RDS1: The Council is adopting an Interim Level of Growth of 12,300 homes between 2011 and 2029

5.1.4 student accommodation could form part of the solution by bringing back housing currently occupied by students into the housing market. Why is this not being considered?

If this is not the correct channel through which to do this then please let me know.

I have 3 main objections to the plan for the following area (which I will detail later)

1) The assumption of the need for growth
2) The disproportionate new development to the south of Leamington and Whitnash
3) Particular objections to the development East of Whitnash

1) The assumption for the need for growth should be challenged by those within the authority because
a) There are areas of the UK (Including parts of the West Midlands) where proposed new employment and associated housing could be easily facilitated on brown field sites giving a positive impact on neglected communities and infrastructure. These sites may well prove less profitable for developers - but private company profits must not come first
b) Students Housing - A considerable and increasing number of houses in Leamington have been converted into student accommodation. If student accommodation was built nearer to transport hubs (or indeed the university) these houses could be converted back into normal residential use. The district should consider stopping all future conversions of housing into student housing if it genuinely believes all of the proposed homes are actually needed by local communities
c) Shops - with the rapid rise of internet shopping the conversion of shops on the fringe of the town centre into residential use should be considered as a step towards solving the perceived housing issue
2) The disproportionate new development to the south of Leamington and Whitnash
The character of the Whitnash area has already been greatly scarred with the development of Warwick Gates, Dobson Lane, recent Chesterton Heights/Sydenham encroachment on the countryside and extension of the South Farm development. It is time that other areas of district share in the development (if indeed it is truly necessary).
May be we should wait until the HS2 decision is finalised and place housing in the areas close to the line which those to the north of the town seemingly consider will be blighted beyond use anyway.
3) Particular objections to the development East of Whitnash
a) This development is a typical 'Sprawl' brought about purely by the fact that a developer is already in ownership of the land.
b) The development of Warwick Gates has already led to issues surrounding the shortage of primary school places in the local area. These new houses will be even closer to Briar Hill and St Margaret's Primary so there will be even more parents chasing few places.
c) Some of the fields in question are often subject to flooding. Any work to reduce their flooding risk could lead to increased risk elsewhere.

I OBJECT to the proposed Local Plan on the following basis:
1) To propose that approximately half the total news homes in the plan should be built off
Europa Way and Gallows Hill is simply incomprehensible. No realistic plan would
concentrate so much green field development in a single area of Warwick.
2) The identified need for 6,630 dwellings in the plan period is highly spurious - based on the
premise that the more homes provided, the more people want to move to Warwick. How
does that stack up with road building ‐ the more road space provided, the more traffic is
generated and the original problem is back again.
3) Suggesting that homes cannot be built on the greenbelt is not satisfactory. Not even a child
studying basic geography would draw urbanisation in one area of a city. If the greenbelt is a
no go area (which I don't believe it is) then the number of dwellings in the plan should be
reduced. The greenbelt is an arbitrary line and the A46 goes right through it. The A46 would
provide plenty of existing infrastructure to accommodate new development adjacent to
existing interchanges.
4) WDC squandered the Ford foundry site, a real brown field that could have accommodated
250 dwellings when Morrisons was approved. This site really did meet the requirement for
sustainable development with a rail station 250m away and walking distance to Leamington
town centre. Furthermore, WDC has allowed increased density of the existing south west
Warwick development after outline permissions were granted - what is to stop developers
and WDC agreeing the same for locations proposed off Gallows Hill and Europa Way? The
track record of WDC is poor.
5) I have reviewed the transport assessment accompanying the plan and it appears to simply
involve modifications to existing roads, trying to get more cars per hour over existing
tarmac. No town in mainland Europe the size of Warwick would allow future development
to put such additional pressure on a mediaeval town road network. The town does not even
have a by‐pass since the M40 was built. Adding signals and widening approaches to every
junction and roundabout on the A425, B4100 and A425 is like building an elevated
motorway in the 1970's. It is wishful thinking to assume the new developments will not be
car dependant and traffic will not make Warwick town centre worse.
The development allocation for the south of Warwick town should be reduced by 2/3rds. Why
doesn't the plan include something useful like another fuel filling station in the area? The fuel
station at Sainsbury's is the 2nd busiest in the country (2nd only to a site with more pumps). This is
the most prevalent fact summarising the impact of development over the last 25 years in south
Warwick - the town simply can't take any more development due to physical constraints.

OVER-POPULATION AND FOOD SECURITY ARE THE REAL ISSUES.

May I make some serious comments on the Local Plan and on recent planning applications. I belong to no political party, nor could I be classed as a "nimby". I am a father who cares deeply for his country and its future.
POPULATION. In recent decades, governments ( and politicians) have failed the British people and the country. Crucial to any housing strategy
is a population strategy. This is, and has been, sadly lacking. The security, and the economic and social well-being of our country is now under threat
from over-population. Our imports of food, fuel, raw materials and other goods far exceed our exports. Our water and energy supplies are barely
able to meet present demand. We cannot meet our targets on carbon emissions, land-fill sites are at a premium and at peak times there is traffic
chaos on our roads. More and more houses is not the answer to these problems. At local level, I would recognise that there is some demand for
housing, and in particular, both social and affordable housing. However, the demand for so many houses in the area has been exaggerated.
FOOD SECURITY. Food security is important to us all and because of population growth it will become increasingly a problem for everyone. The
National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF ), prepared by a panel of members mainly from the property, building and construction industries and at
the request of the main party of Government which has received millions of pounds in donations from such industries, conveniently fails to highlight
or mention the need for food security. Yet one of the main functions of Government is to provide security.
Land on this planet is finite. Large areas are experiencing water stress. Other areas are experiencing climate changes where floods, storms, heatwaves
and draughts are becoming more common and disasterous. The North American grain harvest was badly hit last year. With global grain reserves so low,
another poor harvest would have serious consequences for the worlds food markets. In previously under-developed countries, diets and eating habits
are changing. No longer are these peoples satisfied with with their old, traditional diets. They will demand meat and other food products which will create other problems along the food supply chain. Closer to home, because of the horse meat scandal we have seen an increase in the demand for British
beef. Also. because of the unseasonal weather this year, our crop yields could well be below average.
It is against this briefly painted back-drop that the NPPF fails to recognise the importance of food security. At the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework sets out 3 dimensions to sustainable development ;-1) an economic role.
2) a social role. 3) an environmental role. BUT, included in these dimensions, and with priority, should be 4) a security role.
Our farmland provides us with food security. On such an issue, there is no place for self-interest ( job protection ), nor bullying ( aggressive
Government tactics ), nor bribery ( developers' sweeteners ). Politicians, planners, inspectors, developers and everyone else have a duty and a
responsibility to protect our farmland for present and future generations. It is our children's and grandchildren's heritage.
EUROPEAN UNION. The present Government has promised the country a referendum on EU membership. The latest opinion polls show a slight
majority in favour of leaving the EU. Should this be the case, then the Common Agricultural Policy would become non-applicable to the UK. A consequence of this could be an urgent need to grow and develop our farming, market-gardening and horticultural industries. At this uncertain time
we need to protect and maintain all our available farmland.
LOCAL OBSERVATIONS. In recent years, here in Warwickshire, we have lost much farmland to infra-structure, e.g. M40 and M42. We will lose more good farmland with the construction of the new HS2 rail line. The cumulative affect of this land loss has to be recognised, as does the District's good past record in house building.
In our own Council area we have two significant agricultural institutions. At Stoneleigh we have the National Agricultural Centre. At Warwickshire
College with its Centre at Moreton Morrell we have one of the finest agricultural teaching establishments in the country. What message would be sending out to these institutions if their very own local Council, or Planning Inspector, approved plans to concrete over large areas of prime agricultural land ?
CONCLUSION. In planning applications recently submitted it states;- " The need for this development proposal and the benefits of it outweighs the loss
of the agricultural land." To me, nothing could be further from the truth. I reject the statement, just as I reject the Local Plan, for all those reasons outlined above. Our farmland provides us with food security and never, never, must that be compromised.

I would like to comment on the local plan,i do realise that more housing is needed the number being suggested however is unbelievable,as a bishops tachbrook resident i attended a meeting recently and when a representative was asked how the roads can possibly cope with such a huge influx of traffic we were assured a study had been done and indeed the roads could cope if improvements are made.Making the the Greys Mallory island larger and making Europa Way into a dual carriage way will help trafic along but it is still all going to finish up at the Ford island where it will back up for miles [has anyone seen the traffic backing up down the slip road to the motor way?]I suspect this is of little interest as the housing cannot possibly be just for "locals"[money for greedy developers]so it wil be for commuters going in the opposite direction ie.towards the motorway.I doubt whther this area would be anywhere near as attractive for development if it was not for the motorway,add to all this the already poor air quality being polluted even more our only hospital bursting at the seams ditto doctors surgeries where are the sick going to go?People live in villages because they want to live in smaller community and avery fine one we have here,we therefore do not want to be joined up to some sprawling suburb.there is something else that seems puzzling why is that it was origionally thought we needed 15 more houses in tachbrook and now it is
100 when there will be hundrds built little more than a mile down the road.to add insult to injury we also learn we are to take the lions share of the traveller sights around here[people are already worring about losing thousands on the value of their homes]it is a shame we cannot decamp to the north end of the town!it appears to be the favoured end.People here are very annoyed that they have been ignored when their way of life could be changed forever.


i am sorry that i ommited my name on my previous e mail however after attending the recent meeting i can only say that my concerns are jutified.There is no possible way that the local roads will cope with the huge influx of traffic,widening and improving will not stop the bottle neck at the fords island,this is not housing for local people we were told 50%is for migration 40% is for afordable housing isuspect few of the people allocated social will be from any where near leamington or warwick they will be people from coventry or birmingham and their councils either cannot or do not wish to house them,the bulk of the rest will probably go to immigrants.tachbrook has always had a wonderful community feel many people have lived here all their lives and enjoy a "village" life this will all end when we are all joined together in the suburban sprawl that is about to come thanks to the parks that will join us all up.I cannot understand the need for 100 new houses in the village when there are thousands being built a mile down the road!even people with family in the village cannot mind travelling that short distance.one of the proposed sites is behind holt ave the field next to it is one of those suggested for travellers!
do the council really believe people wil buy a house next to a travellers sight?
local people feel absolutely impotent-we all know that no matter how much we complain our way of life and peace of mind is about to be destroyed forever; surrounded by housing and land bought up by travellers who pay nothing whatsoever into the system and get everything out for free,the local school will have to keep several places free for their children (the ones they say do not exist)keeping local children out.All in all it is a very depressing future for people who have worked hard all their lives to see the fruit of their toil lose thousands off its worth and live in a very less pleasant and safe place.

A.C.Lloyd Homes Ltd wish to support the Interim Level of Growth of 12,300 homes between 2011-2029. It is considered that this level of growth is based on a robust understanding of housing growth in the area from a number of sources including ONS population projections, the District Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)and the Economic and Demographic Forecast Study. It is understood that this figure may be revised pending the findings of the Joint SHMA, with the neighbouring authorities of Coventry City, Rugby Borough and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Councils.

The perceived number of houses required is still lacking in evidence. The fact that the number of houses has jumped from 10,800 to 12,200 between strategy plan 1 and 2 shows that uncertainty. If the number of houses in fact reverts back to anywhere near the original number our villages and particularly green belt land around precious villages could be saved. Further work on this is needed in conjunction with other districts. These houses are in addition to huge growth in the area over the past few years and there are reports in circulation suggesting that the current number required is excessive. We need to be careful to build for local need and not to enable other communities to displace into Warwickshire BECAUSE we have built houses. That would be a never ending cycle of growth and the degradation of Warwickshire as areas of green belt are used to accommodate such growth.

The level of housing growth is strongly linked to the growth in employment. Some forecasters are now saying that the country will not see significant growth until 2020. Therefore I suggest that forecasts should now be revisited and the figure of 12,300 new homes should be revised down accordingly. Point 3.5inthee Strategic Revision says that development should be distributed across the District. Map 1 clearly show this NOT to be the case with the burden [that's what it will be] falls on the south.

Revised Development Strategy.
The increase in housing estimates from 10,800 to 12,300 is excessive and needs to be challenged. A knowledgeable source has put the figure at 5,400. It is important to have the estimate done accurately taking into account the estimates of adjoining District Councils since so much of the Plan is based on this estimate.
Given the estimate is nearer the 5,400 estimate, there will be no need to consider additional homes in villages and thereby protect the Green Belt.
In the case of Hampton Magna there is a proposed increase of 100-150 homes. This will mean an increase in the population of some 300 people. The existing amenities and infrastructure could not absorb this increase. Budbrooke School is already at capacity; the single road through it and Hampton-on-the-Hill is used as a "rat run" by speeding traffic to Warwick Parkway railway station and the M40. It is essential to preserve the rural character of both villages and they should be removed from any further consideration in the Plan.
Sites for Gypsies & Travellers.
From having no sites available in the 2012 Plan, there are now twenty. The selection of sites appears haphazard and unrealistic. Kites Nest Lane (GT13)is the subject of an Inquiry the outcome of which will not be known till October 2013. Land near J15 M40/A46 (GT20) was offered to the WDC for Gypsies before Morrisons returned it to farming use. It was refused on the grounds that it was too far from essential amenities. That being the case how can it now be considered in the Plan?
Since there is to be a development for many thousand homes, consideration should be given to accommodating Gypsies & Travellers within those communities where the amenities they require will be at hand.

There is still uncertainty over housing requirement increasing by 1400 houses since the last plan. The area has already seen extensive growth over the last few years and the area will become a sponge in that we have a desirable area to live in and the more houses you build the more people will come here. Real local need is the most important aspect. When does the cycle of growth stop?

The perceived number of houses required is still lacking in evidence. The fact that the number of houses has jumped from 10,800 to 12,200 between strategy plan 1 and 2 shows that uncertainty.If the number of houses in fact reverts back to anywhere near the original number our villages and particularly green belt land around precious villages could be saved. Further work on this is needed in conjunction with other districts. These houses are in addition to huge growth in the area over the past few years and there are reports in circulation suggesting that the current number required is excessive. We need to be careful to build for local need and not to enable other communities to displace into Warwickshire BECAUSE we have built houses. That would be a never ending cycle of growth and the degradation of Warwickshire as areas of green belt are used to accommodate such growth.

We do not believe that the levels of growth meet the residents' wishes, aspirations or most importantly NEEDS - the proposal grossly exceeds the true requirement. Various proposals have come forward of the "emerging plan period" - including the eloquent proposal from Mr Ray Bullen - which measure the need at much lower levels. We believe that the need should be related to the organic growth which will come from the current population and number of houses - we have very low employment so extra employment opportunity is not actually needed. If we provide such extra employment opportunity we will need more people for those jobs and hence will drive an inward migration - and surprise, surprise will need more houses still. This is not what the electorate has asked for - it is artificial and is presumably politically driven - it should be reviewed and the numbers significantly reduced to meet real needs not fuelled growth.

The numbers are too high and over cautious in fear of criticism - whilst the JSHMA will be interesting and needs to be considered it should be used to ensure fairness between WDC and its neighbours rather than for us to become the repository of others unwanted numbers - consider others' assessment of numbers - eg Ray Bullen's projections - and meet local needs - only encouraging inwards migration of people and jobs where there is a strong indicator coming from industry/commerce that they need to move here.

12300 is much too high - other proposals (eg Ray Bullen) must be taken seriously. JSMHA will be interesting but must not be used to allow us to become the repository for numbers not wanted elsewhere.

This level is much too high - there have been several more realistic proposals put forward over the last year or so and they have clearly been ignored. You are relying on "studies" which lack credibility and would appear to be a defensive knee-jerk reaction. It is not long since WDC imposed an embargo on new development and development in villages was forbidden - and that was presumably based on "studies". I want a WDC that applies some real RIGOUR to this assessment and then delivers what its residents want and need - rather than pandering to a picky inspector!

Numbers much too high - this section contains far too many "could"s and "depending on"s - and whilst you appear to have taken a middleish line these all compound up to a massive inflation of the real requirement. Please revisit some of the studies - including that of Ray Bullen - and don't be so sure that a massive economic recovery is coming anytime soon - the plan is ONLY FOR FIFTEEN YEARS!

I dispute the need for 12,000 houses in Warwick District as independent sources indicate less than 6,000 required and ask what is in it for the council to build so many houses.

Such a massive development would turn the historic town of Warwick into an urban sprawl.

The already overstretched infrastructure cannot cope with what would be a massive increase in traffic, being out of town most people would have a car, working couples possibly two. The road bottlenecks at Castle Hill and the viaduct cannot cope with thousands of extra vehicles.

I dispute that no building can take part on the green belt to the north as the council have already allowed green belt land to to be included in the Gateway project.

I object to large areas of farmland being built on as this will have a serious impact on wildlife with the removal of hedges.

There also a serious risk of flooding in the Aragon Drive / Saumur Way area if the adjacent farmland is cleared.

Allowing traffic to access any new building behind Saumur Way will increase the risk to the many school children who use the cycle path that runs past the proposed development.

The council is being less than open about the developments as the plan calls for 12,000 homes but only 6,000 identified so far. With no building in the North of the district the other 6,000 can only be built in the South but WDC have been evasive when asked the question about this.

The Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research advises that ONS projections be used but the Council is deviating from this advice by not using the latest projections.
The Council should use the 2010 SNPP which shows an increase in sub-national population of 14% from 2011 to 2029. Population increase slows down after 2021. Assuming household sizes are unchanged at 2.35 this translates to 8254 houses. See attachment.

Warwick District already has an above average population density of 4.87 people/Ha compared to an England average of 4.07 people/Ha. This and the fact that 80% of the district is designated green-belt means there is less of a case for building in Warwick District than elsewhere in England.

There is demand for housing in Warwick District but there is also supply; the newspapers are full of adverts for housing for sale or rent each week. The relative supply of housing compared to the rest of England will influence house prices which will in turn adjust demand. This is the simple economics of supply and demand. If more houses are built prices will fall and more people will move into the district from outside. Conversely if houses are removed prices will rise and people will move away from the district. Therefore whatever projection is chosen becomes a self fulfilling prophesy in an liquid property market. Therefore there is no obligation on the Council to meet all demands for housing as people are able to chose whether to live in the district or elsewhere and therefore demand for housing and population growth should not be a factor.

Over development and negative effect on green land, green belt land resulting in urban sprawl. Negative effect on environment, landscape, quality of life, transport, utilities, services such as hospital, the fire service, schools and the police force. Increase in pollution.

The need for housing is clearly evidenced.

The interim level of growth selected by the Council is much higher than is wanted by the residents of Warwick District. In the original consultation in 2011 58% of the respondents were in favour of low growth. In the report on the Preferred Options consultation in 2012 97% of the respondents objected to the level of growth. The requirement for additional accommodation (if this exists) does not have to be satisfied by building new houses. There are many unoccupied houses in the District and many large houses in single occupancy because there is no suitable accommodation for the existing residents.

Your estimated figure of 12,300 homes needed is far too high. Projections based only on natural growth of population and allowing for migration only 5,400 homes are required ( Ray Bullen paper July 2012 updated in 2013 using 2011 census data). Also Warwick DC's own consultants G.L.Hearn made an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study in December2012 and in their option PROJ 5 stated only 4,405 new homes are required.Even half your estimate is more than either of these projections!

We do not accept that this level of housing is really necessary. The constantly changing number perceived as required has escalated 1400 in just a year. The uncertainty and time frame of the plan a long way hence leads means the level of housing needs reconsidering alongside other regions

The additional 12,000 homes and resultant increase in population is not sustainable for towns such as Warwick and Leamington. It is poorly conceived and cannot work. Despite the planned employment areas I do not believe there will be sufficient jobs to sustain so many abbitional residents. Likewise the infrastructure as planned even with the changes proposed will still be put under extreme pressure

The housing needs survey for Bishops Tachbrook Parish identified a need for only 14 homes. 10 affordable and 4 market homes. A mixed development of 25-30 homes would provide the 10 affordable needed. Therefore why are 100-150 being proposed when the is no requirement for them. What is the point of volunteers spending their time on various plans and surveys when the results are just ignored as irrelevant.

Object to assertion @ 4.1.6 that economic growth cannot happen without inward migration. The level of the local economy needs re-organisation and adjustment to changing technologies, but we do not need another 12,300 households here to make this happen.
Already many people commute into Warwick to work, and many more commute out to London, Europe and the wider world. New homes will contribute to this dormitory effect.

I understand that the Interim Level of Growth figure of 12,300 is based on ONS data. However, I am concerned that at this late stage of the process my understanding is that the figure is being challenged by a group of Parish Councils, and that it is also stated that the figure "may be revised pending the findings of the Joint SHMA and the resulting co-operation between the authorities". I would have more confidence in the figure if there were not these uncertainties. Of particular concern is whether the figure is likely to increase following the Joint SHMA.

In the original consultation in 2011, 58% of the respondents were in favour of low growth. In the report on the Preferred Options consultation in 2012, 97% of the respondents objected to the level of growth. Localism is a fine ideal - but it remains just an ideal and is not being practised. This level of growth is not wanted, is not sustainable and must be reduced.

In the original consultation in 2011, 58% of the respondents were in favour of low growth. In the report on the Preferred Options consultation in 2012, 97% of the respondents objected to the level of growth. Localism is a fine ideal - but it remains just an ideal and is not being practised. This level of growth is not wanted, is not sustainable and must be reduced.

The proposal is much too high and is catering for more growth than this area NEEDS or can accommodate. I understand that various lower proposals have come forward at levels similar to those which the public supported in the 2011 consultation - these should be seriously re-considered.