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

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.
The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.

see attached

See attached

see attached

We are writing to object to the Draft Local Plan concerning the development of housing at sites south of Warwick and Whitnash.
The reasons we object to these plans are:
* There is far more housing planned for than is actually required. The plan would increase the population by 20% within 15 years. This is far more than would be needed to cater for a natural increase in population in the area. A study by Warwick DCs own consultants gave a figure of 4405 new homes being required.
* The plan concentrates most of the new housing into the area south of Leamington Spa and will result in there being almost continuous housing estates between Warwick, Leamington Spa, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Much of this land is currently agricultural land. There seems to have been no consideration to providing a more equitable distribution of growth across the county.
* There will be an adverse visual impact in the area. This will change from being a pleasant, green area of the county to a large urban sprawl of housing estates making the area less attractive for the current residents and also to people thinking of moving to the area.
* There will be an increase in traffic to the north (into Leamington and Warwick) and to the south (onto the M40/A46). Traffic is already very heavy in these areas.
* The levels of air pollution are already illegally high in Warwick and the building of this large number of houses, with the increase in traffic this will also bring, can only make this worse.
* Warwick and Leamington Spa town centres will suffer from more congestion and poor air quality as a result of the massive increase in population in the area. This will make the towns less attractive to visitors and shoppers.
* There will need to be significant investment in the local infrastructure to support the influx of such a large number of people to the area. It is not clear how this will be achieved.

We were shocked and appalled to read of the development proposals to this area. We moved here recently after five years looking for somewhere to live in this area. We chose Bishops Tachbrook as it is in a beautiful location with outstanding views and beautiful countryside on our doorstep. We chose this area as it has just the right balance of amenities, housing, retail parks, two historic town centres and beautiful countryside. It seems a shame that the District Council is planning to destroy what makes the district so appealing.

Dear District Council
We wish to object to the proposed local plan on the following grounds:
* There is excessive new housing. The housing allocations in the plan should cater for "indigenous" growth, perhaps with a small growth for economic growth purposes. But not this huge amount of new housing.
* The land proposed for employment is also excessive, especially given the amount of vacant employment sites, some of which have been vacant for many years.
* The plan does not take into account the proposed growth outside of the district in the Lighthorne/Gaydon/Kineton area.
* The plan concentrates housing to the south of Warwick and Leamington. No consideration has been given to minor modifications to the green belt to provide a more equitable distribution of growth to the north and south of these two town centres.
* The impact on transport north-south through Warwick and Leamington will be severe, especially given the limited number of river crossings.
* Warwick and Leamington town centres will suffer from congestion and poor quality air. This will make them less attractive to visitors and shoppers.
* The proposed gypsy/traveller sites are,again, concentrated to the south of Warwick and Leamington rather than being distributed more evenly through the district.

see-attached

This should be a plan to provide affordable housing for local people as and when it is required, it is not. It should provide work for local builders and not see the import of a developer's workforce. This is merely a plan that fits nicely into the requirements and planning of big Developers and Landowners who are willing to sell. The result will be an influx of people from Birmingham and Coventry who will then commute to their employment area on roads not equipped to take the extra traffic. This problem of housing need is exacerbated by the high level of multiple occupancy dwellings within the area serving the local temporary student population. If these properties were available then the need for housing would not be so urgent.

Any local plan should be fair to all residents this is not. It places something like 70% of the proposed development in one area instead of spreading it fairly throughout the district. Areas north of the river are being protected whilst those south are not. The argument used by WDC against using greenbelt land is inconsistent as they are quite happy to approve the use of a large area of greenbelt land to facilitate the Coventry Gateway another project at the moment under scrutiny.

The infrastructure of the whole area south of the river has been under tremendous pressure for a number of years. The proposed road alterations and introduction of traffic lights and traffic calming will not lessen the impact of the increase in traffic from all the developments in the plan. At least 12,000 houses, if not more, with at least 2 cars per establishment it must be obvious the chaos that will ensue.

The resultant increase in pollution from this influx of vehicles will be detrimental to the population, with the resultant pressure on our already fully overtaxed medical facilities. Warwick Hospital is already working to full capacity how can the facilities there be expanded?

The revised Local Plan Proposals of June 2013 that set a target of 12,300 new households in the district by 2029 is too high. The target should be contained within 5,400 houses which are the best projection arising from actual births, deaths and migration in the last 10 years and trends emerging from the changing economic circumstances since 2008. Until this is agreed new applications for houses should be deferred.

As it stands the 2013 Local Plan is a plan to encourage urban sprawl. There will be one massive housing estate stretching along the edge of Whitnash, Heathcote and Warwick, with the subsequent loss of local countryside, agricultural land, and significant open space. Future generations will inherit a massively overdeveloped area and communities blighted by the effects. I think Warwick DC have opted for the easy option - let's dump it all south of the river in one massive sprawl rather than accept there will be more detailed effort to find favourable less intrusive sites. Large Developers are only interested in managing large construction sites to maximize their profits our Planners should not have this as their first priority rather than what is best for the community as a whole.







Anne Steele OBJECTION TO THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY LOCAL PLAN page 2 of 2


The sprawl is already happening, take a walk down Gallows Hill and count the number of cars parked on the grass verges opposite The Warwick Technology Park. Already this area cannot cope with the vehicles required by employees. Hasn't anyone done the maths more than 12,000 dwellings with say on average 3 people per household that's more than 36,000 people?

Schools in this area do not have the spare capacity to absorb pupils although I am aware there are proposals to build schools but I am sure that the houses will come before the schools so where will those children go whilst waiting for the new build? There is no guarantee that the proposed schools will be built. Adding temporary accommodation to existing schools is not acceptable. There will be a significant effect on catchment areas with parents unable to obtain places for siblings of children already at the same school. This is already happening as a result of the recent Warwick Gates development.

There will be an effect on water supplies and drainage. This has been experienced with the Warwick Gates development and such a large area will no doubt have a more dramatic effect. An area can cope with small pockets of construction but not on the scale proposed in the 2013 Local Plan. I have no technical knowledge to quote on this point but can only comment from experience. I understand that Warwick Gates was built on an area with a history of flooding.

The environmental impact on the area seems to have been treated lightly. The whole area has a significant wildlife population Muntjac deer, Hedgehogs, birds not to mention the flora. Also there is the aspect of possible flooding with such a large amount of green land being covered with tarmac and concrete.

Any house building in Warwick District should be fairly spread throughout the district and not confined to one large swath of land as is proposed and be within a more realistic requirement prediction which I believe is available.

I urge Warwick DC to be open minded, listen to the views of residents who will have to live with the effects of any future plans and realize that this plan is unacceptable, withdraw it, and refuse all the various planning applications relating to it, namely:
W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0606 - 720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane
W/13/0603 - 370 homes on land west of Europa Way/South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)
W/13/0464 - large Retirement Community development on Gallagher Land near Heathcote
W/13/0858 - up to 100 homes at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash

Warwick DC should adopt the same policy and also refuse any new applications relating to the following:

Myton Garden Suburb - upto 1250 homes
Further development South of Gallows Hill - upto 260 homes
Former Severn Trent Sewage Works - 225 homes
Further development at Grove Farm - 375 homes
Whitnash East/South of Sydenham - 500 homes

This is a letter of objection to the new local plan. Our objections are on two main grounds.

Population. Local requirements are under 6000 houses but the WDC want over 12,000. TheDistrict Council would liketo take a large area of farmland, apparently so they can concrete over all land not built on already, thus creating an enormous housing estate with insufficient schools,hospital beds, drains and sewers and other vital substructures. There would be too many houses with inadequate public facilities.


Traffic: There are already serious traffic problems in a number of places.It remnains to be seen how traffic problems in various parts of this huge proposed development are dealt with. Part of the proposed WDC solution is to have yet more tricky roundabouts working in partnership with traffic light crossroads. Are they expected to overcome not only existing problems but new ones as well?

The Revised Development Strategy is acceptable in the compromise that exists in balancing housing/infrastructure with Green Belt land.
There are no exceptional circumstances that allows the use of Green Belt land north of Leamington Spa.
It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. Without the Green Belt land there is risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands.
WDC should now resist approving any planning applications until the Revised Development Strategy is completed. This is to ensure that the correct infrastructure is planned and available.
Brownfield sites are still the best way to plan housing. The development on the old Potterton's site should be completed before any new planning applications are passed.
The foundations for these dwellings are already in place and those dwellings would reduce the numbers of housing units needed elsewhere.
The Revised Development Strategy has a reasonable distribution of new housing across the District. 17% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
It is important that most of the development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick). This provides opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. This is turn reduces or eliminates commuting for many people, with a consequential positive impact on the environment & everyone's quality of life.
The prospect of access to a good local workforce will help to encourage more businesses to set up & relocate to the area, helping to generate more jobs & prosperity for the local community.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy should provide for the necessary schools, hospitals and other infra-structure to support the new development.
I have special concerns about Warwick hospital as it struggles now to meet the demand of patients. The hospital and other infrastructures should grow before the population of Warwick and Leamington does.

I have read the 70 odd page document and I feel it does not do enough to protect the open spaces and countryside that we currently have in the district. I am shocked at the amount of housing that it is said we need and do not believe these forecasts. In addition I do not believe we should build even more homes than is required if neighbouring districts cannot build their quota, I think this is called "cooperation" in the document!

The document also says it wants to avoid coalescence of settlements yet this is exactly what it is doing with almost 70% of this 12,300 homes being in the south. The only justification I can see in the document is that there was opposition to development on green belt in the north, there is opposition to development on all green belt not just in the north. I live in whitnash and we successfully opposed a plan for 250 more homes and there was major transport concerns yet this was overturned by national government who are agreeing to everything regardless of the impact now and in addition your plan has 600 more homes on this site creating even more traffic, in addition to the thousands of new homes in the south. I do not believe that there is sufficient justification that the majority of the homes should be in such a concentrated area.

I would also like more information on the mitigation on traffic issues, information on here is very light and I cannot find any maps etc.
I think the cycle routes should be improved so people can safely cycle from leamington to Kenilworth or Coventry. Usually homes built have the minimum of everything and I expect that safe communting by cycle will not be available in 2026 and once all these changes have taken place the roads will be even busier.

In addition I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been fully explored, there just seems to be these for current planning applications like the fire station there doesn't seem to be anything or much at all in the localplan which is new development on brownfield sites, why is this, can you explain what has been done to review the sites available?

Unfortunately due to the power of national government to blindly agree to any planning application even if it has significant local opposition and a massive impact of the environment, I am not hopeful that any changes will be made as a result of consultation on the local plan, however I do hope that some of the holes in the plan will be addressed and the inbalance will be addressed

Ref: The Warwick DC Local Plan

I write to raise my strongest objection to the 2013 Local Plan, and the many planning applications that are associated with it - those that are currently under consideration, and those that are undoubtedly yet to come.

This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash.

Scale and proportion


*massive long term coalescence of settlements,
*loss of significant open space,
*loss of local countryside,
*loss of agricultural land,
*lead to significant urban sprawl.
*excessive bulk and scale,
*significant overdevelopment of the area

The effect of these potential developments on the existing local communities and infrastructure will be devastating, and I believe have been grossly underestimated by both Warwick DC and the developers.




Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched.

*2 or more cars per household,
*9000 extra vehicles using the local road network.
*the local road infrastructure is inadequate. (e.g congestion on various local roads)
*traffic heading towards the town centres is already a major problem,
*gridlock, increased pollution etc.
*congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem
*traffic noise,
*potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

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.

Effect of local services/amenities

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."

*pressure on local schools
*primary schools already oversubscribed year on year
*increased pressure on the local secondary schools
*effect on catchment areas
*effect on applications from siblings of children already in one school
*new schools not "guaranteed" to be built as part of the developments
*limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates and Myton areas already
*effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals

Flood Risk

*already flood issues in Whitnash and Warwick Gates
*scale and density of proposed housing,
*large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc,

Alternatives to the Local Plan

There are many reasons why the Local Plan represents a disaster for the whole of the South Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash areas, predominantly because of the sheer concentration of most of the districts proposed new housing in one relatively small area.

Alternatives that should be considered include:

*Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied,
*Identifying empty industrial units with a view to use the land for brownfield site housing.
*Identifying an area in the surrounding countryside to use to build an entirely "new town".
*Spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with lots more much smaller developments.
*Smaller developments given to local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy.

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 is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.

Therefore, I hope you listen to the concerns and suggestions of the residents of your district, and act accordingly. This Local Plan cannot be allowed to come to fruition, and I hope Warwick DC come realize that, withdraw it, and refuse all the various planning applications relating to it, namely:



W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0606 - 720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane
W/13/0603 - 370 homes on land west of Europa Way/South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)
W/13/0464 - large Retirement Community development on Gallagher Land near Heathcote
W/13/0858 - upto 100 homes at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash

I hope Warwick DC would also refuse any new applications relating to the following:

Myton Garden Suburb - upto 1250 homes
Further development South of Gallows Hill - upto 260 homes
Former Severn Trent Sewage Works - 225 homes
Further development at Grove Farm - 375 homes
Whitnash East/South of Sydenham - 500 homes

* 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 general I support the revised plan since it recognises the importance of the Green Belt land in the north of Leamington and accepts that under current law there are no exceptional circumstances under which development can take place in this area. This means that the Green Belt area can continue to prevent the coalesence of Leamington and Kenilworth. The development in Kenilworth on Green Belt land south of Kenilworth still concerns me but here it appears that there are exceptional circumstances for the building of houses and the residents of Kenilworth do not seem to object.

I understand why the people in the south of Leamingon and Warwick may not be happy about the Size of the development in this area but this land is green field land and not Green Belt land and developers, who have options on the land are keen to use this land and other Brown field sites. The size of this development will change the whole character of the historic towns of Leamington and Warwick and as a resident is does concern me. The towns are already congeseted with traffic and I think it is absolutely essential that the infrastructure is put in place before the development goes ahead. The recent development of the Ford foundary site was a disaster as far as disruption to the traffic was concerned and shows that the road network and bus links need to be in place before the development of the houses and schools.

I would also like to see developers making more effort to add traffic free zones where it is safe to cycle so that residents can be encouraged to travel without the need to get in their cars. At present the cycle path system is very disjointed and difficult to follow. Cycle paths exist but just as quickly disappear and rejoin the roads which makes the use of cycles dangerous on the crowded roads.

Whilst I understand that the government is dictating the number of houses that are required by local areas, I am concerned that the the Revised Local Plan will completely change the nature of this historic place and make it a less desirable place to live. I do not think that simply tacking huge areas of growth onto pre-existing towns is very satisfactory. A more forward thinking plan and one fit for the future might be to go back to the government and ask them to consider the idea of creating a New Town, as they have done in the past, with towns like Milton Keynes, which was specifically designed with the future in mind. In this way we create something new and exciting, whilst preserving places of historical importance.

I would like to thank you for all the hard work that you have put into the Revised Local Plan. It cannot be an easy task to satisfy all the people all of the time!

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.

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.

I am writing to you in objection to the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy, which is currently the subject of public consultation. I am extremely concerned with these proposals and believe them to be wholly inappropriate and an unfair burden on the small areas of Warwick district that will be affected by these developments. I expect you to respond to all of my concerns in detail, justifying your "Revised Development Strategy" with factual and appropriate data. My concerns can be summarised as follows :-

New Housing


Number Of Houses & Impact To Local Infrastructure.

In the 20 years to 2011, the population growth in our area has already been unnaturally high at 18% due to the high level of new housing. This has seen a significant number of new people migrating to the area, many of whom do not work in the vicinity. This is already placing an unacceptable and unmanageable burden on the local infrastructure which in turn is having a negative effect on the local inhabitants. To propose a further increase of 20% over the next 15 years is not only inappropriate but also irresponsible toward all of the existing residents. It is quite clear that the local infrastructure will not be able to manage as it is already failing to cope with the existing levels of traffic resulting in congestion ranging from long slow moving queues to complete grid lock Monday to Friday during rush hour and also on much of Saturday. Significant data is readily available in the public domain that proves this to be the case (Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment). Typical proposals of widening and adjusting existing roads and junctions will not resolve this problem as is clearly evident around the site of the old Ford foundry which is already a traffic congestion black spot since its completion a few weeks ago. Unless major new roads are built with additional crossings over the natural barriers of the River Avon, River Leam and the railway then your proposals for improving the road infrastructure to cope with these extra homes will fail. Such major developments to break these traffic bottle necks will not only be inappropriate in the areas of Warwick and Leamington due to their aesthetic and environmental impact but will also not be financially viable.

All of the major amenities (shops, hospital etc) are located on the opposite side of the river in either Warwick or Leamington. This means that the existing bridges will become a major bottleneck due to the increase in traffic. For example, Castle Bridge in Warwick has a capacity of 900 cars per hour, a figure which is already exceeded on a regular basis, indicated by the subsequent congestion that occurs. The capacities of the other river crossings in the area are likely to be similar. In addition, the adjacent roads leading to and from these river crossings are also restricted and regularly congested.

The siting of 4000 houses between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook will also result in large amounts of traffic using the M40. The roads that link the two M40 motorway junctions with this area are not capable of coping with this extra traffic capacity.

I therefore challenge you to demonstrate how the current road infrastructure can cope with an extra 12,300 houses or state in detail what changes to the infrastructure you plan to make in the same timeframe to support these additional dwellings.

In addition to the road infrastructure problems, there is also no indication as to how other key infrastructure improvements will be delivered in the same time frame. An increase in population of circa 40-50,000 that 12,300 homes will bring will require additional capacity for the hospital, doctors surgeries, schools, public transport, police and fire services etc. How will these be delivered in the same time frame as 12,300 houses and how will these be funded ?

Housing requirements based upon the natural growth of the population indicates that only circa 5500 new houses are required and not the 12300 being proposed. A recent housing needs survey in Bishops Tachbrook identified a total housing need of 15 additional properties (from a response rate of 500 homes from a total of 750 in the village). So based upon this, why are so many houses being proposed in the locality of the village ? Building an artificially high number of houses will simply encourage more migration to an area which is a nicer place to live than many inner city urban areas. There is also little need to create more local business and industry in the area since the unemployment rate in Warwick District is only 1.7% so if this is reason being used to justify the number of new houses proposed this is also inappropriate and flawed. Building an excess of new houses will promote more commuting which is something that is already causing a major problem in the area through traffic congestion.


Location Of Proposed Development

It is wholly inappropriate for a few small areas of Warwick District to shoulder the entire burden of the number of houses being proposed. This will guarantee that a small amount of the current population of Warwickshire will be significantly and unfairly affected by the building of these new homes while the majority of the district will not be affected in any way at all. Warwick district is a large and diverse area and the burden of extra home requirements should likewise be shared across all of the district's towns and villages calculated by conducting simple housing needs surveys as already completed in Bishops Tachbrook.

The visual impact of 12,300 houses in the rural area of Warwick District will be very significant, particularly those being proposed on the higher greenfield lands south of Harbury Lane. To back this up, during the previous round of proposals to build new houses in the area, a government planning inspector stated that "no build now or in the future" should occur at the site of Woodside Farm. WDC's landscape consultant, Richard Morrish also referred to the land south of Gallows Hill that "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development".

The building of these extra homes in such few areas will decimate two historic villages, Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory. Your previous "Preferred Vision For Warwick District to 2026" contained quotes and statements which are clearly breached by the proposals now being made one of which related to the importance of retaining this rural area, an example as follows :-

"a mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities."

This is a rural community. The building of 12,300 additional houses in this area will result in significant parts of it ceasing to be rural !

My personal view is that you have proposed to build these houses in such a few areas to reduce the overall cost of the project and to limit the number of people that are affected (and hence those likely to object). This then makes it easier for you to secure developers whilst limiting the amount of "fallout" and "challenge" you receive from the residents of Warwick District. Spreading the number of required houses across all of the District's towns and villages would significantly reduce the impact of those houses on the local infrastructure. This is therefore an example where cost and ease of execution have taken priority over what would cause least impact to the District as a whole and therefore be in the best interests of the Warwick District residents.


Location Of Proposed Development Near To Bishops Tachbrook.

Whilst I am in favour of retaining green space between Bishops Tachbrook and the houses proposed South of Harbury Lane, there is little point in this if it results in a major development being within a few hundred yards of the village and being on an elevated site. This will have the affect of dominating the village both aesthetically and from a noise perspective. This area of restraint should be from the Harbury Lane which already forms a natural juncture between the development of Warwick Gates and the "green field" areas surrounding Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory. Any breach of this existing boundary by large housing developments will challenge the criteria of a village and hence negate the green space acting as an "area of restraint" It will also make future development of what will be a smaller area of undeveloped land between the new development and Bishops Tachbrook more likely. I consider the current distance between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook to be a minimum of that required to protect and maintain Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory as villages. The area of restraint also does not give any protection to the existing mobile home park off Harbury Lane. This is destined to be completely engulfed. Why is no area of restraint being afforded to this existing development. Again, maintaining the current natural boundary of the Harbury Lane as the edge of the area of restraint would also protect these local inhabitants.

The filling in of the various vacant areas around the Warwick Gates site would provide sufficient extra housing in this area if the overall burden of the required increased housing is spread across the whole of Warwickshire as I have previously suggested. The village of Bishops Tachbrook could also accommodate its own requirement for new houses which has already been determined through a housing needs survey.

The reason why I am so passionate about Bishops Tachbrook remaining a real village and not just by name is that it enjoys all of the benefits of an English country village. The local children go to the local school, this then ensures that the adults mix and communicate with one another. The local parents help out at the school, they also run Brownies, Rainbows, Youth Club etc. These organisations then support the local church and vice versa. All of this ensures that the village is a safe, happy and rewarding place to live. This is not something that can simply and easily be created but it can be very easily lost. All of these things will gradually fade away if the village loses its identity. The development of Warwick Gates is a good example where, due to a lack of up front planning and foresight, there is precious little sense of community and engagement between the residents.

The Bishops Tachbrook local history group recently wrote a complete history of the village and sold over 700 hundred copies. I encourage you to read it. You will then get some indication of the depth of feeling towards the village and the number of people who consider it something worthwhile that should be protected. It has developed as a village since before the Norman Conquest (1066) and should not be allowed to disappear into a mediocre suburb of Leamington Spa as Warwick Gates has become.


Use Of Green Field & Brown Field Sites.

In light of the current need to protect the environment as much as possible, it is essential that brown field sites are used for future housing development prior to the destruction of further green field areas. Your plans do utilise a proportion of brown field sites however, as you are planning to build houses in such few areas of the county this is therefore limited. There are also significant brown field sites that have not been proposed. The now defunct Coventry airport site is of significant size which could be utilised to build houses. There are also several smaller areas in the Leamington and Warwick areas such as the Leamington "Arches" area.

I challenge you to confirm the total area of brown field sites within the county and explain why all of these cannot be utilised to provide the necessary building land for the extra houses required to avoid further use of green field areas. Unless it can be shown that there are insufficient brown field areas in Warwickshire and the surrounding West Midlands, it is wholly inappropriate and irresponsible for you to be proposing the use of any green field sites whatsoever.


Gypsy & Traveller Sites.

With regard the proposed gypsy and traveller sites around the Bishops Tachbrook area (Nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 15) I have the following objections based upon the fact that they do not comply with the Travellers Consultation Document :-

* Sites 3, 4 & 6 are very remote from major amenities.

* Sites 5 & 9 only have access onto a busy road, have no pedestrian access and could result in unacceptable visual impact to Warwick and the listed buildings also on this side.

* Sites 6 & 9 have no pedestrian access.

* Site 10 is close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre and so any site could interfere with their sensitive breeding activities ref noise, site contamination (due to business activities) etc. It is also remote from major amenities and has no pedestrian access.

* Site 15 is located on the banks of the Tachbrook so there is a risk of contamination from the site (ref acknowledgement that business as well as domestic activities are likely to occur on the site.

In addition, the school in Bishops Tachbrook Parish is only a single form entry and is fully subscribed in many years. It is therefore not capable of providing schooling for extra 10-30 extra children from local traveller sites.

One area that has not appeared on the list of suggested sites is the caravan / camping site that was installed on the Banbury Road south of Warwick near to Temple Hill Spinney. This area was developed into a campsite / caravan site some years ago and has been unused ever since. A suitable junction and pedestrian access has been provisioned for and its location is close enough to the amenities of Warwick to make this an appropriate site. I don't know if this is a private site or if it was developed by the local authorities. If it was the latter then it is a disgrace that this site has not been used since its creation and demonstrates a total waste of local tax payers money. Its use as a gypsy / traveller site would provide at least some value from the monies already spent. As a brown field site it would also constitute a lesser impact on the development compared to some of the other proposed sites.

In the same way that I expect brown field sites to be used for the proposed 12,300 houses, I also expect you to do the same for the gypsy and traveller sites. There are sufficient sites available for this (Nos 17 & 18 for example). Until all the brown field sites in the district have been used, it is irresponsible and unacceptable for you to be proposing green field sites as an alternative. The environment is coming under increasing pressure and by proposing green field sites you are maximising the amount of this pressure.

Overall I expect you to only propose and develop areas that comply with the Travellers Consultation Document and that have a minimal impact to the environment and those existing residents of Warwick District. Any that don't comply should be removed from the proposal list.


I look forward to your response to my challenges and questions.

I am writing to object to the current proposals in the Warwick District Council Local Plan Revised Development Strategy and to support an alternative strategy. This is not based on purely emotional reaction or "nimbyism" but on acknowledged planning considerations, a concern for the future of Warwick and its suburbs, and some relevant legal implications. In particular I have grave concerns about the ability of the future transport infrastructure to cope with the District Council's proposals and the disastrous effect that those proposals will have on the quality of life in the town and its suburbs.
Although the thought of any major new housing development affecting Warwick is profoundly worrying, I accept the District Council's view that the economic arguments justify a reasonable level of development in the area covered by the Local Plan. However, the proposal to allow 12,300 houses by 2029 is far too extensive and must call into question whether district councillors, especially those representing constituencies outside Warwick, are genuinely concerned about the future of the County Town. I understand that in response to the consultation, evidence will be put forward by acknowledged local experts in planning, legal and conservation matters. I believe that these representations will justify a substantially reduced proposal for housing development in the area.
Transport infrastructure
It must be patently obvious to anyone who lives or travels through the area that Castle Bridge, Myton Road and Prince's Drive are struggling to cope with the existing level of traffic, especially at peak hours. The modifications to the road system following the opening of the Morrisons and Aldi supermarkets are not solving these difficulties. The tiny modifications in the above three areas proposed in the Local Plan documents will only tinker with the problem. The impact of 3,195 new houses with access to the existing traffic bottlenecks of Myton Road and the Shires and the old Ford Foundry roundabouts will lead to more extensive gridlock and pollution in the whole area between Castle Bridge, the Ford Foundry roundabout and Warwick New Road. Even if one accepts that the Local Plan is not intended to improve the existing traffic and environmental pollution, it should not be allowed to exacerbate gravely an already barely acceptable situation.
Environmental Pollution
I understand that the level of pollution in Warwick town centre is already above legal limits and that the District Council will be receiving submissions about this during the consultation. I urge the Council to give full consideration to this evidence.
Level of Housing Development
At a recent meeting the audience was given to understand on planning grounds that to meet the existing needs of the area only 5,400 (not 12,300) houses are required. This could be achieved without using the vast swathe of greenfield land south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash, by relying on the much less invasive and intrusive 5,678 homes already completed or allocated in the Local Plan. Any significant increase above the 5,678 would appear to give grounds to those who suspect that the Council is more concerned to attract people from outside the District than to support its existing population, and to attract lucrative planning proposals from developers. There appears to be no current evidence of a demand for employment development schemes. The lack of interest in office development on the area allocated on the Morrisons site speaks volumes in this regard. This feeds the frequently made suggestion that the Local Plan is really aimed at attracting new home owners to the Warwick area who will not work there. This may be more lucrative for the Council, but commuter traffic would therefore increase, further exacerbating the problems of transport infrastructure and environmental pollution outlined above.
On a further important point, it is very worrying that Stratford-on-Avon District Council is consulting about the possible provision of some 4,500 houses in Gaydon and Lighthorne Heath, not many miles from the main development area proposed by Warwick District Council. It is very likely that many such home owners would look to Warwick for employment and services, again further exacerbating the problems outlined above.
Conclusion
If Warwick District Council is genuinely concerned to implement a Local Plan that is "strongly based on evidence and takes account of representations made by interested individuals and organisations", then I believe that it should modify its proposals and allow only the 5,700 or so houses on sites already completed or allocated.
This would be in keeping with the Council's strategic vision of making Warwick "a great place to live, work and visit". Please do not betray that vision by subjugating what has until now always been a great place to live to the voracious demands of excessive housing development that would ruin the nature of Warwick and its suburbs forever.

I write to support the overall shape of the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy (RDS), certainly compared to the original Plan, although with some reservations, in particular about its overall scale. I very much support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands conurbation.
The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. It would be worth referencing the Joint Green Belt Review 2009 which confirmed the high value of this stretch of Green Belt and is key evidence, more clearly in the Plan document. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington may already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
But I am also opposed to any encroachment into other Green Belt designated land in the District if it can possibly be avoided and believe a further review of some assumptions and principles could make this unnecessary. Certainly if it goes ahead the Council should seek to designate additional Green Belt land of the same size or greater than the Green Belt being developed - for example in the Asps area for the reasons highlighted in 4.3.8
My reservations and suggestions for further review are:
1. Windfalls
There is a large increase between the original and the revised Plans in the number of units being added through windfalls within existing planning boundaries, reducing the units required on new land by 1500 or almost 20% (the change was very clear in the public presentation). This huge revision suggests that the assumptions made for windfall or infill developments coming forward during the Plan period of slightly under 200 units per year (page 13 table 2) - there were 600 in the last year alone - may be significantly understated. 50 additional units a year would remove a further 750 from the newbuild total, roughly equivalent to the proposed greenbelt expansion. The assumption should be carefully reviewed.
2. Brownfield sites
The assumption here also looks modest.
Does the Plan include any assumption here or elsewhere about development of the old Potterton site and possibly greyhound track land alongside the Avon in Warwick ? Only phase 1 has been completed and filled (with difficulty - see below).
Has the recreation ground alongside the river, which is linked to the Edmonscote sports track been considered as suitable underutilised open space ?
Given shop vacancy rates and forecast trends, has sufficient allowance been made for conversions to residential in shopping areas, especially if major projects such as Chandos Street were now assumed to be available for high density accommodation ?
3. Building Densities
It is not clear if the new planning framework will specifically encourage higher density developments eg 4-8 storey townhouses/apartments within existing planning boundaries and in particular close to public transport services. It certainly appears not for newbuild proposals (5.1.3) but presumably this could also be adjusted in the new homes criteria at least in part. This would both be in line with the character of central Leamington and Warwick and take further pressure off the need to build on agricultural land. This option should be given further consideration.
4. Impact on Agriculture
It is not clear from the RDS what the impact would be on agricultural production and whether this has been considered in any judgements about possible alternatives, such as a higher density strategy outlined in point 3.
5. Building Quality and Mix
The criteria set out in 5.14 are sensible as far as they go. If there is any scope in the Plan for specifying higher standards of architecture (innovation, variety, local character etc) and of minimum living/garden space requirements I would strongly support those additions. Such criteria would help developers - and planners - avoid the costs and embarrassment of high vacancy rates on newbuild. The best recent example of this locally is probably the unattractive, rabbit-hutch sized first phase development on the old Potterton site. How the Plan might specify or aim to influence such desirable criteria should be considered.
6. Southern Green Park
It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible and if possible larger. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
7. Transport
The cycling plans look convincing. However the enhanced public transport outlined in the RDS seems unambitious and sketchy. Frequency of links should be at least as good as the current G1 and G2 services (every 8-9 minutes) with evening and weekend improvements throughout the District, if congestion is to be convincingly minimised. More detail is required in the Plan demonstrating how services will attract sufficent use to achieve this (coverage, frequency etc).
Two further points might be usefully touched on as part of a wider discussion of transport needs for a growing District:
- planned improvements at the slightly out-of area Gaydon interchange with the M40 will already be in place to assist flows to the south of Leamington (5.1.15)
- how will bus services (new and existing) connect to Railway stations and what is expected in the way of improved rail connections across the District (eg frequency to Coventry, a Kenilworth station) in order to reduce overall road use, pollution and congestion.
Subject to these reservations I broadly support the revised strategy and would make the following points:
8. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed, as I hope it wil not, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
9. The RDS has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. (However see the fourth paragraph of this letter and point 1 above). 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
10. Given that the RDS will no doubt require some building on new land, even after possible adjustments arising from points 1-3 and 8, the proposal that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) is logical. It provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
11. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
12. The RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
Less overall development outside the present limits - and particularly within the Green Belt - should be the main objective.

I am writing to you to express my extreme concern over the current WDC Local plan where 69% of new housing is planned South of the District . Over 4000 homes are planned in a very small area resulting in increased traffic and pollution of potentially in excess of 8000 cars. With only 4 river crossings, getting to North of the towns (both Warwick and Leamington) from South of the area will be impossible with current roads. The traffic chaos caused by the re-development of Princes Drive should bear witness to the need for road improvements to the North - an additional burden from 4000 houses will be unbearable for all local residents.

I also have concerns that the planned changes to the motorway (a running hard shoulder between junctions 12 to 15) will not be sufficient for the increased volumes of traffic and may well contribute to severe congestion and increased pollution in the area. Current motorway junctions serving Bishop Tachbrook and the south side of Warwick are already dangerous at peak times with stationary traffic backing up along the hard shoulder. Additional cars joining and leaving the motorway and proximity of Junction 15 will be a considerable risk for further collisions.

The South side of the District will become an urban sprawl of housing estates between Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash and far too many houses are planned to be built on these greenfield sites damaging the current agricultural land
and ruining the existing neighbourhood for local residents.


In addition, several developers have already opportunistically placed planning applications for developing this land taking advantage of the fact that the WDC local plan has not been approved. I have specific concerns over one of the developments at Grove Farm, Harbury Lane, Warwick where levels of arsenic, copper and benzo(a)pyrene have been found above the "Generic Assessment Criteria" for residential development with gardens. Whilst this is only in one area, building in this area of already high population (Warwick Gates development) must be considered dangerous. Section 6.3.1 of the report highlights that apart from the elevated levels of these compounds, there is not considered to be a risk to human health. However, I understand that metabolites of benzo(a)pyrene are highly carcinogenic and do not believe residents of the planned development, or nearby developments would wish to take the risk to their own, or their childrens risk to health should they be aware of it!

http://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/79602B8147297E752F37D48CC98EBE4B/pdf/W_13_0036-site_investigation_report-617681.pdf

I hope that you will be supportive of many local residents concerns on this unfair and potentially dangerous local plan which will put current local residents at risks from increased traffic (and potentially) harmful substances. A plan for Warwick is required that meets the needs of local and future residents, enhances the environment and improves residents lifestyles. The current proposed local plan cannot be seen to do this.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking as one of those residents who objected to the Council's original developments plans I would like to say that I believe your Revised Strategy is as fair a compromise as I would have expected under the circumstances and I am now happy to offer my support.

While I sympathise with those who object to the increased use of Brownfield and non-Green Belt land to the South of Leamington/Warwick and Whitnash I think it far preferable to fully utilise this land before developing Green Belt land, particularly where no Exceptional Circumstances exist for such development to take place. I also feel that the existing transportation links to the South of our district are better able to support the projected increases in traffic volumes without having to build new roads such as the (now withdrawn) Northern Relief Road.

The Local Plan Proposals We, the 3 Warwick County Councillors, whilst supporting the need for new local housing, express our opposition to the Local Plan published for consultation, on the grounds of over-development of one area, resulting in pollution which will be impossible to mitigate. This will affect both the health of residents and the structure of our multiple historic buildings, which are so important to our sense of place and culture.

Warwickshire County Council officers have produced the best transport mitigation plan they can in response to the proposals for housing offered by the District Council. This does not imply support, but a neutral response on the best option for increasing flow. The location of the proposed development does not allow our priorities for sustainable transport to be taken forward. Distances will be too great for pedestrians. Viable public transport will not be possible.

Unequivocally, the proposed traffic mitigation still results in increased traffic and increased pollution as laid out in the report from Arup. Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European guidelines on safety. Air pollution from traffic is linked to strokes, heart and respiratory diseases as well as some cancers and asthma. About 4,300 premature deaths a year in London alone are attributable to air pollution, according to studies for the London Mayor. We believe a Health Impact Assessment should be completed before any agreements are made on the Plan.

The 1993 Local Plan and the Inspectors Report in 1994 required measures to reduce the impact of traffic on our town centre. And yet, over a decade on, we have been unable to mitigate the traffic effect of this development, despite funding from the developer. We do not believe further development should be approved without first meeting our previous obligations.

Whilst we understand green belt should be preserved, we do not feel this should be at the expense of increased pollution for our existing residents. Councillor Angela Warner Councillor John Holland Councillor Jenny St John

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Local Plan 2013 will see the end of life as it is currently known in the South Leamington Area. I am writing to object in the strongest terms to the 2013 Local Plan, and the many planning applications that are associated with it - those that are currently under consideration, and those that are undoubtedly yet to come.

It is totally inappropriate that 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 would like the Council to explain why this is occurring.

The council is claiming that 12,300 new homes need to be built. This figure is being strongly contested by many objectors to the Local Plan. Where is the evidence that we need this many new homes? I am aware that a local councilor is working hard to get to the truth of this figure and that 5,400 over the next 15 years is a far more appropriate number for local needs. Which brings me to the point 'Local Needs' is a key phrase. It is my belief that this excessive housing has nothing to do with local needs but the desire for developers to tempt people, who are not local to move to Leamington. This will only add further to the burden currently being inflicted on pressure points on the roads in Warwick & Leamington & all its infrastructure. This is development for developments sake & it does nothing to aid affordable housing . Warwick Gates is a prime example of this, where many of the people living there are commuting long distances, and the vast majority of houses are privately owned and are not affordable to most first time buyers. Far better to build the houses where the jobs are. This would be a far more sustainable solution.
Therefore can the council please tell me where the 12,300 jobs are in South Leamington?

The council mentions in its proposals that 22.5 hectares are being set aside for new employment land. Can the Council please provide me with the name(s)of the business(s) & type of employment likely to be offered.

WDC does not have the right to ask that people only object to sites adjacent to their homes, this is an issue for the community and not just those closest to the sites as the impact will affect all of us. I strongly request that the council explains itself. Clearly the council fears the amount of responses it is going to receive, if the council cannot cope than this plan is unsustainable and should be rejected.


This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash. When it was seen for the first time in public it has appeared as a statement of intent and not as a suggestion with alternatives.

Scale and proportion

* massive long term coalescence of settlements,
* loss of significant open space,
* loss of local countryside,
* loss of agricultural land,
* lead to significant urban sprawl.
* excessive bulk and scale,
* significant overdevelopment of the area

The effect of these potential developments on the existing local communities and infrastructure will be devastating, and I believe have been grossly underestimated by both Warwick DC and the developers.

Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched.

* 2 or more cars per household,
* 9000 extra vehicles using the local road network.
* the local road infrastructure is inadequate. (e.g congestion on various local roads)
* traffic heading towards the town centres is already a major problem,
* gridlock, increased pollution etc.
* congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem
* traffic noise,
* potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

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.

Effect of local services/amenities

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."

* pressure on local schools
* primary schools already oversubscribed year on year
* increased pressure on the local secondary schools
* effect on catchment areas
* effect on applications from siblings of children already in one school
* new schools not "guaranteed" to be built as part of the developments
* limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates and Myton areas already
* effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals

Flood Risk

* already flood issues in Whitnash and Warwick Gates
* scale and density of proposed housing,
* large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc,

Alternatives to the Local Plan

There are many reasons why the Local Plan represents a disaster for the whole of the South Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash areas, predominantly because of the sheer concentration of most of the districts proposed new housing in one relatively small area.

Alternatives that should be considered include:

* Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied,
* Identifying empty industrial units with a view to use the land for brownfield site housing.
* Identifying an area in the surrounding countryside to use to build an entirely "new town".
* Spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with lots more much smaller developments.
* Smaller developments given to local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy.

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 is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.

Therefore, I hope you listen to the concerns and suggestions of the residents of your district, and act accordingly. This Local Plan cannot be allowed to come to fruition, and I hope Warwick DC come realize that, withdraw it, and refuse all the various planning applications relating to it, namely:

W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0606 - 720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane
W/13/0603 - 370 homes on land west of Europa Way/South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)
W/13/0464 - large Retirement Community development on Gallagher Land near Heathcote
W/13/0858 - upto 100 homes at Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash

I hope Warwick DC would also refuse any new applications relating to the following:

Myton Garden Suburb - upto 1250 homes
Further development South of Gallows Hill - upto 260 homes
Former Severn Trent Sewage Works - 225 homes
Further development at Grove Farm - 375 homes
Whitnash East/South of Sydenham - 500 homes

see attached

I feel it necessary to object most strongly to the plans for new housing in the area "SOUTH OF WARWICK AND WHITNASH", the main problem being traffic
1) WOODSIDE FARM
My main objection to your plan for Woodside Farm is on the grounds of traffic and road infrastructure as the one and only entrance to the development would appear to be only a short distance from Ashford Road and directly opposite Othello Avenue.
Apart from the saturation of the areas roads at present, Othello Avenue is at present used as a high speed rat run to the areas of Tachbrook Park Drive and beyond to Leamington Spa and Warwick. The introduction of a housing project of 280 units would add significantly to the areas problems even if all traffic is "encouraged" to go via Harbury Lane to Warwick or via Tachbrook Road to Leamington Spa. I understand that a set of traffic lights with pedestrian controls was the likely scenario at the junction of the development and Tachbrook Road/Othello Avenue and that these would be synchronised with the Harbury Lane lights and the current pedestrian lights near Ashford Road. This would apparently also have some computer input from traffic flow in both directions along Harbury Lane.
This apparently is designed to make the traffic flow evenly, but this is not my experience in practice if other closely situated traffic lights with pedestrian control in the areas are anything to go by at peak times.
Even if these highly technical lights do work as they are intended to, I think all will be controlled by human nature and despite your assurances that it will be "better" for drivers to avoid Othello Avenue most people will still use this route. It was suggested to me that some traffic calming would probably be added to Othello Avenue in order to guide motorists away to alternate routes but in November 2012, I noticed 2 lots of severe ruts on grass verges near the already present "traffic calming roundabouts". Vehicles had obviously left the road at these points having failed to negotiate the 2 islands in question crossed the pavement and travelled a large distance along the adjacent grass areas - one of which was the children's play area - do I need to comment further!! From the length and depth of the ruts speed must have been a major factor but my main point is that if plans for traffic diversion are to come to pass the calming measures which I appreciate are the prerogative of the highways dept. and not yours need to be quite draconian. My suggestions would be very frequent speed humps or road narrowing with alternate give way in each direction, (slight inconvenience to residents as there is always a route off the estate, but major bar to those using it as a "rat-run"). Ignoring the "Othello Question" the area is already heavily blighted by traffic and despite improvements to the Banbury Road junction with Harbury Lane the traffic on this road is at saturation levels especially at work and school times.

2) GROVE FARM & LOWER HEATHCOTE FARM

Despite improvements to the Banbury Road junction with Harbury Lane the traffic on this road is at saturation levels especially at work and school times (not to mention Othello Avenue being used as a "rat-run"). I believe that the inadequacies of Harbury Lane along with further overload would inflame this beyond all acceptable levels, especially as the plan shows 2 PRIMARY SCHOOLS and possibly 1 SECONDARY SCHOOL in the area between Tachbrook Road traffic lights and Earl Rivers Avenue roundabout. I have looked at the map and infrastructure requirements (5.1.15) and can see no evidence for any alteration to this stretch of road. The traffic in the area is already (7.30am-9.00am & 4.30pm-6.00pm especially) at saturation point and the addition of 1520 houses plus 2/3 schools would be a formula for total mayhem. Accidents and inevitable injury and loss of life would not be a certainty it would become virtually mandatory!! Especially to huge volumes of children crossing Harbury Lane even with light controlled crossings with or without supervision.
The lights at the junction with Tachbrook Road are already used as a "starting grid" for "The Harbury Lane Grand Prix" and coming the other way with many motorists the trick seems to be to get up enough speed to clear those lights before they change back to red. My point here is that the current speed limit is often ignored, so even if it is reduced to 30mph I can foresee the same problems as highlighted above.

I have limited my objections mainly to traffic, but there are many more areas which could be raised in strong objection to your proposals.

3) OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN
The improvements to the junction of Gallows Hill with Banbury Road has made a great improvement, but all would be lost by the addition of 3000+ houses and more additions to Warwick Technology Park and the junction in its present form would become in the modern annoying idiom "not fit for purpose"! With respect to more vehicles needing access to The Technology Park, I see from map 3 that a grade 1 improvement is proposed for the entrance to the site and this is long overdue. However a glaring problem has been overlooked as the site has insufficient car parking space already without further expansion. Those of us who travel this stretch of road on a regular basis are all too aware of the large number of cars parked on the grass verge on the South side of Gallows Hill during work hours, obviously much to the annoyance of local farmers who have put up no parking signs by their gates. (There used to be a smaller problem on the North side but the resident there has put up wooden posts to stop the parking). Of course this problem will "go away" when the proposed building takes place on the South side - just one problem here - where will the cars be parked then?!
I can also see major knock on problems for Tachbrook Park Drive, where parking by HGV traffic blocks the road on a regular basis even at non-peak times. Quite often there are several large trucks and car transporters lined up on both sides of the road as there is little or no option for them to park at the delivery sites. I appreciate this is a commercially orientated road but not enough thought was given to parking facilities for loading and unloading. This situation will only deteriorate with extra traffic converging on the area. One might suggest removing the grass verges (those not ploughed up by encroaching HGVs) and providing loading bays. If total chaos is not to arise the whole road may need alteration including a cycle track between Heathcote Lane and Sainsburys if this building in the area goes ahead- more expense and another reason for not going ahead with this project.
I have limited my objections mainly to traffic, but there are many more areas which could be raised in strong objection to your proposals and the cost of all the required infrastructure improvements would seem prohibitive under present austerity conditions.
I appreciate, as previously mentioned that roads and their planning are the remit of The County Council, but all my points and no doubt some that I have missed, do I feel need serious consideration.

Finally I do not wish to be categorised as a NIMBY but all or most of the development is in the South Warwick Area (North of Leamington Spa having been abandoned -perhaps for political reasons if some press articles are to be believed). It seems that Warwick District Council is trying to make an issue of Green Belt Versus Green Field to find a reason for putting most the development in one area. The underlying fact is that in either case valuable Green Areas of once "Leafy Warwickshire" are to be sacrificed on the high alter of so called "Future & Sustainable Prosperity". I have to tell you now that a lot of people do not think that these plans will "Make Warwick District a Great Place To Live Work and Visit."

I am sending copies to Chris White, my local MP with whom I am already in touch

see attached