8. Identification of Potential Sites

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached.

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

For the attention of the Development Policy Manager

Having looked at the Local Plan and attended recent public meetings I am writing to you to indicate my many concerns and total dissatisfaction with the revised development strategy for the Local Plan.

Air Quality

In particular, the air quality issue is of great concern. I understand that air quality in Warwick and Leamington is already above the legal limit. The District Council is required to improve air quality. The scale of planned houses will make it worse. I also note that Stratford Council have their own plans for even more houses south of Warwick, has this development been taken into consideration?

Transport

I believe the strategy is car based and will push even more congestion onto the existing road network. It is obvious that building a dual carriageway to the river Avon bridge will just bring increased traffic to a halt. Also the current bridge was not built to take the potential amount of traffic. Parking in Warwick is already difficult enough, this plan will make matters far worse. As for traffic at the Morrisons roundabout on the Myton Road, I shudder to think of the implications there.

Projected Housing

The projected 12,300 homes are extremely high and I understand that less than half that number would meet local needs. also, there are a large number of empty houses in Warwick and Leamington, could these be used to house people instead of just building more new ones?

Could we not build on brownfield and infill sites already within each towns infrastructure.

Should there not be a slower phasing in of housing based on estimated local demand releasing land as demand grows rather than an optimistic estimate so far into the future?

Historic Environment

There is no doubt that the plans will ruin the visual look of Warwick forever. The increase of traffic and people will drive visitors away. We need to conserve the beauty of Warwick not plan to destroy it.

Funding

With the current and projected Government cutbacks, will Warwick District Council have the funding to expand the needed infrastructure to support 12,300 homes?

National Planning Policy

From the meetings I attended it appears that a realistic forecast of need would mean that we already have the required five year supply of sites when you balance housing with employment growth forecasts vs the housing market. Why has this not been taken into consideration in the local plan?

Gypsy Sites

They seem to have all been crammed into the same area. Could they not have been spread out more fairly within the area?

Consultation Process

I was most concerned to hear at the meeting that these plans had been pushed through by councillors who do not live in the area and that politics were possibly involved in the decision making?

I would be most grateful if you would note my constructive dissatisfaction which is based on my fear that our beautiful town of Warwick will be destroyed in the future.

As a resident in the District, I would like to register my fundamental concerns to the proposed Revised Local Plan. There are a number of features that will prove to be serious retrograde steps to the area:

1. The density and volume of new houses - the number of houses appears to be significantly overstated and concentrated to the south of Warwick along Gallows Hill area rather than being spread ore evenly (even if the number of houses required is a correct projection). Projections are estimates and surely it is better to make smaller incremental changes rather than sweeping over-reaching change, which may not be needed or desirable. The Ray Bullen paper in 2012 stated that ONLY 5400 would be required (not all at once) , which is more than 50% less than the now increased number that WDC are suggesting of 12300.
2. Why are brownfield sites not being utilised before new greenfield developments - is it "easier" for developers to go for greenfield sites?
3. It is not a given that all new residents will work in the same area as they live, therefore congestion is inevitable because of the concentration of new houses to the south Warwick
4. Likewise the proposed new employment area close to Gallows Hill is likely not needed, there are numerous empty office blocks available for new businesses already existing on various technology parks or other areas around the district. Many that have not been fully occupied since they were built.
5. The density of development means that the very features that attract people to live in Warwickshire will be lost and the developments will just become co-joined and akin to Milton Keynes or similar, with no distinction between the different sub areas and villages. The attraction of Warwickshire is farmland between and surrounding the town and villages adjacent to Warwick and Leamington, providing space and definition to the residential areas. People who live in Warwick District do not want to live in a housing/pseudo town sprawl. Towns and villages evolve they are not dropped into some Greenfields, The "country park" that is proposed on the edge of the new Gallows Hill development is a poor substitute for open fields and becomes a semi urban "park" given its location not open countryside. Prior studies that WDC commissioned (Planning Inspector 2006) )stated that the Woodside Farm area should not be built on.
6. The farmland that is now being earmarked for development is medium to high grade and should be retained for its ability to produce multiple crops and be part of the UK agricultural economy rather than requiring yet more food to be ultimately imported

In addition, Bishops Tachbrook, seems to have been "chosen" as a Primary Village for expansion, presumably because of the volume of housing due to be created as a result of the Local Plan. This is based on a poor premise (see 1 - 3 above) and seeks to alter the dynamic of a successful village. A village has a distinct identity and the boundaries shouldn't be needlessly expanded. The views from the village are of rolling countryside, which would be slowly eroded and the distinct spacing that allows the village to function as a village (rather than as an add on to a new development or Warwick Gates or Whitnash) will be lost. There is real history to the village which would be lost forever. Likewise extra housing and increased attendance at the school will cause more congestion and be dangerous to pedestrians and drivers. The size of the existing roads fits with the size of the village and to expand or widen the road network would again destroy the soul and history of the village, which should be retained for future appreciation by others. Adding on an extra 100-150 houses is also unnecessary, and again a very high volume where the need is not supported or proven.

Gypsy Sites

There are significant concerns regarding the location and number of pitches proposed. Firstly, it should be noted that it is not a given that gypsies would use such sites, in other areas (Shipston) there are sites which were set up but not used. Land that is used by the gypsies tends not to be managed well and so becomes an eyesore to other surrounding residents. The write ups suggest that they will pay council tax but given that many of the gypsies will probably be unemployed there is no motivation to take pride in the surroundings. If the council does not manage these, then there is limited re-course by those potentially affected in the direct vicinity.

The proposed sites, such as those at No's 3, 4, 5,9, 10 and are all located adjacent to busy roads, which would be dangerous to all parties including the gypsies. They are not close to secondary schools.
There is no information on the maximum number of people that would be allowed to stay on the site. The public information states 20-30 number of caravans but that does not give any idea of possible density of inhabitants, which will put a strain on local services.

I sincerely hope you will listen to the feedback the WDC receives and revise the location and volume of development to a less intrusive and a more sensitive number.

I am a resident in Bishop Tachbrook and feel that we are being unfairly targetted for both Gypsy sites and over building..

I feel we are being penalised because we are green field sight not green belt.this site is more valuable as more areas will be needed for food in the future.

With regard to gypsy sites what is happening to the site on the Banbury road which has been developed as a caravan site for 3+ years and no caravan has appeared on it?

Hoping this argument as some use

Re: Revised Development Plan for new homes and travellers sites

We object to this new local plan on the following grounds:

* The National Planning Policy Framework requires sustainable development which meets an established housing need. Local builders and developers already have around 5000 homes in the pipe line and are not developing them as they see a chance to get their hands on even more sites through this plan. 12300 new homes easily exceeds the demand for this area and to give approval of this plan would mean that even more Greenfield land would be lost to the local agricultural businesses. We are told that there are currently around 5000 unoccupied homes in the district that could be taken over, refurbished and returned to the housing market.

* The suggested sites are mainly to the south of Warwick and Leamington. This is unacceptable as both towns have a river running through which means bridges have to be crossed when travelling North to South and vice versa. The road infrastructure cannot take the extra traffic from all these homes. There are suggested improvements to Europa Way and Banbury Road but you can make them dual carriageways for all their length but you cannot change what is at the end of them i.e. the river bridge over the Avon at Warwick followed by The Butts, the narrowest road in Warwick, where two cars cannot pass at the same time. (Not mentioned in the traffic assessment!) Moving East to Europa Way again a dual carriageway would only mean shorter queues but two of them instead of one. What faces them? Princes Drive with the narrow railway bridge. (Again not mentioned in the traffic assessment) The recent so called improvements have made no difference to the traffic flow. You have provided 3 lanes at exits of Europa Way, Myton Road, and Old Warwick Road and 2 lane entrances for each making a total of 5 lanes at these points but this reduces to a total of 3 lanes at the railway bridge so the 'pinch point' has not changed. The single lane from Park Drive towards Myton Road is too narrow for buses and lorries. They have to straddle the lane markings to avoid hitting the bridge with their mirrors. The decision to stop traffic exiting Park Drive from turning right into Princes Drive or going straight ahead into the Recycling Centre and making them travel up to the island at Myton Road and then go full circle around to get back into Princes Drive is just stupid. It has added extra traffic to the Myton Road island which makes things even worse. (Again not included in the traffic assessment) Moving further East you come to Tachbrook Road. An already very busy single carriageway road that leads to Lower Avenue and the railway bridge. (Funny this was also missing from the traffic assessment) This cannot be improved at all. The other problem with this is that through traffic here has to meet up with through traffic from Princes Drive. The considerable extra volume of traffic cannot be absorbed with the suggested 'improvements'. The traffic assessment only states that there are highway land problems in the Princes Drive and Warwick New Road areas. (Another railway bridge in Warwick New Road)

* There was previously a way around Warwick and Leamington by using the A452 but the section from Greys Mallory to the Longbridge island was taken over by the M40 motorway. This meant that traffic now had to go onto the M40 and immediately come off at the next junction, the Longbridge island. This is ridiculous and is the reason for the significant increase in traffic congestion on Banbury Road and Europa Way. The M40 is extremely busy at this junction, so much so that proposals are in place to utilise the hard shoulder as a normal traffic lane with improved lane management. To add even more traffic for just a short stretch of road is not on. The missing stretch of road must be replaced before the towns come to a complete halt.

* To make things worse for the Banbury Road entrance to Warwick is the proposal by Stratford upon Avon District Council for a new village of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. Where is this? Why on the Banbury Road! This will add considerable extra traffic onto the Banbury Road approach to Warwick and the Europa Way approach to Leamington. This proposal must be taken into account when considering the revised local plan. They cannot be taken into account separately.

* The largest number of proposed new homes are all South of the rivers yet all emergency services are to the North i.e. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Hospital so all would have to cross the river bridges on roads that cannot cope. People would die waiting for these emergency services especially at rush hour times. When Warwick Fire Station was being considered for closure we said that Warwick residents living in the Myton Road area would suffer we were told that a fire engine would reach us from Leamington fire station in 6 minutes! Only by helicopter was our reply yet it was still closed. This was on the advice of consultants who admitted that they had only used national figures and had not looked at the local picture! Warwick Hospital would not be big enough to cater for another 24000 local people and it cannot expand further as it is built on an enclosed site. This means that more emergency patients would have to be taken to Coventry with significant danger of death.

* All sites South of Warwick and Leamington are on Greenfield land. This is productive farmland and produces food that is wanted by this country. We cannot continue to remove farmland as the country's food needs for the future will be even higher than at present. We cannot rely on importing food as there have been big changes in the global food market particularly from Asia with China buying ever more supplies from some of our traditional suppliers. There is a proposal for a 'Country Park' but this will be used the same way as the present 'areas of restraint' off Myton Road. What is the value of these as they are simply ignored when a suggestion of new homes comes along. When the next allocation of homes is required we know that this country park will disappear. This Greenfield land is just as important as the green belt to the North of Warwick and Leamington. It should have been green belt anyway.

* At present the air pollution in the centre of Warwick exceeds the legal limit so how can any new homes be allowed. How can we get this air pollution problem solved? We do not know the answers but surely the health of the residents must be given priority over any further damage caused by around 18000 more cars locating to the area. Warwick District Council is legally required to reduce air pollution to improve air quality. How can you even consider these development plans which can only make things worse? The suggested town centre initiative for road improvements includes a ban on parking in Smith Street followed by a ban on turning right into St Nicholas Church Street. That would speed traffic flow along Smith Street but would kill off all the shops and restaurants there. What good would that do to the town? If you cannot turn right at the end of Smith Street how would you get back to the Banbury Road for residents South of the River? Turn round in the small Sainsbury's car park or at the Wharf Street junction? Or use the road in front of the St John's shops and turn onto Coventry Road?

* Drainage could be a big problem to the residents in the Myton Road areas. When the new Round Oak School was built the first time we had heavy rain a number of properties in Myton Crescent were flooded. Extensive land drains and ditches had to be installed. So imagine what would happen with 1150 houses built on the slope up to Gallows Hill. Where would all the surface water go? Downhill to the existing houses that's where.

* The prospect of significant expansion in employment in this area is very small. Certainly not enough to accommodate families in 12300 homes. The only area of supposed new employment is the Gateway scheme (on green belt land!) by Coventry Airport. They say that up to 12000 jobs will be created. We do not feel that it would be anywhere near that figure. Anyone living in the proposed developments south of the river would add to the commuting through Warwick or Leamington or add more traffic onto the M40. An area of designated employment land at Warwick Gates has just been given planning permission to build houses on as 'there is no demand for employment land as the developer could not get anyone to move there'.

* Regarding gypsy and travellers sites we believe that the Council should stand up to the government and say no to these sites. Gypsies and travellers are not British; make no contributions to society in the form of National Insurance; pay no Tax; cost local authorities thousands of pounds to clear up their mess left behind so we should not be made to cater for them.

In summary

We object to this plan on the grounds of the unnecessary number of new homes, inadequate road network for the unfair placing of the majority of these homes south of Warwick and Leamington Spa, increases in air pollution, inadequate provision of emergency services, taking away good farm land and destroying the valuable beautiful environment of this district.