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

I dispute the need for over 12,000 houses in the local area as independent evidence suggests that local needs are half this number.

* It is wrong to forecast up to 2029 and allocate green land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing developers to uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build and when.


* This plan is not about meeting local housing requirements but is designed to attract thousands of extra residents into an area where there is not enough work for them or the infrastructure to support the numbers.

* Stratford District Council have announced plans to build close to Gaydon which will provide homes for workers at Jaguar/ Landrover which was part of Warwick's plan, so we already have a double count on housing needs.


* The proposed housing development by Stratford District Council and the Warwick District Council plans could not be supported by the infrastructure in Warwick especially the hospital and roads.

* Such a massive development would turn the historic town of Warwick into an urban sprawl and destroy the view from Warwick's most valuable asset - the castle.


* The already overstretched infrastructure cannot cope with what would be a massive increase in traffic; being an out of town development most people would have a car, working couples possibly two. The road bottlenecks at Castle Hill and the viaduct at Princes Drive cannot cope with thousands of extra vehicles. Turning Europa Way into a dual carriageway would be a large car park at peak times as the traffic tried to filter through the viaduct.

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


* I dispute that no building can take part on the green belt to the north as the council have already indicated their support for the Gateway project which uses green belt land. I believe that the plan to build in the north of the town was changed when residents of the Blackdown area threatened legal action.

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

* Allowing traffic to access any new building behind Saumur Way will increase the risk to the many school children who use the cycle path that runs across the end of Saumur Way.

* I am led to believe that the air quality in Warwick is already worse than the legally permitted levels - a situation which can only get worse with the introduction of thousands of extra vehicles passing through the town.

* This is a developers charter not a plan for the benefit of the citizens of Warwick and as such requires an independent investigation into how this plan was put together, the involvement of all concerned in the council and the Henry VIII trust and the real reasons for stopping any development in the North.

I wish to make the following comments in objection to the new local plan;

* The land between Warwick and Whitnash / Bishop's Tachbrook is rural in nature. This green land is important to the aesthetic nature of the town and any building upon it will destroy the 'feel' of the whole area. Previous developments have detracted from the town rather than improved it. The town thrives upon tourism and anything that detracts from the aesthetic qualities of the town will damage business. Current policies on protecting green land should be maintained.
* The number of houses is too high. Projected population growth in the area does not demand it. It takes no account of other developments, such as at Gaydon, and the pressures that this will place on Warwick and Leamington infrastructure.
* The District already have enough sites supporting sustainable development.
* The increase in traffic will cause many problems, particularly pollution, delay to emergency vehicles, greater danger to children and other road users and added time travelling. It will cost residents more in fuel due to traffic increasing.
* Roads are currently in poor repair and additional use will make this worse.
* Road drainage is very poor at the new Morrison's site, the Lidel site and at Warwick school. There can be no confidence based upon this evidence that any new development will improve road drainage and in fact it will make it worse.
* Development on this higher land around Warwick will have a significant effect upon rainfall run-off and will create a flood risk where none exists today. Residents will face increased insurance costs. Warwickshire DC will face significant legal and damages costs if these developments do cause flooding or other damage. This will ultimately cost the council tax payer.
* Air quality is already poor. Warwick is close to the M40 and A46. It is also very busy with through traffic and local traffic. Local transport services are poor. The new development will bring more cars and more pollution. This is a health risk and is proven to increase respiratory illness. This then costs the health services in additional care. Are these cost factored into the plan?.
* Noise pollution is also a serious issue. The constant hiss of traffic from the M40 is always evident. There is also the noise of traffic on the Myton Road and at night it is very loud coming from the roundabout at Morrisons. Additional traffic will make it worse.
* All these types of pollution will drive out residents and businesses from Warwick. Will the council tax charges decrease to reflect the poor quality of life that we will experience?
* There are many better alternatives on brown-field sites.
* I am deeply concerned over the ethical / political questions raised by this planning process. There seems to be a lack of fair representation. There also seem to be a number of cases of conflict on interest. I feel that it should be raised to your compliance officer and an independent enquiry held.

In summary I feel that the proposed development in Warwick is poorly thought through and of detriment to the community as a whole. We will suffer from higher risk to our safety and health, we will face higher council tax payments, it will cost us more to travel and insure our property and it will no longer be a nice place to live. All of this to develop land for houses that are not required.

Additionally I would like to object to the plans for the traveller sites. These persons are seldom true gypsies. They are usually itinerant Irish travellers who make a living and do not pay tax and do not contribute to society in any way. They also tend to participate in criminal activity crime increases in areas that they have sites. It is also true that they dump rubbish and cause damage to property. This costs the council tax payer, but they make no contribution. Their vehicles are rarely taxed and insured. This places ordinary citizens at risk and insurance cost will rise near their sites. Have the council any plans to compensate residents, or decrease their council tax?. If they must have sites then these should be kept as far away from green land and from law-abiding people.

Apologies for the somewhat rambling nature of my objections, but I think that this is a very serious matter and judging by the feeling of local people it is a matter that Warwickshire DC should give very careful thought about.

Effect on the town of Warwick of the Revised Development Strategy

I am writing on behalf of my wife and myself to express our grave concern with regard to the Warwick District Local Plan, in response to the Consultation which closes on 29 July 2013. We have attended a number of meetings held by WDC and other interested parties over the past two years. At these meetings, virtually all present have been equally concerned by the extent to which the current Plan will have a detrimental affect on the lives of Warwick residents and will inevitably have an irreversibly damaging effect on the environment surrounding and within the historic town, causing harm to its residents, its buildings and its tourism industry. We find it inexplicable that WDC has continued to ignore the views of its residents and businesses and has persisted with what seems to be the least justifiable and most damaging of all the options available to it.

Land to the south-and south east of Warwick (Site 6)

The most serious problem with the Plan seems to be caused by the excessively high concentration of housing planned to the south-east of Warwick on what is currently agricultural land and rural 'green space'. I note that of the 12,300 homes planned in total, sites have been allocated at present for 6,630 homes, with 3,195 of these in this south-east area. Clearly this number would increase very significantly as the overall number is built up to 12,300 and the impact in Warwick of this degree of development will be compounded by that also intended by the Stratford District.

I understand that WDC has failed to identify any 'exceptional circumstances' that would enable it to build on Green Belt land to the north of Warwick and has therefore concentrated the planned development to the south-east, on this green 'Area of Restraint'. Whereas I would not advocate building on Green Belt land, the Green Belt was put in place to prevent urban sprawl from the West Midlands encroaching into the area and not because of Warwick's own potential plans. The Area of Restraint to the south is therefore equally important to the protection of Warwick's rural setting, and should be afforded the same level of protection as the Green Belt.

Projected housing need

There is no rational reason for planning so high a number of new homes as 12,300 at the present time. I understand that the actual needs of the local people over the 15-year time period have been calculated as around 5,300 homes - much less than half of that figure. There is presently no housing shortage and no demand for additional business premises, as is demonstrated by planned business developments that have not come to fruition and by, for example, the number of vacant premises on the Technology Park and other business sites in the area.

Such a quantity of extra housing would depress prices and attract incoming population, not for any reason that would have an economic advantage to the area, but simply because Warwick has the advantage of being a pleasant place to live. If all these houses are built then people will come for their own benefit, not Warwick's. It has been increasingly obvious that the town's infrastructure simply cannot support such a large increase in population and some of the issues it would raise have no clear solution, as will be noted below.

Whereas the housing demand may change in the future, a 15-year forecast, from any current projection, is unlikely to be realistic. I think we can be certain that similar forecasts made in 1998 for a period of time up to the present day would have been hopelessly wrong due to the unforeseeable degree of intervening economic and social changes. There is no reason to believe that today's estimates will be any more reliable. If a far more restrained Local Plan were put in place there is ample time, over the next decade, to make any adjustments that might prove necessary should an actual demand, from either the housing or the business sector, manifest itself.

Transport and road infrastructure

Such out-of-town developments will clearly be car-dependent, and this is where the greatest issues lie. Even if good public transport were to be provided, which seems unlikely on a commercial basis, the modern preference is always to use a car, as is evidenced by Warwick's existing problems with traffic congestion. The development to the immediate south-east of Warwick alone is likely to add 10,000 cars to Warwick's roads in due course, increased by those planned under the proposed Stratford Plan. This is an intolerable number that the local infrastructure cannot possibly accommodate.

The road enhancements planned cannot solve this problem and will only add to congestion, both in the town itself and on its outskirts. The extra lanes planned at the Myton Road/Banbury Road junction would clearly be disastrous for the town. This junction is already horrifically overcrowded, as can already be seen at any busy time. The vast majority of the traffic from Myton Road currently turns right into Warwick; likewise the vast majority of that from the Banbury Road travels straight on into Warwick. All of this traffic is immediately funnelled over the narrow, weight-restricted Avon bridge, which provides an insurmountable obstacle to traffic flow. Any additional traffic that does manage to cross the bridge will just make the present congestion in Smith Street, The Butts and Jury Street/High Street worse than ever. Creating extra lanes and introducing traffic control at that junction may shorten the length of the queues leading towards the town, but the result will be that as well as the added congestion in the town itself, traffic density on the roads immediately surrounding Warwick will certainly be far worse than at present.

Creating new business premises as a part of the new development will only make matters worse. Whereas it may be convenient to assume that incoming population in the area south-east of Warwick might also work in that area, examination of other developments, such as the Technology Park, demonstrate that this simply is not the case. The Technology Park attracts staff from all directions over at least a 30-mile radius, and many of these people travel through Warwick to get to work. Examination of the work-related travel of many people living in the Warwick area will show the reverse pattern; that many of them work outside Warwick, often on the opposite side of the town. These commuters form a significant part of the 80% of traffic that passes straight through Warwick and causes the present congestion. There is no reason to believe that people living or working in the proposed new development to the south-east would show any different patterns of travel, and Warwick will just grind to a halt. I can only imagine what effect a town that is constantly grid-locked with traffic will have on Warwick's tourism industry.

All in all, these major issues surrounding the impact of traffic in and around Warwick cause the Local Plan to fail on all three criteria for sustainability - environmental, economic and social. In these circumstances, WDC should consider a revised, and far less damaging, approach.

Air quality and pollution

I have been horrified to learn during the course of development of the Local Plan that car exhaust pollution in Warwick town centre is already higher than is legally permitted. It would seem irresponsible of WDC to contemplate developments that will make the situation worse without having any means of addressing this problem. Surely the Health and Safety of Warwick's residents and visitors should be WDC's primary concern and is a legal obligation? Bringing larger amounts of traffic closer to the town due to the road enhancements can only extend the pollution problem over a greater area. Close to Site (6), the first to suffer will be our younger generation whose schools and playing fields are immediately adjacent to the main roads.

As well as the poor air quality, pollution due to traffic noise and vibration are an increasing problem within the town. Living in Bridge End, the traffic noise has become very noticeably worse over the (almost) 25 years I have been a Warwick resident. This situation must be far worse for people actually living on the main roads or in the town centre where, as well as the noise, vibration from the traffic will be a significant factor. Not only are the people living in Warwick affected, but our historic buildings are being damaged. Any further increase in traffic would clearly make the situation intolerable and once again this will have a significantly adverse affect on tourism.

Health infrastructure

As well as the road system and traffic, such a significantly increased population will put additional strain on other infrastructure. A primary concern is whether health and hospital services will be able to cope. In particular, Warwick Hospital's (already stressed) A&E services will need to cope with a much larger population over a greater catchment area. Those needing the existing Warwick hospital from Site (6) will need to enter and cross the town by the existing congested route over the Avon bridge. As well as Warwick's own plans, the ambitious plans that I understand Stratford District Council is forming for its own large developments, just outside Warwick District, will also need to be supported by Warwick's A&E department. I have seen no evidence that this joint impact has been taken into account when considering the sustainability of WDC's plans.

As a retired person I should like to see Warwick preserved for future generations to enjoy, both for its residents and for visitors to the town. This does not necessarily mean that it should remain unchanged, but all development should be in keeping with its status as an historic county town - on a scale with, and in harmony with, its setting and environment. I fear that WDC's current Local Plan does not achieve this in any way and would urge that full consideration be given to the points raised above, with a view to producing a sustainable Plan more in keeping with the needs of the town and its residents, rather than the development aspirations of those less directly affected by the proposals as currently planned.

We are writing to express some concerns over the proposed Local Plan as follows:-
The proposal for 12,000 new houses far exceeds local need.
The absence of new transport infrastructure will grossly overburden existing roads
The current illegal air pollution in Warwick streets will be further increased.
The proposed employment areas are unlikely to be utilised for that purpose. There is the recent precedent of Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow developments where land designated for employment has been reallocated for housing as there was no uptake by businesses.
In conclusion, the draft Plan if carried out would blight one of England's major historic towns with the subsequent loss of revenue for its inhabitants and Local Authorities

I have read the draft plan for the District and attended public meetings in connection with this.

I am fully aware that we need some additional housing in the Leamington/Warwick area and accept that the area south of Leamington should take a share of this development. However, the level of proposed development south of the town and the majority of it on agricultural land is excessive. As I understand it, the local need was for 6000 new houses by c. 2030; why has the District Council now proposed 12000?

My concerns are on three fronts in particular:

* Traffic congestion: whatever is done to widen Europa Way and any other roads leading in from the motorway and surrounding towns and villages, there will inevitably be a bottleneck as the railway bridge/river crossings into the centre of Leamington, causing a build up of traffic both entering and leaving the town.
* Pollution: increased traffic will increase pollution. This will be detrimental not only to historic buildings in Warwick town centre but more importantly to the health of the people also affected.
* Population: the rapid growth in population will put great pressure on hospitals and schools, to say nothing of the inevitable rise in the number of car journeys as children are ferried backwards and forwards (despite plans for school developments on the Harbury Lane site)
I would like to know where this demand is coming from? 4,000 + houses south of Leamington will attract many people currently living and working in Birmingham and other commutable distances so it is not for the benefit of local people and encouraging more car use seems very out of kilter with sustainable development. Do the local planners wish the towns and villages south of Leamington to become one large urban sprawl? Would it not be preferable to have smaller developments throughout the District which would not have such an impact on the current local communities?

In conclusion, I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed Local Plan as it currently stands. The number of homes proposed, most of them in one area, would be detrimental both to the residents south of Leamington and Warwick and to the future of the towns themselves.

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

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

Re: Revised Development Plan for new homes and travellers sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary

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

Please accept this objection in addition to any others as it contains other information that has come to my notice.
1. There is no supporting Local Plan to allow this application.
2. The existing 2007 Local Plan is still in force and is still relevant to this application.
3. This application has been made by the developer knowing that the current Local Plan would not support it.
4. The application by the developer /land owner has been made with prior knowledge that a new Local Plan was under consultation but not approved.
5. The application is for 280 dwellings but makes no reference to the phasing over the next 17 years. As this is common to all applications that have been made and most likely will be made then it should fail on this point and be rejected.
6. WDC should have made this clear in any discussions with developers but failed to do so.
7. The NPPF came into force in 2012 and should not be assumed or considered to be out of date.
8. WDC have identified and recommended this site as being acceptable for development without any consideration of the harmful effects on the surrounding neighbourhood.
9. This application must not be taken in isolation. It is part of a large number of present and future applications to satisfy WDC's poorly researched information on housing numbers. This may be due to numbers they have accepted from the Minister of the Environment or their own numbers from GL Hearn.
10. The 12,300 is the latest number that is now being quoted by WDC. This has been challenged as being pure guesswork without any positive proof. It has been suggested that 5,400 is closer to the truth following work by a local councillor.
11. It is not being truthful or fair of WDC to invite individuals to object only to the application sites adjacent to their homes. They should be objecting to the total applications under the umbrella of the Local Plan. If that is seen as unsustainable then all applications should be rejected.
12. WDC have put themselves in the position of having to consider many applications to build a large number of houses. It is now a rat race by developers as to who can get in first. This should not be run on a 'first come first served basis'. Applications should be in abeyance until after the Local Plan has been properly consulted.
13. Consultation meetings I have attended all have the same theme. That is to give the public details of what has been decided and ask for questions. There is indication that the massive objection that is taking place will stop the intention of the Local Plan.
14. The Local Plan as seen by the public for the first time was in its final and intended form with no facility to consider alternatives. Therefore it is not a consultation document seeking approval. Rather it is a statement of intent.
15. There are alternatives to creating urban sprawl. A - Proportional distribution throughout the district over 90 to 100 small sites in or adjacent to villages, with no increases for Leamington Warwick and Whitnash that have received the bulk of development over many years. B - Two or Three medium isolated sites to the North, East and West of the District with zero housing South of Leamington and Warwick. C - A new town in Green Belt that is completely independent of neighbouring towns and villages. This would be a challenging but exciting alternative that would give established towns and villages a chance to stabilise.
16. It has never been made clear by WDC that they have supported or facilitated the applications by various developers even though they deny this.
17. WDC are aware that the Local Plan now under consultation has not changed from the previous 2007 Local Plan and are now attempting to convince the public it is a viable and acceptable plan.
18. WDC are in full knowledge that this application is just a part of a massive urban sprawl they have recommended as being suitable for the 12,300 houses they have stated are needed to 2029, without any proof of the needs of those houses.
19. WDC have failed to recognise the severe impact on the present incumbents of a very large area South of Leamington and Warwick that the combined applications would have. So this application like all of the others must not be permitted.
20. By encouraging the various developers (including Thos. Bates) to submit applications in order to show that the 12,300 houses are deliverable they have effectively isolated each development application from the residents who are not directly joined to every site.
21. By not carrying out a fair and just consultation on this application and con-joining it as part of the overall intent of the New Local Plan, WDC are minimising the effects on the unwitting public of all the applications when combined under the 'Master Plan' .
22. The consultation period for the Local Plan and this application has been extended after public protest. There is still not enough time to complete an effective consultation because of the large area covered by the Local Plan.
23. This application must only be judged in combination with all other present and known future applications. Each application must be placed in a Local Plan Group and considered as such.
24. If the 12,300 number is successfully challenged and kept within a suggested 5,400 this total can be shown to have satisfied the 5 year and beyond requirement.
25. This application being part of the New Local Plan that is to provide housing needs up to 2029 is for 280 dwellings. That should only permit an application for 17 houses each year. Any application in excess of that should be rejected.
26. The laws of supply and demand should be accepted as being the meter for providing houses for those who not only need them but can afford them. The 12,300 number being quoted by WDC is a mythical number with no proof. Therefore the New Local Plan should have recognised this fact and factored the numbers accordingly.
27. Owning a house is the biggest single commitment anyone takes. It is undeniable that of all those who want a house, there will be many who will never afford to do so. Their only recourse is to rent. The houses in this application (and all others) are not aimed at the low cost rental market.
28. The number of people living in the vicinity of 75% of the 12,300 houses who need or will need a house do not represent the need for this number of houses. The truth is that developers are speculating on selling these homes to anyone outside of the area who can afford them. WDC should have recognised this and should only allow developments that are for the local people
29. A result of the above, is that anyone who lives in the area concerned who will be looking to buy will not be able to do so as they are out of their price range.
30. This application will destroy the protecting green area that protects the ancient town of Whitnash. There is considerable wildlife in the neighbouring woodland and the farmland that will be gone forever. This is important and needs protection.
31. The actual site of this application is on the highest land in the area and houses would be highly visible from approaches from the South and West.
32. The sloping site is not best suited for densely packed houses. Ashford road is known to be a dangerous approach onto Tachbrook Road after winter ice. Cars have been unable to stop in the past. The density of cars leaving the sloping site within the development and then onto the main road would be very dangerous and many accidents will happen.
33. A further proof of supply and demand is that the estate agents are overflowing with houses for sale, but only a few that are affordable.
34. Another fact is that present house owners wishing to move or upsize cannot afford to due to the squeeze from government spending cuts. Their only answer is to extend and even that is very restricted due to the high costs involved and petty restrictions imposed by District Councils.
35. Warwick District Council should not cave in to government demands but should use the ability of elected councillors and the public to protest to the Minister of the Environment.

I am writing with reference to the Revised Development Strategy for Warwick District, and specifically to raise concerns that I have with the number of new homes to be built in Warwick (South) between now and 2029.

* The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is predominantly rural, and further development upon this land, merging these areas into a single suburban sprawl, would be of significant detriment to the feel of the town(s). The rural space is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly. Warwick is a beautiful, historic town, and turning the surrounding area into sprawling suburbia would seriously detract from the town's allure - negatively impacting upon tourist numbers, and the quality of life for Warwick residents.

* The projected housing requirment of 12,300 new homes to be built seems much too high, with less than half that number needed to meet local needs (as outlined at a recent local meeting at Warwick School that Warwick District Council representatives "were unable to attend"). Without having sufficient employment opportunities for an increased population, it seems highly inappropriate to allocate greenfield land now for housing that is not required by the local population. There are sufficient brownfield sites in Warwick (and immediate environs) to meet the projected local housing need.

* The roads to/through Warwick are already congested at peak times, and Warwick District's proposed transport strategy is further automobile-based, squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network. The roads, and in particular bridges, cannot support further traffic; walking and cycling would be less attractive; and air quality would become far worse.

* Pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington, is already worse than is legally permitted. For example, levels of nitrogen dioxide, a direct product of traffic pollution, is already consistently exceeded in many areas of Warwick, by up to 154% (Warwick District Council Progress Report, April 2011). Further through-traffic, as a result of the population increases associated with the scale of development proposed, would clearly increase pollution levels, to the detriment of the health of local residents. Such pollution has been causally linked to conditions such as COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder), as well as further suggested links to conditions including lung cancer and asthma. The District Council is legally required to improve air quality, but the present plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. And as well as the long-term health impact upon residents, businesses and tourism would be negatively impacted upon.

* Furthermore, I am concerned that the proposed development would require significant infrastructural development, specifically relating to education and healthcare facilities. I also have concerns about potential risks to water supply, sewage and drainage. Significantly, I am told that Warwick hospital is already "stretched", and would require significant expansion to cope with the increased population numbers proposed.

There are far better alternatives. Primarily, lower housing numbers are required to meet local needs, rather than encouraging in-migration. Any such in-migration certainly should not be encouraged without the provision of local employment opportunities: there is no point building further, unnecessary homes here, only for people to commute elsewhere to work. Brownfield development must be absolutely prioritised over greenfield land, and all such brownfield land exploited fully before the green spaces around our town(s) are encroached upon any further.

The presently proposed Warwick District plan is not at all balanced, and comes across as a "charter for developers" rather than a balanced plan aimed at meeting the needs of local residents.

Thank you for taking these points into consideration, and I hope for a sensible resolution to be made regarding the issues mentioned.

This is to let you know of my serious concerns regarding the new draft local plan for Warwick and its surroundings. I understood that the need for less traffic through Warwick Centre had been taken on board by local government - hence the recent work to slow down traffic through High Street/Jury Street with traffic calming measures and the removal of pedestrian crossings. However the huge number of houses being suggested in the draft plan would most certainly result in even more traffic polluting the centre of Warwick. And why build so many houses on what is at the moment Agricultural land? Surely there are brownfield sites which at the moment are lying unused. The area of the old Ford factory beyond Morrisons would be an obvious place to build houses. It is already immediately adjacent to an area of housing and would impinge far less on services. Do we really need 12,000 houses? Affordable homes we probaby do need, but not on this scale. Are the proposed new builds all aimed at the lower end of the market? Probably not. Looking at the local estate agents there is indeed no shortage of houses in the mid- to upper-price range, so why build more? Why pay consultants to establish that the local need will be for less than 6,000 new homes if their findings are to be totally ignored? As for the ridiculous re-routing of traffic in the Smith Street area and yet more sets of traffic lights, I see this as just an unneccessary nonsense.

Warwick is a lovely town, self contained, pretty country town. We have a lively shopping centre full of independent shops and small number of chains such as Marks & Spencer and Boots. We need to encourage tourists to keep the centre lively, not put them off by making it even harder to get here. By building all these houses the unique atmosphere the town offers is bound to be compromised. Please think again.

1. There is no supporting Local Plan to allow this application.
2. The existing 2007 Local Plan is still in force and is still relevant to this application.
3. This application has been made by the developer knowing that the current Local Plan would not support it.
4. The application by the developer /land owner has been made with prior knowledge that a new Local Plan was under consultation but not approved.
5. The application is for 280 dwellings but makes no reference to the phasing over the next 17 years. As this is common to all applications that have been made and most likely will be made then it should fail on this point and be rejected.
6. WDC should have made this clear in any discussions with developers but failed to do so.
7. The NPPF came into force in 2012 and should not be assumed or considered to be out of date.
8. WDC have identified and recommended this site as being acceptable for development without any consideration of the harmful effects on the surrounding neighbourhood.
9. This application must not be taken in isolation. It is part of a large number of present and future applications to satisfy WDC's poorly researched information on housing numbers. This may be due to numbers they have accepted from the Minister of the Environment or their own numbers from GL Hearn.
10. The 12,300 is the latest number that is now being quoted by WDC. This has been challenged as being pure guesswork without any positive proof. It has been suggested that 5,400 is closer to the truth following work by a local councillor.
11. It is not being truthful or fair of WDC to invite individuals to object only to the application sites adjacent to their homes. They should be objecting to the total applications under the umbrella of the Local Plan. If that is seen as unsustainable then all applications should be rejected.
12. WDC have put themselves in the position of having to consider many applications to build a large number of houses. It is now a rat race by developers as to who can get in first. This should not be run on a 'first come first served basis'. Applications should be in abeyance until after the Local Plan has been properly consulted.
13. Consultation meetings I have attended all have the same theme. That is to give the public details of what has been decided and ask for questions. There is indication that the massive objection that is taking place will stop the intention of the Local Plan.
14. The Local Plan as seen by the public for the first time was in its final and intended form with no facility to consider alternatives. Therefore it is not a consultation document seeking approval. Rather it is a statement of intent.
15. There are alternatives to creating urban sprawl. A - Proportional distribution throughout the district over 90 to 100 small sites in or adjacent to villages, with no increases for Leamington Warwick and Whitnash that have received the bulk of development over many years. B - Two or Three medium isolated sites to the North, East and West of the District with zero housing South of Leamington and Warwick. C - A new town in Green Belt that is completely independent of neighbouring towns and villages. This would be a challenging but exciting alternative that would give established towns and villages a chance to stabilise.
16. It has never been made clear by WDC that they have supported or facilitated the applications by various developers even though they deny this.
17. WDC are aware that the Local Plan now under consultation has not changed from the previous 2007 Local Plan and are now attempting to convince the public it is a viable and acceptable plan.
18. WDC are in full knowledge that this application is just a part of a massive urban sprawl they have recommended as being suitable for the 12,300 houses they have stated are needed to 2029, without any proof of the needs of those houses.
19. WDC have failed to recognise the severe impact on the present incumbents of a very large area South of Leamington and Warwick that the combined applications would have. So this application like all of the others must not be permitted.
20. By encouraging the various developers (including Thos. Bates) to submit applications in order to show that the 12,300 houses are deliverable they have effectively isolated each development application from the residents who are not directly joined to every site.
21. By not carrying out a fair and just consultation on this application and con-joining it as part of the overall intent of the New Local Plan, WDC are minimising the effects on the unwitting public of all the applications when combined under the 'Master Plan' .
22. The consultation period for the Local Plan and this application has been extended after public protest. There is still not enough time to complete an effective consultation because of the large area covered by the Local Plan.
23. This application must only be judged in combination with all other present and known future applications. Each application must be placed in a Local Plan Group and considered as such.
24. If the 12,300 number is successfully challenged and kept within a suggested 5,400 this total can be shown to have satisfied the 5 year and beyond requirement.
25. This application being part of the New Local Plan that is to provide housing needs up to 2029 is for 280 dwellings. That should only permit an application for 17 houses each year. Any application in excess of that should be rejected.
26. The laws of supply and demand should be accepted as being the meter for providing houses for those who not only need them but can afford them. The 12,300 number being quoted by WDC is a mythical number with no proof. Therefore the New Local Plan should have recognised this fact and factored the numbers accordingly.
27. Owning a house is the biggest single commitment anyone takes. It is undeniable that of all those who want a house, there will be many who will never afford to do so. Their only recourse is to rent. The houses in this application (and all others) are not aimed at the low cost rental market.
28. The number of people living in the vicinity of 75% of the 12,300 houses who need or will need a house do not represent the need for this number of houses. The truth is that developers are speculating on selling these homes to anyone outside of the area who can afford them. WDC should have recognised this and should only allow developments that are for the local people
29. A result of the above, is that anyone who lives in the area concerned who will be looking to buy will not be able to do so as they are out of their price range.
30. This application will destroy the protecting green area that protects the ancient town of Whitnash. There is considerable wildlife in the neighbouring woodland and the farmland that will be gone forever. This is important and needs protection.
31. The actual site of this application is on the highest land in the area and houses would be highly visible from approaches from the South and West.
32. The sloping site is not best suited for densely packed houses. Ashford road is known to be a dangerous approach onto Tachbrook Road after winter ice. Cars have been unable to stop in the past. The density of cars leaving the sloping site within the development and then onto the main road would be very dangerous and many accidents will happen.
33. A further proof of supply and demand is that the estate agents are overflowing with houses for sale, but only a few that are affordable.
34. Another fact is that present house owners wishing to move or upsize cannot afford to due to the squeeze from government spending cuts. Their only answer is to extend and even that is very restricted due to the high costs involved and petty restrictions imposed by District Councils.
35. Warwick District Council should not cave in to government demands but should use the ability of elected councillors and the public to protest to the Minister of the Environment.

I strongly object to the Local Plan in its current form. My objections are based on the following:-
* It has been clearly established that the local need is for fewer than 6000 new houses by about 2030, however the Local Plan proposed more than 12000.
* Whatever increase in the number of houses is finally established, the proposed concentration to the south of Warwick is unreasonable and untenable.
* The proposal is to develop huge swathes of green belt land, mostly used for farming, whilst ignoring large amounts of brown belt land that could easily be developed for housing.
* Local infrastructure will not support such an increase.
* The proposed concentration of new housing predominantly to the south of Warwick an Leamington is ill-conceived and impractical.
The current proposals would have a severe impact on environment and infrastructure on Warwick and Leamington.
* Demands placed on schools and hospitals would be severe and unsustainable.
* Demands on water supplies and drainage would be increased considerably, and could even exacerbate risk of flooding in some areas.
* Without considerable improvement in public transport, the proposed developments would be extensively car dependent, leading to an increase in pollution and severe congestion. Public transport in the Myton Road area is extremely poor with only an hourly service during the day, and no service at all during evenings and Sundays.
* Typically, houses in the area have at least two cars, hence there is a potential for around 24000 additional vehicles on local roads, some of which are already close to saturation, especially at peak times.
* Warwick town centre is already clogged with traffic at peak times; total gridlock could well ensue as a result of increased vehicle movements. Without any alternative routes, north-south journeys will become almost impossible.
* All north-south traffic movements will be concentrated on the two more westerly of the three available routes. These are already congested.
* The proposed concentration of new housing to the south of Warwick and Leamington will create far more serious traffic congestion than would be the case with a more even north south distribution.
* Pressure on the junctions at either end of Myton Road, already severely congested at peak times, will be increased considerably, making it extremely difficult for residents to travel.
* WDC is already failing in its obligation to reduce pollution in town centres - the proposal will only worsen the situation with serious impact on historic buildings and the population.
Any current planning applications should be put on hold until a more reasonable, sensible, and practical scheme that has a viable traffic solution is established for the area.

* It has been clearly established that the local need is for fewer than 6000 new houses by about 2030, however the Local Plan proposed more than 12000.
* Whatever increase in the number of houses is finally established, the proposed concentration to the south of Warwick is unreasonable and untenable.
* The proposal is to develop huge swathes of green belt land, mostly used for farming, whilst ignoring large amounts of brown belt land that could easily be developed for housing.
* Local infrastructure will not support such an increase.
* The proposed concentration of new housing predominantly to the south of Warwick an Leamington is ill-conceived and impractical.
The current proposals would have a severe impact on environment and infrastructure on Warwick and Leamington.
* Demands placed on schools and hospitals would be severe and unsustainable.
* Demands on water supplies and drainage would be increased considerably, and could even exacerbate risk of flooding in some areas.
* Without considerable improvement in public transport, the proposed developments would be extensively car dependent, leading to an increase in pollution and severe congestion. Public transport in the Myton Road area is extremely poor with only an hourly service during the day, and no service at all during evenings and Sundays.
* Typically, houses in the area have at least two cars, hence there is a potential for around 24000 additional vehicles on local roads, some of which are already close to saturation, especially at peak times.
* Warwick town centre is already clogged with traffic at peak times; total gridlock could well ensue as a result of increased vehicle movements. Without any alternative routes, north-south journeys will become almost impossible.
* All north-south traffic movements will be concentrated on the two more westerly of the three available routes. These are already congested.
* The proposed concentration of new housing to the south of Warwick and Leamington will create far more serious traffic congestion than would be the case with a more even north south distribution.
* Pressure on the junctions at either end of Myton Road, already severely congested at peak times, will be increased considerably, making it extremely difficult for residents to travel.
* WDC is already failing in its obligation to reduce pollution in town centres - the proposal will only worsen the situation with serious impact on historic buildings and the population.
Any current planning applications should be put on hold until a more reasonable, sensible, and practical scheme that has a viable traffic solution is established for the area.

* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

* The local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by about 2030. But the District Council proposes more than 12,000. 4,500 of them are south of Warwick.

* Development would fill a vast area of farmland between Warwick, Leamington, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook, massing new housing estates (falsely labeled 'garden suburbs') into a single built-up area. Agricultural land would be lost as sites for the mass house builders, leaving brownfield sites underexploited.

* The rapid growth in population would put undue pressure on the hospital and local schools, perhaps even on water supplies and drainage. The greenfield development would be car-dependent and unsustainable.

* Traffic on existing roads would become much heavier, with no new infrastructure but many more multi-lane traffic-light controlled junctions - at Bridge End, Castle Hill and the foot of Smith Street as well as on Europa Way and into Leamington. As a consequence, journeys would be slower and congestion worse. The pollution in Warwick's town centre streets and homes would become materially worse.

* Development would be car-dependent, contrary to national and local transport policies, and not sustainable.

* WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 in the Revised Development Strategy for the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

* The proposed requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period, given the Barford's status as a "Secondary Service Village", would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School which does not have the scope for further extension. Therefore, any development of new housing would not be sustainable in terms of primary education facilities being available to all children in the village.


Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm the representations have been successfully lodged.

In the last 15 years 2 large developments have been built; one by the racecourse and the other on the edge of Whitnash. The result has seen a substantial increase in traffic on all roads leading into Warwick Town Centre yet the road infrastructure hasn't expanded to cope and of course the geography of the area means there is a limit on what can be done.

I travel through Warwick Town Centre everyday to get to work and on many occasions it has taken me almost 20 minutes to journey the short distance from my house opposite Myton School to the roundabout at Bridge End a distance of half a mile. In the evening, I have crawled down Jury Street again for 20 minutes or so during rush hour and this distance isn't even a quarter of a mile. I have also watched traffic heading into Warwick during the evenings from the Business Park behind Warwick School crawl for an hour into Warwick. This summer during the period of road works leading to the New Supermarket at the end of our road I have observed cars and buses take 1/2 hour to drive 200 metres past our house on Saturdays. Once I got caught in this traffic and it took me one hour to reach the roundabout by the new supermarket.

Clearly, we all have to live somewhere and I don't object in principle to the building of New Houses but I have to ask if those who have drawn up these proposals actually experience the problems of getting about Warwick in any form of road transport during the busy periods or when any sort of work is being done on the local infrastructure.

Maybe I could suggest building a road through the grounds of Warwick Castle to bypass the Town Centre? Of course this is preposterous but it appears that building in effect a small town next to a small town isn't!

Dear Mr White
I read with interest on your web-site your letter to Councillor Doody regarding the local development plan for Warwick.
Having been dismayed and depressed at the obvious lack of concern for the quality of life of current residents displayed in the 'Local Plan', I am much cheered by your vigour in defending our interests.
A plan that will allow for balanced growth and growth that is compatable with, and responds to, local needs is surely all that is required. Why is there a need for more than that.
For myself a great concern is the air quality in the streets of Warwick. Traffic exhaust make it worse than is legally permitted, and the District Council is charged with improving air quality, this plan will make it so much worse. The children of the future have a right to expect us to act responsibly and protect the world that they will inherit.
A plan that envisages more than 12,000 new homes in the area will have such an impact on every aspect of daily life, from health-care to the sewage system, that I can only describe it as ill-conceived and reckless.
I am consoled that younger, better and more talented minds that mine are now working to protect the area that we know and love.

myself and my wife (copied) are writing to you to object to the "Local Plan" and in fact to express our level of amazement that anyone could consider these proposals as in any way fair to the local community, or sensible in line with the needs and rights of current, or indeed future, residents of Warwick and its surrounding area.

It is clear that, as a country, we require more and better housing, However that does not mean destroying the character and environment of Warwick is the way to achieve this.

We have several key objections to which the information we have read so far appears to have no answers;

1. All of the developments proposed rely on car as transport, which flies in the face of all supposed principles that govern new developments and the needs of all of us to reduce costs and energy consumption. The centre of Warwick is already highly congested and illegally polluted at peak times. The fact that we have but one bridge across the river in Warwick, means that any development can only dramatically worsen this state of affairs. Has anyone even reviewed this, and if so what are the findings ?
2. The development of green land rather than brown land seems, again, to make no sense. Across the county and district, there must be better options (which perhaps do not fit so conveniently into the demands of the housebuilders?).
3. The numbers of houses planned are way in excess of estimated demand - this appears to be on the same principles of the mass proposed building in Stratford-upon-Avon - a case of "people want to live here, so let's build here rather than somewhere that has the infrastructure and ability to support such an influx of homes and people".
4. Environmentally, it currently does not take much heavy rain to flood Warwick and surrounding roads. How will this be improved by concreting over large swathes of green land nearby ?
5. Warwick has, despite current congestion, a town centre that is thriving and bustling, Turning it into a traffic queue will destroy that.

I can only state that any councillor which backs these proposals in their current state has no chance of keeping the vote of myself, my wife or indeed anyone I know locally.

I would appreciate the councils views on our concerns.

I am writing to make my objections to the local plan Revised Development Strategy clear. My main objection is to reference number 6 on the Revised Development Strategy, particularly the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The small pocket at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area. I believe that the area between Europa Way and Oakley Wood road, incorporating Grove Farm should never be built on as it provides a green space barrier between town and village.
Local need
It is my understanding that the local need for housing is for less than 6,000 new homes by 2030, but that it is proposed that 12,000 new homes be built, with the vast majority (4,500) of them being South of Warwick and Leamington Spa. From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland. I would like to know why existing brownfield industrial sites are not being used?
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Warwick District has a low unemployment level of 1.7% and so increasing the housing to meet job needs is not an issue. The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment said that overall "Warwick District had a very good jobs-homes balance.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Utilities
The current water supplies, drainage and sewerage would not cope with an extra 12,000 homes. Will Severn Trent water be upgrading their current systems to cope with the extra demand?
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the immediate vicinity of the proposed housing. Indeed, if the plans were to go ahead as proposed then the major employment area being built near Baginton will require a commute either through the already congested Leamington Spa town or back towards the Europa Way/M40/A46 which again struggles to cope at peak periods already. What are the plans for dealing with the major improvements that will be required for the roads in and around the proposed housing areas? Europa Way and the area around Leamington Shopping Park is often gridlocked at present. With the possibility of an extra 20,000 vehicles being added into the mix this would make it an unacceptable journey. It would in fact discourage visitors and tourists to the town areas as well as people looking to buy property.
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this this creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. I note it states possible park and ride facilities. I would suggest that this needs to be definite park and ride facilities in place prior to any building work commencing. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
What is the cost of the proposed traffic measures? Who will pay for this? The taxpayer or the developers, and if it is the developers is it a condition of sale or just a desirable measure?
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the 'snails pace traffic' pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. Those people that choose to walk or cycle will have to fill their lungs with the increasing pollution levels. Who would want to live next to or in these areas of high pollution? What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
Have any studies been done on the impact the proposed measures will have on local residents health?
Noise pollution from the significant increase in traffic will increase
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.
Flood risk
Areas of Whitnash, Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook are already prone to flooding. The area between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
What about schools? I notice it says that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. I would respectfully suggest that the secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
It does not seem fair that people that live in certain areas to ensure a placement at a specific school should end up with a less desirable option for their children when newcomers to the area will get the advantages that should be provided to the loyal local residents. Will the current catchment areas change? I suspect so. How is this fair on current residents? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
The Catholic Primary school in Whitnash, St Josephs', has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The housing planned between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook would turn a beautiful piece of rolling scenery into a view of a housing estate. The whole character of Bishops Tachbrook will be lost. The unique desirability of the village will be lost. It will merely be an extension of Leamington Spa and Warwick Gates. The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. Have you had a look at the view from Bishops Tachbrook looking towards Warwick Gates, between which some of the planned housing is proposed. The planned housing will be clearly visible leaving just a field between it and Bishops Tachbrook. The visual impact will be devastating.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are propsed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here. For many they will have no option but to stay as their houses will not be worth as much or they may be too old to contemplate moving.
There is a considerable impact on current residents and those people choosing to live in a village with limited facilities.
Country Park
What will this look like? There are few details about this area, will it be secured from future development? Who will provide the upkeep of this area and at what cost? In order to make an informed decision about the proposals we really need to know all of the information. Will a further consultation be conducted with further details of this plan?
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is predominantly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon. Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
I would suggest that these plans need to be scrapped and that the planners should look to set a level of new housing which meets the population growth for local needs. Any homes required should then be built in areas where people will want to live as the infrastructure is in place to meet their needs without impacting hugely on the current population.
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities. I understand that there is a major development proposed around the Gaydon area. If this is to be supported by the correct infrastructure then surely increasing this will help to absorb some of the previously mentioned problems. Has consideration been given to a new town/village similar to that proposed near to Gaydon?
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. What about North Leamington? If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington Spa, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The local plan states that the 22.5 hectares of new employment land is to meet local need over the next 15 years but it would appear that this is not the case as I suspect the vast majority of it will go to newcomers to the area.
It would appear that North Leamington has been largely left alone from these proposals and local concern is that this is due to the wealth of the people that live in North Leamington. It would make more sense to have the majority of the housing in the North of Leamington, Kenilworth and Cubbington areas as they are closer to the planned major employment area and do not have any greenfield areas separating them. They are already a continuous sprawl of housing. This would mean less of a commute and better air quality. The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a sensible option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
Please reconsider the scale of the housing proposed and also the positions. Without the correct infrastructure to support this plan Leamington Spa will become nothing more than a sprawling town with no character, major traffic problems, poor medical and educational facilities and an altogether undesirable place to live.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of what feels like a 3 pronged attack. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I would appreciate a response to the questions raised as part of this letter and hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions on mine and my childrens futures.

Having reviewed the Council's proposals for a new Local Plan we have the following observations and objections.
Viz: It is likely that according to a recent study that the need for new housing in the district is less than 6000 rather than the grossly inflated figure of 12000 new homes as proposed by the Council. Such great numbers will require building on farmland and considerable infrastructure development - Fire Protection, Policing, Roads, power, water, sewers, transport,education, healthcare and sufficient work available to sustain such a proposed development.The district has many brownfield sites which should first be developed. Homes do not have to be single dwellings. Flats, of low skyline intrusion would surely meet the needs of many of the projected growth population.
Whilst we object to all of the proposals in the Whitnash/Harbury Lane/Gallows Hill areas we are particularly concerned of the area east of the railway line in Whitnash for this area is in the heart of the Whitnash - Harbury ridge valley, an area rarely visited at the moment by other than dog walkers. It is in fact an area of extreme beauty, quintessentially English. Rural England at it's best; a tranquil, housing free, area of productive farmland from Whitnash Church to Chesterton Windmill to Harbury and round to Radford. An area supporting considerable wildlife and at the time of writing a 'golden valley' full of ripening barley. The Valley provides not only food for us all but gives us an area of valuable air quality. Which is going to be needed even more so if we are to be surrounded by 12000 new houses.[have any councillors visited this area?]
Our specific objections include Fieldgate Lane -application W/13/0858 - 94 houses on a rural area that is already subject to flooding will cause roads,already congested to be overloaded. and a further demand on local and district services.
As far as 'travellers' sites are concerned the district is being held to ransom. We have all seen the devastation of sites visited by travellers and have had to contribute through local taxes to the enormous cost to the community of cleaning up after them. Why; the Council cannot even collect parking money when travellers park for 10 days or more on a pubic car park ( Myton Fields) yet I am expected to pay. If travellers want a permanent site they should be encouraged to do as the rest of the community, to buy a permanent house. But then they would be subject to all of the responsibilities of us other citizens.
We are shrinking Island with a finite land area, we cannot afford to waste it by concreting it over. We are the trustees of the earth as were our forebears before us, we have a responsibility to protect the earth and in this case Warwick District from the devastation that is being thrust upon us.
Please give close consideration to our objections outlined above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concentration of these homes will, I believe, have a detrimental affect on Bishops Tachbrook. There will no doubt be an increase in the traffic on the minor road through the village (Mallory Road). This is already used as a cut through by speeding cars trying to avoid the already overloaded road network. This will have dramatic effect on the community, putting peoples lives at risk crossing a much busier road with motorists driving at speed, whilst trying to access the villages facilities such as the local shop, doctors surgery, community/playing facilities and the primary school. The village could be split in two by this road and go from a community where local children are allowed some freedom and independence to access our excellent play facilities to a community where social isolation is prevelant as they are terrified by a very busy road. An increase in the amount of vehicles passing through will also increase the risk to the health of villager's especially the children with an increase of air pollution and the diseases this is associated with such as lung cancer and asthma.

Indeed the increased number of cars 12,300 homes will bring will have far reaching consequences for our air quality. Already pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than legally permitted. Air quality is needed to be improved on by Warwick District Council but this Local Plan and its transport strategy would exacerbate it further. Long term health of residents would be even more threatened. The local economy with local businesses and tourism would damaged by the Plan .There would no longer be the beauty currently found in historic Warwick or the spa town of Leamington.

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

The Prosposed Gypsy and Travellers sites are again concentrated in the same area. There are several sites prosposed around Bishops Tachbrook. One site situated on Banbury Road/ Mallory Road is extremely unsuitable as it is so near a busy main road ( will be increasingly busier with many more homes just down the road!!) so is not suitable for the travellers and their families in terms of safety or access. It also currently floods and floods down through the Village through the back gardens of where I currently live. I feel that hardstanding for proposed travellers site will create less surface area for the water to soak away and increase the volume of water flooding down through the Village, instead of just flooding gardens, it will flood through homes.
These sites would also impact on the local facilities, the school is already at capacity and the GP practice is just a branch surgery with limited opening hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RDS 1 Level of Housing Growth 2011-29
The Borough Council is working alongside Coventry and Warwickshire Councils including Warwick District to prepare a joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment to guide the setting of housing provision figures for the relevant Councils. This approach is appropriate in terms of ensuring that Warwick's Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for housing in the housing market area. As yet, this work is not complete and so it is not possible to comment on whether or not the proposed figure of 12,300 will meet the needs for housing.

I object to the local plan - Revised Development Strategy .

I believe the proposed plan is unsustainable on the following 3 points. Environmental, economic and social grounds.

Housing - Too many new house proposed as there are already thousands of empty houses in the area around Warwick which could be improved and sold on .

Car parking - More homes means more cars and there are not enough parking places already so more traffic will cause more parking problems this being followed by more safety problems.

Environment - The view from Warwick Castle will be greatly disturbed by such a plan and as the Castle is one of the main generators of income to the local economy suggest that what brings in a good income should not be disturbed in any way.

Gas emissions - As the emissions are already over the guidelines in certain areas of Warwick it seems unbelievable that they are going to be made worse if the plan goes ahead.

Traffic - More pressure on local services such as hospitals,social services, etc especially over the Avon Bridge near Bridge End and the Myton Road which is already horrific at certain times of the days with traffic queueing right back up the hill and out of sight round the bend on Banbury road.

Safety - The safety of all Pedestrians young, old and disabled will be greatly increased which seems contary to all the other counties in the country.

Conservation - Exremely important in many areas south of Warwick including Bridge End which is one of main beauty spots of the town and surrounding area.

Services - Greatly increased pressure on such services as the hospital,social services and education to name but a few.

In conclusion - The proposed plans will bring many more problems with them and much larger ones than we have at the moment so what is the point in making matters worse and not better.? Suggest it might be better to halve the number of houses, renovate the thousands of empty ones and to place some of the the remaining half equally distributed north, south, east and west around the area

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that it will be passed on to the appropriate authority who will be making the decisions.

To whom it may concern,

I have read the proposed new local plan and it has raised numerous concerns with me as to the detrimental effect which it will have on Warwick, as I have listed below.


Number of Homes
The sheer number of homes which the plan provides for is excessive. The claim that we need over 12000 new homes is in direct contrast with the assessments of projected local need which claim we need only around 5000 new homes to meet the local needs. The additional homes will only create an influx of people who will live in Warwick because there are homes here but then commute to Birmingham or Coventry for work, bringing Warwick itself nothing but strain on its infrastructure and increased traffic and air pollution. Further to this, the strategic housing land and availability assessment which Warwick District Council themselves compiled indicates the districts maximum capacity for expansion by 2029 is a little over 13,000 homes, meaning that the local plan would use up more than 90% of this capacity with homes which we do not need and would force any further expansion to come at the expense of the local environment to a greater extent even than the current plan does
Environmental Cost
Warwick is primarily a town of great historic and natural beauty, but the proposed plan would seriously damage the environment of the town. At the moment Warwick has only one scenic entrance to the town and the proposed development would rob Warwick of this natural beauty. While the land to the south of Warwick is not a part of the greenbelt this is no reflection on its nature as green land of equal if not greater beauty than the greenbelt land to the north of Leamington and yet Warwick District Council seems to have decided that it is expendable.
Cost to the Town
The development of a large suburban housing area will by necessity require an increase of traffic through the town. Most households today have 2 if not 3 cars and this will be especially true of a large out of town housing development. As such Warwick's already criminally poor air quality will be further reduced. Further to this, one of the most prominent features of Warwick is the river Avon and in order to get into or through Warwick anyone in the proposed new homes will have to pass over the bridge, which is already strained by the amount of traffic passing over it and any increase to this could seriously damage its structural integrity. The proposed local plan could seriously damage an important historical part of Warwick's heritage and do so in a way that places people in danger.
Strains on Infrastructure
The proposed local plan would increase the population of Warwick by nearly 20% from its current level, and doing so would place an incredible strain on Warwick's social infrastructure. The education needs of the families moving into the new homes would be too great to be met by the schools in the area, and the health needs would put a strain on local health centres and in particular on Warwick Hospital which the hospital and health centres simply do not have the capacity to handle. Additional strain on drainage and even on water needs would be great and Warwick may well be unable to cope with the increases which the local plan proposes.


I hope that you will take these concerns into account when redrafting the plan and that a new local plan which will truly benefit Warwick will soon be drawn up

My comments relate to 6 main areas: scale of development, distribution, infrastructure, flooding, quality of life and listening to residents.

Scale of development

Previous Local Plan projections in 2012 suggested 10,800 houses needed to be built in Warwick District by 2029; new 2013 figures suggest 12,300. I have concerns that neither of these figures are accurate and, accounting for natural growth and an allowance for migration, only 5400 homes are required. This calculation was undertaken using 2011 census data by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Councillor Ray Bullen. In support of a much lower figure, in December 2012 Warwick District Council's own consultants G.L. Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study projection of 4405. Given the low unemployment rate of 1.7% in Warwick District, growth for employment is not a valid argument to explain this level of growth. I believe there is a very strong case that the scale of development is far in excess of what is required through natural growth and reasonable levels of migration.

Warwick District Council's 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment' states that the total capacity of the District is approximately 13,385 homes between 2014-2029; this Local Plan's projections use up 91.8% of total capacity. As this would leave virtually no room for future expansions, the local environment would undoubtedly be negatively impacted by future developments.

The level of growth proposed is unsustainable and according to the Local Development Framework, Annual Monitoring Report 2011, 'the majority of this [housing] growth has resulted from people moving into the District from other areas, notably the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham...[a] key factor behind this trend has been the particularly high level of house building that has taken place within the District during that period.' If migration has been fuelling the housing growth then the more homes that are built, the more people are likely to move out from Coventry and Birmingham to live in Warwick District. This in turn will put more pressure on housing stock as these new residents have families who will require housing if they are to remain nearby. This means large scale development will exacerbate rather than solve the local housing issues. Warwick District Council needs to revisit the scale of development to bring it down to sustainable levels.

The Bishop's Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a local need for only 14 homes; 10 'affordable and 4 'market' homes. A mixed development of 25-30 homes could provide the 10 affordable homes required so why have the numbers 100-150 homes been chosen for Bishop's Tachbrook against the local evidence base?

Distribution

The consultation document shows that 70% of the proposed housing is concentrated in the south of the district, in Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash. The Green Belt in the north of the district has been protected but insufficient provision has been made for the green field sites in the south. This leads me to question the fairness of this distribution, with the residents of the south bearing a greater burden than those of the north.

Infrastructure
The distribution of the proposed new housing raises concerns regarding infrastructure. A number of improvements over the last 12 months have not been project managed effectively, namely the High Street/Jury Street roadworks and the Morrisons development roadworks. Additionally, it took over 10 years for improvements to the Gallows Hill junction to be implemented so I have serious concerns regarding when any proposed infrastructure improvements will be undertaken to complement the housing developments. The knock on effect for existing residents whilst waiting for improvements to take place would be unacceptable. I also believe that even with the planned upgrades, the strain on local infrastructure will be intolerable and whilst the upgrades are taking place there would be a considerable inconvenience placed on local residents and businesses.

Flooding

The Tach Brook runs parallel to Harbury Lane, approximately equidistant from Bishop's Tachbrook and Warwick Gates. The Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council Flooding Review in Warwick District Final Report of the Joint Panel June 2008 reported that properties in Bishop's Tachbrook were affected by the floods. If houses in Bishop's Tachbrook already flood without housing being built on the Tach Brook flood plain then it is likely that it will only get worse if the water has fewer fields to run off into. If new housing is built on the land between the Tach Brook and Harbury Lane the new housing will be built with new anti-flood defences. This would leave the existing housing, built when such technology was neither available nor necessary, more vulnerable to flooding. I lived in Cubbington village when that flooded in 2007 and the extent of the flooding was exacerbated by the inadequacy of flood defences since new housing had been built.

Constructing large areas of housing on the banks of the brook will increase the water flow and in periods of prolonged heavy rain will increase flooding risks to neighbouring authorities such as Gloucestershire and Stratford. Recognising that only 5,400 homes are required, dispersing them more fairly around the district and not directly connecting them into the river system (except by the upgraded drainage system in Leamington) would be more acceptable to downstream neighbours such as Gloucestershire and Stratford.

Quality of life

Bishop's Tachbrook is a rural village separated from Leamington town by Harbury Lane. Having lived in what was Cubbington village and seeing the erosion of quality of life as a result of infill I would not want the same happening to Bishop's Tachbrook. It has a rural character which I would like preserved by maintaining the geographical barrier of Harbury Lane. The suggestions for a country park are paying lip service to the real issue which is that the edge of Bishop's Tachbrook is a mile from the edge of Warwick Gates and if the urban sprawl comes any closer than that then the rurality of the village is lost. A country park may provide a minimum level of separation but the undulations of the land will make the new housing highly visible from Bishop's Tachbrook thus negating this token separation.

The Planning Inspector who reviewed the current Local Plan in 2006 reported that Woodside Farm should not be built on now or in the future. Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish in the Landscape Area Statement in 2009 wrote the following with regards the land south of Gallows Hill 'this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development'. However, this new Local Plan appears to go against its own consultant's advice.

Listening to residents

A Neighbourhood Plan has been issued by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council which reflects the survey undertaken to gather residents' views. Bishop's Tachbrook residents such as I are concerned that our views will not be taken into account during this consultation. The previous 2012 Local Plan was altered after the consultation process and became much more acceptable to residents in the village. However this new Local Plan rips up any compromises made last year and in fact proposes more housing, with more of a burden borne by villagers. Consultation should not be a token gesture and the Local Plan should be altered if residents are clearly opposed to its proposals.

My comments relate to 6 main areas: scale of development, distribution, infrastructure, flooding, quality of life and listening to residents.

Scale of development

Previous Local Plan projections in 2012 suggested 10,800 houses needed to be built in Warwick District by 2029; new 2013 figures suggest 12,300. I have concerns that neither of these figures are accurate and, accounting for natural growth and an allowance for migration, only 5400 homes are required. This calculation was undertaken using 2011 census data by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Councillor Ray Bullen. In support of a much lower figure, in December 2012 Warwick District Council's own consultants G.L. Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study projection of 4405. Given the low unemployment rate of 1.7% in Warwick District, growth for employment is not a valid argument to explain this level of growth. I believe there is a very strong case that the scale of development is far in excess of what is required through natural growth and reasonable levels of migration.

Warwick District Council's 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment' states that the total capacity of the District is approximately 13,385 homes between 2014-2029; this Local Plan's projections use up 91.8% of total capacity. As this would leave virtually no room for future expansions, the local environment would undoubtedly be negatively impacted by future developments.

The level of growth proposed is unsustainable and according to the Local Development Framework, Annual Monitoring Report 2011, 'the majority of this [housing] growth has resulted from people moving into the District from other areas, notably the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham...[a] key factor behind this trend has been the particularly high level of house building that has taken place within the District during that period.' If migration has been fuelling the housing growth then the more homes that are built, the more people are likely to move out from Coventry and Birmingham to live in Warwick District. This in turn will put more pressure on housing stock as these new residents have families who will require housing if they are to remain nearby. This means large scale development will exacerbate rather than solve the local housing issues. Warwick District Council needs to revisit the scale of development to bring it down to sustainable levels.

The Bishop's Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a local need for only 14 homes; 10 'affordable and 4 'market' homes. A mixed development of 25-30 homes could provide the 10 affordable homes required so why have the numbers 100-150 homes been chosen for Bishop's Tachbrook against the local evidence base?

Distribution

The consultation document shows that 70% of the proposed housing is concentrated in the south of the district, in Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash. The Green Belt in the north of the district has been protected but insufficient provision has been made for the green field sites in the south. This leads me to question the fairness of this distribution, with the residents of the south bearing a greater burden than those of the north.

Infrastructure
The distribution of the proposed new housing raises concerns regarding infrastructure. A number of improvements over the last 12 months have not been project managed effectively, namely the High Street/Jury Street roadworks and the Morrisons development roadworks. Additionally, it took over 10 years for improvements to the Gallows Hill junction to be implemented so I have serious concerns regarding when any proposed infrastructure improvements will be undertaken to complement the housing developments. The knock on effect for existing residents whilst waiting for improvements to take place would be unacceptable. I also believe that even with the planned upgrades, the strain on local infrastructure will be intolerable and whilst the upgrades are taking place there would be a considerable inconvenience placed on local residents and businesses.

Flooding

The Tach Brook runs parallel to Harbury Lane, approximately equidistant from Bishop's Tachbrook and Warwick Gates. The Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council Flooding Review in Warwick District Final Report of the Joint Panel June 2008 reported that properties in Bishop's Tachbrook were affected by the floods. If houses in Bishop's Tachbrook already flood without housing being built on the Tach Brook flood plain then it is likely that it will only get worse if the water has fewer fields to run off into. If new housing is built on the land between the Tach Brook and Harbury Lane the new housing will be built with new anti-flood defences. This would leave the existing housing, built when such technology was neither available nor necessary, more vulnerable to flooding. I lived in Cubbington village when that flooded in 2007 and the extent of the flooding was exacerbated by the inadequacy of flood defences since new housing had been built.

Constructing large areas of housing on the banks of the brook will increase the water flow and in periods of prolonged heavy rain will increase flooding risks to neighbouring authorities such as Gloucestershire and Stratford. Recognising that only 5,400 homes are required, dispersing them more fairly around the district and not directly connecting them into the river system (except by the upgraded drainage system in Leamington) would be more acceptable to downstream neighbours such as Gloucestershire and Stratford.

Quality of life

Bishop's Tachbrook is a rural village separated from Leamington town by Harbury Lane. Having lived in what was Cubbington village and seeing the erosion of quality of life as a result of infill I would not want the same happening to Bishop's Tachbrook. It has a rural character which I would like preserved by maintaining the geographical barrier of Harbury Lane. The suggestions for a country park are paying lip service to the real issue which is that the edge of Bishop's Tachbrook is a mile from the edge of Warwick Gates and if the urban sprawl comes any closer than that then the rurality of the village is lost. A country park may provide a minimum level of separation but the undulations of the land will make the new housing highly visible from Bishop's Tachbrook thus negating this token separation.

The Planning Inspector who reviewed the current Local Plan in 2006 reported that Woodside Farm should not be built on now or in the future. Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish in the Landscape Area Statement in 2009 wrote the following with regards the land south of Gallows Hill 'this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development'. However, this new Local Plan appears to go against its own consultant's advice.

Listening to residents

A Neighbourhood Plan has been issued by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council which reflects the survey undertaken to gather residents' views. Bishop's Tachbrook residents such as I are concerned that our views will not be taken into account during this consultation. The previous 2012 Local Plan was altered after the consultation process and became much more acceptable to residents in the village. However this new Local Plan rips up any compromises made last year and in fact proposes more housing, with more of a burden borne by villagers. Consultation should not be a token gesture and the Local Plan should be altered if residents are clearly opposed to its proposals.

Dear Sir/Madam
This letter is my objections to the WDC local plan. My main objection is to the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The area at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area.
Local need
The local need for housing is 6,000 new homes by 2030, why is it proposed that 12,000 new homes be built? From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland and not on existing brownfield industrial sites.
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with new patients. There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the area around the proposed housing. Europa Way and the lead up to Leamington is already a nightmare at peak hours. With the possibility of all these extra vehicles this would just get worse
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this thus creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the increased traffic, exhaust pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.


Flood risk
The area propsed for building between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
The plan states that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. The secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
Will the current catchment areas change? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. The village will become an extension of Leamington with just one field separating it.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are proposed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here.
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is mainly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon? Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities.
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a viable option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of three separate proposals. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions.

Myton Road is already overloaded with traffic. It is home to some 3500 schoolchildren during the school day and the road just can't take any more traffic. I am retired but have to time any outings by car to avoid the delays inherent in setting forth between 8am and 10 am. as it can take me half an hour just to get to the outskirts of the town. The road is jammed between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. every morning during term time.
The same is true in the afternoon. The schools stagger their finishing time in the hope of distributing the traffic. This is fine but the effect is that there are several peaks when even getting to my house from Warwick is impossible without substantial queuing. The first wave is about 3.15 p.m. with further jams about 4 p.m. and the inevitable rush hour jam between 5.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m.
The new houses proposed will inevitably increase the traffic and make a chaotic situation even worse. Clearly no houses should have direct access onto Myton Road; that would be madness. However, even building in the vicinity will inevitably bring some traffic to the road. The fact is that there is no road in the whole of Warwick District that has a worse traffic problem than Myton Road.
But it is not just Myton Road that is overloaded. The roads in the centre of Warwick are gridlocked too.
The infrastructure in Warwick
Traffic frequently queues back from the Eastgate traffic lights to the Castle roundabout and from there to the bridge over the River Avon and beyond. These are historic areas, part of the heritage that makes Warwick a tourist town; we can't afford to fiddle with the road layout. No one wants to see King's High School demolished to make way for a roundabout with Eastgate in the middle. And yet, if we want to reduce the traffic, it is obvious that we need to stop any more house building to the south of Warwick.
The proposed Traffic modification scheme for Castle Hill involving extensive modifications to the area including Castle Hill, Smith Street, St Nicholas Church Street and Banbury Road appear to have one main objective which is to manage through traffic to the detriment of local traffic and local residents. It will have the effect of damaging the very structure that makes Warwick a tourist attraction and provides revenue to the local businesses and facilities to the local residents. The scheme generally assumes a significant growth in traffic over the 200 year old Avon Bridge, and yet there has been no study commissioned to determine its capability to carry the estimated 10% increase in traffic expected to be generated by the housing/ business / through traffic growth.
It is clear to me that no amount of tinkering can deal with the fundamental problem - the number of residents, shoppers and schoolchildren already using the road. It is surely time to stop adding to the problem.
Air Quality
The Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000 (as amended) set out objectives for improving the air quality in our towns and cities. In particular, the objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was set at 40 ug per m³.
Readings were taken in the centre of Warwick in 2007 and High Street, Jury Street, St. Nicholas Church Street, Smith Street, Bowling Green Street, Theatre Street, Saltisford and The Butts were all above this level. Indeed Pageant House with a reading of 56.4 ug per m³ was the highest in the whole area covered by Warwick District Council. A massive 41% above the minimum level deemed acceptable by the government.
It is argued that new technologies for vehicles have improved levels over the last 5 years, but I doubt that this is the case. Government incentives have concentrated on the level of CO2 (carbon dioxide) not NO2. Furthermore, there has been a general trend towards more diesel cars and these emit more NO2 than petrol driven ones. Recently the new road layout in Jury Street and High Street will have slowed traffic down. Of course, this is a benefit (in one way), but it means traffic spends longer in Warwick and emits more nitrogen dioxide.
What sort of policy is it when you concentrate most of your building in an area where air quality is worst? To make it even worse?
Coalescence of Warwick and Leamington
The Public Inquiry into the (then) proposed development of the Aragon Drive estate. Warwick District Council (who were objecting to it) and Warwickshire County Council were very specific about the fact that it was important to keep a green buffer zone between Warwick and Leamington Spa to prevent the 2 towns becoming one big urban sprawl. Indeed, it was stated that the cycle path on the outskirts of the estate was specifically designed to mark the boundary of development and the land behind was to be retained in perpetuity as an area of restraint. The Inspector was no doubt influenced by this when he gave permission for the development.
We need to have boundaries between our towns to give everyone a sense of identity. Jephson Farm provides a useful buffer zone to the north of Myton Road and this land should provide a similar buffer zone to the south.
Rate of Growth
I understand that the size of Warwick has increased by 1% a year over the last 10 years, double the rate of growth for Warwickshire as a whole and double the national average. Surely it's now time to look elsewhere. We need to reduce this to help to assimilate the new houses already built (and still being built) within the current structure.
The planned development in Warwick and Leamington appears to be designed to meet a target for the wider area, including for example the Stratford on Avon, whilst totally ignoring significant development proposed in that neighbouring town, including the controversial Shottery development for 800 houses already approved in that area, to name but one.
The proposals for the whole area are designed, not just as an organic growth to satisfy our local demand of around 5,000 homes which could be satisfied by development on existing brown-field sites, but apparently to bring in from far and wide new residents to the area which will have the net effect of turning our lovely ancient market town, an attraction to British and Overseas tourists, into an ugly dormitory for the major conurbations of Birmingham and Coventry.
Agricultural Land
According to the Agricultural Land Classification Map, most of this land is of Grade 2 quality. To put this into perspective only 0.1% of agricultural land in Warwickshire is Grade 1 (mostly in North Warwickshire) and only 11.9% is Grade 2.
In other words, this land is probably in the top 10% most productive in the whole County. Our population will inevitably rise in years to come and we will need to get the most from our modest resources. Surely it isn't sensible to build houses on the best land first.
The land too is brimming with wildlife - I have seen foxes, deer, pheasants, woodpeckers, bats, rabbits, newts and hedgehogs. We can't build on this sort of environment; it needs to be retained for future generations.
Flooding
A casual glance is sufficient to inform anyone that this site slopes gently from south to north. And slopes can bring flooding. There has already been considerable flooding in the Myton Crescent area when the old Dormer School site was built upon. It is inevitable that the same will happen here and yet the Local Plan is silent on the subject.
At the very least there will need to be a buffer zone between the old and new developments to allow for some natural drainage. Although the best answer is to leave things as they are and allow Myton Brook to take excess surface water safely on its way.

The Whitnash Residents Association wish to make the following comments on the Warwick District Local Plan.

While understanding the need for some growth, especially in housing we do not agree with the level of growth proposed in this plan. We do not feel there is a need for the large amount of homes planned for and believe half the number will serve to provide for our residents.

We do not agree with the large concentration of housing planned for south of the district. There is a statement that coalition will be avoided yet this plan merges Whitnash, Bishops Tachbrook Warwick and Leamington. Whitnash has very little green space and now our few undeveloped boundaries are being taken away. The proposed country park will in no way mitigate for the loss of open green fields.

The Whitnash Brook Valley will be spoilt by development even with the mitigating measures suggested.

We do not believe the Infrastructure plan is able to deliver what is needed to make this plan sustainable. There is an obvious gap in funding that will lead to parts of the plan not being implemented.
No account has been taken for building in Stratford upon Avon District that will put pressure on roads and the hospital in Warwick District. Both Warwick and Leamington have bridges that need to be crossed, so whatever highway improvements are made unless new river crossings are made there will always be congestion.

While schools are planned, houses will be built before schools. Where are children to go to school with current schools almost all at full capacity?
Air quality in parts of Warwick and Leamington are already at levels higher than the legal limit. This amount of building will increase the levels and more areas will be affected.

We wish the views of our Association to be considered.