the right level of infrastructure development to support this - roads, walking and cycling routes, school and other community facilities. Piecemeal small-scale developments across the town, even if there were suitable sites, would be difficult to support through improved infrastructure, so putting further pressure on existing facilities and resources.
I support strongly the proposed designation of the Thickthorn site for employment use as well as for housing. There has been a long-standing shortage of suitable employment land in Kenilworth. I would not support just an office park however. What is needed is a good mix of employment opportunities, to include for example research and development organisations and light industrial units.
I support the proposed designation of Burton Green as a 'Category 2' village, provided that the Parish Council is fully consulted and involved in decisions about target numbers, types and locations of new housing.

PO5: Affordable housing
I support the proposed option. The proposed policies seem to be soundly based.
It is interesting to note that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) estimates the requirement for 115 affordable houses per annum for Kenilworth alone. This reinforces my earlier statement under PO3 that there is a clear need for a better housing mix in the town. The SHMA estimated need is greater than the total new housing allocation for Kenilworth over the 15 year period of the plan. Consideration should therefore be given to achieving a much higher figure than the minimum 40% affordable housing on the Thickthorn site, and also seeking every opportunity for more affordable housing in any 'windfall' sites that come forward for development within the town.

PO6: Mixed communities and wide choice of housing
I support the proposed option.
Regarding the Thickthorn site, for the reasons stated previously I see the priority within the housing mix being for starter homes for young people, and smaller units for older residents wanting to downsize but to stay living within the town. There could also be an opportunity to cement further the links between Kenilworth and the University of Warwick by the building of new student accommodation - something completely missing at the moment.

PO9: Retailing and town centres
I support the proposed option, in particular promoting the vitality and viability of town centres, and strongly resisting further out-of-centre retail developments.

PO12: Climate change
I support the proposed option, in particular ensuring flood resistance and resilience in all new developments through sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS). Well-designed SUDS are not only functional, but can enhance the natural environment of open space areas associated with new developments.

PO13: Inclusive, safe and healthy communities
I support the proposed option, in particular the importance of access to high quality open spaces and sport/recreation facilities for all residents.
In para 13.10 (2nd bullet point), I would like to see the words "pedestrian and cycling" substituted for "pedestrian". Policies should do everything possible to encourage the greater use of bicycles by all sections of the local community, both for healthy exercise and as a sustainable/zero carbon means of transport within our district.

PO14: Transport
I support the proposed option, in particular the strong emphasis on promoting sustainable forms of transport.
The importance of the K2L cycling route between Kenilworth and Leamington cannot be overemphasised, together with provision for bus lanes and bus priority schemes on this important route. I see these as the priorities for highway improvements on this route rather than increased provision for private vehicles.
Within the town of Kenilworth, there is a massive task to be done to improve routes and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and this should be the priority for infrastructure investment to support new housing development. I disagree fundamentally with the view of the Town Council that a multi-storey car park is required in the town centre. Policies should be seeking to encourage residents to leave their cars behind for short-distance local trips whenever possible.
Map 5 shows a proposed cycle route through Abbey Fields to link up two elements of the National Cycle Network. This has been the subject of considerable negative comment by some residents, community organisations and the Town Council, which has been reflected in other responses to this consultation I understand.
The council has a duty to balance these strongly-expressed views, i.e. that no cycles should be permitted in or through the Abbey Fields, with the needs of the local community as a whole. I would highlight some of the comments in the Draft Green Space Strategy document, in particular section 4.1.7 on page 19 of that document:
"The value of green spaces can be greatly enhanced by linking them together into corridors and networks giving safe, attractive access for pedestrians and, in some cases, cyclists.
"... enable people living in urban areas to reach the countryside .... provide a green alternative for journeys to work or school."
"By-laws prohibiting cycling and horse-riding in some green spaces may need to be reviewed to achieve this."
Through the development of the Connect2 Kenilworth (C2K) route, the town has gained a valuable green corridor linking it to the countryside, and providing an important new travel alternative for people working at the university, Policies should be focussed on making it more accessible from all points of the town, and there is no doubt that a cycle route through Abbey Fields would become an important link between the west side of the town and C2K. Currently no other options have been proposed which would achieve the same result.
There is also the fact that the Abbey Fields are an important destination in themselves for many local residents, including families with young children wanting to access the playground area, and yet at the moment there is zero provision for any residents wishing to travel there by bicycle. Residents lucky enough to live nearby are able to walk, but others have no alternative but to drive there. With the Abbey Fields car park already at saturation point and due to reduce its capacity shortly, the council must consider how it can encourage more residents to access the Fields by bicycle.
In terms of transport infrastructure to support a new Thickthorn housing and employment development, for the reasons stated earlier a high priority should be given to sustainable transport options - i.e. walking, cycling and public transport. However, this site also offers the opportunity to create an important new link road between the traffic island over the A46 by-pass and the eastern side of Kenilworth (joining Glasshouse Lane at a point near Rocky Lane). As well as serving the new development and ensuring it is fully linked into the rest of the town, it would help to alleviate current traffic congestion around the St John's gyratory - something which piecemeal development of eastern Kenilworth over many years has failed to address.

PO15: Green infrastructure
I support strongly the proposal for the development of a peri-urban park north of Kenilworth. This would build on the success of the C2K Greenway route in opening up this important piece of our local countryside to all sections of the local community.
I do not support the arguments so far put forward for the restoration of the Kenilworth Mere. The outline feasibility study conducted by Warwick Business School MBA students showed that any viable scheme could have a massive impact on a large area of precious countryside adjacent to Kenilworth Castle, almost certainly involving commercial developments such as hotels, apartments etc.

PO16: Green belt
I support the re-drawing of green belt boundaries to the east of Kenilworth and around the village of Burton Green in order to permit the developments proposed in this Local Plan, and for no other reason.

PO18: Flooding and water
As stated previously, I support the requirement for SUDS schemes as part of all new developments.

I am quite taken aback by WDC's statement in Para 2.1 of the Local Plan Preferred Options. WDC states that the Council's vision for the Warwick District .... "is to make Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit."

There are and have been a great many local people who belong to respected societies, who range from all political persuasions (or none) or who are just hard working individuals who have made this locality what it is today - a really good place to live, work and visit. WDC can continue the work in this vein and I hope it does, but it would be more fitting in a document of this kind for WDC to acknowledge the dedication and effort to date of such people and not to give the impression that our District is not at this moment something other than a really good place to live, work and visit.

WDC please restructure this paragraph.

1. Quoting from the LOCALPLAN: "Introduction:
"Our approach can be summarized as one which:
"Plans positively for growth and meets the District's housing need by allocating areas of land for new mixed developments.
"Supports the future vitality and sustainability of villages by including development sites in or adjacent to some villages and relaxing some of the current restrictions on development in villages." End of Quote.

Comment: Yes, but WDC doesn't mention the Localism Act. If WDC has Preferred Options then by law I understand that it now has to obtain buy-in from elected representatives, residents and voters.

PO4 ...Quote: "The Council will work with developers...."
Comment: Under the Localism Act, the council, the elected representatives, the residents and the voters will all work with the developers if that is the consensus between the council, the elected representatives, residents and voters. This must mean no more "behind closed door" meetings or secrecy.

PO9...Start of quote: "Our Preferred Option is to incorporate retail and town centre policies to:
** Apply the 'town centres first' message at the heart of Government retail policy advice that will be central to promoting the vitality and viability of the district's town centres. Town centres will be the focus for retail development and the Council will plan positively for their growth and development in accordance with their particular role within the network of town and local centres;
Support the addition of a major retail -led development scheme in Leamington Town Centre, in accordance with the identified need/evidence within the retail study" End of quote.

Comment: WDC may still support this, but after discussion with residents and voters, district councillors decided not to support Application W10/0340 re Clarendon Arcade. The legitimate planning reasons for refusing the Application, given in a written statement to the Applicants, are clear and on record. This was before the Localism Act became law. WDC must observe that any decision taken from now on is to be as a result of a consensus between themselves, the elected representatives, the residents and the voters. Furthermore, should any rivaling scheme, however small or diverse, gain the "majority" support from the elected representatives, residents, voters and WDC, then that scheme must now by law prevail.
During the public discussion on W10/0340 (2007-2011), under the questionable heading of "public consultation", there was very little support and much opposition to that scheme but WDC went ahead regardless. It was due to the good sense of the elected representatives that the scheme was rejected in November 2010. Well over 200 people lodged their formal objections to WDC. There were but four or five letters in favour. A similar proportion of Leamington Courier readers wrote in to express their objections to the scheme. The first survey by Wilson Bowden in the Royal Prior Shopping Centre in 2007 demonstrated that some 40 people wanted more shops. However, 200 others in that survey did not express such a desire. Yet this survey result has been used on a number of occasions to provide justification for the scheme and more shops. There are now more empty shops in Leamington in 2012 than there were people who wanted more shops in 2007.

PO11
Quote: "Reviewing of the Conservation areas"
Comment: It is to be expected that all such matters are to be discussed with elected representatives, residents and voters under the framework of the Localism Act. Further, I would prefer that specific parts of the existing / previous Local Plan be carried over verbatim to the new Local Plan as follows (notwithstanding the welcomed comments in section 11 in the LOCALPLAN Preferred Options Complete with....):
1. A development will not be permitted which has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby users and residents such as loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and daylight and noise disturbance.
2. A development will only be permitted which protects important natural features and positively contributes to the character and quality of its existing environment
3. Developments will help to support the objective of reducing dependence on the private car, avoid excessive levels of car parking and increase the patronage of public transport and encourage walking and cycling.
The rules 1 to 3 above are preferred because of their (relatively) unambiguous meanings. There doesn't appear to be a good reason to deviate from the previous plan which seems to have protected our town's heritage quite successfully during the past 20 years.
2. Comment on LOCALPLAN Preferred Options Complete with....
Paragraph 4.11, first section, 4. Quote:" 4. Make sure that new developments are in place that will reduce the need for people to use there cars. This will improve air quality and help address climate change by reducing road congestion and carbon emissions, and will encourage people to live more healthy lifestyles by walking and cycling more." End of quote.
Comment on the above quote: BRAVO!
Final Comments: I do not find the Preferred Option Executive Summary acceptable in so far as it fails to mention the Localism Act. WDC is well aware that this new Act has an objective to genuinely involve all the interested parties in local issues, the interested parties being (to repeat): the elected representatives, the residents, the voters and the District Council (or its equivalent).
The Localism Act is referred to only in Para 5.12. of "LOCALPLAN Preferred Options Complete with....", but mainly only that part of it concerned with the removal of the regional layer of strategic planning. Thank you WDC for acknowledging one part of the other main purpose of the Act and for pledging in this Para 5.12 that the "Council will, however be consulting neighbouring authorities on its proposals".
For clarity, I would like to see contained in the final agreed Local Plan an independently prepared précis of the Localism Act 2012 and what effect it may have in local decision making.
It would be good also for WDC to provide a detailed explanation of what is meant by "sustainable" in the contexts in which it uses it. The effort made in Para 12.28 on this is appreciated.

Comments on Draft Infrastructure Plan re Leamington Fire Station.

There has been considerable public discussion recently on the possible relocation of Leamington Fire Station from Warwick Street. I would like to see a commitment in the Local Plan for the retention of Leamington Fire Station at its present Warwick Street site
The "Local Plan Preferred Options" seems to be advocating growth in such a way that growth may become inevitable. WDC envisage an increase in traffic between 6% and 13% for each of the four home growth areas identified in Para 3.1.2 or a compound traffic growth of 40% if they are all developed as outlined. Is it conceivable that satellite crews from out of town fire stations, struggling with appliances through our narrow streets during the rush hour against a 40% increase in traffic density over current levels, might just fail to reach the town centre in time to prevent our wonderful Regency style heritage from being razed?
In Para 4.6.17, it is reported that the Fire and Rescue Service acknowledges that although new development can impact on the level of risk, there is no direct relationship between an increase in population and an increase in risk. This curious and counter-intuitive denial (from whom it is not clear) then turns into a warning: An increase in traffic congestion could impact the ability of existing stations to meet standards of cover. Here we have a preferred plan which predicts an increase in traffic density of up to 40% and a proposition in Para 4.6.18 to remove the Fire Station to a satellite location.
Under the powers of the Localism Act, I would urge our elected representatives, the Leamington residents and the voters to press WDC for our Town's Fire Station to be retained at its present location. Perhaps WDC could resolve not to relocate our Fire Station?

In my opinion, without further explanation, the Para 3.1.24 (on innovative but undefined ways to overcome traffic problems) lacks credibility. Perhaps further explanation could be provided in the Plan? Any explanation may be crucial to the case for a re-location of our Fire Station.