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

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

I write to support the 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 am writing to express my support of the proposals in the Revised Development Strategy. I am relieved to note that the Revised Development Strategy recognises that the exceptional circumstances necessary for a major development in the North Leamington Green Belt do not exist. Green Belt policy has served the nation well for many years and I think it is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth.

I feel the Revised Development Strategy balances the housing allocation across the District in a fair and sensible manner. 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 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.

With publication of the Revised Development Strategy, Warwick District Council is to be praised for recognising that development in the Green Belt north of Leamington should be limited to the proposals for Thickthorn and Lillington. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and 'should not be approved except in very special circumstances'. I urge WDC to vigorously resist any suggestion that part of Coventry's housing allocation should be located within Warwick District, and especially not in the Green Belt.

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy

I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional
Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not
exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found
unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited
green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real
risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands
conurbation.

The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of
the new development is located close to where there are employment
opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an
opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. Furthermore
there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the
nearest town is Banbury.

The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses
on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield
sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was
proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.

The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network
South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the
new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried
out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road
improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating
the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic
movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.

The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and
other infra-structure to support the new development.

The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing
across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North
of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed
development will be in Warwickshire Villages.

I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised
Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance
with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to
keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required
because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with
Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt
land to accommodate this additional development

I would like to register my objection to the Warwickshire revised local plan (2013).
I agree that sustainable development should go ahead throughout the country, however I feel that Warwickshire does not currently have the local infrastructure to support the large amount of houses currently planned. My concerns over the current plan are:
1. Warwick Hospital is already at maximum capacity with patients being cared for in areas not designed for overnight care on a weekly basis. Due to the location of the hospital there is very little area for future expansion. This issue needs to be addressed prior to considering any development.
2. Many schools in proposed planning site are at capacity.
3. The road network in Warwick already experiences a volume of traffic that it struggles to cope with which is a main contributing factor to Warwick experiencing pollution levels above European guidelines on safety.
Planning in Budbrook/Hatton (Sites R75, R114, R115, R117, R124, R125, R126)
I would like to highlight my concerns over the above planning sites
1. The A4177 of which the above sites feed onto already experiences a high level of traffic and has congestion on a daily basis. This will be increased not only by the planned 90 houses on one the above sites but also many of the other sites outlined in the local plan feed onto the A4177. This road would need to be improved dramatically to cope with proposed local development.
2. Many of the planned sites line the A4177 this will dramatically affect the approach along this road into Warwick. West Midlands have also highlighted sites along this approach and will cause an effect of one county sprawling/merging into the other. Clear boundaries will be lost.
3. Due to the poor transport links to Hatton Park the average house has two or more cars. This increase in traffic turning onto the A4177 from Hatton Park or the other proposed site will inevitably increase road traffic congestion and accidents on this stretch of road.
4. The increased traffic will make it dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians to use this route as the cycle path is too narrow to pass pedestrians also using the path. Therefore residents currently using this method will also have to revert back to car journeys. The national planning policy framework highlights sites selected should minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists/pedestrians
5. Ferncumbe Primary School and Budbrook schools are both on sites restricting their growth. With the proposed planning in Hatton Park and Hampton Magna, these schools will not be able to cope with the increased population resulting in children having to be transported to further afield.
6. Hatton Park currently has very little amenities with only a very small limited shop on the site, making it an unsuitable site to develop for anyone without a car.
Site R115
The greenbelt site R115 is of great concern as it borders Smith's Covert. Development of this site will result in the ancient woodland being locked by development. This piece of woodland is home to many protected animal species; bats as well as Muntjac deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, and birdlife including green and spotted woodpeckers and buzzards to name a few. These species will suffer if this corridor link from Smith's Covert to the greater countryside is blocked by housing.

Critically the development of this site will go against some of the key points in the national planning policy which aims to have sustainable planning that ensures development will not mean a worse life with loss of environment for future generations and actually greenbelt land that can be refilled by nature should be encouraged.
Site R115 already meets another key point of the national planning policy as it is a rural area that not only houses the above wildlife but is an area that contributes to carbon storage as it supports Smiths covert of which the biodiversity would change with development of the site while also supporting rural industry as it is an area of food industry.
Development of this site will result in Warwickshire council fundamentally going against key points of the national framework
Sites for Travellers
As I understand the need for designated sites within Warwickshire for the travelling community to remove the temptation of illegal sites, these sites above all need the most consideration to limit the impact on the exiting residents and the tourism in the area.
Proposed sites at Kites Nest Lane (GT13) and land adjacent to Shell Petrol station, Birmingham Road (GT19).
1. Kites Nest Lane is currently occupied by travellers of which have been served an eviction notice. By granting planning on this site sets a precedent for future illegal sites seeking retrospective planning.
2. Planning on either site will increase the amount of heavy vehicles along the A4177 increasing the risk of accidents.
3. Until Kites Nest Lane eviction is settled, Birmingham Road should not be considered, as the two sites along with the existing travelling community based on canal boots along the nearby adjacent stretch of canal would result in the travelling community representing an above average percentage of the community in an area that is one of Warwick's main tourist attractions (Hatton Locks)

To summarise the revised local plan is not sustainable development, it does not give enough consideration to the local environment, the current capacity of local services and the impact it will have on tourism and ultimately the impact lives of future generations living in the area.

Like a lot of people I am very concerned about the increase in traffic and the accompanying pollution and congestion, particularly in view of the limited number of crossings for the railways and rivers.

However, there are 2 issues I particularly want to raise:
* Harbury Lane - I am very concerned about this road and how it will be developed to deal with the increase in traffic. My concern is with it becoming a "motorway" that divides housing developments on either side and the dangers of not having a lower speed limit than the current 50 mph to traffic coming off the estates. Also the roundabout at the end of Earl Rivers Avenue needs to be improved by "smoothing" it out to cope with the increased levels of traffic as it is poorly designed.
* Churches - No mention or account seems to have been made about the provision of Churches for the influx of new people. At least some provision has been made this time for primary schools and maybe a secondary school plus local centre,s but consideration needs to be given to space for Church buildings even if they are satellites to the current Parish Churches.

To Whom it May Concern,


We, as one of the residents of Lamintone Drive, are supportive of the further development of Leamington Spa but we have some concerns. We have seen the creation of Warwick Gates and do not wish to see another such estate being created just to satisfy a demand for housing. Any additions to the town have to be considered thoughtfully to ensure that it is successful for all residents. So far, there has been much speculation as to what the work at Old Milverton will eventually look like but nothing concrete for residents to actually look at; no designs, plans etc. Is the estate going to be made up of houses or a combination of flats and houses?


Our concerns fall into the following categories:


Access:


Any development to the north of the town would have to factor in the creation of new roads and the widening of existing ones. The increase in traffic coming from a new estate would put huge pressure on the network that is already saturated. There would have to be provision for improved bus links to encourage people to leave their cars at home. At the same time, there would have to be adequate parking to accommodate all of these extra cars.


Facilities:


At present, the facilities that exist are meeting our needs but this would not be the case if a new estate was built. What provision is there for new schools, nurseries, doctors surgeries, shops and green spaces? There have been reports that Brookhurst is having to turn away potential pupils because of oversubscription. Have these been factored into any plans that have been submitted?


On the point of shops, the development of Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl and the expansion of the Leamington Retail Space on Europa Way shows that the south of the town is very well served. With the addition of all the new traffic, Princes Drive may not be able to cope and be prone to gridlock as well as surrounding roads.


Drainage:


A real concern for this household is where is all the water going to drain to. The field behind our house can normally prevent our house from flooding with the brook working especially hard. The rain from this last winter was the most threatening since the Easter flooding of 1998. On that occasion, two houses had their garages flooded and were lucky not to have their ground floors flooded. This year, muddy water had to escape from the field at the top of Guy's Cliffe Avenue and it nearly overflowed. The pictures below was taken around Christmas Eve of 2012 and shows the level of water behind our property.
















If houses were built on these fields, where would the water drain to? The ground would have to be levelled out to get the maximum number of properties. If they had block paved driveways, how would this help the drainage? Gardens landscaped to be beautiful but no thought as to drainage.


Our fear is that this could be ignored and at least the older properties could have an increased risk of flooding. From the point of view of new residents, they need to be aware that there is a risk in this area despite the fact that we are a fair distance from the river.


Green Space:


By building a new estate here, the town is going to lose a valuable resource that so many people take advantage of. The allotments that are scattered in the area develops a community of its own that is very hard to replicate. The number of walks that would be destroyed by houses and concrete that bring so much happiness to people in the local area. The village of Old Milverton, would lose its beauty if there was no division between it and the main town. It would also be damaged by the increase in traffic.


Can the town cope?:


Any increase of population in the town is going to place more strain on facilities. Budget cuts over the last few years has done nothing to help but for example, the swimming pools cope with more children having lessons with their school? Can the car parks cope with another five hundred to seven hundred cars? I was lucky to get a space at St Peters at 11am on a Friday in the top deck so are there going to be further development of shops in the town? Has the train station got the capacity? Warwick hospital, like all hospitals is stretched already. What about the future?


Is the north of the town the best place for any further development? In our eyes, Warwick Gates appears to be an estate that has never really been finished. It has had to fight for facilities to be built on its doorstep and could really benefit from schools and the like that would have to built to meet the demands of further expansion. Europa Way is an ideal trunk road that could be expanded in comparison to the Kenilworth Road. Traffic would be better balanced because of the number of facilities in existence over the river. Any further development would really benefit the south side of the Parade because it would be forced to improve and provide more services for residents.

I wish to object to the Local Plan and its emphasis on putting 4,500 homes south of Warwick on the following grounds:

The numbers of homes proposed are far greater than the local need of about 6,000, and a considerable number of these can be accommodated within brown field sites and where planning permission is already given

The proposal to build south of Warwick is illogical in that employment is generally north of Warwick, towards Coventry, and traffic would be required to cross Warwick / Leamington on roads that are heavily congested at peak times. The suggestions to mitigate the problem by changing road junctions is not credible. Creating a commuter area where everyone has to travel some distance to work is not sustainable.

The growth of Warwick, and associated traffic will increase pollution, which is already exceeds permitted limits locally, to encompass the schools on Myton Road, which would further endanger the health of thousands of children.

Specific proposals to develop land owned by Oken Trust and Henry VIII trust West of Europa Way endanger Myton with flooding. The risk is such that the proposals acknowledge this in including 'Sustainable Urban Drainage' SUDS within the initial plans. Recent published material and guildlines indicate that if SUDS are proposed, then it is probable that building should not be carried out on that land anyway.

I believe the plan should looked at afresh, so that any large developments should be able to stand alone in terms of infrastructure - schools, transport, health, drainage etc, without relying on Warwick / Leamington s historic , and limited resources to absorb their demands.
This will mean that land owners and developers will not be able to make a killing, because they will have to cost in the infrastructure, rather than the Councill tax payers having to pick it up

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

I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Developments 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 have confidence 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 strongly 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.

1. Level of Development required.

The assumptions for the overall growth of the housing market in WDC was taken prior to the recent publication of the 2011 census results which showed a smaller than expected population for the area, This means the the growth for the period 2001 to 2011 was less than expected. If this lower than expected growth continues then the demand for extra development in the area should be less than that in the Plan. To add weight to this the figure of 550 new homes per year has never been achieved in a single year let alone for 15 consecutive years. This whole section should be reviewed in the light of the new figures.

2. Sources of Development Land

The level of brownfield site allocation seems to be low. These sites have appeared more frequently in the past and the migration of industrial sites from town centres is by no means complete. We hope that this area could be reviewed.

3. Allocation of new Greenfield Development Land

The allocation of 10% of the development land to the rural areas seems suspiciously arbitrary and appears to be a political decision to "share the pain". Similarly the selection of 5 "larger" villages to absorb 100 new homes is decidedly arbitrary. Firstly, the 5 selected villages do not have any special characteristics over a number of other villages or rural conurbations. The exclusion of Cubbington, Leek Wootton, Bubbenhall and the Hatton Park/King Edwards conurbation seems perverse. Secondly, the choice of villages which are deemed to have the infrastructure to take the extra development puts extra strain on the existing overburdened infrastructure, especially traffic in these areas. An alternative route, to expand the areas with poorer infrastructure so as to improve the quality of life in these areas does not seem to have been considered. In the case of Hampton Magna and Hatton Park/Kings Meadow and the West Warwick (Chase Meadow) developments, Hampton Magna's facilities are used in great measure by the other two conurbations. An improvement in their local facilities would improve the quality of life in their communities and relieve the strain on the facilities in Hampton Magna, We use this example as we are well aware of our local situation and feel that there may be other areas that also have other communities that are acting as cuckoos in their nest. This strain on the infrastructure of existing communities could be lessened by improving the infrastructure in the satellite communities by the application of CIL money generated from a modest expansion there.

The New Local Plan has to be evidence-based. The arbitrary choice of the five villages, the arbitrary allocation of the same numbers in each of them and the the policy of adding to the already straining infrastructure of these villages rather than improving the infrastructure of those suffering from lack of amenities all show a lack of being based on any evidence at all . We hope that this whole section could be reviewed

4. The situation of Hampton Magna

Hampton Magna was built on a 1960s brownfield site to wit the Royal Warwickshire Barracks at Budbrooke. It was built in the late 60s/early 70s and so is in its fifth decade. As such it has well defined historical boundaries, ie the Barracks perimeter. There has been a little infill over the years and the Parish Council invited Warwickshire Rural Community Council to carry out a Housing Needs Survey which identified a need for 5 houses in the Parish. The need for further development is not locally required nor, according to the Parish Plan is it supported by the local residents who gave their views in a long questionnaire that formed the basis for the Plan.

The basic built infrastructure of Hampton Magna has changed very little from the the early 1970s when the building of the houses was completed. The village is served by C class roads that link us to the Warwick/Birmingham road and Warwick/Henley Road. The electricity supply is very similar to that supplying the barracks and the sewerage system was put in by builders during the period of "the lump". The school has been extended, but is, in essence, still the standard 1960s/70s building that is seen all around the county.

The roads leading to and inside the village become very busy at the peak time, in the morning and evening. The locally generated traffic is increased by the use of the C roads as short cuts from the Birmingham Road to the Henley Road and the A46 and the M40 at junction 15, and by traffic going to and from Warwick Parkway Station. The A 4177 at Stanks roundabout which is the main exit/entry to the village is severely congested every morning and afternoon.

The electricity supply is frequently interrupted for a shorter or longer periods, showing the fragility of the current arrangements

The sewerage system was not adopted by Severn Trent Water Authority until privatisation, when the Authority agreed to adopt the system prior to flotation. The system has not been improved and one of the areas where the system was extended to accommodate a few new house frequently suffers from problems.

The school is very popular and has recently had its standard number increased. Whilst this has improved the viability of the school, it has also lead to a great deal of school time traffic congestion at the beginning and end of school.

The infrastructure of Hampton Magna in these areas is at the limit of its usefulness. There is little that can easily be done to improve the local traffic situation, because of the need to cross canal and railway lines. We are not aware of any plans to improve the electricity or sewerage system locally. The introduction of such a large number of house into this village would lead to a complete overload of these services. We hope that you will look again at the need to use this village as one of the villages for expansion and will take a more pragmatic approach, allowing infill in non village areas and improve the infrastructure in other areas.

5. Overall

The residents of Hampton Magna have long been strong supporters of the green belt, not just around Hampton Magna, but throughout the District. There is a deep suspicion of moving green belt boundaries and if any such changes do prove necessary anywhere in the District it should be done with clarity, leaving no area for doubt or future challenge.

I am dismayed by your plan for wholesale development on greenfield sites. I note the areas of brownfield development which are planned but because the total is so large and the Green Belt land to the north is apparently sacosanct in law, your plans will swallow up acres of farm land. Develpoment in that area will also destroy the setting of Warwick Castle and the views over the countryside which are currently obtained from its towers. I am sure tourism is in theory high on your agenda but such development will detract from the tourist experience.
I have already written to Dr.Linnane to express my disquiet over the illegal levels of pollution which we currently endure in the town centre. Your development plans will exacerbate the problem. The assurance that junctions will be modified to increase the flow of traffic is as much a threat as a promise. The widening of junctions, the greater use of traffic lights, the addition of wider lanes can only make the historic centre of Warwick appear to be just a few buildings in the middle of a traffic-centred sprawl.
Will you dare to tell tourists and local shoppers just how dangerous the conditions are if they walk down Jury Street and Smith Street?
I understand that the promised green spaces in the Warwick Gates area did not materialise, what guarantees are there that green space in the new plans will actually come into being?
Modern development ought to have green transport solutions built into it from the start but the plans for new houses as they appear to be set out at the moment seem to asume high car usage.
I understand that it is difficult to expand as you are required to do by the government but I do not understand why you appear to be planning for a higher number of houses than required by central government on the specualtive grounds that it will bring new jobs to the area. There is also the pressure on local infrastructure to be considered which will be genreated by the Stratford District Council's plan to build 1500 new houses in the Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath area.
I very much hope that the plan will be modified in response to submissions such as mine.

Dear Sirs,
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 and questions:
1. I welcome the land set aside for employment. However I wonder whether enough has been set aside for industrial use? Leamington has had a great history of manufacturing and as manufacturing begins to recover we must be able to convert brownfield land to industrial use - otherwise we will not be able to re-grow the area's industrial base.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 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.
The new plan 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.

At the meeting in Trinity School, the key point was made that most of the development should be located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) enabling people to live close to their place of work. Thereby reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, with a consequential positive impact on the environment & their quality of life. The Revised Development Strategy takes heed of this issue
Another crucial aspect in The Revised Development Strategy is that it concentrates much needed improvement of the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. 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 ease current congestion and improve traffic movement.

Dear Sir,

I congratulate you on the contents of your Revision

This is a very important improvement over the original Plan, and I fully support it

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

---

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

Dear Planning Manager,
I wrote previously to express concern about the proposal to site development on green belt land to the north of Leamington, and I am pleased that the Council is no longer pursuing this option. I understand the Council has now recognised that Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist.. As I wrote earlier, 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. So long as the infrastructure of roads, shops, schools and community facilities really is put in place, this seems the most sensible option.
However, I would question whether so much green field development really is needed. There are so many empty commercial properties and existing brownfield sites in the district that I believe the Council should be prioritising these for residential development before considering greenfield development. For instance, the Ford site in Leamington could all have been residential, instead of only a small part of it.. The addition of another supermarket there was unnecessary, and will only detract from the viability of the ones we already have. The supposed office development on the site we are now told has attracted no interest, so this should become housing rather than more retail.
The Council really must make change of use to housing a priority strategy in the local plan, rather than just planning new residential areas.

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

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

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist. 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.
To me it makes perfect sense 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.
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, 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.
Yours faithfully

Dear Sir

I am writing to fully support the new revised local plan.

Now that brownfield sites have been chosen to provide most of the proposed housing development, warwick DC has seen sense in keeping the very limited green belt between Leamington and Kenilworth.

The south Leamington areas have much more space and the proposed development is now located much closer to where employment opportunities already exist allowing workers to live close by.

Improvement to the road networks here makes far more sense than cutting through the beautiful open greenbelt in Blackdown and Milverton.

I always believed there were NEVER any exceptional circumstances to release the green belt in these two areas and while there is still going to be some development in Thickthorn / lillington and other green belt ares , this is a far lower number than originally planned and seems more fair than the previous scheme.

I write to support the Revised Development Strategy. as a visitor to the green belt area I was appalled by the earlier planning application to use the delightful beautiful countryside for housing.
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.

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find our objections to the Revised Development Strategy

Warwick is known worldwide as a town of historical importance in Britains history. This is the main reason why it's so popular with Tourists. Unfortunately the continued development surrounding the town is changing it's character and affecting its history forever.

The area around Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 20 years with various large Housing estates (Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and Warwick Gates), Retail, industrial & Business Parks. This is already placing an overburden on the local area.

Further development increases the urban spawl into the surrounding countryside and increases the local population (permanent and transeunt).

Warwick was designed to deal with 17 and 18th century traffic and is already choked by traffic congestion and grid locked at rush hours.

Many of the existing local large employers for example on the Technology Park do not employ the local population, but people from further afield, which adds to the local congestion in/out and around the town. Some do relocate, but this only creates a demand for further housing, more school places etc, etc.

The ongoing development in and around Warwick is not sustainable

The number of houses proposed is too great particularly in the South Warwick area.
There should be a gradual release of land and more brownfill and infill.
It seems the developers are very happy to make a great deal of money.
Dealing with the amount of traffic should take a high priority, particularly roads
leading to Warwick and the town centre which could be ruined.

Dear Sir
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT

I refer to the above plan and write to support the Revised Development Strategy as follows:
* The Council now recognises that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist.
* I have lived and worked most of my life in the Coventry-Kenilworth-Leamington-Warwick area and in this time the green space has been under threat. I think it is crucial to preserve the green space between Leamington, Kenilworth, Warwick and Coventry. Not to do so will merge these areas with the larger West Midlands conurbation to their current and long-term detriment.
* The Revised Development Strategy is right to propose that most of the new development should be located close to employment opportunities to the South of Leamington & Warwick. This provides opportunities for people to live close to their work. This will reduce the need for commuting, hence road use, congestion, and noise and fuel pollution.
* The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses in the North Leamington Green Belt as proposed in the 'Preferred Options'(preferred by local councillors, not the public) for the Local Plan published last year. The reasons put forward in the 'Preferred Options' made no planning sense.
* The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
* I am not in a position to query the proposed numbers of new houses in the Revised Development Strategy but I do 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.

Dear Sirs,

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

It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North LeamingtonGreen 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 iscurrently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currentlyproposed 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 theGreen Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well asproposed development in villages.

3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes thatmost 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 withineasy 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 thedistrict 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 theexisting 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 Beltwould 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 congestionand reduces air pollution, it enables better provision ofpublic services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Dear Sirs,

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

It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North LeamingtonGreen 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 iscurrently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currentlyproposed 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 theGreen Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well asproposed development in villages.

3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes thatmost 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 withineasy 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 thedistrict 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 theexisting 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 Beltwould 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 congestionand reduces air pollution, it enables better provision ofpublic services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Dear Sirs,

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

It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North LeamingtonGreen 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 iscurrently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currentlyproposed 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 theGreen Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well asproposed development in villages.

3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes thatmost 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 withineasy 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 thedistrict 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 theexisting 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 Beltwould 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 congestionand reduces air pollution, it enables better provision ofpublic services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

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

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.


Part B

Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.

In response to: Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick & Whitnash. Map 3, pages 32 & 32.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposed development of approximately 3,500 houses in this area. The key reasons for objection are:

The volume and number of properties is disproportionate to the local road infrastructure in and around Leamington and Warwick. There is no evidence to support the sustainability of road junctions and traffic hours in the local area without severe congestion and impact on the public transport system.

The new proposals make no provision for allocation of Gypsy and Traveller sites into these developments. Any new housing area should seek to include ALL Gypsy and Traveller sites into those new developments so that they offer better quality of environment, local services and integration into community. Such schemes have been




successfully implemented near Watford and Milton Keynes areas. This would ensure better forward planning of proposed G&T sites with land developers rather than splitting G&T sites up and around the county.

There is little evidence to support the production of the total overall requirement of over 12,000 houses in the overall Local Plan.