A.

Building on Green Belt is the wrong decision.
Every local plan over the last 40 years has strongly shown that all future planning will not expand development north of Leamington onto green belt land. Reason given have always remained unchanged.
1. Green belt must be protected that is what it is there for.
2. Leamington must not expand north towards Kenilworth.
3. Access to area would generate problems to an already overloaded road system.

The south of the town has been designated white belt to allow further development. All the infrastructure and amenities are situated there with this in mind.
They are
1.Motorway and new roads with further land for improvements
2. All supermarkets and main shopping centre.
3. Railway Station
4. All industrial estates.
5. The Science and Technology park.
6. Sewerage Works.
7. All builders merchants and D.I.Y. outlets.
8. All supermarkets.
9.All Car showrooms and main service garages.
10. The Temple.
11.Hospital
12. Main Fitness Centre.
Etc, etc

North of the town there is nothing but a new school and a private hospital.

If the north area is developed a main new road will have to be built at huge cost across the Avon valley over an important wild life area with many endangered species all of which will be defended by several groups.

Support Mr Page's objection

The proposed developments present a yet further erosion of the green belt.

The proposed amendments will have a significant impact on the ecology of the area, which has a high landscape value. Further amendments/development will have a negative impact on the approaches to our towns and villages.

Green Belt policy has served the nation well for many years. It is disgraceful to suggest this should now be abandoned.
The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and 'should not be approved except in very special circumstances'. It goes on to say that construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate; a list of exceptions do not include housing or commercial development!

The Council has not demonstrated 'very special circumstances'; indeed the Authority's own documents show ample suitable land is available without the need to violate the Green Belt.

Alter the green belt, perhaps we should rename it the flexi brown belt to allow the council to develope where ever they wish.

The grren belt is there for a reason and should only be bulit on in special circumstances. The development of further homes and commercial propoerty cannot be considered special.

The proposed development to the north of Leamington which would mean the permanent loss of vital agricultural land that is fully used today for food production.

The Green Belt was created to protect and maintain such land for the benefit for both food production, the protection of natural specifies in the natural environment and to ensure a balance between urban development and nature.

There is no justification for moving boundaries as is proposed in the new local plan which could be adsorbed into existing white belt land to the south of Leamington

Furthermore, the Green Belt is highly valued by local residents for both access on foot between North Leamington, Milverton and the Guys Cliff area of Warwick through well used footpaths and is also a well used and natural recreational space for the communities along the path routes. We need our footpaths, we do not want more roads and the associated pollution created

I am very concerned about the use of green-belt land for this type of development. There is already a lot of pressure within this area of Warwick/Leamington. There seems to be other areas within the district that are NOT green belt that are more suitable for development than these green belt areas that are protected for good reasons.

Green belt land should not be developed when other suitable land is available in Leamington for development.
WDC has not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" necessary to build on Green Belt.The Council identified available land east of the A452 & south of Heathcote
Cyril Howson

The exceptional circumstances that are required to change the existing green belt have not been demonstrated.

Warwick D.C. should not develop on any Green Belt because this, along with it's history is what makes the area special.
In particular PO4 locations 4,5,7 and 9 will destroy a highly visible and popular area of countryside.
The ancient unspoilt Thickthorn woods accessable by foot bridge from Glasshouse Lane would suffer gradual but inevitable degradation from the new residents of Thickthorn.
I view the prospect of a dual carraigeway between Blackdown and the A46 as particularly horrendous.

h

As extensively addressed in our representation to Section 7 but also addressed in our representation for Section 8; the level of Green Belt development put forward is not justified by evidence (rather than unsupported assertion in para 7.30) against the NPPF "exceptional circumstances" test; and that the Milverton site is non-compliant with NPPF guidance on (a) exploiting "well-defined boundaries" if partly developed (East)or "coalescence if West/East Milverton all developed (as WDC accept) and (b) development of rural areas - given it would destroy Grade 2 agricultural land. Sensitive environmental site issues re flooding and water (see SHLAA) are also ignored.

Not clear why this is necessary.

I wish to register my objection to the Councils proposed Local Plan and in particular to the proposal to develop on Green Belt land to the North of Leamington Spa. The need to identify land as Green belt was done for very sound reasons to prevent urban sprawl, the merging of conavations and to secure vital environmental assets. Green Belt land should not be developed unless there are exceptional reasons or circumstances to do so. The draft Plan does not identify any exceptional circumstances or reasons and previous Plans have identified other more suitable areas which are not designated Green Belt to the south of the town centre. To propose the development of Green Belt over non Green Belt areas would render the classification meaningless.

The 'exceptional circumstances' referred to in the NPPF for developing green belt land have not been explained.

There are previously identified areas of white belt land to the south that are more suitable for development.

There is no economic argument, ever, for building in the Green Belt around one of the UK's wealthiest towns and one which needs no or little economic stimulation

The Green Belt has successfully protected Norton Lindsey without restricting limited developments. We have also had redevelopment right on our boundary.

Green Belt land should not be developed when other suitable land is available -NPPF. Warwick DC has not demonstrated 'exceptional circumstances' neccessary to build on green belt under NPPF. The coucil has identified available land in the south of the city however these sites were not included in the prefrred options (south of Heathcote, bishops tachbrook, east of europa way)

Greenbelt should not be built on, just because we need new housing in the District does not justify building on the Greenbelt. The whole point of Greenbelt is to stop urban sprawl, to stop houses being built here. Where is the justification?

Local Plan Preferred Options
Development Sites (Urban Fringe) No 4 Milverton Gardens and No 5 Blackdown


Three of the basic tenants of PPG2 which are still enshrined within National Planning Policy framework regarding Green Belts are:

a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas and to safeguard the surrounding countryside from further encroachment.

b) That Green Belt boundaries should be drawn so that they endure, and will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period.


c) Once the general extent of a green belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances'

All of these fundamental principles would be breached entirely if these proposed developments are allowed to proceed. Additionally, the Councils preferred options local plan contains absolutely no detailed 'exceptional circumstances' as to why these above sites should be removed from Green Belt protection.

At the last attempt to have this Green Belt designation removed from this land, the Central Governments planning inspector ruled as follows:



Warwick District Local Plan I996-20IIlnquiry -Inspector's Report Chapter IO


10.11.47 Looking first at the Green Belt aspect, PPG2 advises that once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been put forward by the objector. PPG2 makes it clear that Structure Plans should establish the general extent of Green Belts while the role of Local Plans is to define detailed boundaries. Both the Warwickshire Structure Plan and the RSS have confirmed the Green Belt status of this land. I concur with the District Council that removing 33ha from the Green Belt would be a strategic change that should properly be considered through a review of the RSS. In my view, the land in question serves a number of Green Belt purposes. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of Leamington Spa, prevents Kenilworth and Leamington Spa from merging, assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and assists in urban regeneration by encouraging the re¬cycling of previously-developed urban land. Moreover, it plays a positive role in fulfilling Green Belt objectives. It provides opportunities for public access to the open countryside, retains attractive landscapes near to where people live, and retains land in agricultural and allotment gardens use. I conclude that there is no case for removing this land from the Green Belt.
In my opinion, there is nothing in the NPFP published in March 2012 that should change this ruling.

The local planning authority is supposed to be the first line of defence to protect neighbourhoods and local communities from adverse developments. The veiled threat from the Council Planning team at a recent briefing at Trinity School that failure to approve this draft local plan will cause unrestricted building development throughout the region is in my view, abrogating their primary responsibility to protect the historic town of Leamington and its environs from such developments.

This is the third time in the last five years or so that attempts have been made to remove this land from the Green Belt protection. With the failure to cite exceptional circumstances and the complete disregard of the above Planning Inspectors ruling, which is only a few years old, I am beginning to believe that the Council are pandering to commercial interests who are purely interested in making short term profits and do not the have long term interests of the community at heart or the preservation of a the historic town of Leamington Spa for future generations.

Additionally, if the Green Belt erosion to the north of Leamington is approved, I am extremely concerned it will be seen as a precedent for developments up to the boundary of the A46.

Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

It is unacceptable to redefine greenbelt boundaries in order for W.D.C to meet their identified housing need. Development within the green belt is, and always has been policy led. In order to protect the green belt, any proposed development within the defined area must demonstrate exceptional circumstances. To review and potentially alter the existing greenbelt is simply disingenuous. Hence, the existing test of exceptional circumstances is adequate.

The justification for using the green belt land as specified does not seem justified bearing in mind that the land surrounding warwick Gates originally specified as growth areas is not now listed. If this land was used the demand on the green belt would be minimised

'Green Belt' land has obviously been given this status for a reason. Local councilors should be fighting to protect this status, not attempting to remove it for financial gain.

Reducing the amount of green belt is regrettable but necessary. The alternative places an unacceptable burden on those living outside it.

The loss of Greenbelt is regrettable, but CRA acknowledges that given the development need over a 15 years period, this is inevitable. The reversion of the Crackley Triangle back into the Greenbelt should however be included.

Scanned letter

Scanned letter

See attachments

Submission attached.