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

I am strongly in favour of and support the REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY in relation to the Green Belt to the north of Leamington.

I oppose the above for a number of reasons, 1)Amenities are already stretched to the limit around here
2) traffic is already awful, the roads around here can't cope with the traffic now! I haven't seen plans to build more major roads
3) you are planning to build on green belt land!
4) most of the houses are to be built around whitnash, this is unfair and the plans should show proportional representation
5) too many houses proposed full stop!
6)are there not too many gypsy sites proposed - how will this be managed? this is a concern for us as generally when a small amount of gypsies camp up in whitnash there is a police presence, which we would expect! Are you planning on a constant police presence? How much is this going to cost? Is there Enough resource To cope with this increased police presence? Council tax is already too high Rise in crime Anti-social behaviour

Whitnash has always been a nice place to live, if this proposal goes through we will look to move!

I strongly agree that we must protect the greenbelt land in our district and keep sites from merging.

I'm pleased that the houses will be built near the main employment opportunities in the area, which will allow people to cycle or walk to work, reducing conjestion.

I'd like to see cycle paths in the new development areas. We really could do with some on Kenilworth Road.

The infrastructure, (roads and supermarkets etc) are already in place where the new developments are planned, which makes good financial and environmental sense.

A.C.Lloyd Homes Ltd wish to support the Council's preferred option for the broad location of development. In particular, they support the identified distribution of growth across the District including within and/or the edge of some villages and also support the higher level of growth in larger more substantial villages with a reasonable level of services. A.C. Lloyd Homes Ltd consider that Bishops Tachbrook and Radford Semele are larger more substantial villages with a number of services that can support additional housing to assist in meeting the Council's anticipated level of growth over the plan period

All of the development proposed in the plan is south of Leamington. Access to the south is already limited by the number of bridges and the area is already over developed with Warwick Gates. The local infrastructure is overloaded with no spaces at schools, doctors etc. The roads are overcrowded providing difficult access for emergency vehicles. We understand that Warwick Hospital is overcrowded and unable to be extended. Whilst "fairness" doesn't seem to matter in planning term it does matter in life, in law and in politics. Surely there is every reason to develop Kenilworth and Coventry, where there is a less crowded infrastructure and "fairness" be applied. Our local MP, Chris White, endorses the need for fairness and a number of MPs and celebrities have signed a letter published in The Daily Telegraph (13th July, 2013) headed "The Charter of the Land" telling of the English countryside being precious, inspirational and irreplaceable.

Whilst the broad spread of expansion is admirable the position has changed to a concentration south of Warwick/Leamington. On this basis the broad allocation is not working and the plan should be reconsidered again with a new village or town created in an appropriate location.

Also the revisions from the original plan are unfair and unbalanced. Milverton has been removed completely following representations and putting more pressure on other villages to take up the slack. The villages have equally good arguments against the use of green belt and have not been similarly listened to between the original and now revised plan. In Hampton Magna case teh houses increased from max 100 to 150.

The green belt must be protected. It is there for a purpose. Exceptional circumstances are not proven and give the uncertainty over house numbers green belt developments must be stopped.

Whilst the broad spread of expansion is admirable the position has changed to a concentration south of Warwick/Leamington. On this basis the broad allocation is not working and the plan should be reconsidered again with perhaps a new village or town created in an appropriate location.
Also the revisions from the original plan are unfair and unbalanced. Milverton has been removed completely following representations putting more pressure on other villages to take up the slack. The villages have equally good arguments against the use of green belt and have not been similarly listened to between the original and now revised plan. In Hampton Magna case the houses increased from max 100 to 150 despite similar arguments against.

We support the general concept of placing most development within or on edge of the urban area where it obviously benefits from nearby infrastructure. We generally support the concept to protect the Greenbelt but feel that the WDC simplistic interpretation considerably disadvantages the non-Greenbelt minority area of WDC's overall area. It would be better and easier if the whole of WDC was Greenbelt or at least accorded a status of "Area of Restraint" as an area of predominantly agricultural landscape. Sadly almost the whole of WDC's too high growth aspiration is being forced into the constrained area to the south.

Whilst we support the concept of development on the edge of the currently developed area we are concerned that such development is almost exclusively to the south of the towns - this will have major impacts on the southern area and should be fairly distributed across the whole WDC area by imaginative manipulation of the Greenbelt policies whilst still maintaining the Greenbelt purpose of protecting the space around Birmingham. The southern sprawl should be contained and the proposed BT Country Park should be extended across the A452 as far as the A425 to meet up with Warwick Castle Park.

Within and edge of settlements is fine. The Greenbelt needs to be re-examined as the current proposals prevent that area accommodating its own organic growth but more importantly superimposes their growth on the much smaller, already over-developed, non-Greenbelt area to the south. For clarity - do we think Warwick gates and SW Warwick are good examples of development well planned and executed? They are simply urban sprawl - narrow roads, poor access, minimal services/facilities, lack of schools and a lot more traffic in the area.

4.3.4 - this should be headed concentration in the SMALL non-Greenbelt area - not outside the Greenbelt.
I have little confidence that the RMA work protects our area in any meaningful way.
Regardless of GL Hearn's report the majority of the employment provision 16.5 of 17.5 hectares appears to provide only for "flexibility of implementation" rather than predicted need - it should therefore carry little weight.
The traffic proposals provided mayb ease junctions but are unlikely to lighten traffic in any meaningful way and will significantly URBANISE the rural fringes out of all recognition - see Tachbrook Rd/Fosse intersection if in doubt!

4.3.14 states "where possible" - nice idea, we'll see if it works in practice. More likely it means "cooperate or things will be imposed!"
Also states - "a varied percentage increase in household levels, proportional to the existing size of the settlements" - which is actually pretty meaningless. The plan should either fix the percentage or remove such a reference to a percentage.

The broad swathe of development south of the towns is too big and pushes too far into the rural area - it should be slimmed down by reducing total numbers and moving some development to the north and west of the towns. The proposed Country Park is an excellent idea and should be extended as far as Warwick castle park to partition the urban and rural areas for the longer term in addition to complimenting that landscape area.

The idea of protecting the greenbelt between Warwick and Kenilworth is an outdated ideal from many years ago. The green belt areas have to be considered based on today's housing pressures, instead of forcing all development south of Warwick.

Having 80% of the district designated as green belt restricts how much as well as where development can take place but this has not been recognized.

Concentrating new housing in the southern part of the district and new employment in the north east will increase commuting.

Warwick and Leamington have their town centres, police stations, hospitals and fire services on the north bank of the Rivers Leam and Avon and on the north side of the West Coast Main Line. There are limited crossing points all of which are congested at peak times. No proposals have been put forward for additional crossing points and by the councils own admission it is very difficult to upgrade them and impossible to create a new crossing. Therefore development south of these barriers should be restricted to current levels and either new sites identified north of these barriers or development overall restricted.

Having read many of the supporting documents, much of what claims to be objective and evidence is really subjective and opinion. For example, the proposal to use the green field area south of the Myton Road ultimately stems from the comments in the Landscape Character Assessment by Richard Morrish Associates. This report suggests that the land to the north east of the Warwick Technology Park has been "devalued" by the very presence of the Technology Park itself, and so ultimately is fair game for development. This is not a justification, purely an opinion, and one not shared by residents and also originally not by WDC. It is also a circular argument - the Technology Park was allowed on the understanding that it would not spread in this direction, something that its mere existence is now being used to justify.

The pieces of research mentioned are largely about mitigating the negative effects of the proposed development - they do not attempt to justify it. Also, they are only about mitigation - not removing the issues, but just attempting to make them less negative.

The concerns of the Council that existed in 2012 have not gone away, namely:
- the issue of coalescence between the settlements: specifically the green field area between the Warwick Technology Park and the Europa Way roundabout is the only thing that prevents Warwick and Leamington Spa merging.
- the cumulative impact of this level of development to the south will still exist - the massive loss of green fields will not be offset by the cosmetic proposals in the research.
- the lack of choice of location of housing - the large swathes of estate housing will not deliver the "wide choice of quality homes" as demanded by the National Planning Policy Framework.

The original plan of a more even distribution of housing around the urban fringe addresses all these concerns. The distinction between "green belt" and "green field" when both are serving the same purpose is quite artificial, and should not be used as a justification for not implementing the altogether more sensible, original preferred option of the Council.

My husband has one third lung capacity and already finds the short journey from Mill Street to Smith Street for his morning paper an event which requires three or four stops to cope with traffic fumes.
In their duty of care to reduce the existing air pollution the Council are already failing those with 100 per cent functioning lungs. In their overall housing plan which will guarantee a vast increase of cars and delivery vans driving along existing roads we may all observe that duty of care now has the official stamp "UNIMPORTANT".

I am very pleased that the new plan has recognised the need to protect the Green Belt from development where alternative non-Green Belt sites are suitable and available. Likewise this also recognises the need to avoid development in locations which could potentially lead to the coalescence of settlements. The previous plan did not recognise this but I agree with the new proposed plan not to build in the green belt to the north of Leamington as this would lead to coalescence with Old Milverton.

The plan, as currently presented, places far too much burden on the south side of Leamington and Warwick. The impact of this huge development will place intolerable strains on the river crossings within both towns. Most traffic will be attempting to get back to the north and east of the towns where the majority of the employment areas are. It is simply unsustainable to continue to develop land in this area when the jobs are elsewhere. The Council's answer, that it is setting aside land to create jobs, has no evidence to support that it actually will create employment. All previous land allocated in these areas for Business use either lays empty, or has been re-designated as housing land (see Chase Meadow). It is time that an holistic view is taken, and not one that denies reality. The centre of Warwick is proposed to be redesigned, from a traffic perspective, to shift huge volumes of additional traffic north-south and vice versa. This will destroy Warwick as a pleasant market town, creating traffic chaos and terrible levels of pollution, affecting the lives of young and old alike. The proposed changes to Smith Street are simply unbelievable. The plan should be torn up and a new one created that balances the needs of new housing with those of the existing communities, and takes into consideration the impact on infrastructure. It should also accept that allocating land for business doesn't automatically create jobs. Warwick isn't a traffic system, it is a community, an historic town and currently a lovely place to live. Let's keep it that way.

The draft local plan plans to strangulate the centre of Warwick. It is already too congested and this will make it much worse. The pollution levels in central Warwick are already at illegal levels and this plan will make things worse. We should not plan to be at greater risk of stroke, heart and respiratory illness. This plan will increase the population of Warwick alone by about 15000, an increase 50 -60%. This is irresponsible planning and must be reconsidered. The infrastructure cannot support an increase of this magnitude. You plan to destroy this and the heart of the town.

The plan, as currently presented, places far too much burden on the south side of Leamington and Warwick. The impact of this huge development will place intolerable strains on the river crossings within both towns. Most traffic will be attempting to get back to the north and east of the towns where the majority of the employment areas are. It is simply unsustainable to continue to develop land in this area when the jobs are elsewhere. The Council's answer, that it is setting aside land to create jobs, has no evidence to support that it actually will create employment. All previous land allocated in these areas for Business use either lays empty, or has been re-designated as housing land (see Chase Meadow). It is time that an holistic view is taken, and not one that denies reality. The centre of Warwick is proposed to be redesigned, from a traffic perspective, to shift huge volumes of additional traffic north-south and vice versa. This will destroy Warwick as a pleasant market town, creating traffic chaos and terrible levels of pollution, affecting the lives of young and old alike. The proposed changes to Smith Street are simply unbelievable. The plan should be torn up and a new one created that balances the needs of new housing with those of the existing communities, and takes into consideration the impact on infrastructure. It should also accept that allocating land for business doesn't automatically create jobs. Warwick isn't a traffic system, it is a community, an historic town and currently a lovely place to live. Let's keep it that way.

4.3.8 is WDC cherry-picking its own recommendations: the original Landscape Character Assessment report recommended that the whole of site D (land south of Gallows Hill) should NOT be developed and its rural character be maintained. I've been unable to discover why this recommendation is being ignored.

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.

Thank you for informing me of the Public Consultation period for the Revised Development Strategy.

I strongly support the 2013 Revised Local Plan. It more adequately serves the community by building houses nearer to major areas of employment, schools and transport infrastructures. This is right for businesses and will help to regenerate the prosperity of the district.

Up-to date research, has identified sufficient, suitable and available development sites to fulfill the requirements of the Local Plan. Hence, the Green Belt north of Leamington, has been removed from the Revised Plan, there being no evidence of 'Special Circumstances' to justify its development. This was a necessary legal change which must be adhered to if Leamington Spa is to retain its identity.

The planners have a difficult task producing a plan that is right for the district, and in this they will never satisfy everybody.
The total distribution of sites and management of development numbers are to be commended. The Revised Plan appears to be as fair as is possible, bearing in mind the restrictions when developing around and utilising what is already established.

Much work, and several surveys have been employed to provide the evidence required for the bold revision of the 2012 Local Plan, rendering it more fit for purpose and the basis for a sound plan which should meet with the inspector's approval.

If the exhaust fumes in Warwick, and traffic problems nearby are finally resolved through a well-planned traffic management strategy, essential to the Local Plan, then this will represent a possitive outcome as a direct consequence of the Local Plan.

The Council's Preferred Option is to distribute growth across the district and to avoid locations which might lead to the coalescence of settlements. However the sites allocated for growth in the RDS will not be distributed across the district as the majority are concentrated in one area southwest of Leamington Spa, south of Warwick and Whitnash. This concentration of sites also has the potential of coalescing Bishop's Tachbrook with Leamington Spa ,Whitnash and Warwick.

Green belt areas and villages should be protected from unnatural scale of development

RDS3 states that the council intends to distribute growth around the District. Examining the facts show that in the south there are 4550 houses in sites on the edge of Warwick, 380 houses on brownfield sites plus an estimated 700 houses allocated to villages - Total 5590. The North of the District have 700 houses on a new site in Kenilworth and about 300 in villages - total 1000. Putting over 80% of the development in 30% of the District area is not distributing growth around the District.

In section 4.3.3 concerns were expressed about the impact of a large amount of development south of Warwick on transport along Europa Way, the town centres and the M40. No concern has been raised about the impact of this upon the villages to the south. Commuter traffic avoiding the main routes and going through Barford at peak times is already causing severe congestion. No traffic mitigation proposals are made for the roads south of the development so problems will certainly increase unless a major new road is created to enable traffic to access the main road network to the south.

Para 4.3.8 recommends that the approach to Warwick is maintained as a rural area in the vicinity of the Asps. The statement is that 'It is recommended that this area is protected from Development'. -Why has this area not been included in the 'Country Park' specified to the East ? This would be a logical extension and create a barrier to preserve the rural approach to Warwick.