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

see attached

Dear Sirs

Revised Development Strategy Response

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.


Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624455 / 07767 767565
Email: amanda.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
Ethinic origin: White British
Age: 45 - 54
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper


Part B

Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.

In response to: Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick & Whitnash. Map 3, pages 32 & 32.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposed development of approximately 3,500 houses in this area. The key reasons for objection are:

The volume and number of properties is disproportionate to the local road infrastructure in and around Leamington and Warwick. There is no evidence to support the sustainability of road junctions and traffic hours in the local area without severe congestion and impact on the public transport system.

The new proposals make no provision for allocation of Gypsy and Traveller sites into these developments. Any new housing area should seek to include ALL Gypsy and Traveller sites into those new developments so that they offer better quality of environment, local services and integration into community. Such schemes have been




successfully implemented near Watford and Milton Keynes areas. This would ensure better forward planning of proposed G&T sites with land developers rather than splitting G&T sites up and around the county.

There is little evidence to support the production of the total overall requirement of over 12,000 houses in the overall Local Plan.

I am a concerned local resident who is worried about the future of Warwick and the surrounding area. Although I do appreciate that there is a need for a plan for the future and there is no option of doing nothing the current proposed plan sighting the majority of development in one area does appear to be flawed.

It is projected that the housing needs to 2029 should be 12,300 new homes; where the need to meet local requirements based upon previous expansion plans suggest that this figure should be 5,400.

There is a question mark over why are the houses proposed are nearly all on the south of Warwick when a large number of new residents will have to cross one of only the four river crossings every day to the north of Leamington. There are no proposals to improve these crossings and this can only cause bottlenecks. If half of the proposed developments were to the north of Leamington this would easy the problem and reduce congestion in Warwick. The land to the south of Warwick does need to protected as much as the land to the north of Leamington.
I am also concerned to hear that Warwick District Council has not consulted Stratford upon Avon District Council on its plan. It appears that Stratford are planning a village around Junction 12 on the M40 which again would add to transport problems in and around Warwick. Also with the proposed village are we in a position of double accounting for the number of homes that are required in the south. Has this been taken into account when estimating the Districts needs?
I strongly believe that the current plan is a developer's charter and it would be more logical to release land when there is a demand. There still needs to be a better balanced plan with building being allowed to be built in the north Leamington area.
I hope that public opinion is listened to and that the plan can be revised to meet the needs of the community and not that of the developers.

I would like to register an objection to the new local plan regarding the impact on Bishops Tachbook in particular.

The overall numbers seem unreasonable and the research we have read suggests that less than half the 12,300 homes are needed. In addition the concentration around the southern area of Warwick Gates and Gallows Hill will cause log jams on routes that are already at standstill at peak times. It can already take us 45 minutes to get to Warwick 4 miles away at rush hour. There is not the infrastructure in place to cope with this. The extra traffic will end up diverting through Oakley Wood Road which can be dangerous with only 1 crossing area in the whole village outside the leopard. With 3 young children this is a major concern.

The traffic management plans will not resolve the current problems around Tachbrook Park and Warwick Gates and Europa Way let alone accommodate significant increased residential and commercial traffic in these areas.

There are major cities with room for development around Coventry and Kenilworth where their will also be access to the HS2 rail line. Development should be concentrated in these areas where there is transport links to cope with the growth.

In addition the Chiltern Railways line is also crowded on peak trains, often standing room only to London, further developing this historic area will cause disruption, pollution and damage to the district.

The green belt seems to be used to disproportionately force development around a small area of the district however Bishops Tachbrook dates back to the Bronze Age and should be protected and preserved as much as any green belt village.

Dear sir I 'm writing to you about the plans to build thousands of homes on the boundaries of Whitnash, Warwick and Bishops Tachbrook.
There are major flaws in the projected housing need of 12500 figures, it is wrong to forecast up to 2029.
The proposals to commit to build over this number of years will span many future elections, this takes away my rights to show my disapproval through the ballet box as these decisions will be binding on future Warwick District Councils whatever their political bias.
These decisions being forced on us by a NIMBY biased north Conservative District Councillors is to my mind disgraceful.
No Houses to the north of the towns on green field sites is a farce they built North Leamington School on green field site, we propose to build HS2 on Green field land.
To reduce the need to travel, houses should be built near to employment, how are we going to attract employment to this area? The latest decision to build houses on land already earmarked for industrial use demonstrates that new jobs are not so easy to attract to this area.
Houses should be built close to future industrial sites like the Coventry Gateway project and the new and ever expanding Jaguar Land Rover plants at Gaydon.
Daw Mill Coalmine will never open again; this could be a major brown field development area for houses and Industry in the future.
The proposal by Stratford Upon Avon District Council to build near the Jaguar Land Rover plant at Gaydon is going to effect the WDC proposals, yet neither of these two councils have talked to each other, Warwick District go blindly on burying their heads in their proposals without the basic consultation between the two.
So many changes have taken place since the current set of statistics were compiled which were used to come up with the current proposals, that serious rethinks should take place by all, including National Government.
The current infrastructure cannot be improved to satisfy the influx of people and cars to the south of the river, improvement to incoming roads to Warwick and Leamington yes will improve the flow of traffic but will come to a stop at the river bridges and Morison's railway bridge.
How will increased traffic flow through Warwick which is already a bottle neck, the River Bridge and The Butts in Warwick?
The air quality in Warwick and Leamington is already causing concern; this set of proposals will only cause further deterioration to the air quality, resulting in major health risks to the population of inner town residents and workers.
The Woodside Farm proposed development has serious access flaws and is proposed without considering existing pedestrian crossings and future traffic flows in this area if the other proposed developments in the area go through. The proposal to build three story houses at the highest point is also ill planned.
Many houses in the district are currently single occupancy with older people struggling to pay bills in large houses, there is a need in each development for small two bedroom bungalows to give these people the opportunity to move and release these larger houses, or even parents moving to be close to siblings in new developments.
I could go on for another few pages but I hope you are getting the full picture of the concerns I and the local townspeople who I represent have to these proposed housing developments.

Dear Mr Elliott,

I would just like to concur with Mr Steeles thoughts regarding the distribution of any new housing.

The 2013 Local Plan that has so unfairly targeted the south of the district needs to be thoroughly re-thought out. In the same way that residents of North Leamington/Warwick objected to the 2012 Local Plan, so too now are the residents of South Leamington regarding the revised 2013 Plan.

It seems that Warwick District Council wants to try and dump large numbers of houses/developments wherever they can. Having been foiled in 2012, they changed the Plan to the next available area of land. If the 2013 Plan is similarly withdrawn, will the area to the west of Warwick, or East of Leamington towards Southam/Harbury be the next to be targeted?? Don't think that there would be no opposition if these areas were targeted.

This could rumble on and on - yet Mr Steeles alternative proposal makes good sense. The housing numbers required quoted by WDC are open to debate, and it is the opinion of many that these numbers have been very largely over estimated. I believe also that the WDC has failed to take into account the large number of derelict and empty properties around the district which should be returned to full use before any new houses are considered. There are also many private houses that are let to (transient) students in the district that could be brought back into use for people who wanted to live in them as their every day home.

Any residual housing numbers that are left after everything else has been taken into consideration could be evenly distributed around the district, in small developments that could benefit local builders (and hence the local economy) rather than national developers with no ultimate interest in the area, other than the next swathe of land they can get their hands on and bury beneath more bricks and concrete for their own profit!!!!!

Spreading the developments thinly will mean no need for vast changes to the road infrastructure, and no significant burden on existing services (such as schools etc) in comparison to what is currently proposed. The effects on each local area will also be minimal, and the character of the areas largely unchanged.

Warwick District covers a significantly large area that should be able to absorb this (including Green Belt areas), and a proposal such as Mr Steeles should not be dismissed, but should be actively considered and pursued. It would not destroy Warwick district - but the Local Plan as it stands in 2013, would do considerable long term damage to the areas south of Warwick and to Whitnash, and this must be avoided.

As the deadline for the end of the consultation period nears, I urge you to please take account of the views of your residents - the fact that both North and South Leamington/Warwick residents have objected so fiercely to the 2012 and 2013 Local Plans respectively, suggests that Warwick District Council is pursuing a policy that is out of touch with those same residents.

We have not simply objected, but have presented an alternative proposal that could satisfy your requirements, and spare us the destruction of large areas in our immediate locality. This could also save significant sums of money by drastically cutting the potential changes to the road networks, reduce the need to build other new infrastructure, and money saved could be used to improve existing infrastructure and services. As I said previously, contracts to build large numbers of small developments could be given to local building companies, which will further boost the local economy.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen McFadden,


----

Dear Mr Steele,

Thank you for your comments below. I shall ensure they go into the overall consultation analysis and be brought to the attention of Councillors.

I would add that a public inquiry is envisaged for the Local Plan as a mater of course.

Yours sincerely,


Chris Elliott
Chief Executive


---

Dear Mr Elliot,

I have just seen your reply to Anne Horsley regarding Green Belt Issues.
What you have said there, and in this reply to myself is unsatisfactory because it does not give a good reason for using or not using Green Belt in the two cases in question.
All we can see in your statements is that when it suits your argument you will allow use of Green Belt land or not.

You say you could not justify use of land in the Green Belt north of Leamington. Yet you can justify the draconian solution to site most of the housing south of Leamington. The fact that one is Green Belt and the other not is a moot point, and under the circumstance it should not have been given so much priority. What you have failed to take notice of is 'proportionality'. In the words of this extract from the Document 'Human Rights'.

<How does the Human Rights Act affect me? *
When it comes to decision making, the rights of one person often have to
be balanced against the rights of others or against the needs of the
broader community (there is more detail on this in Part 3). But if you
have to restrict somebody's rights, you must make sure that you are
not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Any restriction must be no
greater than is needed to achieve the objective. This is called 'proportionality'.> End of Extract

You are 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' by allocating most of the housing needs on the community south of Leamington and Warwick.
The good reason you could not find to use Green Belt land North of Leamington (and/or many other possible areas in my alternative plan suggestion) is to protect the Human Rights of the community who's lives are to be made hell. Accordingly you have failed to use 'proportionality'.
Accordingly the Human Rights of all individuals in the community will have been violated and restricted. It is the right to enjoy the benefits of living in a urban community of their choice,, free of stress and threat from the un-proportional amount of houses now being planned. This could and still should be avoided by applying a policy of proportioning the need to provide land for future housing needs over a larger area within the District. If this means violating the Green Belt Issue then so be it. It is after all only temporary as you have just illustrated with the Gateway project. (Again you have not given a good reason for ignoring the Green Belt rule).

A public enquiry seems inevitable. If WDC had included the alternative of spreading the housing in Green Belt it too would lead to a public enquiry. This should not be a reason against it.
A simple and logical reason would be to try and be fair to everyone in the District and expect them all to take their share of housing needs. The solution you have adopted is treating the South of Leamington as 'not being very important'. On the other hand it is favouring the north of Leamington for the sake of the Green Belt. We do not buy that reasoning.

Summarising the foregoing, If the housing requirements were allocated proportionally throughout the District you would be balancing the rights of those living in the Green Belt (i.e the right to never have any houses imposed in their locality or any other reason) against the awful consequences our community is now threatened with. You may not recognise the need to be fair in applying Planning rules. However there is the morality of what you are doing. What is most important, Care for the community or applying rules?

Ray Steele C. Eng., M.I.Mech.E.


---

Dear Mr Steele,

Again I understand your logic. However, the National Planning Policy Framework does give protection to Green Belt land and does say that land which is non green belt should be developed first in preference. The difficulty we therefore have is that we tried to demonstrate special reasons to develop land north of Leamington but could not justify it.

We are making some green belt releases around Kenilworth because there is where else is available to provide more housing for that town. The same is true for a number of villages.

I have discussed the Local Plan with Chris White MP. Whilst I understand the concerns raised the Local Plan is hardly dictatorship. It is a policy process that sees seeks to resolve how we use a precious resource, land, for a range of purposes. Inevitably there are arguments over how we do this, that is what is called democracy.

Yours sincerely,


Chris Elliott
Chief Executive


---

PLANNING

Boles: Build on boring fields
Nick Boles, the Planning Minister, has said that developers should be allowed to build on fields if they are "boring". In a letter to Anna Soubry, the Health Minister, he said that people must be realistic about the need for more housing, which will mean building on "environmentally uninteresting" green spaces. Mrs Soubry had warned Eric Pickles' Communities Department that housing was being built on the Green Belt despite assurances from David Cameron that it will be protected. She described the situation as "intolerable" and said that planning inspectors were forcing local councils to accept more housing and build on Green Belt. Mrs Soubry wrote: "In short, assurances about localism and continuing protection for the Green Belt at ministerial level are flying in the face of advice from the inspectors leaving local authorities with no alternative but to agree to development on Green Belt land." Mr Boles, responding on behalf of Mr Pickles, said: "Given a 2m increase in our population over the last ten years and historic under-provision of housing we have to be realistic that not all the housing that we as a country need can be on brownfield land. In some places, this may mean building on low quality, environmentally uninteresting fields. In exceptional circumstances, it may involve a Green Belt review."
The Daily Telegraph, Page: 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Elliot,
The above was passed onto me today and interestingly it refers to the Green Belt.
With reference to my suggestion of spreading the housing needs over the whole of the District, this would need land attached to and around all of the 90 or so sites named by the village or hamlet. This is mostly Green Belt so those places are already in Green Belt land. The proposal would only require 4 or 5 houses to be built at each place. The great advantage is of course that these houses would only be built as needed. This is in stark contrast to the Local Plan that is totally committing and giving cart-blanch to developers to flood communities with houses that are not proven or even needed at this moment. Certainly not right now. It is irresponsible speculative building.

A point of notice. Ask any builder if he will build you a house. His answer may be "I will start tomorrow"! So where are all these people asking to have a house built? This is not an entirely frivolous remark.

I requested the other day that you discuss this with Chris White MP to talk about the pressure being placed on District Councils to provide a plan and the associated threat to override their planning objections. We cannot accept this threat as it is not democratic and amounts to dictatorship.

What I am saying is that the community expect to be protected from irresponsible development brought about by government pressure. It needs those in parliament to listen to the people and then form a balanced view.

Regards

Ray Steele


---

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

We have been advised to write to you regarding objections to the Revised Development Strategy Local Plan. Having studied documentation and attended meetings I wish to object to the overall plan to build the number of new homes suggested in Warwick district and in particular the 3420 planned in the south of Warwick (zone 6).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. 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 over recent years, 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.

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion being at Warwick Gates which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed.

By only building the amount of houses currently required for Warwick district this will discourage migration from other areas as has happened with past developments.

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 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, including up to 14,000 new jobs speculated 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.

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.

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. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

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 2-3000 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, the area of restraint, 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.

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.

I ask, is developing the ASR a sustainable development? "Much rubbish is talked about sustainability, usually by developers. It does not mean that estates are built near to a bus stop or a primary school or a doctor's surgery; this is just moderately intelligent planning. To get to the correct definition it is necessary to go back to the source of the concept of sustainability which was the United Nations commission chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1980s. This said that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; in more simple terms it means that we should not destroy something which future generations would find valuable." (www.stortfordcf.org.uk)

Surely if all this land is built on to the south there will be nowhere that the future generations can use in Warwick for recreation other than St Nicholas Park. If the land was made into recreational use, as it was designated to be, that would serve not only our generation but those of the future too.

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.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 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 remained 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 and particularly page 17:

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

It was pointed out at a public meeting in 2009 that part of this area may not be needed for development in the future but we learnt at the recent Warwick Forum that 2,000 homes planned for Milverton had been transferred to zone 6, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly the area of restraint.

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 proposed site at zone 6.

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, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into 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.




Warwick 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.

Stratford District have now put this area forward as part of their Local Plan. Can District Councils not communicate with each other? To have this large area developed as well as the south of Warwick District will create even more stress on the road structure towards Warwick.

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 Local Plan?

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. I 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 reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, 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.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. 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.

According to http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=15&chapter=4 the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026 will be

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. 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, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with

low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"

If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, it will be far from that.

The Core Strategy also pointed out that the development should be directed towards the south of the urban area and this has been carried forward into the Local Plan apparently to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry. What this is in fact doing is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

If Green Belt land was taken to the north of Leamington and south of Kenilworth, to the east and west, to build the bulk of the houses required for Warwick District and included a supermarket for the residents of north Leamington, Lillington and Cubbington this would alleviate the need for them to travel to the south of Leamington or Warwick to shop and would not cause incursion into the West Midlands and Coventry or encroach on the current residents of those areas.

This Green Belt land could then be reclaimed to the south of Warwick and Whitnash and residents of the new dwellings would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Council to revise the whole plan taking into consideration the views of the residents of Warwick, not allowing any further planning applications to be passed on land within the Local Plan until it is fully agreed and finally to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

We have been advised to write to you regarding objections to the Revised Development Strategy Local Plan. Having studied documentation and attended meetings I wish to object to the overall plan to build the number of new homes suggested in Warwick district and in particular the 3420 planned in the south of Warwick (zone 6).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. 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 over recent years, 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.

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion being at Warwick Gates which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed.

By only building the amount of houses currently required for Warwick district this will discourage migration from other areas as has happened with past developments.

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 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, including up to 14,000 new jobs speculated 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.

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.

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. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

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 2-3000 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, the area of restraint, 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.

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.

I ask, is developing the ASR a sustainable development? "Much rubbish is talked about sustainability, usually by developers. It does not mean that estates are built near to a bus stop or a primary school or a doctor's surgery; this is just moderately intelligent planning. To get to the correct definition it is necessary to go back to the source of the concept of sustainability which was the United Nations commission chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1980s. This said that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; in more simple terms it means that we should not destroy something which future generations would find valuable." (www.stortfordcf.org.uk)

Surely if all this land is built on to the south there will be nowhere that the future generations can use in Warwick for recreation other than St Nicholas Park. If the land was made into recreational use, as it was designated to be, that would serve not only our generation but those of the future too.

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.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 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 remained 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 and particularly page 17:

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

It was pointed out at a public meeting in 2009 that part of this area may not be needed for development in the future but we learnt at the recent Warwick Forum that 2,000 homes planned for Milverton had been transferred to zone 6, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly the area of restraint.

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 proposed site at zone 6.

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, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into 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.




Warwick 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.

Stratford District have now put this area forward as part of their Local Plan. Can District Councils not communicate with each other? To have this large area developed as well as the south of Warwick District will create even more stress on the road structure towards Warwick.

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 Local Plan?

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. I 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 reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, 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.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. 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.

According to http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=15&chapter=4 the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026 will be

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. 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, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with

low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"

If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, it will be far from that.

The Core Strategy also pointed out that the development should be directed towards the south of the urban area and this has been carried forward into the Local Plan apparently to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry. What this is in fact doing is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

If Green Belt land was taken to the north of Leamington and south of Kenilworth, to the east and west, to build the bulk of the houses required for Warwick District and included a supermarket for the residents of north Leamington, Lillington and Cubbington this would alleviate the need for them to travel to the south of Leamington or Warwick to shop and would not cause incursion into the West Midlands and Coventry or encroach on the current residents of those areas.

This Green Belt land could then be reclaimed to the south of Warwick and Whitnash and residents of the new dwellings would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Councillors to join with your Conservative MP, Chris White, and ask for the Local Plan to be completely revised and also to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

Dear Mr Barber

LOCAL PLAN - REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Please take this as an objection to the Revised Development Strategy Local Plan.

Having studied documentation and attended meetings I wish to object to the overall plan to build the number of new homes suggested in Warwick district and in particular the 3420 planned in the south of Warwick (zone 6).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. 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.

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

By only building the amount of houses currently required for Warwick district this will discourage migration from other areas as has happened with past developments.

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 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, 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.
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.

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. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

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 2-3000 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, the area of restraint, 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.

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.

I ask, is developing the ASR a sustainable development? "Much rubbish is talked about sustainability, usually by developers. It does not mean that estates are built near to a bus stop or a primary school or a doctor's surgery; this is just moderately intelligent planning. To get to the correct definition it is necessary to go back to the source of the concept of sustainability which was the United Nations commission chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1980s. This said that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; in more simple terms it means that we should not destroy something which future generations would find valuable." (www.stortfordcf.org.uk)

Surely if all this land is built on to the south there will be nowhere that the future generations can use in Warwick for recreation other than St Nicholas Park. If the land was made into recreational use, as it was designated to be, that would serve not only our generation but those of the future too.

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.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 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 remained 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 and particularly page 17:

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

It was pointed out at a public meeting in 2009 that part of this area may not be needed for development in the future but we learnt at the recent Warwick Forum that 2,000 homes planned for Milverton had been transferred to zone 6, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly the area of restraint.

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 proposed site at zone 6.

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, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into 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.

Warwick 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.

Stratford District have now put this area forward as part of their Local Plan. Can District Councils not communicate with each other? To have this large area developed as well as the south of Warwick District will create even more stress on the road structure towards Warwick.

So what can be done to accommodate the Local Plan?

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. I 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 reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George, as well as an infill site on George Street itself) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, 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.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. 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.

According to http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=15&chapter=4 the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026 will be

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. 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, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"

If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, this vision will never be achieved.

The Core Strategy also pointed out that the development should be directed towards the south of the urban area and this has been carried forward into the Local Plan apparently to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry. What this is in fact doing is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

If Green Belt land was taken to the north of Leamington and south of Kenilworth to the east and west to build the bulk of the houses required for Warwick District and included a supermarket for the residents of north Leamington, Lillington and Cubbington this would alleviate the need for them to travel to the south of Leamington or Warwick to shop and would not cause incursion into the West Midlands and Coventry or encroach on the current residents of those areas.

This Green Belt land could then be reclaimed to the south of Warwick and Whitnash and residents would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Councillors to join with your Conservative MP, Chris White, and ask for the Local Plan to be completely revised and also to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

I am writing to object to several aspects of the current version of the Local Plan. The points set out below are not necessarily interdependent, but in the context of the south of Warwick and the impact on Warwick itself are additive.

The number of homes put forward is far too great. 12,300 is a drastic increase from the number in the previous draft / version of the plan. There is evidence in the paper from Ray Bullen Dipl Arch RIBA that 5,400 homes would satisfy the likely demand.

The location of the vast bulk of the homes south of Warwick is drastically unbalanced and inappropriate, and would have damaging effects on Warwick and also Leamington, for quality of life, traffic, pollution and tourism.

In respect of balance, the previous plan used land north of Leamington, albeit in the Green Belt. This should be reinstated; the location of the Green Belt many years ago is no longer appropriate, especially given the ridiculous situation that 80% of this district is designated as Green Belt. It is inappropriate both to expect the District to take a full District's worth of new housing and to attempt to cram the new housing into the remaining 20% of the District.

The location of the housing is also inappropriate. The new developments by Coventry Airport, as well as the economic centre of gravity north and northwest of Warwick will attract travel north from Warwick and Leamington, so putting homes south of those towns would generate traffic trying to go through them both, making both towns busier.

The concept that economic development near Gallows Hill and the increasingly inappropriately named "Science Park" will be attractive to businesses and provide employment for people in the new developments is not credible, and has already been disproved by District Planning officials and the Committee at the meeting on 23rd July. The justification for granting permission to Application W13/0607 to build houses on the land north of Harbury Lane was that there was not sufficient demand for the economic use which had been promised when Warwick Gates was built. People from that development already have to travel into and through Warwick (and Leamington) for work and other purposes, adding to the volume of traffic.

One gets the impression that the plan has put housing where developers want to build to maximise profit, not where it is best for the district.

The District Council's report by RMA consultants states re land south of Gallows Hill & The Asps that "The largest part of the study area is prominent in approaches to Warwick, is valuable in the setting of the town and provides the historic context for Castle Park. The recommendation remains that this area should be protected from development."

The concentration of houses south of Warwick would not only increase pressure on sewerage but also increase the risk of flooding. In the last two or three years since further development in the area a new occasional pond / lake has appeared in the field at bottom of Gallows Hill. The effect of replacing more earth with concrete and tarmac and of concentrating rainwater run-off could only to be exacerbate this situation and put the area at the bottom of the hill heading north into Warwick at greater risk of flooding.

The impact of increased travel in the plan, particularly motor but also other forms (albeit not adequately provided for), has been significantly understated. The modelling shown is just not credible. The current experience is much worse than shown in the misleading Ove Arup diagram, which covers future flows "AM" and shows an average of 40mph from the Asps. In the rush hours nowadays the traffic jam starts at The Asps and continue right down to the Warwick Bridge, along Europa way and the road to it from junction 14 of the M40.

The word "Mitigation" is an almost Orwellian misnomer. It does not do what it says - it just tempts traffic into Warwick and spoils the quality of life for those living near the new busy routes. Evidence for this is in the paper from Dennis Crips.

Not should also be taken of the probable increase in vehicle pollution in Warwick, which is already at illegal levels.

The increased volume of traffic and the traffic measures proposed to speed more traffic through Warwick would make the quality of life much worse for people living on or near the roads affected, and would lessen the attractiveness of Warwick as a destination for tourism, shopping and dining, damaging the economy of the town.

There are already massive traffic bottlenecks between Warwick and Leamington and the south - the bridges over the Avon; Warwick Bridge, Prince's Drive, and Leamington Town Bridge. They are already struggling with the volume of traffic from housing south of the towns, total overload if development happens. The Warwick Bridge is historically important, narrow, and increasingly busy. There are already frequent illegally heavy loads using the bridge; these would increase, and are already going to cause a serious problem when the bridge is damaged and will be out of action for a significant time.

The whole road system of Warwick and also Leamington becomes gridlocked now if there is any problem on either A46 or M40. The situation would be even worse with more traffic needing to use it.

Relief via Longbridge roundabout is unlikely. It is already jammed at busy times - rush hour and schools.

The plans show a lack of provision for pedestrians and other forms of transport - especially cycles. Removing pedestrian crossings on the Banbury road may speed traffic, but would increase accidents to pedestrians and schoolchildren.

Dear Sir/ Madam
Local Plan Revised Development Strategy proposed developments to the South of Warwick
Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the "New Local Plan" document dated May 2012.
The specific areas I object to are, the housing proposals on:
1) Land at Europa Way and Gallows Hill
And also:
2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
5) Land South of Harbury Lane
My objections are based on the following:
* Air pollution would suffer massively with the increase in traffic that would entail from the
development of the south side of Warwick etc. Currently the air pollution does not meet
European Directives so by adding 3000-4200 houses in this area I cannot see how this could
be improved in any way whatsoever, only that it would become much worse leaving the
residents of the area open to higher health risks associated with poor air quality. I believe that
this is now the responsibility of the Council to ensure that these directives are met (as it is on
the statute) so if Air Pollution was to increase as a result of the new developments I would
suggest they would open themselves for prosecution (possibly) for failing to ensure the health
of its residents or even endangering the health of its residents. Both My Daughter and my
mother suffer from Asthma, any increase in Air pollution would be detrimental to their health
prospects and it is on this point I strongly object.
* On the Understanding that we need further housing I can appreciate that the land the end of
Harbury Lane could be used. This would not lead to such infrastructure problems that people
would start to leave the area as they could not stand the hassles which is the complete
opposite of what is trying to be achieved (in creating a nice environment to live in) but any
further expansion could lead to the above.
* An additional 3000 houses on the south side of the town creates an imbalance to the area as
it would mean that with Warwick Gates and the proposed additions there would be around
4400 houses in that area with only 3 roads to get in to town? (Banbury road, Princes Drive
and Lower Avenue) Taking an average of 2 cars per family that would me there would be an
additional 6000 cars to add to the 2800 already in Warwick Gates. This is a wholly
Kenneth McEwan
8 Trinculo Grove
Warwick Gates
Warwick
CV34 6EG
unacceptable and unfeasible suggestion and myself would look at moving it already takes me
25 minutes some days to get from my house to the Coventry road in Warwick.
* Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education
performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton
Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this
development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport
links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.
* We think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District
Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of
open farmland and parklands".
* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With
both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we
fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need. Siting
the vast majority of the Housing does not help this problem and indeed exacerbates it.
* The huge increase in traffic arising from at least 8000 new cars in this area will result in
pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At
peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill,
Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are grid locked, your proposed development is
situated right along these roads, simply adding to the congestion already experienced. So far
you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest
that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete on the contrary the town
planners admitted that the current situation would not get any better in the future. Recent
studies that were conducted noted that nearly 75% of all traffic was pass through traffic i.e. did
not reside in Warwick add extra traffic and you have a recipe for disaster.
*
* We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel
elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.
As Stratford-upon Avon district council have released plans to build a new town /village of up to
4800 homes at Lighthorne Heath/ Ashorne Is there actually a need for such a huge new
development South of Warwick. Why did you not decide to create a brand new settlement within
the district (like Norton Lindsey) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the
road network are very easily accessible? A new town there would have fantastic access to Dual
carriage ways and the Motorway network, New schools could be planned including Secondary
Education as most schools are full already
I do believe that some housing maybe needed for organic growth within individual communities;
however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people not
imposed from the Government in a top-down approach as it is at the moment and certainly not to
the numbers you are suggesting. Local sources put the number of required houses at approx
5500 this could be achieved organically by Brownfield and Windfall site development released
over the required period
I feel that the New Local Plan is more of a Developers Charter than a logically thought out
Strategic Housing Development Plan
We urge you to rethink the development placements radically; to look again at regeneration
possibilities in the towns, to work with owners and developers on imaginative schemes to bring
forward brown field sites and possibly a new village/town in a rural position for housing
developments.
I look forward to your response

see attached

I am writing to raise some concerns over the Local Plan.

I realise that the planning officers have a particularly difficult job to do in making decisions about future building requirements & locations for housing. I broadly feel that the officers are doing the best they can with a difficult scenario and feel that the inflammatory language being used by many objectors is unhelpful. However, I would hope that careful thought is being given to the need for this AMOUNT of new housing. The literature I have received by a consortium of objectors states there is a need for fewer than 6000 new houses by 2030 & cites the fact that the council is proposing 12000! Do we really need that amount or could the area be kept a little smaller? I would also expect that due thought is going into the extra infrastructure needed alongside the housing to sustain the level of development?

With kind regards for difficult deliberations.

see attached

see attached

I object to latest local plan for published by WDC for the following reasons...
We need a plan which accurately reflects the population growth and demand within the district taking into account the latest data from the `Office of National Statistics`. I believe that the current plan massively overstates the demand.
The situation has been made worse in South Leamington and Whitnash by the `immigration` of students from Warwick University.......which is 10-15 miles away, dependent on route - and in Coventry! Many `low-cost` properties suitable for `first time buyers` have been taken up by students (including new build).
Whitnash also currently takes a higher level of Immigration compared to other areas.
The healthcare and education provision is already virtually to capacity.
Transport - at times the roads in this area are exceedingly busy and hazardous around schools especially. If the schools are extended any further then the roads will be impassable at certain times of the day especially Golf Lane, Coppice Road and Morris Drive around Briar Hill and St. Margaret`s schools. The potential developer of the Fieldgate Lane area admitted that their traffic survey failed to measure the traffic at the peak time of day i.e when parents are all arriving to collect their children at the same time - around 3pm.
The plan shows an focus on the area south of the river. The `green belt` argument used to limit development to the north of Leamington is artificial. `Green belt` status is man-made, created some years ago to meet the needs of the time and should be varied when circumstances change. A more even and fair distribution across the district is needed.
There is still much `brown field land` in the wider area e.g Baginton, Ryton and do we need another fuel filling station at the new Morrisons store.
I object specifically to the proposed development of the Fieldgate Lane / Golf Lane field for the following reasons:-
Drainage / potential flooding
We have evidence of the flood risk status of Fieldgate Lane which shows that we are within 250m of an area prone to flooding (zone 3).
The drainage channel in Fieldgate Lane connects directly to the Whitnash brook in the flood zone.
The normal flow in the Fieldgate Lane drainage channel is negligible but several times a year at times of heavy rainfall the water level reaches within a few centimetres of overflowing the channel. On several occasions water has come over the top, flowed along Fieldgate Lane, down driveways and has reached as far as garage doors.
The slope of the field and loss of the water soakaway due to development must result in additional water in the drainage channel at peak times.
I have already had house insurance declined by one company on the grounds of flood risk.
We also have the situation several times during a normal winter when the ground is waterlogged to the point where we can have several centimetres of water standing across our gardens and this can take a considerable time to drain away. Fieldgate Lane also often floods with running rain water to part way up the kerbs for short periods during heavy rain. These are actual events seen by local residents.
Currently the field regularly floods in the north-west corner and along its north edge several times a year during heavy rain. Development of roads and hard standing on this sloping site will inevitably result in more runoff towards the Fieldgate Lane drainage channel and will make the current situation much worse.
Traffic hazards
The entrance to Golf Lane from Heathcote Road has long been considered a hazard and, I believe, has formerly been the prime reason for not allowing further development. The main issues are :-
... this part of Golf Lane is on a steep slope and is relatively narrow.
....visibility to the right is restricted when exiting Golf Lane.
....the junction with Home Farm Crescent is at the bottom of the slope, on a bend and visibility is again restricted when turning right into Home Farm Crescent.
The junctions at Morris Drive/Golf Lane, Golf Club entrance/Golf Lane, Golf Lane/ Fieldgate Lane corner and Mullard Drive / Fieldgate Lane are all areas which residents consider hazardous. At all of these junctions the issues are the same in that many drivers come through them not expecting to meet other traffic. It is not just strangers who don`t know the roads, but local drivers who only expect traffic from a particular direction. I am aware of the hazards and usually drive through these junctions at around 15mph but regularly have near misses. Many local drivers ignore the road signs and markings and residents can quote daily incidents.
At school times the traffic situation in Coppice Road, Golf Lane and Morris Drive is hazardous and Police are regularly in attendance. Children already have significant difficulty in crossing the roads through parked and moving traffic. We are aware of at least 2 serious incidents outside the schools.
Traffic lights at Heathcote Road / Tachbrook road are already at capacity at certain times of the day with traffic often queuing back several hundred metres.
Traffic flows have recently been measured as part of a development application for the Fieldgate Lane field but this failed to measure the traffic at school closing time as it was not considered to be a busy time of day. In fact this is the most hazardous time of day and additional traffic from this proposed site will make it worse.
Schools
It is common knowledge locally that the local schools have been at capacity since the advent of Warwick Gates. There are regularly comments in the local newspapers about the issues. Additional housing locally will make the situation worse.
Ecology and wildlife
Bats - there are numerous bats of several species which feed around the local houses and over the Fieldgate Lane field every night during the summer months and sometimes at other times of the year. The roost sites are not known but are certainly local.
Birds - many species of birds use the hedgerows and field throughout the year. I have records of 47 species using the hedgerows and fields in Fieldgate Lane alone including Tawny Owls, Herons, Lapwing, Snipe, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Woodpeckers, Bullfinches,
Mammals - the field is used by deer, fox, hedgehogs (a declining species) and several species of small rodents.
Ridge and Furrow system - the field is a rare and disappearing example of the medieval ridge and furrow system of historic importance and should be preserved.
General
Formerly, the Fieldgate Lane site has been considered unsuitable because of the slope and its contribution to potential flooding. The slope of the field will also mean that the view from Fieldgate Lane will be of a succession of house ends and roofs increasing in height up the hill, particularly in winter.
The site is an `Area of Restraint` in the current local plan - for many of the reasons quoted.
A current planning application shows the access road immediately opposite our property in Fieldgate Lane This would result in major disruption to access to our property, parking and our way of life for several years. The slope of the land will mean that, at night, headlights will shine directly at our living room and bedroom windows.

see-attached

see attached

see-attached

I wish to object to the Revised Developement Strategy for the Local Plan, as it is would require a very substantial increase in car journeys, which is clearly neither desireable, nor sustainable.

RDS 1 I object to the assesment that 12300 houses are needed in WDC. I accept the need for more houses in our area, if they are to fulfil locally generated needs, not just to create suburbs that will encourage people to move in from other more established areas. A more realistic figure would be about 6500 homes. Much of them one or two bedroomed dwelling, for which there is the greatest need. There are already some 1150 permissions for housing granted by WDC, and the developers have not built more than about 200 per year at best.
Local Authorities have a duty to co-operate with each other in preparing their local plans, what consultation there has been between Coventry City, and Stratford District Councils(SDC) has not led to any agreement as to developements bordering on the boundaries of WDC.

Para5.5.9 Page 52 asseses that Coventry Gateway will become 'a significant creator' of employment. The transport links, already good, will be enhanced. A substantial number of dwellings should be built close by, both on the Coventry side and the WDC side.

Gaydon No mention is made of the current employment at Gaydon, and the projected growth there. Presumably because it is on the Stratford side of the boundary. SDC are planning to build a substantial number of houses, shops, schools etc , close to the Gaydon source of employment. This is an example of developement that wil be 'Sustainable' in the future, not needing long trips by car for work, shops schools etc. WDC should also site a large development near there, in order to make the 'New Town' more viable, and to help to reduce the considerable car traffic that it already causing severe congestion in the area.

Dear Sir/Madam


I write in support of the Revised Local Plan Strategy for Warwick District.

Having studied the internet documentation on the 2013 Revised Local Plan, and attended several Consultation Meetings, I consider that planners have addressed a very difficult task with objectivity and professionalism enabling significant changes which render the revised Local Plan, sound and fit for purpose.

The Revised Plan is evidence based on information supplied for the 2012 Local Plan, together with new evidence derived from assessments made subsequently.

The objective evidence obtained from the assessments and conclusions, is particularly welcome from independent studies based on the Landscape, the Employment Land Review and the 2012/13 updated Strategic Transport Assessment.

The Local Plan now complies with The National Planning Policy Framework. The Strategic Transport Assessment Review evidence, refutes on traffic grounds, any justification for building north of Leamington. It is accepted that there are no 'exceptional circumstances' for building on the Green Belt north of Leamington.

It is vital to preserve this limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth (which will suffer erosion from the proposed Thickthorne and Coventry Gateway developments). I consider it vital that merging with the West Midlands conurbation is avoided, indeed prevented to retain the essential identity of Kenilworth, Leamington and Warwick.

The Revised Development Strategy has removed the proposal to build 2000 houses on North Leamington Green Belt and through better use of existing brownfield sites, only 325 more houses are proposed on Greenfield (not Greenbelt Land) land to the south of the town.

The Revised Development Strategy, proposes that in keeping with the 2012 Plan, a substantial proportion of new development is located close to employment opportunities (south of Leamington and Warwick), thus reducing travel and avoidable exhaust pollution, whilst offering the benefits from acres of greenfield space before the nearest town to the South Banbury.

The traffic surveys show that road improvements will allow the network to cope with more development. The Revised Development Strategy provides both the finance and opportunity, for the essential road network improvement south of Leamington to take place. It will relieve the existing congestion and exhaust fumes whilst servicing the new development. However, it is important that these improvements are well-designed and carried out as part of the coordinated plan.

The Revised Development Strategy makes provision for schools and other infrastructure to support the new development.

I would urge the council to keep the number of houses to a minimum and not accept more. It looks as though the legal requirement to liaise with Coventry and other surrounding towns, does not extend to a legal requirement to agree to their developing land within Warwick District. Perhaps if necessary, Stratford would build houses for Coventry as I understand their proposed settlement site near Gaydon is larger than the present requirements.

The Revised Development strategy has a fair distribution of development throughout the district. The planners are to be congratulated on their success in achieving this, in view of the obvious difficulties faced when trying to plan meaningful development in established areas. Much of the development is in the south of the town, for good planning reasons, which are essential to secure a sound plan.

It is disappointing that a handful of vociferous Community Leaders, have made a less than constructive attack on the Local Plan in its Revised form at Consultation Meetings, and have found the Courier a ready outlet week after week for their adverse publicity. The reporting has been less than objective, and failed to present a balanced view. I trust the legitimate concerns of those living in the affected area can be addressed but more than this, I sincerely hope Planners and Councillors will not be bullied into bad decisions as a result of this.

In summary, planners are to be congratulated on the improvements they have achieved in the 2013 Revised Plan based on objectivity and sound evidence. It is sustainable, complies with the NPPF, is in the best interest of the community, businesses and significantly, the prosperity of the district. I trust that on this basis, Warwick District Council will adopt this Revised Local Plan.

Dear Sir,
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY:
CONSULTATION 14th JUNE TO 29th JULY 2013
We write in response to the consultation exercise for the Revised Development Strategy for
the emerging Warwick District Local Plan published on 14th June 2013 ("the Revised
Development Strategy"). Old Milverton and Blackdown Joint Parish Council ("the Parish
Council") make comments on this emerging strategy in order to help provide a vision for new
development and shape the District in an appropriate manner that delivers sustainable
development and accords with the national planning policy objectives.
The Parish Council recognises the enormity of the task that faces Warwick District Council
("the Council") in providing new growth whilst balancing environmental, planning and other
objectives. It welcomes a Local Plan that is based on sound principles and robust evidence to
ensure that it provides a solid framework upon which to guide future development.
The Parish Council does not seek to challenge the number of new houses included in the
Revised Development Strategy. We understand that the Council has estimated future housing
need in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government and that if the Local
Plan contains too few houses there is a risk that it will be found unsafe at Public Enquiry.
The Parish Council simply asks the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum.
A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is being performed with Coventry City Council.
Should this review identify that it is necessary to increase the housing numbers above those
included in the Revised Development Strategy, the Parish Council believe that there is
sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
The Parish Council believes that the Preferred Options for the New Local Plan published in
June 2012 do not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and that as a
consequence a Local Plan based on the Preferred Options would be found unsound at Public
Enquiry. The Parish Council is, therefore, pleased that the Council has recognised that the
Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist
and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry
are reduced.
The Parish Council believes that the Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown serves all of
the 5 purposes set out for Green Belt in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") in
that it:
* prevents the urban sprawl of built up areas from Leamington,
* prevents neighbouring towns (Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry )from merging,
* protects the country side from encroachment from Leamington,
2 of 3
* preserves the setting and special character of the historic towns of Royal Leamington
Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth; and
* assists urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land.
It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. Otherwise
there is a real risk Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands Conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy considers Old Milverton to be a "Smaller and Feeder
Village". The population of Old Milverton Parish is small, 319 residents and 119 households
(Source: Office for National Statistics March 2011). Nearly half of the population of Old
Milverton Parish (126 adult residents (source: Electoral Register)) live on a modern housing
estate which we understand will be transferred to Milverton Parish when the Parish
Boundaries are reviewed in 2014. There are probably less than 50 adults living in the
settlement of Old Milverton. Given its small and decreasing size, the Parish Council believes
that Old Milverton should be regarded as a "Very Small Village and Hamlet".
The Parish Council believes that new development should be concentrated where there are
existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It also
believes it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where
necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that
development.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new
development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of
Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of
work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, with a consequential positive
impact on the environment and their quality of life. Furthermore there is almost unlimited
green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Council is to be congratulated for preparing a Revised Development Strategy which,
whilst providing a similar number of new houses for the District, removes the proposal to
build 2,000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt and, through the better use of
Brownfield sites, results in only 325 further houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington.
The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more businesses to
set up and relocate to the area, helping to generate more jobs and prosperity for the local
community.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of
Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is
important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic
surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that
locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements,
ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infrastructure
to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District.
16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and
Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
Although cycleways are mentioned in each phase of the Revised Development Strategy, detail
is lacking for such a key proposal for components of traffic
management, environmental improvement and recreation. The cycle ways need linking
3 of 3
together and cycleways to larger places of Work and Educational institutions ought to be
detailed and feature prominently.
The outline for the proposed development South of Leamington includes a new country park.
If the country park is sited next to the existing houses with new housing beyond it, the result
would be to make the park more accessible, reduce impact of further development on the
existing houses; it could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air
pollution.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, with the exception of the classification of Old Milverton as a
"Feeder Village" and improvement to the cycleways, the Parish Council supports the Revised
Development Strategy.

see attached

see atatched

see atatched

see atatched

I have read the Local Area Plan, attended a public meeting, and an exhibition outlining what the new Myton Garden Suburb will look like.
I am writing to object strongly to the plan to allocate almost 3,500 homes on land in South Warwick. My understanding is that arguments about the unfairness of housing distribution (although self evident) will have no affect. Neither will objections on the grounds that the character of the two towns will be lost forever (although this is inevitable given the extent of the planned build.) And so I am objecting because I do not believe that the issues of pollution, flooding and traffic flow have been properly considered and I am not persuaded by the plans I have seen for mitigating these issues.
We have witnessed flooding from the farmlands between Europa Way and the cycle path onto the roads directly opposite, and are extremely concerned that the recently improved drainage system will not contain the run off from vast areas of new hard standing. How can you guarantee that our homes will not be at risk?
Traffic congestion will increase hugely - most houses in this area have more than one car and it is unrealistic and naïve to expect that people will cycle or rely on public transport (even if the proposals to increase public transport are upheld.) Plans to introduce new roundabouts and traffic lanes simply cannot solve the ultimate problem of the limitations imposed by the narrow bridge into Warwick at Bridge End and the rail bridge over Princes Drive into Leamington (recent changes at the top of Princes Drive already results in traffic backing up onto the Morrisons' roundabout, making it impossible to navigate.)
Finally, my understanding is that the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by about 2030, but that the District Council proposes more than 12,000, 4,500 of them south of Warwick. The Local Area Plan seems to be grossly excessive.