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

I am writing to express my deep concerns and objections to the proposed Warwick District Local Plan.

The proposal to build so many properties south of Warwick appears to take very little into consideration other than a need to build. The actual effect such a large build would have on the town of Warwick, its community and the environment, seems to had very little thought and consideration from those involved with the planning. Whilst appreciating that some thought has been given to the infrastructure required, this is far from acceptable and certainly does not go far enough in considering what is going to be required if this plan is allowed to go forward.
Transport and adequate road provision is far from satisfactory and in no way allows for the vast increase in cars etc. which would occur should the number of houses planned be allowed to be built. This would not only effect the air pollution ( which is already far from satisfactory ) but also the general environment effecting our county town of Warwick. Already this historic town has difficulty dealing with the traffic and its visitors, and therefore surely we should be seriously looking at how to improve the amenities of the town rather than add to its problems.
These are my prime concerns although I have several others.

I should therefore like to register my disapproval to the present local plan which I believe to have been badly thought through, and is a major threat to the great historic town of Warwick and its surrounding areas.

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 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.

Reading about and hearing the plans first hands by attending a few meetings, we are becoming more and more concerned and alarmed regarding the proposed development plans and its possible effects on our little town, Warwick.
* My wife as a retired teacher has been alarmed and often concerned by ever increasing the students/teacher ratios at our local schools. The above proposal will make the matter even worst than it is. Our most important duty is to make sure that our young generations will be receiving the best education. The above proposal has completely ignored this and has not discussed this issue in proper and assuring matter.
* Also as we have had to visit our local hospitals, perhaps more than one desires as the result of poor health, we have been most sadden by the ever increasing waiting time in hospitals and the pressure that the doctors and nurses are already under. We have been unable to see anything in the above proposals for building hospitals and recruiting more doctors and nurses to address the existing problems. Indeed I can see the worsening of the situation if the proposed plans go ahead.
* We try to use the Public transport as much as possible, however, at those occasions that we needed to take our car out we often have faced heavy traffic through the narrow streets of Warwick. How on earth can these streets cope with more traffic?
* We decided to come and spend our retirement in Warwick for its green surrounding areas and good air. This proposal will change the whole nature of this historical and beautiful town to a busy city with high pollution and crowded surroundings.
We suggest, you re-examining your proposals, taking into consideration the local people's points and concerns and come up with something which properly addresses our presents and future concerns.

I hope you will still consider this feedback even though it has been submitted after the deadline. I am currently visiting family in Finland and have had to cope with two unexpected collapses of my father this afternoon which necessarily distracted me from responding before the deadline. I did, however, want to share my thoughts on the new local plan hence sending this email. Please would you confirm whether you will take my email into consideration as part of the new local plan consultation.

I am concerned that the number of new houses proposed within the new local plan appears to greatly exceed the projected housing demand in this region. I agree that the plan should aim to meet projected housing needs but, particularly given the pressure that the proposal already puts on the local environment, exceeding the projected need will only exacerbate these problems.

The location of the possible locations of housing developments deeply concerns me. I strongly believe that greenfield sites should not be built upon where there are brownfield options. Our natural environment is a rare resource and once sacrificed it is lost for good, and 'garden' housing developments proposals simply do not mitigate the loss. If brownfield sites cannot meet the housing needs the location of additional housing must be sympathetic to the existing settlements and infrastructure issues. I am concerned that a significant area of farmland to the north and west of Bishops Tachbrook appears to have been offered by the owners for development. Whilst this may be economically attractive to the land owners, the impact of further development in this area would have a serious negative impact on existing residents. The development of Warwick Gates has already increased the number of cars that travel through Bishops Tachbrook which use it as a rat run to access the M40. Given the location of the village it is reasonable to assume that further development to the north of this village will exacerbate this problem. I appreciate that increased populations will result in increased car traffic, however the main road running south through the village goes through one stretch (close to Savages Close) where it is extremely narrow and the visibility of traffic heading north along this road is already very poor when at the junction by The Leopard pub. If the housing in south Leamington Spa area is to increased it must be in a location that is further west such that traffic is more likely to use the major roads such as Europa Way.

The British countryside is characterised by villages and rolling fields. We have a duty to preserve the rural character of the area and prevent towns such as Leamington Spa to sprawl further and encroach on existing boundaries with local villages.

My recommendation would be that the new local plan should seek to only meet the projected housing demand for the area and that any development takes place next to major roads which do not run though small villages. The rural character of the area around Bishops Tachbrook must be preserved and road safety should be prioritised.

I hope you will consider my feedback.

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 apparently needed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash.

Scale and proportion

This represents a massive long term coalescence of settlements, and one that will result in the loss of significant open space, local countryside and agricultural land, and lead to significant urban sprawl.

As with any significant individual development, a suitable ground for objection includes excessive bulk and scale, or overdevelopment of the area. Placing the majority of proposed housing on such a confined part of the Warwick District as this is surely overdevelopment on a massive scale.

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. Most households have 2 cars in this day and age, so for up to 4500 houses, you could expect there to be over 9000 extra vehicles parking in and around the various developments, and using the local road network. This does not account for any visitors or other extra vehicles.

With potentially 9000 extra cars, the local road infrastructure is inadequate. Tachbrook Road, Tachbrook Park Drive, Princes Drive, and junctions with Harbury Lane, Europa Way, Gallows Hill, Banbury Road, Whitnash Road and others into the centre of Leamington and Warwick, are already significantly congested at peak times, and even at weekends. At peak times, there are several places where the traffic heading towards the town centres via these few available routes is already a major problem, leading to gridlock, increased pollution etc.

However, the congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem, and again, adding a load more vehicles to the traffic will make this worse. I refer to out of town junctions such as:

the Harbury Lane/Fosse Way crossroads (itself an accident blackspot),
the Oakley Wood Road/Banbury Road junction beyond Bishops Tachbrook,
the Mallory Road/Banbury Road junction beyond Bishops Tachbrook,
the Harbury Lane/Gallows Hill/Europa Way roundabout
the Europa Way/Banbury Road/M40 feeder road roundabout at Tachbrook Mallory.

The increase in vehicles will compound this further, causing increased pollution, traffic noise, and 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.

The pressure on local schools in the Whitnash area is already well known, with the primary schools to this being oversubscribed year on year. The development of Warwick Gates without the provision of a new school put added pressure on the existing schools, and the addition of all the various Local Plan related developments will further increase this pressure.

So too will it increase pressure on the local secondary schools. School places are limited, and
adding extra housing will increase the number of applications to schools from this inflated
catchment area, and could mean that some existing residents will not be able to get their children into schools that they could have done previously. The school catchment area may be one reason why many people moved to Whitnash/Warwick Gates/Myton in the first place, but the total number of schools has not changed.

Although there are supposedly schools provisioned for in the various plans, these are not guaranteed to be built, and following the building of Warwick Gates with no schools, local residents are already sceptical.

There is limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates areas already, and adding several thousand extra people around Heathcote and Whitnash development will place further undue pressures on those existing surgeries, as well as any in the South Warwick/Myton areas. The effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals should also be taken into account.

Flood Risk

There are already flood issues in the back gardens of houses on Landor Road and Ashford Road in Whitnash, where water runs off the fields. There have also been previous drainage issues at Warwick Gates, and the land in the surrounding areas is probably not much different, given its proximity to Warwick Gates. Given the scale and density of proposed housing, and potentially large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc, this problem could get worse for existing residents, and for those on the new developments.

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 either derelict or currently unoccupied, and ensuring those houses are brought back onto the market for people to buy and live in.
*
* Identifying empty industrial units that have been empty for some time, with a view to use the land they occupy for brownfield site housing.
*
* Identifying an area in the surrounding countryside to use to build an entirely "new town". This town could incorporate the entire 12,500 houses in on development, and be placed somewhere such as around the A46 or M40 to the west of Warwick, which would mean much of the traffic would use these roads to by-pass the towns of Warwick/Leamington. If such a town was built with its own schools, doctors surgeries, shopping areas etc, it ought to be relatively self-sufficient.
* Spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with lots more much smaller developments. Smaller developments mean a severely reduced impact on the local area where they are located, and spreading it evenly around the district would mean a similarly reduced impact on the road network, schools, health care services, etc. It would also mean the loss of open space/character of individual areas would not be lost, and urban sprawl would be minimized in all locations.

* Smaller developments could then also be given to local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy.

I believe this 2013 Local Plan is ill conceived, especially given the large land area that the whole district covers. To concentrate most of the total development in one area of the district is not only wrong, but it is also disastrous.

It is disastrous not only for those that currently live nearby, but also for the whole of South Leamington/Warwick and Whitnash, and for those who use the road networks into the town centres.

When there are seemingly many existing houses lying empty around the district, or rented on an ongoing basis rather than being sold to prospective dwellers, or industrial units unoccupied on brownfield sites, then these things should be looked into before large swathes of the local landscape are destroyed forever.

Effective use of existing housing and industrial sites in this way, coupled with the spreading of new developments evenly around the district, or further out in the countryside to create a new town, would make far more sense than to just force excessive numbers of new houses on South Leamington farmland merely because it isn't Green Belt.

The fact 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 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


Yours sincerely,




Stephen McFadden

I am writing in response to the public consultation for the New Local Plan for Warwick District Council.

I support the New Local Plan including the June 2013 Revised Development Strategy.

I support the fact that the New Local Plan protects the Green Belt to the North of Leamington, as opposed to the previous version of the Local Plan which proposed developing on Green Belt land to the North of Leamington.

I feel the New Local Plan proposes a more appropriate development approach, by predominately allocating future housing development to non-Green Belt land. I feel it is very important to preserve the Green Belt, and using the Green Belt land to the North of Leamington could not be justified since alternative non-Green Belt land is available which has been identified by Warwick District Council as suitable for housing development.

I am pleased that the New Local Plan prepared by Warwick District Council reflects the fact that no justification exists to use the Green Belt land to the North of Leamington as development land for roads or housing

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.

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

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 using the already over stretched river and railway crossings. 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.

We write to support the Revised Development Strategy, which recognises that the exceptional circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist. Much of this land is used for agricultural purposes and it is clearly in the country's interest that we do everything possible to maximise home production. Recent reports have emphasised the possibilities of future world food shortages and we must be doubly determined to preserve greenbelt land, because once it is built on, it will be lost to the nation's larder for ever.

It is also very important to limit urban sprawl by preserving the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, which distinguishes the area and avoids the prospect of Leamington and Warwick being merged with the West Midlands conurbation.

Specifically we support the Revised Development Strategy because it:

1. Has a fair distribution of new housing across the District.

2. Removes the proposal to build 2,000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of sites, only 325 further houses are proposed on greenfield land, as opposed to the proposals in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.

3. 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. This is obviously a sensible approach and furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.

4. 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 that will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.

5. Provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure required to support the new development.

We do not have the information to query the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, but we must always be vigilant in restricting house building to that which is absolutely necessary and avoid the concreting over of attractive, productive land, which is a key reason why people choose to settle here.

I write to provide my support for the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt .
As a mother of small children that made a decision to move to North Leamington and near the Green Belt , I am delighted that the new plan has withdrawn any future development there.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. It must not be permitted.
I base my support on the fact that the Green Belt in the area mentioned meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. I note and draw attention that development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington has already taken land from this essential Green Belt. Further development on it would not be sustainable.
I would also like to make the following points in this letter of support:
1. If the Joint Strategic Housing needs analysis currently being performed with Coventry City Council 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. I recognise there are rejections to the plan based on "Fair Distribution" of housing - however point out as I hope you will to those objectors that the Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District - there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages. This makes it entirely fair.
3. Commuting, polution and infrastructure (roads) development can be minimised by the Revised Development Strategy as it now 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 also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life.
4. Development in South Leamington does not face the border proximity issues of North Leamington - there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
5. 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. I don't believe the plan could respond to an alternative distributed proposal for housing across the district as there will be smaller but threshold breaking impacts on schools, health, policing and council services spread around the district which can't be appropriately responded to with focused investment - just patching up of stretched services.
6. The original Plan involving development of Road Infrastructure in North Leamington to meet the needs of that original plan was unaffordable and waste of tax payers funds and still without issues. 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. 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.
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 will be opposed to as no exceptional circumstances exist. I believe the council has a responsibility to protect this vital resource for which many people chose and will continue to chose to live in Leamington Spa.
I support the new plan entirely - 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.

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.

As residents of North Leamington we have campaigned hard to save the area of Green Belt adjacent to our homes. This has not been through pure self interest but as a concerted attempt to ensure that current and future residents of the area still have green spaces and open countryside to enjoy.

My major concern has been for the valuable eco-system that this area of open land supports. We regularly see foxes, hedgehogs, several species of bat, owls, woodpeckers in this vicinity and these are just the visible inhabitants. Thousands more rely on this area of countryside for their homes. Surely the habitat of these creatures is far more important than the housing needs of a few people.

We realise that we are extremely lucky to have such an asset in our "backyard" and as a result want to protect it for future generations. In turn we know how aggrieved the residents of south Leamington and Warwick are about the decision to locate more housing in their areas. However, Warwick district and South Warwickshire as a whole has always been renowned for its leafy green spaces, so we need to protect them wherever possible. The fact that this is greenbelt should be reason enough.

We will remain vigilant in our campaign to protect this area and will not be deterred by accusations of NIMBY-ism. Green belt is for everyone and should remain so.

Please ensure that this council does not allow building on the Green Belt land to the north of Leamington and ensure that this beautiful country area is preserved for future generations. If destroyed Leamington would never recover the attraction that it now enjoys.

I write to you in support the latest Revised Development Strategy (June2013).

Its makes sense to further develop the south of the Leamington where schools, healthcare facilities and employment opportunities are more readily than in the north where a development would both destroy an area of green belt land and overstretch the limited amenties.

I am writing to express my support of 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.

This new Development Plan has too many things wrong with it -
1. It is not necessary to build so many houses especially on green field sites
2. It would be preferable to build fewer houses on brown field sites - affordable houses.
3. Agricultural land is precious and likely to become more so.
4. Traffic pollution in Warwick is dreadful - I live on a busy through road and even the dust entering my home is dirty!
5. There seems to be no thought for the people who already live in the area and how they would suffer when services are overloaded, already Warwick Hospital is having to cope with increased demand for health services, as are GP practices. Schools would also be put under increased pressures.
6. I have little faith in my local councillors and council officers doing a good job and listening to the people of Warwick before the damage is done.

I hope that my objections will be taken into consideration. I am too old and infirm to attend any of the Public Meetings.

I have a few concerns about the proposed local plan! Firstly - the impact on house prices in the area! I understand that affordable housing for people is important, however, having only recently brought a house in Bishops Tachbrook, I have concerns that the proposed large development South of Leamington and, to a larger extent, the proposed Gypsy and traveller sites will mean a increase in crime and so lead to a drop in house prices and a increase in home insurance! This would mean we would be paying more for our house than its worth therefore stopping us from moving if our standard of living drops due to said increase in crime and over population of the area! Secondly the increase in housing would mean at least 12000 more cars on the road as most households have at least 2 cars! I find it impossible to see how a road network that already struggles can cope even if (as has been proposed) the junctions are improved and some roads turned into dual carriage ways.

Please listen to the people who already live and work in the area and voted councillors in!

I am writing to show my support for the revised development strategy. It recognises that exceptional circumstances allowing major development on green belt land do not exist. It's a well thought out plan that understands any development should be close to existing employers on the business parks and easy access to the M40 for places such as Jaguar Land Rover who are also big employers in the town.

It makes sense to improve the existing infrastructure and road network already in place to cope with the extra traffic movements without causing more congestion in the town centre. I think it is vital that we preserve green belt land for future generations as once gone it's gone forever. The new plan seems to recognise this with the majority of development on brown field and non green belt land.

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 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.

* The Revised Development Strategy correctly recognises that the exceptional circumstances necessary for a major development in the North Leamington Green Belt do not exist. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth. Otherwise there is a real risk Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands Conurbation. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury

* WDC is to be congratulated for preparing a Revised Development Strategy which, whilst providing a similar number of new houses for the District, removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt and, through the better use of Brownfield sites, and results in only 325 further houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington.

* The Revised Development Strategy has a fair 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's important that most of the development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, with a consequential positive impact on the environment & their 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 provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.

I am writing to let you know that I approve of the revised development strategy for Warwick Distrct as whilst providing a number of new houses for the District it removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt and, through better use of Brownfield sites results in only 325 further houses on Greenfield land South of Leamington. It allows for a fairer 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 close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington and Warwick) which enables people to live closer to their work place which creates a positive impact on the environment and quality of life which is addressed by the revised plan.

The revised plan also provides for improvements to the road network South of Leamington which will relieve the existing congestion and cater for the new development. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution. Also the revised plan provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development

And finally the revised development strategy recognises that the exceptional circumstances necessary for a major development in the North Leamington Green Belt do not exist. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworh. Otherwise there is a real risk Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands Conurbation. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.

I thank WDC for the production of the Revised Development Strategy.

I am just writing to say that we wholeheartedly support the Revised Development Strategy and request that you include our vote in favour of it in your deliberations.
The North Leamington Green Belt needs to be protected - the surrounding areas of North Leamington are desperately needed because they give wildlife much needed sanctuary and the countryside environment provides an essential buffer between Leamington and the Coventry conurbation and Kenilworth.
The better utilisation of available brownfield sites, the fairer distribution of new housing in the North Leamington area, consideration towards reducing road traffic while providing encouragement in attracting new businesses bringing employment to the area and the proposed improvements to the road network in South Leamington have been addressed by the Revised Development Strategy and I congratulate the Warwick District Council for this.
Altogether the above benefits including also the schools and other infrastructure improvements should make this plan the only acceptable way forward - there seems little else to say!

I am writing to object to the draft Local Plan and to the RDS.
I have major concerns about the proposals. My points are as follows:

1. Widening the roads opposite Warwick School and down Myton Road will not prevent severe congestion as a result of an additional 7-10,000 cars; the approaches to Warwick will be spoilt and the views from the castle will be detrimentally affected. The pollution will directly impact on school children when walking to school and when playing sport on the sports fields which are immediately adjacent to these proposed dual carriageways.

2. The projected housing need of 12,300 new homes to be built is much too high. Less than half that number would meet local needs. It is wrong to forecast as far into the future as 2029, and to allocate greenfield land now. It is akin to having no plan at all, allowing uncontrolled growth, just leaving developers to decide what to build when.

3. While the National Planning Policy Framework requires the approval of 'sustainable development' which meets an established housing need, planning applications already made or imminent for much of the land meet neither of these criteria. A realistic forecast of need would mean that the District already has the required five-year supply of sites, balancing housing with employment growth and matching the housing market.

4. Transport: sprawling development is inevitably car-dependent. The transport strategy is car-based, just squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network, bridges over the River Avon, and parking. Contrary to transport policies, it would make walking and cycling less attractive, and could not have good public transport. I am very concerned as to the impact on Avon Bridge. This bridge is beautiful and the view from it to the castle, which is enhanced because it is from an old bridge, is priceless and key for Warwick.

5. Air Quality:pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than is legally permitted. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would also be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged. Worse, the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened.

6. The quality of the historic environment would directly be damaged by the increase in traffic and by wide new junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places: in Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, on Castle Hill, and at St John's; and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way and down the Banbury Road, giving no impression of the beauty of the town.

7. Other Infrastructure: While in theory development would be conditional on it funding schools, and healthcare facilities, the Council's predicted funding and provision is not enough; and there would also be risks to water supply, sewage and drainage. I am particularly concerned that Warwick Hospital cannot cope with increased demand for its services and it is not realistic to expand it sufficiently to cope with eth numbers proposed.

8. There are better alternatives: lower housing numbers to meet local needs, especially for houses which people can afford, instead of encouraging in-migration; gradually releasing land for development as demand grows; giving absolute priority to using brownfield and infill sites near schools, shops and railway stations; building homes close to jobs; and co-operating with other local authorities, instead of competing with them for development.

9. The possible Gipsy and Traveller sites are concentrated in the same area, again because such strong protection is given to the Green Belt and so little to our green land.

10. The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook and near Gallows Hill is rural and agricultural and present policies respect this. Building on it would merge the built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. The green land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly.


I feel strongly that anyone responsible for managing Warwick and anyone who has the residents and traders of Warwick's interests at heart, would see how obvious it is that the Town will be spoilt because it simply cannot cope with the extra transport and pollution, even with the proposed road changes. You cannot realistically avoid the issues that the narrowness of the Avon Bridge, Smith Street, Jury Street and The Butts cause. These are part of the Heritage of Warwick, a unique historic town; the heart of Warwick and its approaches should not be sacrificed.

Please ensure my objections and sincere concerns are passed on to the appropriate and to the highest levels.

We have read the new plans for building development in Leamington/Warwick. We were always opposed to the building in North Leamington as it didn't seem right to build small developments on green field sites, which would still have required major road building and where it would not have been viable to build new schools. We wish to express thanks that common sense has prevailed and that a new town/village will be built near the M40, the station and major supermarkets - with sensible planning, a large new development can develop its own sense of community and identity.

I live in Emscote Road (Coten End). I work in the middle of Warwick (I'm the proprietor of the Thomas Oken Tea Rooms in Castle Street). I've lived in Warwick for 25 years, I've brought my children up here and I feel I've been very lucky to live and work in such a vibrant, friendly community. Every morning I walk up to work at the tea rooms, and I walk home again in the evenings. These are possibly my nicest times of day, stopping to chat to all the friends and neighbours I meet along the way, buying my daily paper at St John's newsagents, doing a bit of window shopping in all the wonderful shops along my route and admiring - daily - the beautiful historic buildings we are fortunate enough to live amongst. It sounds idyllic - because it is!

I fear that the building of 4,500 new houses in the South of Warwick will change all that. I know that the district council has to respond to the National Planning Policy Framework, but the plan that has been put together will quite simply be the death of Warwick as our beautiful county down. The suburbs that will be created seem to be totally car dependent and Warwick will have a massive amount of increased traffic passing through its ancient streets, causing much more congestion than there already is. I've been to Traffic Forum meetings in past years that have sought to make Warwick streets nicer for residents, visitors and pedestrians - but the new local plan will totally destroy any advances that have been made in this direction.

Indeed, looking at the plans I'm shocked at how the district council can be giving them serious consideration. Creating a gyratory system on Castle Hill, making Smith Street and St Nicholas Church Street two-way? What will happen to the poor residents and traders along those streets? Creating light-controlled crossings in order to enable pedestrians to cross will make walking through Warwick a lengthy and unpleasant experience. The whole town will be turned into an urban highway and will lose all of the charm which residents hold in such high affection.

I understand that because of the high volume of traffic currently passing through Warwick Town Centre, the Council is already contravening European regulations on the level of air pollution. Surely any plan should be striving to reduce, not increase, the level of pollution. Maybe I will need to don a face mask in my future walks to and from work, in order to protect my health - or join the problem by taking my car instead.

I feel so strongly about this that - if the plans for this scale of new development at this particular site are approved - Warwick will no longer be the place I want to live and work in, and I will be selling up my home and my business and moving elsewhere. I have heard other residents and businesses saying the same. Please don't countenance new developments at the risk of destroying the lovely town we already have.

Most of the plan is focused in the south west of the warwick district. I question the integrity of the executives in focusing so much of the plan in this area. The green belt excuse is exactly that an excuse. It has been overridden in the case of Hampton on the hill and it seems it is acceptable to build on the greenbelt as long as it is not in the north of the district.

The Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park has already added burden on the pre existing infrastructure a burden than is barely sustainable now. I recently had to wait 3 weeks before the doctors surgery could fit me if or blood tests. These tests were for something potential very serious and the delay caused me much anxiety. One of the councils documents on the councils website sites health needs of travellers as paramount and of concern when locating sites. This then is likely to add yet more pressure to the doctors surgery as is the Hampton on the hill development.

In addition to this roads are already overburdened. Purser drive would be the route travellers would take to the motorway, cars already speed down this road in great volume. A road which has over 10 primary aged or younger children living on it. The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites is therefore being contrevened as the local infrastructure can not support the travellers site.


The historic nature of warwick seems to have had no baring over plans. The town is already effectively gridlocked at parts of the day and these plans will extend this gridlock. Tourists will simply stop coming to the town hence destroying local business.


The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plain. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain. In addition to this it is planned on part of the only remaining green land on this side of the town. Much green land has already been sacrificed in SW warwick, if this site was built there would be hardly any left. It appears we will sacrifice the living standards and attractive nature of the south of the district but not the north of the district. In relation to flooding chase meadow is built on a flood plain, the council acknowledged the risk by repeatedly refusing to adopt the roads on the estate due to flood risk. Only after much argument has an agreement to adopt the roads been reached. Additional hard standing will certainly increase the risk further.

Whilst I fully support the necessity for a New Local Plan (NLP) and the vital control that gives WDC in containing developer applications to planned sites I have some reservations with regard to what is currently being proposed.

Firstly I think that WDC should be urging in the strongest possible terms that every parish should create their own Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). Where parishes are small or nervous of undertaking such a move, I believe that they should be encouraged to ally with neighbouring parishes to share the expertise and work.

I find it difficult to comment on the figures of about 12,000 houses being proposed as 'necessary new dwellings'. I am sure that good professional advice has been sought, however does that provision follow or lead the required expansion? If houses are built in a desirable location like South Warwickshire they are sure to be sold and occupied. I am not sure which is the cause and which the effect.

With regard to where these are situated however I do have very strong views.
Over the past 40 years or so the area surrounding Warwick and Leamington has seen almost continuous substantial development.
In this plan, yet again proposals are funnelled into the same limited area.
Warwick District whether 'green belt' or 'green field' should be regarded in the same light. The same considerations and restraint should be applied to all rural areas. In short the Green Belt should no longer be sacrosanct, the overall needs of the District as a whole need to be reviewed, WDC needs to challenge the Green Belt.