RDS3: The Council's Preferred Option for the broad location of development is to:

The new revised local plan makes much more sense as it does not involve building on green belt land and the proposed houses are closer to both public transport links and employment opportunities.

I fully support the revised plan as it is a much more sensible plan and protects the green belt which in my view should be protected at all costs.

It is much better using the extra brownfield sites including the underused industrial estates than encroaching on the Green Belt, which would be an irrecuperable loss- particularly Blackdown and Old Milverton with their very high landscape and biodiversity value. I welcome the proposal for the green corridor along the Tach Book, and also the cycle routes proposed for the district generally.

WDC has had a difficult task in reconciling and balancing environmental and planning considerations here. There were no Exceptional Circumstances for the Green Belt status of land to North of Leamington to be overturned. If some more houses are needed in the area, then they are best built on non green belt land to the south of Warwick/Leamington where more employment is situated.
Coventry has enough non greenbelt land for more housing. Land which is nearer to the city. Certainly enough land to supply the number of houses required which I feel has been over estimated

I am delighted common sense has prevailed and green belt land to the north of Leamington has been removed from the local plan.
Like many others I realise the constraints the planners in Warwick district have to work under with so much green belt in the area but surely it is always best to utilise non green belt land first.
If the green belt to the north of Leamington is not protected, there is a danger Leamington and Warwick will merge with Kenilworth which in turn will merge with Coventry. We cannot afford our area to become a suburb of Coventry. The non green belt land to the south and east of Leamington is far more suitable for development with space, rail & motorway links and most of the industry being in this area.

I am pleased that Warwick District Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced.

I believe that new development should be concentrated where there are existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. I also think it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that development.

The Revised Development Strategy fulfils these objectives. Recent evidence shows that the revised plan may have less traffic congestion, less pollution and improved schools and other facilities than building on North Leamington's Green Belt. For these reasons I support the Revised Development Strategy."

We have read the revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan.

We appreciate that it is difficult to plan for so much development and that not everyone will be happy with the plans.

Our objection has always been that green belt should be protected if possible. It appears the new plans recognise this is possible and we are pleased to hear this.

Since the majority of development is nearer the motorway, train station and now a large number of supermarkets - it seems far more sensible from an infrastructure point of view.

Also the main entry point to the north of Leamington is heavily congested most days and could not cope with a large increase of traffic.

We note the idea of changing the roundabouts on the Kenilworth Road to lights appears strange. Whilst not traffic experts, it would appear this would be very expensive to change, more expensive to maintain, incredibly disruptive to make the alterations and we don't think this would increase or improve the traffic flow. Whilst not perfect, roundabouts rarely cause fatal accidents since everyone knows to slow down whereas traffic lights on main roads tend to lead to occasional severe accidents when a driver accidentally fails to obey the lights.

Therefore we are very pleased to latgely support the new plans but urge you to reconsider replacing existing roundabouts with taffic lights.

I would like to record my approval to the proposed revision of the local plan. This seems to be a return to the original strategic plan which has formulated the development of the area in recent years.

All the infrastructure and amenities have been focused to the south of the area adjacent to the motorway. The list practically endless as is shown by the following list.

To the south:-
The Motorway and access routes. ( even the A46 bypasses the towns) The Technology park.
All the industrial estates including ones accessed by A46.
Two hospitals. One again using A46
All the supermarkets, now five. ( and those in Warwick near A46) All secondary schools (except one) and Warwick School.
The Railway Station.
The Shires retail shopping park.
The main Hotel (again those north are easily accessed by A46) All the main car showrooms and service garages.
Builders merchants and plumbing centres.
Sewerage works
Department store ( Debenhams)

To the north:-
One private hospital and management training centre (both accessed from A46 to north)

I am sure that my lists are incomplete, it clearly illustrates how because of previous plans, the south with the scheduled development of white belt has been developed with the future in mind. Whereas the Green Belt area to the north has been protected. Property owners to the south may also wish for development elsewhere, but it has always been stated that the southern white belt is for development and the well planned layout of these housing areas have taken this into consideration as have the developers and purchasers.

The roads to the north of Leamington are nose to tail both morning and evening. Many residents wishing to travel south or west go north using A46 to bypass towns because of heavy traffic.
Any further development without a multi million pound new road through the green belt and beautiful Avon valley would course grid lock.

I am writing this e-mail to give my reaction to the New Local Plan as a major employer situated on the South side of the area.

One of the main needs of the business community is to be able to attract & retain quality staff. There is a lot of competition for qualified people who, whilst seeking a rewarding career, are also highly motivated by the quality of life. There is no question that Leamington & Warwick provide the potential for a very high quality of life, but the shortage of housing means that house prices are relatively high and unaffordable for many new employees. It is vital that the Council moves to implement a local plan with a sense of urgency to ensure the economy in the area can continue to flourish.

Business is also very conscious of the impact on the local infrastructure. Both Leamington & Warwick are very congested towns in rush hour due to the limited river crossings & the historic nature of the area. This is why all the business parks are located to the south of the area close to the M40 & A46 junctions. The location close to the centre of the motorway networks is attractive to business. It is vital, therefore, that the local plan ensures that the infrastructure supports the proposed developments & does not create unintended consequences elsewhere. I am writing to provide my support as a business leader for your latest plan for the following reasons:

1. The new housing developments will help attract the quality of the workforce required to maintain & grow our business in the future.

2. The developments are located close to where the employment opportunities are (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) thus providing an opportunity for people to live close to their work thereby reducing or eliminating the commute for many people with a consequential positive impact on the environment & their quality of life.

3. The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more business to set up & relocate to this area, helping to generate more jobs & prosperity for the local community.

4. The proposals to improve the main access road, Europa Way, by making it a dual carriageway is vital to the success of the plan, and I would like to encourage the council to ensure that this is actioned at the beginning of developments in order to minimise the potential for long term disruption. This will also assist those will have to commute to access the major arterial routes more easily. In respect of this proposal, I would suggest that the council also considers improvements to the roundabout at the end of Europa way leading to the access road for the M40. This is already heavily congested in the morning and the evenings.

I wish to commend the new plans for housing and development.
Having made clear my objections to the plan of 2012 I find it encouraging that you have reconsidered and found that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify building in the Green Belt North of Leamington.
The new plan to build on land which by and large infills areas of the town where there is already industrial and retail development makes good sense as people can live nearer to employment opportunities and to some extent obviate the need for longer commuting journeys. Transport links are also better here with easier access to the M40 and the trains.
However, I am still very concerned that the necessary additional infrastructure is put in place as and when the houses are built. It is vital that sufficient schools, medical centres, community and sports facilities are put in to the plans at an early stage and not added in later( as in the bad example of Warwick Gates)
Transport issues also have to be dealt with in the early planning stages; to avoid congestion it will be essential to factor in cycling and pedestrian routes of a high standard, built to National guidelines. These should provide ways of getting to schools, employment, the town centre and railway station and not just for leisure cycling/walking. Bus routes should also be a top priority. All these measures would help to reduce car travel which is vital if the towns are not to be swamped with traffic and multi -storey car parks.
I commend the long term plan to have a new country park to the South of Leamington.
I am still concerned that there is to be consultation with Coventry City Council on their housing plans. It is essential that the proposed Gateway development near Baginton and the new developments at Stoneleigh Park do not result in a new threat to the Greenbelt countryside North of Leamington. We must keep Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth as separate towns and not allow them to be swallowed up in Coventry's overspill.
I recognise the very great difficulties the council has in planning for the major expansion required by the government, and feel that you have come up with a plan which could work if the points made above are taken into account.

I recognise the enormity of the task facing Warwick District Council in providing new growth whilst balancing environmental, planning and other objectives. I welcome a Local Plan that is based on sound principles and robust evidence to ensure that it provides a solid framework upon which to guide future development. I believe that the Preferred Options for the New Local Plan published in June 2012 do not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and that as a consequence the Local Plan would be found unsound at Public Enquiry.
I am pleased that Warwick District Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced.
I believe that new development should be concentrated where there are existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It also believes it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that development.

The Revised Development Strategy fulfils these objectives. Recent evidence shows that the revised plan may have less traffic congestion, less pollution and improved schools and other facilities than building on North Leamington's Green Belt. For these reasons I support the Revised Development Strategy.

I write in support of the revised development strategy relating to house building over the next 15 years. The latest strategy rightly protects the greenbelt north of Leamington and focuses development largely on existing conurbations.

I wanted to state that I fully appreciate the scale of the task facing Warwick District Council in providing new housing growth whilst balancing environmental, planning and other objectives. However I fully welcome a Local Plan that is based on sound principles and robust evidence to ensure that it provides a solid framework upon which to guide future development. I believe that the Preferred Options for the New Local Plan published in June 2012 do not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and that as a consequence the Local Plan would be found unsound at Public Enquiry.

I am pleased that Warwick District Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced.

I believe that new development should be concentrated where there are existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. I also believe it is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled, and where necessary there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that development.

The Revised Development Strategy fulfils these objectives. Recent evidence shows that the revised plan may have less traffic congestion, less pollution and improved schools and other facilities than building on North Leamington's Green Belt. For these reasons I fully support the Revised Development Strategy.

I support the decision to avoid developing on the green belt of Old Milverton and Blackdown . It is essential we preserve the division between the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington and enable residents to continue to use the green belt for leisure and amenity.

I am pleased that the Council has made the right decision to protect the green belt land in north Leamington. I understand the concern from south of the town but the infrastructure is already in place and the opportunity for employment is far greater than in the north.
I still have concerns about the building of so many houses and the promise of new jobs, we live in a lovely town in a beautiful area, so whatever we do must be done with the utmost care and for the good of the people of Leamington Spa.

We welcome the Revised Local Plan, in particular RDS3 (Page 14) and RDS7 (Page 30) which we believe suitably reflects comprehensive, objective and independent evidence, assessments and information, in a way which is now compliant with national and local planning policy requirements:

(1) previously supplied as part of the evidence base in June/July 2012 for devising the Local Plan,
(2) additionally provided by a range of stakeholders as part of the consultation process on the 2012 proposed version of the Local Plan, and
(3) arising from further assessment commissioned by Warwick District Council since the previous version in 2012, and supplied within the updated evidence base for this Revised Local Plan.

We note in particular the assessments and conclusions from the independent studies commissioned by Warwick District Council, namely Landscape Study, Review of Employment Land study and the updated Strategic Transport Assessment conducted since July 2012 collectively provide powerful justification for RDS3 on the basis of objective planning evidence not subjective opinion.

A key point we wish to highlight is that in the context of the need for the Local Plan to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, the evidence has proved the "exceptional circumstances" do not exist for justifying housing development on the Green Belt to the north of Leamington e.g. as clearly stated in Paragraph 4.3.10 of the Revised Local Plan, the updated Strategic Transport Assessment analysis refutes any justification on traffic grounds, which previously has been a key justification for development to the north of Leamington.

Finally, we recognise that given the predominant location of housing development under the Revised Local Plan is to the south of Leamington, previously silent and new respondees will raise objections to this Revised Local Plan. The Local Plan must be based on objective evidence not who shouts loudest and thus we wish to re-emphasise that the Revised Local Plan now appropriately reflects objective and independent evidence in a way which is now compliant with national and local planning policy requirements. We trust that on this basis Warwick District Council will adopt this Revised Local Plan.

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Greenbelt around Od Milverton and Blackdown.

I feel that it is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Greenbelt. The greenbelt in the area meets the 5 key roles of greenbelt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth and Baginton and Lillington already takes land from this essential greenbelt no further development on it would be sustainable. It must not be permitted.

There is considerable concern regarding the availability of school places. This year and the next 2 years are said to be bumper births years where it is already known that there are not enough school places. The same can be said for healthcare provision,

The exclusion of development in the North Leamington Greenbelt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development here would be bitterly opposed. It would be unacceptable as no exceptional circumstances exist and this land has a vital and immeasurable purpose for the future of the district and it critical to its future sustainability .

Development in the South reduces traffic congestion, reduces air pollution as well as enabling better provision of schools.

We are so relieved that the new local plan preserves the Green Belt to the North of Leamington.
We think it is essential to protect this buffer between us and Coventry and to avoid yet more road works and congestion.

ALTERNATIVE TO THE LOCAL PLAN

Thank you for the reply on 'Alternative to the Local Plan', and your interest.

Without a clearly defined boundary of the Warwick District on a map that shows enough detail to identify every village and hamlet I had to take a guess at some of the locations. I am sure I may have missed a few as well.

My objective in this idea was to look for alternative plans to achieve the number of houses as is now catered for in the Local Plan.
I am not in a position to identify actual land sites as you may be aware. Please understand there must be small sites around the present housing within the places in my list that have the potential to build upon. Initially invited from landowners to sell plots. It would favour small developers and builders instead of the large developers who are currently only interested in mass housing developments. The impact on each place would be minimal when spread over the period to 2029. In contrast to the Local Plan It is kind on the community, and its merit is that everyone is taking a share.

It only takes a bit of thinking to brainstorm variations on this suggestion. Another plan I like is taking the one above but exclude all towns and their suburbs. For instance where I live we have had too many large scale building development, including Warwick Gates. This area is that now under the threat of the Local Plan. It urgently needs relief from further increases in population. This argument can be applied to all towns in the Warwick District.

Another suggestion is to plan for one, two or three sites that are not in the Local Plan recommendation. These may be in Green Belt but the reason would be to avoid damaging the communities that are opposing the Local Plan. This may be on agricultural land but most if not all of the 75% area seems to be on land that is used for agriculture, so that is not a valid reason against.

If compulsory purchase is needed then it is no worse than what is being planned for HS2.

The question of alternative sites is a big issue and I suggest that WDC could start consultation and invite comment from groups and councils.

I do not know how WDC can deal with the batch of large applications now being received, but if they are approved it will make nonsense of the Local Plan and any alternatives.
Perhaps WDC could speak with our MP, and seek advice on what can be done to hold these in abeyance pending an acceptable Local Plan?

As an observation I wonder of all those in favour of the Local Plan, and have been engaged in its presentation, actually live in the area that will have 75% of all the houses?


It has been put to WDC planners during the Local Plan build up that to place 75% of all projected housing requirements into the concentrated area south of Leamington and Warwick is totally unacceptable. It is unjust. It is unfair. It is recommended because WDC are favouring Landowners and Developers, all of whom do not live in this area. It is the worst planning decision one could wish upon anyone.

The result would be destruction of a community still recovering from the effects of Warwick Gates.

There is a simple answer to providing sites for however many houses are needed eventually. It is to divide the total houses by as many small sites as possible.
This way there is no major impact on any one area. People are happier living in small communities and do not lose their identities.

Attached is a list of possible sites within Warwick District that could accept a share of the total homes needed. If the total is eventually established by commons sense rather than 'think of a number' as now, it would make little difference to each small community.

Of 89 sites identified this would only require 71 homes on each site, and that to provide housing stock up to 2029.
A second column is shown where towns with their suburbs are 'let off' since they have already suffered major growth. This only increases the numbers for the small communities to 77 homes up to the year 2029.

There are many benefits including work for local builders and suppliers of material; No congestion; No major road works required; Little effect on local services, schools and hospitals.

I believe this would receive widespread support instead of the massive protest against the present condemned Local Plan.

Unfortunately the landowners of the South of Leamington sites, and the developers who do not live here would not benefit. The net outcome would be happy communities and a few losers.

I appreciate that some sites may not be totally suitable and some adjustment to allocations may be possible but it is an idea that needs consideration.


WDC LOCAL PLAN ON FACEBOOK

Dear Mr Elliot I agree with your comment about Facebook. Since I alerted you, there is now the 'Myton Action Group' who are also using Facebook. The feedback and comments are all saying the same about the Local Plan. Everyone is clearly very much against.

Regarding the consultation periods. There is no confusion. It is very clear. The Local Plan ends at the end of July.. The planning applications will be considered before the Local Plan.

The applications will be considered before the end of July and therefore could if approved circumvent the Local Plan. If the Local Plan is to be taken seriously then it must be approved first, not last.
Since alternative plans to satisfy housing needs are not included in the Plan then it is facilitating the planning applications.

On the other hand, if alternative plans were studied such as I have suggested, then this would have to be considered when examining current planning applications. Clearly in those circumstances they would not fit in with the Local Plan. I have replied to you on alternatives in a separate e-mail.

I hope you will see the logic of the above.


May I suggest that you gentlemen look at the growing unrest on Facebook. You can find this under 'Groups' - Whitnash Residents against Woodside Farm Development
Also under 'Groups' - Whitnash, Heathcote & Leamington residents against the Woodside Against the Local Plan
It is interesting to note that officials have been forced to resign over less than what is happening to the community under the guise of the Local Plan.
This has only just started and is growing. It is clear that the majority are not aware of the full impact of the Local Plan and only know about their own notifications that are now coming through in the post.
With only 2 weeks to go, how do you expect the community to believe they have been 'consulted'. The way this is developing it should be 'insulted'. What a mess!

Location of development is highly concentrated and liable to create an urban sprawl that will ruin the area of Whitnash, causing harm to the existing community because of failures in infrastructure that will not sustain the mass of housing advocated. A wider and more even spread would remove the need to create new and expensive road networks, pollute the air with vehicle exhaust, taint the peace and quiet with traffic noise,build new schools and overload the established community with an overpopulation that will change the character of the area physically and socially;imposition upon Whitnash threatening irreversible harm.

I believe the overall scale of the development suggested would swamp and damage the overall environment of both Leamington and Warwick.
In particular I object the concentration of the development to the south of Warwick/Leamington. The level of road traffic is already to high for the road system to cope at peak times. Improving or widening the roads leading into towns will not solve the problem because these roads are not the cause of congestion they mealy hold the congested traffic that is trying to get into or through the towns.

I am writing in support the Revised Development Strategy.
The Revised Development Strategy is well thought through, based on sound principles and robust evidence and provides a logical, defendable and solid framework for future development. The Revised Development Strategy's use of brown and green field sites in preference to green belt land for the bulk of the new development is the correct decision.

4.3.16
Can't quite understand what 17% figure actually means and does it include the Gateway and HS2 .
What figure of Green belt development is WDC taking through out the county?

I have today been to look at the exhibition regarding the above and I would like to register my support of the revised plan for the following reasons:

New development should be concentrated where there are existing employment opportunities and infrastructure to support the development. It is essential for new development to be properly planned and controlled and, where necessary, there is adequate investment in new roads and other infrastructure to support that development.

The Revised Development Strategy fulfils these objectives. Recent evidence shows that the revised plan may have less traffic congestion, less pollution and improved schools and other facilities than building on North Leamington's Green Belt.

Now that more residents have come on board to oppose the Local Plan and its related planning applications It is time to reappraise the whole situation.
It is very evident that with the limited resources of individuals and councillors in communicating with every single resident in the area affected by the Local Plan proposals, the majority of individual residents are still very much in the dark.

The following are points that have arisen during our involvement with the Local Plan:-

1. The public do not understand the connection between the Local Plan and Planning Applications.
2. The public cannot understand how planning applications are being submitted and will be heard ahead of the Local Plan finalisation.
3. No alternative is given to the 'sledgehammer' solution of the Local Plan.
4. Our objections direct to WDC do not seem to be making any headway and no compromise is in the offing.
5. There are inconsistencies in the application of the Green Belt for not distributing the houses throughout the Warwick District. It is favouring one community to spite another. The effects on the community are far more important than small incursions into the Green Belt on 100 small sites.
6. There are now alternatives for the siting of houses being suggested by individuals, that in my opinion should have been included in the Local Plan. The problem that much work would be needed to bring this into a workable plan is no reason for the now much discredited Local Plan. We need WDC to take up the suggestions to alleviate harming of the community.
7. WDC does not show any interest in the reaction of the public that has now arisen. Any meetings with WDC we attend are just to tell us what WDC are going to do, and not to listen to our questions.
8. The public believe when they bother to attend consultations their views will be taken into account. The truth is they are largely ignored, certainly about the important issues.
9. The fact that Landowners and Developers have now jumped the gun and spent considerable resources on preparing planning applications, indicates they have had discussions with WDC that have given them assurance they will be successful.
10. The objections regarding practical issues of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, local services, shops, car parking, disruption to travel, Urban sprawl, Lack of employment in the area, and much more are very real for the community of South Leamington. They are all on top of the foregoing points.
11. For too long WDC have regarded and treated anywhere south of the river as less desirable than north of the river. This final gesture to dump 11,000 houses there is the final straw, and attitudes need to change.
12. A result of this has prompted letters to Chris White MP, who has now replied to the Leader of WDC, and I am sure by now you must have digested this letter.

The only responsible immediate action that could lead to making sense of all the reaction is now to extend the Consultation on the Local Plan and all Planning Applications indefinitely.
This is not abandoning the Local Plan or refusing Planning Applications. It will give time to reconsider the Local Plan and give developers the chance to wait for any alternative solution to be found that could mean the South of Leamington will not be the site for the ultimate 11,000 homes it is now being threatened with.

If one single Planning Application is given approval it will need a Public Enquiry to examine the affairs of WDC and how the Local Plan has been conducted.
WDC should have considered this when they had discussions with Land Owners and Developers.

After all things are considered what is the rush? We have until 2029 to complete this exercise.

I am opposed to any more housing being developed in this area, which at the moment is still semi-rural. I do not want to see the delightful country towns of Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth destroyed by being swallowed up in one giant urban sprawl, which is what will happen if the planners get their way. I am sure I am not the only person who feels this way.
I read in the local press that 10,000 new homes are planned over the next ten years or so. This will generate between 10,000 and 20,000 more cars on our roads.Do the planners ever try to drive through Leamington or Warwick, especially at peak times? Do they really think any more traffic in our town centres can be sustained? Let alone factors such as schools, hospitals, jobs, doctors surgeries....the list goes on. If we local residents had wanted to live in a city, presumably we would have moved to one. Please do not spoil this beautiful part of the country.

I am very pleased to see that the proposed development at Blackdown Farm has been removed from the Local Plan.
This was an unsuitable location for such development and the proposed new brownfield locations, plus land near Europa Way, are excellent locations for new housing which we should all support.
New development is clearly needed and should be supported; it just needs to be in the right location.

I just wanted to congratulate and thank the Council for the decision not build on the green belt land in north Leamington. I think this is the right decision in order to protect this key resource and the local heritage for the community. Well done.

I write in support of the revised development strategy for the new draft local plan for development in Warwick District for the next 15 years.

I welcome the commitment to concentrate growth within and on the edge of existing urban areas and to avoid development which could lead to the joining of existing areas of habitation and the consequent loss of identity.

In particular I welcome the commitment to protect the Green Belt from development. It is clear that no Exceptional Circumstances exist which could justify any building on Green Belt. I trust, therefore, that even in the event that the current plan is further amended, the Council will continue its commitment to protect all Green-Belt sites.

I have read your Revised Developement Strategy/Plan and am pleased to say that I fully support and approve it.

I am really pleased you are using many of the identified Urban and other Brownfield sites in phase one.

It appears to me that a large part of the infastructure needed for this plan, already exists and this in turn will
mean there will be less pollution for Warwickshire.

I feel that you have really taken the impact on the environment into account.

I still think that properties in the town that have been left empty for many years or are now derelict should be investigated
by the council and where possible pressure should be put on the owners of those properties to bring them back into use or redevelope them