GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm

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

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

See attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

See attached

See attached

see-attached

I am writing to raise and log my objections and concerns to the Warwick District Local Plan.

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook and feel the proposals will have a detrimental effect of the health and well being of many residents, not only in the Village itself but in the surrounding areas of Whitnash and including Warwick and Leamington Spa.

Firstly I would like to raise an objection to the number of houses that is currently in the plan. 12, 300 homes seems very extreme. Projections (based on 2011 Census data in 2013) seem to suggest that around 5,400 homes would be needed in the area, allowing for migration and natural growth of the population. Warwick District council's own consultant Gil Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study in December 2012. In this study only 4,405 new homes were needed.
These figures indicate the housing figures in the Local Plan is more than double what is actually needed..

The current Local Plan bases most of the homes in the South of the District. As it stands it would fill a vast area of rural and agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Building here would just merge our built areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. Currently there is a rolling landscape with far reaching views. I understand a country park would be planned at the border of Bishops Tachbrook but this is felt to be ineffective as the excessive new homes would be highly visible and the beautiful views we currently enjoy would disappear.

The majority of the housing is proposed to the South of the town centres. This will have a massive impact on congestion making it even more severe at crossings over the canal, river and railway in the area where there is no available solution to the current infrastructure. The current locations of this housing would encourage an even greater car- dependent culture, increasing traffic and worsening congestion on the two north and south routes through Leamington Spa and Warwick.

The concentration of these homes will, I believe, have a detrimental effect on Bishops Tachbrook. There will no doubt be an increase in the traffic on the minor road through the village (Mallory Road). This is already used as a cut through by speeding cars trying to avoid the already overloaded road network. This will have dramatic effect on the community, putting people's lives at risk crossing a much busier road with motorists driving at speed, whilst trying to access the village's facilities such as the local shop, doctors surgery, community/playing facilities and the primary school. The village could be split in two by this road and go from a community where local children are allowed some freedom and independence to access our excellent play facilities to a community where social isolation is prevalent as they are terrified by a very busy road. An increase in the amount of vehicles passing through will also increase the risk to the health of villager's especially the children with an increase of air pollution.
Indeed the increased number of cars 12, 300 homes will bring will have far reaching consequences for our air quality. Already pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than legally permitted. Air quality is needed to be improved on by Warwick District Council but this Local Plan and its transport strategy would exacerbate it further. Long term health of residents would be even more threatened with damage being brought to the local economy as businesses and tourism would damaged by the Plan .There would no longer be the beauty currently found in historic Warwick or the spa town of Leamington.

There is the consideration of other infrastructure, in theory there is funding for this. However in reality this could surely not be enough. I am aware that times are tough currently in the NHS with services being reconfigured and cut to save money. Services are stretched to capacity now so a further 12, 300 homes some perhaps with families living in them would push our healthcare facilities beyond breaking point.

The Proposed Gypsy and Travelers sites are again concentrated in the same area. There are several sites proposed around Bishops Tachbrook. One site situated on Banbury Road/ Mallory Road is extremely unsuitable as it is so near a busy main road (will be increasingly busier with many more homes just down the road!!) so is not suitable for the travelers and their families in terms of safety or access. It also currently floods and floods down through the Village through the back gardens of where I currently live. I feel that hard standing for proposed travelers site will create less surface area for the water to soak away and increase the volume of water flooding down through the Village, instead of just flooding gardens, it will flood through homes.
These sites would also impact on the local facilities, the school is already at capacity and the GP practice is just a branch surgery with limited opening hours. At the time that Warwick Gates was build we were promised a school on Warwick gates. This never happened putting a further strain on the schools in the area. Now the children from Bishops Tachbrook are no longer eligible for Myton School, they have to pass Myton School and carry on several miles further to Aylesford School. This makes me feel what we are going to lose this time.

I feel that the points I have raised just add up to a poorer quality of life and health for those who reside in the south of the District.

I feel there are better alternatives such as lower housing numbers to meet local need, a gradual releasing of land for development as and when demand grows, priority being given to use brown field sites nearer to schools, shops and railway stations, homes being built close to jobs and cooperating with other local councils instead of competing with them over development.

I would very much appreciate a reply to the objections I have raised.

see-attached

see attached

see attached

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, where I live with my wife and family.
We have lived in the village for 9 years and chose the location because we wanted to live in a quiet village location away from the town centre.

I have read the WDC Revised Development Strategy (2013) and I have attended a public meeting where I viewed the WDC RDS PowerPoint presentation. What follows is my considered response to the proposed housing developments and Gypsy Traveller sites.

The RDS completely contradicts WDC's strategic vision "to make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit" (RDS 3.1).
An increase of 12300 homes will not achieve this vision and will in fact have the opposite effect for a number of reasons:
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the district is 5400. This is based on factual information derived from the national census statistics, and allows for migration. Where is the evidence to support WDC claim that 12300 homes are required?
The WDC presentation states that, in order to provide for growth of the local population (RDS 3.5), sites for 550 new homes per annum would need to be identified. Over an 18 year period this totals 9900 homes. Where does this number fit in with the 12300 WDC claim are needed to meet growth?

Why has the WDC empty home strategy not been included in the 5 year plan? WDC has developed 250 homes back to use under this strategy and further homes have been identified. http://www.emptyhomes.com/ identified approximately 1350 empty homes in the Warwick district in 2012, why isn't more work being done around this type of development of existing homes rather than proposing large scale new developments. There does not appear to be any mention of empty homes into RDS.

Warwick District currently has a very low unemployment rate, with only 1.6% unemployment (claiming JSA). If some of the proposed development is about economic growth where is the evidence to show that people moving into the area will be able to find work?
Much of the employment land in the district has not been fulfilled and may subsequently become land for housing but where are the jobs for the people moving into the area?
I have heard the growth of Jaguar Land rover cited as a employment opportunity which would require homes for employees moving to the area. However, the WDC RDS does not take account for the fact that Stratford District Council are in the process of consulting on a proposed development of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. This would be closer to the JLR than any of the Warwick District developments in terms of homes for JLR employees.
Why have WDC and SDC not communicated about their development plans when they are so close? As a Bishops Tachbrook resident we will also be affected by the SDC plans as any commuters and/or visitors to Warwick and Leamington from the new developments will increase the traffic and associated problems, noise/ air pollination etc.

The visual impact on the view from Bishops Tachbrook, Harbury Lane, Tachbrook Valley, Gallows Hill will be hugely significant for existing residents but also visitors to the area. No amount of 'country park' can make up for the loss of beautiful countryside and open fields which would be lost to thousands of homes and the associated environmental impacts such as noise and light (from houses, cars and street lighting). The planning inspector who reviewed the current plan in 2006 said that Woodside Farm should not be built on then or in the future. The WDC's own landscape consultant, Richard Morrish, said in the Landscape Area Statement (2009) referring to the land south of Gallows Hill "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development". The RDS goes against this recommendation, why?


The local infrastructure cannot support such a significant number of houses in one area. The Southern Site already has significant issues in terms of volume and flow of traffic. The RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements would alleviate any of the problems that would come with such a large development. No number of dual carriage ways will improve the flow of traffic through the 'pinch points' such as crossings of canals, rivers and railways and the RDS does not provide any realistically deliverable to solutions to these problems. There are major problems for traffic trying to get into Leamington on weekday mornings when the traffic backs up all the way onto the main carriage way on the M40. Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment shows traffic speeds of only 0-10 mph in large parts of Warwick. Any increase in traffic, never mind the exceptionally large numbers proposed in the RDS, will make this situation worse. Rather than increasing trade in the town centre it is likely that people would be put off visiting the shops because of the volume of traffic. This view was supported by the Chairperson of the Warwick Chamber of Trade, who echoed this point at the public meeting I attended.

A lot can be learnt from previous developments in terms of the volume of traffics. The Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow developments prove that the people who move onto these developments will use their car to commute to/from work and to/from shops and town centres. The bus services serving these developments are not self funding and rely on subsidies to run. It would be naive and idealistic to think that this would be any different on new developments. Most houses have more than one car and most people will drive to work. The location of the Southern Site development would require most residents to commute to work.
A lot can also be learnt about sites identified on plans for facilities such as schools and play areas which are not followed through. The Warwick Gates plans contained a site for a school which was never built. This subsequently but huge pressure on surrounding schools and thee is still and annual scrabble for places amongst the Warwick Gates residents who have a nervous wait to see if their child will get their preferred option. Therefore I have no faith that if the proposed plans go ahead the schools will come to fruition. Similarly, the Chase Meadow development had a playground site on the plans and again this was not built. Also many of the properties on both of these developments are rented out and therefore not lived in by the people who bought them.

One of my main concerns is the health implications. I have read the Local Air Quality Progress Report (2011) and the areas already identified in this report as 'Air Quality Management Areas' will be affected by an increase in traffic volume as a result of the proposed developments. As the Air Quality is covered by the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (amended 2002) and the Environment Act 1995 as well as various other legislation I cannot understand why a full Health Impact Survey has not been commissioned. How does WDC know that the proposed developments will not take air pollution levels above the legal limits. It is not acceptable to just go ahead and worry retrospectively when we are talking about serious health implications. Many schools, nurseries and parks are in the vicinity of the Southern Site and the Heath of the children who use these facilities could be at risk if this goes ahead without a full assembly of the potential impact of such a large development. I seriously worry about the effect on my children's health and other children in the area. In my opinion this should take priority over everything else and I am extremely disappointed that WDC are not giving due consideration to this aspect of the impact on local residents.
In terms of Bishops Tachbrook, the village is already a cut through for many vehicles on their way to/ from the M40. When I walk my dog in the morning there is a disproportionate amount of traffic travelling through the main roads in the village, in comparison to the number of residents. Speeding along these roads has always been an issue and the speed reduction measures are ineffective. Mallory road leading to the Banbury road is also prone to flooding and has sometimes been impassable. There have been no improvements made to the road systems or pavements since the development of Warwick Gates and I see no acknowledgement of this need in the RDS. This is yet another example of WDC failing to recognise and consider the wide reaching impact of large scale housing developments on existing infrastructures. If the proposed develop goes ahead it will increase the volume of traffic through Bishops Tachbrook and that will increase the risk to residents of Bishops Tachbrook as there are no proposed improvements.

The housing proposed for village settlements has categorised Bishops Tachbrook as the largest type (100-150 homes). The Bishops Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a need for only 14 homes. Again, where is the evidence to support the need for 100-150 homes? Why would this many houses be needed in the village when 3400 homes are proposed for the Southern Site development? With regards to the visual, environmental and infrastructure issues I echo what I have said in the above paragraphs.

Why are we insistently building on prime agricultural land? Surely this land is needed to feed the ever growing population of the country or we will become more reliant on importing food and pushing prices up even further. Obviously the developers prefer this option as it's easier and means more profit for them.

I have read the criteria for the sites for Gypsy and Travellers from the consultation document. I do not think that the proposed sites are distributed evenly around the district and again the south contains a disproportionate number. All of the above points I have raised would also apply to the development of a Gypsy and Traveller site in this area.
In terms of the relevant criteria I do not consider the following sites to be suitable:
Site 3: this site is very remote and does not have easy access to facilities, access, pedestrian access and is prone to flooding.
Site 4: as above.
Site 5: The access is onto a very busy road and there is no pedestrian access. There would be a visual impact on the approach to Warwick and there is a listed building on the site. There would be undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services of such a small village.
Site 6: has no pedestrian access and is very remote in relation to distance from main centres and services.
Site 9: there would be a visual impact on the approach into Warwick and there are listed buildings on the site. The access is onto a busy road and there is no pedestrian access.
Site 10: Too close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
Site 15: This site is located on the banks of the Tachbrook. As the proposed site may be used as a place of work there could be a risk of contamination.

The school in Bishops Tachbrook has one class of approximately 30 children per intake. A GT site of 5,10 or 15 could be home to 10, 20 or 30 children. As Bishops Tachbrook is a small school already at capacity is could not support the needs of the site. There are other schools in the district that are not at capacity that could support the need.

The sites around Bishops Tachbrook are too remote to support the development and the village and its facilities are not big enough to support such an increase in population, in terms of infrastructure and facilities.

I am also concerned about the negative impact these sites will have on local house prices and increases in house and car insurance. Statistics show a rise in crime rates.

I understand the requirement for WDC to provide 31 pitches but I strongly feel that a larger number of smaller sites evenly distributed across the district in areas where the existing facilities can accommodate the need is the most appropriate way to meet the requirements.

RESPONSE TO REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY - LOCAL PLAN & SITES FOR GYSPIES AND TRAVELLERS
I have read the draft plan for the District and attended public meetings in connection with this and have severe concern about this revised plan. Whereas I appreciate the need for additional housing within the area including the provision of sites for Gypsies & Travellers, I contest that the scale, location and impact on the local community are totally inappropriate and not sustainable.
In more detail:
o SCALE - the housing numbers are excessively high, the RDS proposes 12000 new houses by 2030 whereas the local need is for fewer than 6000. Projections, based from the last 2011 census, by Ray Bullen (Parish cllr. Bishop's Tachbrook) show only a need for 5400, and the WDC own consultants (G. L. Hearn) for the Economic and Demographic Forecast Survey of December 2012 estimated only 4405.
For Bishops Tachbrook, the housing needs survey produced for the Parish Plans of 2010 showed a requirement for roughly 14 homes however the RDS proposes a 10-fold increase for up to 150 houses. I object to the RSD figure of 150 houses and think that 20 - 30 would be more appropriate.

o LOCATION - From the last Core Strategy survey of 2010, local residents gave a very strong response that large development south of Leamington & Warwick was not acceptable. The concentration of many 1000's of new houses in this area would cause immense pressure on the road infrastructure and lead to high levels of pollution and congestion. Distributed development over many sites and with a lesser number of houses is preferable.
The crossing points from this area to the town centres of Leamington & Warwick are limited to only 4 and whatever infrastructure improvement that are planned, these bottle-necks will persist and worsen hugely. The WDC's Strategy Transport Phase 3 Assessment (Appendix E) shows traffic speeds of 0 - 10 mph in large parts of Warwick.
Development south of the towns uses prime agricultural land currently in crop production. The transfer of this use to housing development in certainly not in the line with future needs to preserve UK food production for the future. The development would have a huge visual impact and diminish the landscape south of Harbury Lane and Gallows's Hill - in contrast to the WDC's Landscape Statement of 2009 by Richard Morris "... this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development..." .
Though the area of land south of the towns is not Greenbelt, it is not obvious why it was not designated such, and I feel that development in this area will inevitably lead to more urban sprawl to include the village of Bishop's Tachbrook.
o SUSTAINABILITY - As was evidenced by the Warwick Gates' development, new houses in excess of the local need will generate migration from larger and distant conurbations such as Birmingham, Coventry, Oxford and even London. This will produce pollution and congestion from long distant commuting either by road or train.
The population growth resulting from the plan would also put great pressure on hospitals and schools, but the RDS does not contain any evidence to show that proposed infrastructure improvements in these areas can be delivered from Developer contributions.
o GYPSY & TRAVELLER SITES - I object to the proposed sites at location 5, 10 and 15, they would put increased demand for primary school places at Bishops Tachbrook which is at capacity numbers already. And all these sites are on major and busy roads and would not present safe access.
In conclusion, I see the proposed Local Plan as a blueprint to make the towns and villages south of the Leam into one large urban sprawl. The consequent increase in congestion, pollution and pressure on services would be to the detriment both to the residents south of Leamington and Warwick and to the future of the towns themselves.
I ask that WDC takes serious concern of the views of the local residents and prepare a revised plan that has genuine democratic legitimately. As it now stands, I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed Local Plan.

see attached