Preferred Option: Provision of Transport infrastructure

The provision of the northern relief rd in map 5 is an unnecessary reinforcement of poorly placed development. It will provide excellent transport links fron Blackdown to J15 via the A46 for commuters to south leamington, south warwickshire, Coventry, the M40 and warwick parkway; This will draw employment and economy away from the immediate area of blackdown where it is proposed to develop it and is counter productive in considering reducing transport use and improving the proximity of housing to employment.
It will provide excellent communication links from Blackdown into north leamington and warwick via sandy lane and old milverton rd. These run through a small village and housing estates which provide pedestrian routes accross the road to 2 schools. The recent inclusion of traffic calming and speed reduction measures in these areas highlight how dangerous increasing traffic in this area is considered.
Joining the A46 roundabout near leek wooten will add to the traffic problems along the stretch of rd approaching warwick and add to issues on the roundabout and the 2 lane section of the A46 adjoining it.

You state that you wish to mitigate against negative transport impacts - such as ....congestion... -. Please look at the Hampton Road/Woodway/Old Budbrooke Road which access the villages of Hampton Magna and Hampton-on-the-Hill and consider means of reducing the commuter traffic which has already reached dangerous proportions with speeding vehicles on the same road used by children cycling to school.

We support the growth of the Cycle network, however the majority of our members object strongly to any provision of a cycle network through the historic grounds of Abbey Fields as currently shown as proposed/awaiting implantation on Map 5. Abbey Fields has important historic and archaeological significance, and is the major recreational space for the Town, extensive used by elderly, mothers and children, and families. This is no place for cyclists. There is a good road network surrounding the historic park which can be used for the Sustrans cycle route link.

You state that you wish to mitigate against negative transport impacts - such as "...congestion...". Please look at the Hampton Road/Woodway/Old Budbrooke Road which accesses the villages of Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill and consider means of reducing the commuter traffic which has already reached dangerous proportions with speeding vehicles on the same road used by children cycling to school.

You state that you wish to mitigate against negative transport impacts - such as "...congestion... ". Please look at the Hampton Road/Woodway/Old Budbrooke Road which accesses the villages of Hampton Magna and Hampton on the Hill and consider means of reducing the commuter traffic which has already reached dangerous proportions with speeding vehicles on the same road used by children cycling to school.

Building the NLRR from the A46 to Sandy Lane near Old Milverton is only necessary to facilitate quicker access to the employment sites and M40 to the south of Leamington.

The NLRR will encourage the greater use of Old Milverton Road as a rat run. Street parking at the Rugby Road end combined with the tight bend and narrow railway bridge at Old Milverton makes this road unsuitable for high traffic flows.

The NLRR would be the catalyst to encourage a future change to the North Leamington "Green Wedge" designation to permit further infill development.

I wish to support a cycle way through Abbey Fields. It has never made sense to me that cycling was banned in the fields. The suggestion that this would be dangerous for small children and the elderly is implausible as visibility is good and a modicum of sense on both sides would avoid accidents. The assertion of a good road network around the fields is clearly made by someone who doesn't cycle - the roads are quite steep and this creates difficulty and danger for a cyclist who is least stable when travelling slowly.

This is a needed link to fully utilise existing paths along the streams. At the moment the fantastic Greenway leads through to Ladyes Hills and a reasonable path parallel to School lane then comes to full stop at the fields.

I would add though that I'd like to see such a path done in sand rather than tarmac to give a more rural feel.

I object to the proposed North Leamington Relief Road. This does not fulfill its auggested aim of reducing through town traffic, and will actually increase car use locally while not providing any better access to the A46 North. Also traffic going South on the A46 which wishes to bypass LSpa centre and finds the new junction closer than Thickthorn, a minority, have such a long route that it will be self-defeating.

I object to the proposals take National Cycle Network Route 52 through Abbey Fields in Kenilworth.

Abbey Fields is a Scheduled Monument. It is also area that is free from fast moving vehicle traffic. It should be kept that way.

The proposed Kenilworth to Warwick section of NCN Route 52 makes no sense. It bypasses Kenilworth Castle, a prime tourist attraction. It ignores the needs of commuters. Cyclists living in Kenilworth and working in Warwick (or vice versa) do not use Rouncil Lane/Woodcote Lane. They use the direct route along A429 as per the cycleway in LTP 2006 -2011.

I am retired but walk daily in Kenilworth along Birches Lane and Warwick Road at various times of day and regularly drive to Leamington.
Re:THICKTHORN DEVELOPMENT'
Kenilworth lacks a by-pass and it's centre (Warwick Road) is already ruined and unsafe for visitors, residents and vehicles alike due to massive conjestion so why plant 770 houses, businesses etc. at Thickthorn? This can only make the situation worse as it impacts on the already troublesome junctions at the A46 roundabout, Leamington Road and St.Johns.

Without exaggeration over 75% of vehicles using Birches Lane and Glasshouse Lane exceed the speed limit by a substantial margin despite electronic warning signs.The T junctions at Windy Harbour and Farmer Ward Road are particularly dangerous. With no access from the 2 mile A46 border ALL additional traffic will use Birches Lane and Glasshouse Lane.

Barford already suffers from the unintended consequences developments outside of the village by the increase in the commuter/school traffic along Church Street/High Street Barford.It is now also used by people from the north eg Kenilworth and Coventry, who use Church Street/High Street rather than go through Warwick; particularly since the recent work in Warwick town centre.This will be worse by the Preferred Options of the Local Plan unless action is taken by WDC and WCC. There's no reference in Local Plan Preferred Options that shows any consideration has been given to these higher levels of traffic.

Transport infrastructure does need to be improved with any development, but the council needs to ensure that areas of congestion are dealt with regardless of new developments. This has not happened previously.

We object to the proposed Leamington northern relief road and increasing road capacity for vehicles (except PSVs)

I object to the proposed North Leamington Relief Road and proposal to increase road capacity for vehicles, except for PSVs.

You state that you wish to mitigate against negative transport impacts - such as ....congestion... -. Please look at the Hampton Road/Woodway/Old Budbrooke Road which access the villages of Hampton Magna and Hampton-on-the-Hill and consider means of reducing the commuter traffic which has already reached dangerous proportions with speeding vehicles on the same road used by children cycling to school.

Additional parking provision at Warwick Parkway will exacerbate the heavy volume of traffic using the narrow lanes through Hampton on
the Hill & H/Magna as a "rat run".

Greater efforts should be made to restrict the volume of traffic passing through these settlements, by improvements of the access to the Station from Birmingham Road.

Widening of the lanes through the settlements in Budbrooke should be avoided in order to preserve their character and rural nature.

How can the North Leamington relief road be justified? What will it achieve. Surely it will cost an awful lot of money, add new bridges to the Avon (ruining the Natural and Historic Environment of the area) and create a bottle neck in the same place they are now in Leamington and Warwick. I fail to see how this relief road will relieve anything.

The plans do not seem to consider the impact of HS2 on the current structure and warwick gates is a good example of where large scale developments have not provided suitable infrastructure. reliance on developers providing this is unlikely to provide adequate schemes.

We have been advised to write to you re new objections to the Core Strategy Plan. Having studied the documentation we wish to object to the overall plan to build a further 8100 new homes in the Warwick district area and in particular the 2700 planned in the south of Warwick (P04 Distribution for Sites for Housing: Location 2 and 3).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. Imposing massive growth on an area with little expansion of employment would create greater numbers of people who would have to commute to work, much to the detriment of the area and a poor location of people. Warwick District has already seen much development recently, much of it to accommodate those moving from the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham into a less dense area. Many of those still commute into Birmingham or London and if people are prepared to work in London and commute from the Warwick district this will do nothing to help keep the prices affordable for the locals who want to continue living here.

Warwick District population has in fact increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately 2x the rate of increase for Warwickshire; 2x the national average increase, and over 3x the increase for West Midlands. (PO1 Level of Growth).

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion of which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed. (PO1 Level of Growth).

As it stands, we wish to object specifically about the development zone 2 in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area was identified as an area of restraint at the time of the agreement of planning for 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.

There is likely to be considerable job creation towards Coventry (PO3 Broad Location of Growth), including up to 14,000 new jobs at the Coventry Gateway scheme. Therefore several extra thousand people per day will want to drive through Warwick, morning and evening, which would lock up the highly congested Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way at peak times and also the road layout of historic Warwick. (PO14: Transport).

The suggested improvement to the junction to the end of Myton Road and Banbury Road is redundant. The bottle neck of the narrow historic Avon Bridge, constrained road layout and traffic


calming in the Town centre, means such provision would not ease the current backlog along Myton Road at peak times. (PO14: Transport).

The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and onto 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 onto the double roundabout system.

Development of this particular site will have a profound impact on the area where the roads are already gridlocked for a considerable period every day during school term, not to mention the excessive pollution that would be caused. It is currently possible to queue from the M40 into Leamington and the length of Myton Road in both directions with queues heading down the Banbury Road and Gallows Hill. Narrow side roads off Myton Road, in particular Myton Crescent, are blocked by parking making it difficult to negotiate these roads as the schools come out.

There is no capacity on these roads for another 1,500-2,000 cars to exit from this triangle at peak times and join the current traffic load plus, extra traffic from other proposed developments needing to use these routes at peak times. The access to Warwick and Leamington from the site would be queued back even at a fraction of the proposed development.

There is no capacity for extra cars at the stations in either Leamington or Warwick town centres for commuters. This means additional traffic driving through Warwick at peak times to Warwick Parkway.

Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way is an area of rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken and Henry VIII Trusts. There are wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc. (PO11 Historic environment, PO15 Green Infrastructure).

This is the type of area that should be being protected for recreation and education and healthy food to have a positive impact on the quality of people's lives with the traditional land-based activities such as agriculture, new tourism, leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. By building dwellings on this land, we will have no countryside left in the urban areas to make use of to support healthy lifestyles through ensuring sufficient land is made available to all for play, sport and recreation without travelling out of the area.

Development on the area of restraint threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the runoff is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields. At these times both ends of Myton Crescent become flooded with the current drainage system being unable to cope.

Property in Myton Crescent was flooded when development was carried out on the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road. (PO18 Flooding and Water).

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of sites 2 and 3 is the danger to Public Health as a result of exposure to dangerously high Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) levels. 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. In 2012, air quality remains in breach of these regulations, and will become toxically high with the increased traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. Please see weblink: http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/action-plans/WDC%20AQAP%202008.pdf. (PO12 Climate Change; PO14 Transport).

It was pointed out at the public meeting in 2009 that the areas designated to phase 3 at that time may not be needed for development in the future so why is this area, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly an area of restraint put into the first phase for building?

This should, with immediate effect, be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found.

The further urban fringe development of Warwick is unsustainable with respect to saturated infrastructure, constrained historic town layout, and the existing Public Health danger that exists today as a consequence of high traffic volume.

Current infrastructure including town centre rail stations, schools, GP surgeries, sewage, water, drainage are at capacity with the current population, and will not sustain the proposed increased numbers within the Myton proposed sites 2 and 3. (PO2 Community Infrastructure levy).

Numbers have reduced drastically in schools over the years with those such as Trinity and North Leamington moving to smaller sites and a number of primary schools having given over part of their accommodation for other uses whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton in whose catchment area the whole of that site would fall.

There are suggestions that schools would be expanded or new builds created but a new primary school was in the plans for Warwick Gates which never came into fruition.

The hospital is completely surrounded by housing and has no capacity for expansion so how will they cope with another 25,000 people based on the figures of 2007 with 71% in a traditional family set up with 1.8 children.

Why do district councils have to accommodate a certain amount of housing? Should the government not just be looking for appropriate sites for building? At that same meeting in 2009 the suggestion of a perfect site around Gaydon was mentioned for a new town but the response was "It's not in Warwick District". Not only would road improvement be possible where air quality is not already in breach of regulation but this site is perfect for links to the M40 and there is also a rail station already at Kings Sutton on the main Birmingham to London line so commuting traffic would not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. To build one whole new site would be more cost effective in the long run. There is also the possibility of more use being made of the land around Warwick Parkway, which is in Warwick District and again perfect for rail and road links to both Birmingham and London.

So what can be done to accommodate the Core Strategy?

How about looking at sites already within the towns and regeneration areas? The infrastructure is already in place and could take out a large number of the dwellings required. We know this would not be chosen as great big swathes are cheapest but not necessarily the best option.

Build student accommodation near Warwick University in Coventry and return the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes.

Villages could be given their communities back - expand them with affordable housing. Let those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there, stay there. Let them support the village schools and shops, some of which have closed over the past few years due to lack of numbers or use.


The original Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. The paper work shows that the whole of the 8,100 houses still required are to be built in the urban areas. This will take the figures to 95-96% living in urban areas compared to 3-4% in the rural areas as there appears to be no allocation of any of this building to take place in villages.

The 90% of the district's population currently living in the urban areas occupy 10% of the district's land whilst the other 10% of the area's population live within the remaining 90% of the land.

The Core Strategy stated that there should be limited development within and adjoining villages so that they can be protected and the character of the villages kept. This is also the case within the towns. It is not that long ago that Whitnash was a village but is now a town along with Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth. These towns want to remain separate towns. They do not want to become joined and eventually become part of Coventry as the way Edgebaston, Hall Green, Moseley and Sparkhill are to Birmingham.

Although the Core Strategy points out that the development will be directed towards the south of the urban area to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry it is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

It has been said that Warwick District in 2026 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, ..." If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, it will be far from that.

We also urge Warwick District Council to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at the last consultation 2-3 years ago.

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.

Scanned Letter.

Submission made on behalf of the Hatton Parish Plan Steering Group.
Overall Strategy
The overriding principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is Sustainable Development. When the previous Core Strategy was being prepared, three sites at Hatton Green, which landowners had put forward for development, were dismissed because the general location was considered to be unsustainable. If the area was considered unsustainable then, how does it suddenly become sustainable and where is the evidence to support this change? Indeed, where is the evidence to suggest that housing spread across the district is the most sustainable form of development?
Table 7.2 show approximately 10% of new housing will be in villages, roughly half of which will be concentrated in five villages along the A4177/B4439 corridor - most of which lack the facilities to support sustainable development. Moreover, this will create a corridor of development that will seriously threaten the integrity of the Green Belt. The A4177 and B4439 are also dangerous roads with bad accident records. Potentially another 400 houses will obviously increase the danger, yet the Plan contains no infrastructure improvements to reduce the risks.
We therefore have serious misgivings about the strategic approach to rural areas.
Local Plan Policy PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing
We object to the inclusion of Hatton as a Category 2 village. In a recent survey for the Parish Plan, 60% of respondents said they are opposed to more housing. We expect the natural reaction will be to dismiss this as NIMBYism, but there are several sound reasons why residents consider this designation to be inappropriate:
1. Hatton has already contributed more than its fair share of housing to the District, with numbers having increased six-fold in the last 20 years, from 140 to 845 units.
2. The 700 new houses at Hatton Park mean the parish now has two distinct settlements, plus a significant scatter of other houses. We now need time to assimilate the massive impact this change has had and develop a cohesive community.
3. Neither Hatton Park nor Hatton Green has the basic facilities needed to support sustainable growth. Hatton Park has a village hall, small general stores and a reasonable bus service, but all children have to travel to school by bus and there is no bus service to the nearest post office or doctors. Hatton Green has a primary school, but this is already over-subscribed and further expansion would only exacerbate the current traffic problems in the village. Otherwise there is a village hall, but only a skeleton bus service with timings that preclude travelling to work by bus. We do not consider these modest, dispersed facilities sufficient to justify designation as a Category 2 village. They certainly don't measure up to the statement in paragraph 7.34 that "a limited amount of development is directed to those villages with a good range of services and public transport to the towns".
4. If the 700 homes at Hatton Park, with their wide range of types and tenures, cannot meet local needs through natural turnover, then it is highly unlikely that 30-80 extra homes, spread over 15 years, will make any difference. Nor is it likely "to encourage new services" as envisaged in paragraph 7.35.
Notwithstanding the above, we recognise that communities cannot stand still and that further development will be required at some stage to sustain the two existing settlements. Indeed, responses to the Parish Questionnaire show that just over a quarter of residents would favour more starter homes, shared ownership or rented homes. Very few, however, would favour more of the larger homes. The issue is how best to satisfy the residents' views.
We do not believe designation as a Category 2 village, with its subsequent implications for the Green Belt, is the best solution.
Local Plan Policy PO16: Green Belt
The Parish Questionnaire shows virtually 80% of residents to be in favour of retaining the Green Belt as it is, though a quarter consider there could be some review of boundaries.
Paragraph 79 of the NPPF says "the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence". Paragraph 83 goes on to say "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances" and that authorities "should have regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period".
Taking these statements together, our interpretation is that Green Belts should be essentially permanent; their boundaries, once established (which is the case in Warwickshire), should only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances; and if boundaries are reviewed they should endure beyond the fifteen years of the Local Plan. We question whether the levels of housing being an proposed for Category 2 villages - an average of two to five a year spread over fifteen years - is sufficient to amount to 'exceptional circumstances'. (If all or most were to be built at once however, e.g. very close to our parish at Haseley Manor, then this might constitute exceptional circumstances, but this would almost certainly lead to pressures to release more land.) Because of this we are very concerned that, if village 'envelopes' are created within the Green Belt, the NPPF requires boundaries to be drawn to accommodate expansion beyond the fifteen year period of the current Plan. Notwithstanding the safeguarding provisions in paragraph 85 of the NPPF, we believe this would expose areas to the threat of premature development, which we know from past experience would be extremely difficult to resist.
We certainly believe that creating 'envelopes' for each of the five proposed Category 1 and 2 villages along the A4177/B4439 corridor would fundamentally threaten the integrity of the Green Belt.
In the case of Hatton, with its two very compact settlements, we believe the interests of its residents would best be served by leaving both villages 'washed over' by the Green Belt, leaving any future development to be dealt with as 'limited infilling' or 'limited affordable housing for community needs' in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 89.
Infrastructure
We are surprised that the Plan contains no proposals for improvements to the A4177 and B4439. Both of these roads are extremely dangerous, with the severity of accidents along the stretches at Hatton almost twice the county average (Warwickshire County Council Traffic Accident Statistics pers comm.). Both roads also carry traffic diverted from the M40 and M42 at times when there are incidents on either motorway.
With potentially up to 400 more houses proposed for the five Category 1 and 2 villages along this corridor, the accident risk can only increase and we believe the Local Plan should make provision for infrastructure improvements to minimise the risks.

Scanned Response Form

Scanned Response Form

We vigourously object to your proposals in the new Development Plans for Old Milverton and Blackdown in the Green Belt.
During the 16 th July Old Milverton & Blackdown PC meeting with Bill Hunt and Councillors Doody, Hammon, and Pratt it became quickly clear that the meeting was not planned to be a "consultation meeting", but rather a statement by the Council on which Options were going to be submitted.
It was frustrating to hear how very clear basic and well founded arguments by several speakers were not taken aboard as points to be taken into account, but rather rebuffed, without indication that they would be considered before the final Proposals were going to be submitted to London.
It became very clear that the contents of the 2012 Preferred Option booklet ignore the 2009 Core strategy plan, which didn't require the use of Precious Green Belt land, and was much less expensive to implement than the infrastructure-change which is proposed.
From the discussions it became clear that other more appropriate Brown or White field sites are available, and could be considered with a little effort and thought by the planners.
The suggestion that the A425 should be made a dual carriage-way seems absurd, and was rejected in the past, since the traffic would not improve , because the entries to Leamington Spa, and Kenilworth are the bottle-necks which can't be much improved.
Theproposal to enlarge the Stoneleigh Road between Sandy Lane and Westhill Road also seems totally unjustified, since any traffic increase from North of Stoneleigh Road will be towards the A46 to Kenilworth , Coventry, or the M40. NOT through this stretch of Stoneleigh Road, through which the traffic has always been fluid .!
As stated before wefeel that a lot of new research should be done to study the points brought up during the meeting, before submitting you final Proposals.

This is my response to the New Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation

Number of homes
I have read the relevant material on how you calculate that 10,800 new homes will be required in Warwick District over the next 15 years, at a rate of 550 per year. I note that in your consultation questionnaire of 2011 the majority of respondents preferred the option of a lower number of houses per year, fearing overdevelopment and coalescence among other concerns, but it seems these views are being ignored. I would also question the figures predicting a growth in 'high level' and managerial jobs and wonder what and where these jobs are going to be. What jobs are those occupying affordable or low cost housing going to be doing?
Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework requires that development on Green Belt land should only be allowed in 'very special circumstances' which Warwick District Council maintains exist here. I would question this and note that you propose to 'alter Green Belt boundaries in line with development sites described'. You acknowledge that 'The Green Belt ... seeks to stop urban sprawl that would harm the open nature and rural character of the open countryside around the towns and the urban areas of the West Midlands', and yet 43% of preferred option sites are on Green Belt land.
In 2009 after substantial investigation and public consultation WDC adopted a development plan, for slightly more homes than the present proposals, which did not require release of Green Belt land. What has changed between 2009 and now? Most noticeably the land to the east of Radford Semele and Grove Farm that was in the 2009 plan has now been removed, in the case of Radford, because of gas pipelines and at Grove Farm because of coalescence with Bishops Tatchbrook. Why is coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook, which is outside the Green Belt, more important than coalescence with Leek Wootton and Kenilworth or the fact that Blackdown will be joined to Leamington? Why has the land at Radford been rejected when the gas pipelines did not pose a barrier to the previous plan?

The results of WDC's Green Belt study which scored Old Milverton and Blackdown highly have been ignored. If Green Belt development is necessary lower scoring land should be used.

Preferred Options and size of developments
According to WDC the Preferred Options have to be, and are apparently, supported by strong evidence. I would like to know what this evidence is.
WDC has presented a preferred plan rather than consulting on options. No options have been presented to the public for consultation. Who has suggested the proposed sites? Has WD carried out its own survey of possible sites, or have all the sites been proposed by developers? Apparently, these sites have become available because landowners wish to sell. Developers are very persistent with their offers to buy land and I'm sure some land owners could easily be persuaded to sell if they stood to make a substantial sum of money.

Some of the proposed developments are huge. 1600 on preferred site 3 would constitute a large village on its own and will merge with site 2, making a total of 2700 houses. This is an enormous development and would require a huge amount of infrastructure. It would not be part of either Warwick or Leamington, but would be a separate community therefore not integrated into either town. Sites 4 and 5 also represent a huge development, much of it on Green Belt.

The Thickthorn development in Kenilworth is also very large at 770 homes for the size of the town. Kenilworth underwent considerable expansion in the 1950s - 1980s; should it be further expanded to such an extent? Also, how was this site decided upon? Much of it is on Green Belt and farmland and includes a nature reserve which would be swallowed up by surrounding houses. It too would not be an integral part of the town. I do not live immediately near it but it does concern me that such a development would be so near the A46, the noise from which we can hear quite clearly from our garden. I don't think building business premises alongside the A46 would lessen the noise much for those living there. A new primary school and other facilities are proposed for this development. Why not build extra houses in some of the villages which could afford to expand and already have schools etc. Leek Wootton is a case in point where the school was once under threat of closure could take an increase in pupils.

Transport
It is estimated that £50,000,000 will be needed to improve roads. Where is this to come from? Regarding the road links between Kenilworth and Leamington, does this mean making the A452 a dual carriageway? This scheme was rejected a few years ago after a successful campaign and the realisation that it was not really needed to alleviate a minor problem of congestion twice a day. It provides a very pleasant green corridor between the two towns and should not be spoilt. Access to and from the Thickthorn development at one end of the A452 and to and from the Blackdown and Lillington developments at the other end would result in a massive increase in traffic. However, a dual carriageway would still lead to congestion at the entrance to either town as it funnelled into a single lane. A dual carriageway linking the A452 with the A46 would cut across a swathe of countryside and spoil the village of Old Milverton.
Communication
I am concerned that many people in Kenilworth are unaware that there has been this consultation period even if they are aware of the Local Plan. It is not enough to assume that everyone reads the local press as many do not, and most people would not be looking at your website unless they were aware of this plan and therefore there was something to look at. There has been some limited information in the library but for most of the time this was tucked away round a corner and I had to ask where it was. I know there have been various meetings but these were not well publicised. The exhibition in Kenilworth Library was staged only a week before the end of the consultation period and again there was little publicity. In the interests of transparency, surely every household should have been leafleted about this very important plan, not just people who had already responded to the questionnaire or registered on your website? I hope the next consultation will be better publicised.
I have other concerns but these are the main ones. Please listen to the views and concerns of the people and don't force this plan on us without giving us alternative options to consider.

I wish to vigourously object to the building on green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.

The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Wawick District Council) land South of Leamington was identified, and is still available, for development. This land is east of the A452 Europa Way and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
* The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The policy of "spreading it around" again is not planning policy but a political one. Thus the legality of the councils desicion making process comes into serious question.
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.

* Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns. The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth, it will change the character of Leamington for ever,.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, riders, and cyclists.
It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park would detract from rather than enhance its value. There is no infrastructure problems to the previous chosen development sites in South Leamington.
* Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026. If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals. There has been in recent years an exceptional growth in Leamingtons population partly because of Europe. However this has now levelled of. There are not hundreds and thousands of homeless people sleeping in the streets of Leamington at night, so I seriously question the need for development of such a scale. The prime minister recently stated that people should no longer except free housing there friends and family should assist, by carrying out such a development the council is not working to the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying, I for one will be writing to him to inform him of this. Further more there has been an extra approximately 500 student beds places created/about to be created in Leamington in purpose built buildings this year alone. This means talking to local agents that small houses are now not being rented by students and about an extra 100 5 bed homes are sitting empty this year, they are going to be either rented out to private tenants or DSS tenants or sold of private individuals or families, I feel the council has missed the point that about 500 extra beds spaces houses will be available this to the community, as student population is down by about 10% this year nationally, furthermore with the increase in fees this year, there is likely to be an even further decrease in the student population freeing up more housing.


To summarise I am objecting on the below grounds

1. Local amenity taking away our local open public space
2. Green belt, not adhering to policy when you have already suitable land for development.
3. Over provision of housing, as the sires previously declared suitable will inevitably be still developed, and student houses becoming available.
4. Coalescence of urban sprawl, towns will soon be close together losing their identities, which makes Leamington so special
5. Infrastructure. No need to spend £28 million on new road when there is infrastructure in place at the previous south Leamington sites declared suitable

I write to register my objection to the Old Milverton and Blackdown development in Warwick District Council's local plan.

My reasons for objecting are as follows:

* The proposed land is designated as Green belt, and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated as to why the land should be encroached upon in such a manner as the building of several hundred houses.

* With the addition of hundreds of houses in one area, the inevitable concequence is double the amount of cars (each household will have up to or more than 2 cars). Simply building another road, over yet more greenbelt, will not syphon those cars away from the narrow lanes of Old Milverton and Blackdown. These lanes will become dangerous rat runs and take away the intrinsic peace and quiet of the area.

* There are alternative areas of land, closer to existing amenities, which would negate the need for an ugly and cramped housing estate, and would provide a way of making sure WDC fulfilled any need to provide extra housing. Why not build on these brown spaces and provide them with green spaces for leisure and relaxation instead of shoe horning yet more small boxy houses into a place already providing leisure and public access for hundreds of people.

* The Greenbelt also comprises excellent and productive farmland which has provided a living to families over the years. The compulsary purchase, or denying the farmer his rights to farm this land, would deny him the right to make a living, thus forcing yet another working farm to the brink of closure. Farming methods such as early crops under plastic would be the only profitable way to carry on, a method wich is not only pesticide and insecticide heavy, but an eyesore to look at. Productive farmland should never have to be sacrificed over more suitable land for the building of houses.

* Old Milverton and Blackdown are already satelite villages with little or no public transport, no shops, post offices, pubs, or facilities such as gas, fast broadband or cable. Nowhere in the plans does it say these issues are going to be addressed. Simply building hundreds of houses and putting a park and ride system outside the hospital will not make up for the fact that this scheme is simply an exercise in ticking boxes and riding rough shod over the views of local people who recognise the need to preserve greenbelt spaces for the important role they play in the wider community.


I am emailing a copy of this letter to my MP and I hope he will do everything he can to stop the proposed development here and direct them towards other areas which would welcome and be able to support such infrastructure.

I vigourously object to the building on green belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.

The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires there to be "very special circumstances" for development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to the Green Belt to be outweighed by the benefit of the development. Those special circumstances are apparently that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built. In the "2009 Core Strategy" (the previous plan adopted by Wawick District Council) land South of Leamington was identified, and is still available, for development. This land is east of the A452 Europa Way and south of Heathcote towards Bishops Tachbrook. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington.
* The previous plan is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt. Warwick District Council argues that the land in the South of Leamington is not as attractive to developers because the concentration of development in that area may result in the developers making less profit. Consideration of the developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The policy of "spreading it around" again is not planning policy but a political one. Thus the legality of the councils desicion making process comes into serious question.
* The proposals ignore Warwick District Council's Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Black Down which concluded that these areas had high Green Belt value.

* Green Belt land is specifically set aside to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging together and protect the country side setting of historic towns. The proposals will reduce the" Green Lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 1 1/2 miles encouraging the merger of these two towns and their loss of independent identities.
* Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth in to dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
* The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateways to Leamington and Kenilworth, it will change the character of Leamington for ever,.
* A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. The traffic flows tend to be north; south rather than east; west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns.
* A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the green belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
* The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick who make the area attractive places to live. Further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
* There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Black Down and Old Milverton
* The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown has substantial amenity value and is presently enjoyed by a great many walkers, runner, riders, and cyclists.
It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park would detract from rather than enhance its value. There is no infrastructure problems to the previous chosen development sites in South Leamington.
* Warwick District Council has included a "buffer" of 1400 homes in the number of houses that it believes will be necessary between now and 2026. If this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Black Down in the proposals. There has been in recent years an exceptional growth in Leamingtons population partly because of Europe. However this has now levelled of. There are not hundreds and thousands of homeless people sleeping in the streets of Leamington at night, so I seriously question the need for development of such a scale. The prime minister recently stated that people should no longer except free housing there friends and family should assist, by carrying out such a development the council is not working to the spirit of what the Prime Minister is saying, I for one will be writing to him to inform him of this. Further more there has been an extra approximately 500 student beds places created/about to be created in Leamington in purpose built buildings this year alone. This means talking to local agents that small houses are now not being rented by students and about an extra 100 5 bed homes are sitting empty this year, they are going to be either rented out to private tenants or DSS tenants or sold of private individuals or families, I feel the council has missed the point that about 500 extra beds spaces houses will be available this to the community, as student population is down by about 10% this year nationally, furthermore with the increase in fees this year, there is likely to be an even further decrease in the student population freeing up more housing.


To summarise I am objecting on the below grounds

1. Local amenity taking away our local open public space
2. Green belt, not adhering to policy when you have already suitable land for development.
3. Over provision of housing, as the sires previously declared suitable will inevitably be still developed, and student houses becoming available.
4. Coalescence of urban sprawl, towns will soon be close together losing their identities, which makes Leamington so special
5. Infrastructure. No need to spend £28 million on new road when there is infrastructure in place at the previous south Leamington sites declared suitable

I am writing to express my concern regarding the development proposals on green belt land to the north of Leamington.

My first concern is the proposed road across this area. If it is built we all know that the next phase will be to build right up to this road and then the complete green belt between this road and the north of Leamington Spa is destined to disappear.............

This brings me to my second concern which is the village of Old Milverton. The road will ruin one of the last remaining villages near to the town, by its proximity and resulting visual and noise pollution. This small, ancient settlement is a local beauty spot used by many locals and visitors to the area via walking routes and the path to and from the Saxon Mill. Its facilities ( church, hall and fields ) are enjoyed by many individuals, associations and the general public. A busy (fast) road nearby will ruin this very little corner of old Warwickshire.......

My third concern is that this proposed road will not really ease the congestion into Leamington from the North. Most (all?) business are in either central or south Leamington, so traffic will remain to be funnelled through Leamington as once Northumberland road is reached then these same problems will continue. People will still prefer to sit in their cars for longer than get out and do a park and ride .........

Fourthly, following on from my third point, building homes in this area will only add to the congestion on this route as more people will need to get into work ( more than likely to central and southern Leamington ) via this route......

Fifthly, our housing need is for simpler, affordable homes. This means cheaper land costs. This will not be to the north of Leamington. We need to take the security of our future generations into account and a survey out a couple of days ago highlighted the need for young families to feel secure, and own, or have secure tenancies, in their homes. We need to enable this fairness as much as we possibly can. Simple homes for families are crucial to the health of our community and our country.......

These are my main concerns and objections to the development proposals. Please take them into consideration. The historic triangle of Old Milverton, The Saxon Mill and Guy's Cliff should remain on the boundaries of Warwick and Leamington, undisturbed, for as long as we, the guardians of our heritage, can allow.

With many hopes and wishes for a decision against these green belt proposals.