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

I consider the proposed New Local Plan deeply flawed and fundamentally NOT in the best interests of Warwick or District.
I fully support the submissions being made by the Warwick Society and those who take a similar view to the Warwick Society.

Once again the W.D.C. says one thing and in the event does the opposite. In my opinion the W.D.C, W.C.C. and others should be ashamed at producing these proposals. Warwick is being systematically destroyed and by those paid to protect it.

Housing Requirement

Warwick University does not show any further development of residential areas over the period of the next 15 years - is this correct? If it is omitted will it prevent them from such developments?

Coventry & Warwickshire Gateway development does not show any additional residential development in the local area to cater for the persons requiring accommodation to fill the 10,000 jobs.
Baginton has only 70 - 90 houses planned. Kenilworth (Thickthorn ) has 700 houses planned but this is nearly 5 miles away by road and already has a designated employment area
Can this be deemed as sustainable development?

District Wide Transport Mitigation Proposals

Mitigation Proposal already determined by S106 agreements have not been included in the plan - is this by design?
ie Gibbet Hill (Warwick University
A46 access at Stoneleigh - (Stoneleigh Park & Gateway)
B4113 New Traffic Island (Stoneleigh Park) B4115 New entrance (Stoneleigh Park)

I will be pleased if you will respond to this email as I wish it to go forward to the consultation and will re submit it if it is not acceptable in this present form.

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

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

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 is 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.

It is essential that requirements to increase the housing requirements of Coventry do not impinge on the green belt to the north of Leamington since alternatives exist closer to Coventry.

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 essentialGreen Beltand 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 Ibelieve that there is sufficient non Green Beltland 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 tobuild 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 cyclingdistance, 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 wouldalso 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 inthe North Leamington Green Beltwould be unacceptable and be bitterly opposedas 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, itenables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

In conclusion: I have to object to this plan that would be especially disastrous to Warwick. It has little relationship to the needs of the District as opposed to providing development opportunities for developers and shows little consideration for the context and environment of the county town of Warwick. The housing targets proposed for the plan are excessive and are well in excess of the needs of the district for the next fifteen years. The land allocations which these relate to have been made with a mind to enabling and funding large scale and inappropriate road "improvements" in the development areas and elsewhere in the district, several of which will channel more traffic into and through the historic and vulnerable core of Warwick - ignoring agreed policies designed to conserve the centre and reduce traffic (hence air pollution) in the centre. Finally, the plan does not take note of the key decision by Stratford on Avon District Council to locate a new town of up to 4800 houses in the vicinity of Gaydon and Lighthorne - which will have an added impact on Warwick through the traffic it will generate and the patterns of journeys to work the residents will have to take.


1. Concentrating development on the south of Warwick in preference to the more distributed pattern contained in the previous iteration is a bad plan which will a) seriously affect the county town b) introduce new pressures on and imbalances in the provision and use of services and c) generate patterns of traffic that are counter-sustainable which will have a disproportionate effect and will impose intolerable traffic conditions on Warwick and Leamington town centres and their approaches.

The potential for serious damage from excess traffic is compounded by the decision of Stratford on Avon District Council to propose a "new town" of up to 4800 houses at Gaydon/Lighthorne - which is too recent to have been taken into account in the preparation of the Warwick Local Plan but which will have a considerable effect on Warwick, and on traffic movements and services available in Warwick District.

The over-provision of development sites in the plan has a knock on effect on traffic generation patterns. Despite assertions to the contrary, the new plan by avoiding development in North Leamington is less, not more, one promoting dispersal. A more distributed set of more moderate allocations of development sites would have a less disastrous impact on traffic and obviate the need for highway "improvements" that would be seriously damaging for the reasons outlined above.

A key factor is the decision to delete the housing sites which were to be located within the greenbelt at Old Milverton. By deleting this site and concentrating development in the south the Warwick/Leamington area will become an unbalanced complex with the centres of gravity of Warwick and Leamington pushed southwards to the detriment of both town centres and leading to an undesirable coalescence of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook.

The previous proposals were for relatively modest intrusions into the green belt. These would have contributed to a distributed pattern of development in the district - far more sensible and conforming to the principles stated for the plan.

The decision has been justified on the basis of policies that were established more than 50 years ago. Times have moved on and the new local plan gave an opportunity to review the policies and areas covered by green belt restrictions which has been missed. This missed opportunity means that areas within the greenbelt which could have been developed with minimal damage to the landscape are to be saved at the expense of areas which the Council's own consultants acknowledge to have landscape value - and wanted to preserve..

The choice has therefore been made for new developments concentrated to the south of Warwick and Leamington which are excessive in scale and will be more distant than is necessary from the main services, sub regional employment centres and the facilities serving the district. A moderate release in the north Leamington area would have had little impact on the gap with Coventry and would make a good contribution to meeting the actual housing needs of the District. Furthermore, a north Leamington site would provide homes which would be relatively close to Leamington Town centre which would have easy access to the sub regional employment site and to other sources of employment in the sub region. The South Warwick sites on the contrary would require journeys to work that would cross the congested hearts of Warwick and Leamington (or via an improved M40 - the approval of which by the DfT is speculative and which would run contrary to the principles defined for the Traffic Assessment).


2. Development of the areas to the south of Warwick would be damaging to the setting of the town and would be contrary to the advice of the Council's landscape and environmental consultants. More note should be taken of their advice and to the preservation of the landscaped setting of the approaches to the south of Warwick

The District Council's report by RMA consultants states in respect of the land South of Gallows Hill & The Asps that "The largest part of the study area, is prominent in approaches to Warwick, is valuable in the setting of the town and provides the historic context for Castle Park. The recommendation remains that this area should be protected from development." The plans show that the Council have disregarded this advice which refers to an area much appreciated by residents and visitors alike and is an important factor in bringing millions of visitors to Warwick and generating much of the income which sustain Warwick's town centre's businesses.

In elaboration, the most attractive approach to Warwick and a classic piece of urban design is the view northward to Warwick along the Banbury Road. Cresting the rise and taking the bend north of the Asps opens up a vista ending with the distant view of the steeple of Saint Nicholas Church in its sylvan setting. In disregard of this, the plan appears to show a totally inappropriate ribbon of housing development to the east of and fronting the Banbury Road, (something that was stopped by the Ribbon Development Act in 1935) - with the Business Park or extension to the Warwick Technology Park intruding from the east as well as a car park! (Park and Ride). The frontage to Banbury Road and hence the vista along this approach to Warwick could be protected from this intrusive development by the extension of the "Asps" country park by way of a landscaped strip along the eastern side of Banbury Road and taking in the "Strawberry Field". Reducing the amount of development allowed in this area would not only preserve the appearance of this important landscape area and the contexts of Warwick Castle but would relieve some of the traffic pressure that will accumulate on the Banbury Road if it is developed.



3. The proposed land allocations trigger a need for road proposals that pay scant attention to the impacts of a) the traffic generated and b) the proposed mitigation measures on the existing urban fabric. Surprisingly, in several cases proposals are put forward without being backed by the evidence of traffic modelling. There is also little sense that the locations of proposed land allocations have taken account of the impact they make on the existing fabric, particularly in respect of the impact of the traffic they would generate. On the contrary it is clear that the objective has been to propose blocks of development that will be large enough to achieve a "critical mass" that will fund large scale traffic improvements which in several cases would be inappropriate and damaging to the Conservation Area of Warwick. Furthermore, with the absence of any mention in the plan or the Traffic Assessment of the need to safeguard the conservation areas from the impact of traffic it appears that planning has been solely concerned with accommodating the traffic generated from new land allocations rather than reducing their impact and safeguarding the interests of residents of areas affected. Indeed, the proposals in the plan for the highway improvements said to be needed to cope with the extra traffic are engineering solutions that pay little or no attention to their impact on their setting. They appear naïve, with little regard, for example, to their potentially catastrophic effect on town centre businesses and homes and hence are inappropriate or impractical.

For a plan for historic towns I am surprised and dismayed that I can find no mention in the proposals of measures to be taken to mitigate the effects of traffic and the new developments on historic buildings and conservation areas. Similarly, for an area that is already suffering from the impact of excessive traffic I can see no proposals for measures to improve the environmental wellbeing of such sensitive areas. The areas that are sensitive to the impact of the new developments include town centres and areas peripheral to them. These are areas already affected by the impact of excessive traffic and in some cases are subject to excessive levels of Nitrogen Dioxide which are damaging to health. If the plan is implemented residents of these areas will increasingly be affected as the years go by.

The Phase 3 Transport Assessment admits to the potential for heavier loadings of traffic on these sensitive areas and states "Routes into and through the town (Warwick) are likely to suffer substantial increases in the overall level of delay" and "increased congestion and reduced speeds ... occur within the town centre (slow moving and idling traffic being a major contributor to air pollution)." It also states that "The consequence of this increase is that areas peripheral to Warwick town centre all appear to suffer severe increases in queuing and delay" - and the pollution and environmental damage that will go with it.

The Warwick conservation area is of considerable architectural, historic and heritage value bringing hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tourists to the district each year and is a major contributor to the local economy. Although it is a subject considered in the Town Centre plan, the impact that the developments proposed in the local plan will have on the area cannot be disregarded. The channelling of the traffic from the new development areas to the south of Warwick into Warwick town centre via the Banbury Road and the Grade ii* listed Avon Bridge will have a major adverse effect on the areas adjoining the Banbury road including Archery Fields, Bridge End, Warwick School, St Nicholas Park, Warwick Boat Club, Warwick Castle, the town centre conservation area as a whole and will be of particular importance to the safety of the children who walk and cycle to and from school in Myton Road.

The proposals for "mitigation" seem designed to funnel more traffic into the conservation area rather than managing traffic away from the sensitive areas of Warwick. Recent history is of a series of improvements to traffic management in Warwick Town Centre which have been controversial and have done little to improve the congestion and nothing to improve air quality. As a result Warwick residents are distrustful of road proposals affecting their town. What would restore their faith is a plan which reduces through traffic, improves air quality and contains proposals that respect the importance of maintaining the fabric of the historic core of Warwick and improves the quality of life of residents and people who work there. Solutions such as a five lane approach from a four lane Banbury Road which funnels into the two lane Avon Bridge are simply inappropriate to the point of being absurd and would be completely unacceptable!

We cannot be convinced of the need or desirability for such "improvements" especially as in several places the Phase 3 Transport Assessment makes clear that the evidence for the plan's proposals are still in question.

E.g., "At this stage no adjustments have been made for mode shift as a result of the delivery of the P&R, nor has a detailed level of optimisation been undertaken with regards to the amendments to the existing mitigation as well as proposals for any additional mitigation such as bus lanes and bus gating, etc." "It is recommended that the following risks are assessed at the earliest opportunity although it is acknowledged that the assessment of these risks prior to the adoption of the allocation strategy is, in some cases, unlikely to be possible:" "there are a number of assumptions that have been included within the modelling that may require further detailed analysis at an appropriate stage within the assessment period." "That, once the preferred allocation strategy has been determined, consideration should be given to undertaking an assessment to confirm that the proposed mitigation will still operate within acceptable levels." My emboldening.

Clearly, the plan recognises that there would be considerable adverse effects from extra traffic on the Bridge End and Banbury Road area and on central Warwick but rather than action recent agreed policy decisions on the need to reduce through traffic to Warwick it proposes a series of "improvements" that will remodel intersections and redirect traffic flows that are designed simply to accommodate extra traffic over and above the current excessive levels. This does not inspire trust or confidence in the plans or the value of and commitment to agreed policies.



4. The current pattern of journey to work in the sub region is for over 7000 vehicles to travel to and from Coventry each day in both directions across our area. The provision of major new or extended employment areas at Gaydon, south Coventry and to the south of Warwick will encourage additional daily journeys along roads that are particularly congested at peak periods already with consequent congestion and environmental damage. The park and ride proposal in the plan for a park and ride facility in the south of Warwick is not a priority as it will tend to increase cross town traffic rather than reducing it. The priority should be the development of the site to the north of Leamington.

It makes little sense for a park and ride facility to serve incoming workers from Coventry to be located in the South of Warwick area. Such a location merely encourages more cars to travel to their car park from Coventry through either of the congested centres of Warwick or Leamington on a journey to the south of Warwick business areas or its car park. A location to the North of Leamington would be far more effective in picking up the Coventry to Warwick commuters for their journeys to work in the employment areas to the south of Warwick. This is illustrated on the following drawing. "Principal journeys to work"




The plans for 12,300 new houses over 15 years contained in the plan are excessive. By planning to concentrate development on the areas to the South of Warwick the Council is both taking an easy option - allowing development where developers want to develop. - and is creating a bad and geographically unbalanced plan for Warwick and Leamington. With provision of only another 22.5 hectares of employment land which will support less than a potential 3000 new jobs the plan is also unbalanced in its provision of employment land and will consign the vast majority of new residents to becoming commuters. This issue is reinforced by the new decision of the Council to open the door for the Gallagher Business Park to be developed for housing. There is, therefore, no sense that this plan promotes sustainability in economic terms.

Apart from potentially destroying some of the most attractive approaches to Warwick the proposed developments would generate unacceptable extra traffic onto the road network to the south of and into Warwick town centre. The effectiveness of solutions contained in the Transport assessment proposed for the traffic problems appear in several cases to be unsupported by evidence and they do not inspire trust or confidence. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any acknowledgement in the plan to the importance of the contribution that heritage makes to the local economy. Neither do the transport proposals pay any respect to the sensitivity of one of the most important Conservation Areas in the County to the effects of increased traffic. Most obviously, the traffic plan proposes to channel ever more traffic onto the Banbury Road into Warwick town centre and over the already congested Grade ii* bridge over the Avon. Due to the timing of the consultation the plan has not taken into account the Stratford on Avon District Council proposal for a new town at Gaydon/Lighthorne which will add even more to traffic flows into and out of Warwick via the Avon Bridge. The suggestion that through traffic can be diverted away from south Warwick and onto the M40 is not likely to be welcomed by the DfT and an improvement to that road is unlikely to be either a short or even medium term priority.

The solution as far as the adverse effect of traffic on the southern approaches to Warwick Town Centre lies in a thorough review of the proposals for south Warwick, either to reduce the area for development or to reduce the amount of traffic from the area channelled through Warwick and thus the management of this traffic away from the Banbury Road and the bridge over the Avon.

Regrettably the plan focuses almost exclusively on the allocation of new development land. With some minor exceptions such as for cyclists and pedestrians (which are incomplete and not worth commenting on) it does not appear to seek to address the shortcomings that our town currently faces and it avoids issues in the town centre. In some respects we will look to the town centre plan to do that but the proposals in the local plan affect the centre and it would be remiss if the plan did not address the need to address issues such as the levels of nitrogen dioxide generated by traffic through our town and to take steps to address the morning and evening congestion around the Banbury and Myton Road junction - rather than the plans for development merely compounding the problems there.

In summary the following need to be attended to:-
1. The overall target for housing needs to be reduced to a more moderate level and to cater only for local needs and perhaps a modest expansion.
2. The areas for development need to be rebalanced.
3. The development areas to the north of Leamington should be reinstated following a review of the green belt around Warwick and Leamington
4. The plan's proposals should be reviewed following consideration of the potential impact of the development of a new town at Gaydon/Lighthorne
5. The approach to traffic assessments should be modified so that they are no longer geared to development areas that achieve a critical mass that would fund costly road proposals.
6. Reconsider the allocations of development land to the south of Warwick with the intention of reducing the impact of traffic generated from the new development areas on, in particular, the town centre of Warwick and its approaches
7. Introduce measures in the traffic assessment that will implement agreed policies to reduce the level of traffic in and through Warwick Town Centre as opposed to accommodating extra traffic.
8. In establishing a park and ride site, take greater account of the predominant patterns of journeys to work affecting Warwick and Leamington, and provide a location that captures traffic and reduces cross town flows and reduces traffic in Warwick Town Centre and its approaches - by giving priority to a location to the north of Leamington.
9. Protect the southern approach to Warwick along the Banbury Road from visually and environmentally intrusive new development
10. Rebalance the provision of employment sites within the area to provide local jobs for the new residents rather than having to commute
11. Delay decisions on development land allocations where traffic assessments are currently inadequate, until we can judge their validity

I look forward to hearing that the next iteration of the plan will take proper note of what are serious shortcomings in the current version and that the council will address them by making significant changes in response to the needs identified and the numerous objections being made to the proposals that especially affect Warwick.

As someone who has grown up and worked in and around Warwick since 1970, I am shocked and concerned when I read the proposals, especially the development of 12,300 houses to the south of Warwick. Why isnt there more development to the North?
I object to these proposals. I submit my main concerns as follows;
Traffic
Needing to travel at peak times through Warwick, I'm concerned that the massive increase in traffic flows would cause even more chaos to an already stretched traffic system. Often I see emergency vehicles struggle through the chaos, made worse by the recent changes to the high street. And as for WCC admitting the multi lanes in Banbury Road and Myton Road will not be successful in overcoming the overall mass impact of thousands of additional vehicles, why do it? All of the proposed traffic travelling over the Castle Bridge and into Warwick between 7 and 9.30 a.m. or 3.15 and 6.30 p.m on any term time week day is absolute madness to an already struggling system.
Pollution
With the increase in traffic brings an increase in pollution. I'm concerned this will mean my son wont be able to walk to school due to raised pollution levels and the increase of danger with the increased volume of traffic? Warwick Town is so lovely I'm concerned these proposals will destroy the town and push shoppers away due to the disruption an increase in traffic will bring.
Infrastructure
Working at the hospital, it is stretched at the moment without adding another 30 or 40 thousand people. I have been to a recent public meeting at Ayelsford school, wanting to hear more about the proposals and the impact to our area. Unfortunately, from that meeting I was not reassured that you have our best interests at heart.
Travellers' sites
I object to having a site on the Hampton road, I realise they need homes but not in such a sensitive area. Maybe there could be more sites made available in the north of the county?
Please can you re-consider the proposals and distribute the development more fairly across the county?

As chairman of the Whitnash Charitable Trust I feel that WDC have lost the plot on the new local plan.Over 4000 houses being built south of the river which will cause problems with every service needed to run this area effectively. This includes schools, transport, doctors etc. The idea that the council do not have a case to use green belt land is not founded as they have passed plans for the Gateway Business park, also it is suggested that Gipsy sites can be built on green belt land The idea that 9 cllrs can vote this plan into law against the wishes of the people of Whitnash should not be allowed to happen.

As a local resident I would like to voice my objection to the new local plan for housing development near Warwick on a number of grounds but primarily both the increased congestion and pollution to a beautiful market town (which already suffers from traffic problems and difficulties with infrastructure) and the impact on the already stretched resources such as schooling

1. Infrastructure must be the primary consideration of any Draft plan and this appears to be ignored by the current proposals. The thoroughfares of Warwick cannot cope with the addition of further traffic. We already have a situation whereby all traffic from the north (Coventry), north-west (Kenilworth) and north-east (north Leamington) is funnelled into Coten End and St. Nicholas' Church Street. The facilities for traffic wishing to turn right into Coventry Road from Coten End are such that, earlier this week, the traffic lights had to change four times before traffic could proceed from Coten End into St. Nicholas' Church Street because of buses and heavy vehicles trying to turn right.
All of this traffic then meets up with further traffic at the southern end of St. Nicholas' Church Street. This further traffic represents all traffic from south Leamington and traffic from the south including traffic leaving the north-bound traffic of the M40.. This already creates major delays during the morning rush-hour and at school times. Traffic is frequently 'backed up' on Myton Road beyond Myton Crescent and on the Banbury Road beyond the Barford turn. To increase the amount of traffic entering Warwick without major road building would be criminally negligent. Having regard to the existing development, the only possibility appears to be a feeder dual carriageway between the A46 running parallel to the M40 between Junctions 15 and 13 with a dedicated access to Gibbet Hill.

2. I believe the population of Warwick currently to be about 32,000 but the construction of 12,300 new homes could well increase that population by more than 75% based on a family unit of 2.4.
What facts and information exist to show that industry, commerce and services can expand to provide employment for such an increase in population? If the sources of employment do not increase by such a factor then even more pressure will be placed on roads and public transport as these new residents commute over longer distances to and from work. Surely the sensible plan is to proceed far more slowly matching residential construction to employment needs.

3. The whole concept of community is being eroded and will be worsened by the proposed development. Certainly provision is envisaged for new schools but far more is needed in the provision of community facilities such as leisure centres, youth clubs, creches, churches, shops and services. I watched the development of the Clifton estate on the south-west side of Nottingham and the development of the Amington estate on the north side of Tamworth. These were disastrous with husbands having to use the sole family car to commute to work, being absent for long hours because of commuting time and not facilities for the wives and families left at home. Infrastructure and such facilities must be provided before land is released for residential development.

House Numbers :
Whilst I appreciate the efforts WDC has made to protect Greenbelt land in the north of the district , I have significant concern at objection to the numbers of homes being built on Warwick South which now totals 3500+. The project housing need of 12,000 homes is far 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. There are better alternatives for meeting local needs, especially affordable housing, instead of encouraging in migration and gradually releasing land for development as demand groups. Giving priority to using brownfields sites instead of greenfield site and co-operating with other local authorities with the planned 1900 houses at Lighthorne Heath and plans for Stratford District building on the opposite side of the M40, junction 15.


Infrastructure/Traffic
By building 3500+ houses on Warwick South you will have roughly 7000 more cars on the road which will increase traffic on the already congested Myton Road and Europa Way with even longer tail backs. Widening roads and junctions cluttered with traffic lights and signs at beautiful places will only serve to push more traffic through bottlenecks at Warwick at Bridge End, over the Castle Bridge, and on the approach to Leamington via Europa Way. Whilst WCC are hoping? a big IF! traffic congestion wont be any worse it will mean more cars going slower through Warwick town centre and the surrounding areas leading to extended traffic jams and delays!. . which leads me onto my next point.

Air Quality
With the increased number of cars on the roads due to the size of this development carbon emissions would increase leading to reduced air quality. I attach a copy of the 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick which clearly shows a shocking picture of the poor air quality, with the very worst area being Warwick town centre which is over legal limits. The District Council is required to improve air quality, but the plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. Noise and vibration would be constant, businesses and tourism would be damaged. Worse, the long-term health of residents of these streets would be even more threatened.

Of particular interest is the comment on page 17:

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

I would therefore request before any development is considered that proper surveys of air quality are carried out and if levels are indicated as being "high" as in this report enclosed which would of only increased in recent years that any housing development would be stopped on the grounds of public safety. I have written to Dr John Linnane, County Medical Officer of Health ,WCC with my grave concerns in relation public health safety.

Environment
The land between Warwick and Bishop's Tachbrook is rural and agricultural and present policies indicate this is an area of environmental sensitivity which gives Warwick town and Castle some of its finest views. Building on it would merge our built-up areas, making them a single suburban sprawl, something for which WDC said they would never do, the merging of Warwick & Leamington. The green field land is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly. People visiting Warwick come for its natural beauty and historic charm, yet maybe faced with a view of overdeveloped building sites!. I would be interested to know why this area has not been preserved?

Fairness
We would also like to question in the politest terms the transparency and independence of the approval process for the local plan. It seems strange to us the makeup of the executive committee who approves the local plan has no representation from Warwick South with executive members living in Kenilworth, Radford Semele, Cubbington , Lapworth and Warwick North with minimal housing development in these areas.


In conclusion I would like to see a fairer local plan with housing numbers re evaluated and more evenly distributed across Warwick district. Utilising and 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.

Please do not destroy and over develop our beautiful historic town!.

I support the revised Local Plan

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

I am writing largely in support of the New Proposed Local Plan.

I believe this strategy will have positive impacts on the provision and scope of housing needs in the area and goes much further to improving sustainable transport links, particularly in improving cycle routes across the area. These (particularly on the A452) will have a positive impact on use of sustainable transport but also on the flow of traffic on the road.

I am concerned at the designation of the Village of Old Milverton and have responded to this on-line. It should be considered as a smaller village rather than a smaller feeder village - it is smaller than villages in it's current classification in every respect. Over expansion of it's footprint or housing/commercial density would have an unnecessarily detrimental effect on the purpose and provision of the green-belt in that area.

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 is important to recognise the need for appropriate development in these villages, particularly in infrastructure terms (Gas, broadband, foot, bus and cycle routes for example). They should neither be destroyed in character, changed in nature by virtue of over expansion nor left behind as quaint examples of 'the way things used to be.'

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, public safety & their quality of life. The location of the focus of development to the south also grants easy access to national transport links which will undoubtedly draw national business into the area.

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 believe that the new proposals represent a well considered approach to an unpopular problem. Objections I have raised are few and meant to contribute further to improving what is already becoming a positive way forward for the area.

We would like to offer our support for the revised plan with the proviso that the area to be occupied by
new housing is allowed suitable provision for the increased traffic flow which would eventuate, particularly
into Leamington

* 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.

I write to support, albeit reluctantly, the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that their are no actual Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington and that as a consequence the proposal to develop here has been thrown out. Recognition that the greenbelt is there to prevent urban sprawl 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, the road network to the south of Leamington allows fast access to Coventry and Birmingham via the A46 and or M40 which can easily cope with any additional traffic from development to the South of the town as well as the work opportunities to the South of Leamington 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 I understand that only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.

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.
I have attended your local briefings and discussed with council representatives at these events.

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.

whilst I appreciate the need for additional housing I strongly object to the current plans for development on the following basis:-

1. The Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash area is taking an un-proportional higher number of dwellings than any other area.
2. I do not believe that planners have fully taken into account the major impact that the increased number of dwellings, and therefore car owners/journeys, will have on the area. Even at current levels of traffic a number of roads become grid locked at peak times. Additionally there are really only two ways one can access the area from the North, both currently under strain despite recent improvements (??) to the top of Princes Drive.
3. What recognisance has been made for the high increase of air pollution that will occur if the planned number of dwellings proceeds.

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.

With reference to the revised development strategy, I would like to show my support as I believe that it is a well thought out plan that takes into account access to existing employers on the business parks (such as JLR) and to the M40. The new plan recognizes the importance of preserving green belt land for future generations, where the majority of development will be on the existing brown field and non green belt land.

I am delighted that the new local plan appears to have reason and sense behind it and has moved the development to an area which can better contain it.

I therefore support the plan.

Further to the recent consultation 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 and I regularly walk the area. It is apparent that a lot of people use the area to walk and get exercise and such amenities should be retained.

We are attaching our objection to the Warwick District Council Local Plan Revised Development Strategy published in June 2013.

We are also forwarding a copy of our objection to Chris White MP.

The objection applies to two addresses in Warwick as we currently live at 172 Emscote Road and will shortly be moving to 50 Myton Crescent.

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

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

Scale and proportion

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


The effect of these potential developments on the existing local communities and infrastructure will be devastating, will drastically reduce the quality of life 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 proven by the fact that with roadworks or any accident, the entire local network becomes gridlocked.

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

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."

These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.

Effect of local services/amenities

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."

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

Flood Risk

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

Alternatives to the Local Plan

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

Alternatives that should be considered include:

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

Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.

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

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

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

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

I object to the new local plan for the following reasons:

There will be too many houses south of the river with no infrastructure to support them. There are no hospital, fire or police services available there. There will not be enough doctors surgeries, primary or secondary schools.

There are likely to be approximately 10,000 more cars driving in the local area but there are no plans to improve the crossings over the rivers Avon or leam. This is bound to lead to even worse traffic congestion than currently exists, regardless of what your model comes up with. Furthermore, the towns of Warwick and Leamington are trying to encourage visitors to their shops So it is logical the volumes of traffic will increase even without this development.

Building all these new houses in one area will mean that the whole area will effectively become a giant building site for years to come. This is very unfair on all the people who already live and work here.

My 76-year-old mother recently had to move to a bungalow due to mobility problems with climbing stairs. Could you let me know how many of the new houses will be bungalows? I think one of the worst problems with new housing developments is how they are all crammed into as small a space as possible and built upwards. This is why they always look so awful. Why not space them out a bit?

I am writing to express my concerns and objections regarding the proposed development of approx. 6000 houses to the south of warwick over the next 15 years. I think this needs to be reviewed as it it will have a significant detrimental affect on the lives of many local warwick and Leamington residents.

Firstly i question the numbers of houses considered necessary and would like to see what evidence there is to support this claim. Secondly the infrastructure would need to be significantly improved to cope with the number of cars on the roads, the number of people requiring educational and health services. How is the ongoing cost of this to be met? Locating all the development in one area that already struggles with the existing amount of traffic seems ludicrous. Myton road, europa way, banbury road and the M40 junction into Leamington struggles as it is at certain times of the day. This surely cannot cope with any further increased traffic.

My biggest concern which i feel the council needs to address, is the state of the air pollution in and around the warwick district. This i understand to be already at potentially dangerous levels with scientific evidence now confirming a link with poor air quality and asthma, COAD and lung cancer. Increasing the traffic all in one area is likely to significantly impact this further and potentially create a public health problem. The council has a statutory duty to look after our health, not make it worse. If this goes ahead and people do starting getting ill, the council may face lawsuits as this problem has been highlighted. Two large local schools are situated along Myton road with students walking/cycling to school and this cannot be good for their future health breathing in all the pollution.

I also feel the council will be taking the easy option for them in agreeing to the developers wish to develop the land to the south of warwick. Why not force developers to redevelop all brownfield sites in the district and bring back all the empty homes into use before destroying virgin countryside. Once the landscape has been changed it is impossible to return it to its original beauty. If further housing is then still required it should be spread around the district so as not to overload a particular local areas infrastructure. Affordable homes are required and this is not going to be achieved by big developers building on virgin land. They want to build nice, big expensive houses to make as much profit as possible out of the site.

What attracts people to warwick/leamington is the fact that it isn't a sprawling suburban area. It has lovely countryside approaches to the town centres and they are still distinctly separate towns.

I hope the council will think carefully before agreeing to anything that we may all come to regret in the future.

I am writing about the issues that are involved with the Local Plan. I am 13 years old, and go to King's High School in Warwick, and I live in Bridge End. I have heard about the plan from the worries of many local residents and after a little research, feel the need to express my anxiety over the proposals.
Firstly comes the environmental aspect. The colossal amount of proposed development land in Warwick alone is unbearable. With so much natural land destroyed, not only will there be ever less land for the already rapidly declining hedgehog populations (of which may I point out you are readily encouraging) as well as other plants and animals' natural habitats, but even the basic need for a clear horizon will not exist. I've even heard that the Ribbon Development Act doesn't allow this much destruction of natural land. All over the world natural habitats are being destroyed, to my disgust, at an ever increasing rate. But when this comes to home, I begin to feel horrified of how real this all is. The natural habitats of the area are already being strained out, and although you may "express concerns", I believe you do not. I feel ashamed that my home country is turning as industrious as the rest of the world - it is becoming less and less special. You will prize it more, in your eyes, but not us. For you this is simply a business matter but for us this is our lives, and through all this paperwork, all you're really doing is thwarting the beauty out of them. It really comes to a point of the tolerable and the intolerable.
Secondly, and very potently, the health aspect. As a local along with at least 25 people in Bridge End walk to Myton, King's High, and Warwick Boy's School. After a trip to Cornwall, I remember saying "Dad, can't you smell something really... you know, like dust, like stale air.." and Dad said "the car fumes. I love Cornwall, it's so clean from the sea, it's a shame I guess...". And I do notice it even now. When I walk up to school through the town centre, the fumes are really noticable, and horrible. England, like the rest of the world, is shrouding itself in it's own filth. Also, all of the girls and boys from Warwick Prep, King's High and Warwick Boy's have PE lessons in the playing fields. Many of my friends have asthma, and all of us can actually taste the pollution in the air. The huge amount of housing means extra roads, extra roads mean extra cars, which mean thousands more inputs on air pollution. I've heard the air pollution in Warwick is at or even over the legal limit. Is this true? It doesn't surprise me. You may claim otherwise, but it's a fact. The increase in air pollution will be significant. It will go over the legal limit, very much to your knowledge, yet you readily accept and move on thinking "we are not liable. This is not through our cause, but of the new local residents." This has serious health effects, or else the limit wouldn't have been made! Buildings as well as people will be affected, including the Castle and other historic sites. As a cross-country runner who loves to train on the school track, I know as much as everyone that it's not only horrible, it's damaging me as I run even though I'm meant to be getting healthier from excerise! Isn't that what you encourage, because it can't be for long. It's illegal, and we shouldn't put up with it.
And finally, the actual effect of the quality of life on the residents, visitors and tourists. The Bridge. Shown in countless postcards of Warwick, it's an enormous cultural significance. I walk across it twice a day to get to school. I used to throw snowballs over the edge when I was little with my Mum. People row their boats down the timeless stonework. Photographers use it to catch that beautiful sunset view of the castle, where, on a plaque that countless feet have walked across, reads "one of the finest views in England." So many new cars may, over calculations, seek an end to this masterpiece. You simply cannot wish to achieve this! One of the finest views in England, replaced by a cold, budget replica, because all of this is really about money. You are rejecting one of the best treasures of the River Avon, the most famous river in your country.
I already know all too well that every morning, every afternoon at rush hour the traffic queues are some of the largest in the area. Even when the traffic lights turn red to let me cross the road, the queue will often grow 500m. For large events, like concerts, and the folk festival, the traffic can extend as far as you can see over the bridge in all directions. Add to this thousands more cars, and I don't think many can cope. Some people may want to drive because of the illegal air fumes, so these extra cars (that would have been healthier walkers, may I add) create even more unwanted fumes. Others may want to walk because of the unbearable traffic, but they hate to because of the horrible fumes! You have to drive either way. Many of my friends' parents drive them to school, as well as their siblings. With so much extra traffic in the area, the journey between sibling's schools will be extended, to the point that (already being tight) one may have to miss some school in the morning. The money you pay for many schools wasted, as pupils cannot attend the first ten minutes - no, not an exaggeration, a real concern amongst everyone! This may seem little, but over the course of a childhood will have a noticeable effect on their education - often the start of a lesson is the most important! You may say the extra roads will spread the traffic out more, but we don't need more roads, we have plenty to get around. What these new roads really are doing is turning half the town into a parking lot!
Tourists and visitors will likely be put off too. Even from entering Warwick, "the heart and soul of England", actually an industrial skyline of fields of grim, identical looking houses just like these people have back at home, huge employment buildings, like at home. Traffic that reduces their day spent in Warwick, also simply off-putting. Who wants to know that the beautiful, idyllic town of Warwick has decided to replace it's history and wonder with industry, money and power? The history lost from the bridge, the nature lost from development and replaced with the things these people already have and are trying to escape from in order to experience new places to their fullest - will surely put tourists and visitors off. Meant to be a quiet place, not just for tourists, but for families and the retired, Warwick will have a terrible increase in noise pollution. I love the great outdoors and it's quiet serenity, that makes it so at peace. The noise of traffic and people in town are already starting to drown out my thoughts. Why go further? Not only will all this have an effect on your reputation from outsiders (and insiders) from within and without England alike, it will eventually decrease the steady flow of tourists that many people's livelihoods remain on. They get poorer, you get less tax, until many become unemployed and seek your help - which you are trying to solve by building an employment building!
My letter may seem somewhat defensive, but I feel it has to be. So many people feel these things but their voices are blatantly being ignored, which makes me feel even more passionate about having the voice that our country is meant to give us. Of course I realise that this isn't simply a matter of acting on the plan or not, as there are a lot of issues that you are trying to solve, and a lot of things tying you down. But I am concerned that far more issues will be made taking action in the plan - the ones above are simply a sampler of the concerns that I and indeed all the locals harbour. These cons will affect you too - they threaten all of us. The new residents coming to live here will also experience them, and word of mouth will leak to them of the side effects of this development, which they shall not be proud of. This is a long term commitment - 18 years altogether - that not many can take. Residents will leave, so this plan to get more people to stay will surely not balance as planned? This is my entire childhood, and all my friends, which will stay with us for the rest of our lives. Warwick will be a less green place, a noisier, more claustrophobic, and grimier, less interesting or beautiful place. Many people decided to retire here for what it truly is. You are about to deny them that and force them to live the most precious part of their lives in misery - they don't deserve this!
Please make the most out of our country. It upsets me that if the people who contributed to the history of Warwick, who helped make it such a beautiful place, were able to see the disrespect and ingratitude that some people nowadays have on them and their country - they would feel ashamed and disappointed. I feel grateful for what fortune has given me and my family - all of my childhood memories come back to here. Please show a love to other people's lives, like you promised you would, and help Warwick continue to be the prosperous, green, homely community it already is. Please let me know I am in good hands.

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.