RDS4: The broad location of development

Whilst accepting that additional housing does need to be provided in the area, it is quite clear that concentrating all development in the south of the Leamington/Warwick area is undesirable.
Land south of Harbury Lane should be protected to act as a barrier to further development.
North Leamington and surrounding areas do need to take their share of the additional housing to be built.

I would like to commend W D C on the new proposed local plan. There are no " exceptional circumstance's " for building on green belt land to the north of Leamington. Green belt land must be used as a last alternative, There is land to the south [near Whitnash] and to the east [ near Radford semele] that is non green belt, this should be used first, it has the advantage of better access to the M40, the railway station and most of the industrial estates in the area.

I would like to support the Revised Development Plan. I would further like to thank Warwick District Council for listening to the concerns passed about the original preferred options during the recent consultation.

My reason for supporting the Revised Strategy is primarily that it acknowledges that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify building in the greenbelt. There is sufficient space for the required development on brownfield and non greenbelt sites as outlined in the new strategy. It further proposes new housing where the infrastructure of roads and existing employment already exists and can more easily and cost effectively be developed.

I appreciate what a difficult task it is to identify the correct strategy when so many stakeholders have passionate views on every side of the argument but I believe that the revised strategy complies with the all guiding principles that are set down both nationally and locally.

I am writing to register my objection to the development of any Greenbelt land to the north of Leamington Spa.

I am aware that the revised Local Plan has proposed moving development of this land elsewhere within the Leamington Spa region, and I am very pleased that all the very valuable aspects that the Greenbelt offers may now be protected.

I do, however, very strongly wish my objections to any future development of this land to be registered, as I understand that WDC are consulting with Coventry City Council about providing housing for Coventry, and the Greenbelt land to the north of Leamington may still be considered as a potential development area.

Please acknowledge receipt of my objection and I wish to be kept informed an matters relating to this very important area surrounding the north of Leamington which should be preserved as Greenbelt.

Significant harm will be caused if this concentration of development is imposed upon Whitnash. Smaller developments spread across several settlements would provide the necessary housing without the need for major disruption to Whitnash, South Warwick and Bishops Tachbrook. This plan is NOT a Warwick District plan - it is a Whitnash plan. It is biased, threatening to ruin the quality of life of Whitnash residents. Sharing the burden would solve the infrastructure problems predicted by such a massive and concentrated development.

As on the previous consultation, the council has failed to understand the impact on both the services and the infrastructure of the region (ie. Leamington and Warwick cannot support another 10k homes - especially when they are built on the south end of the town).

4.1.1
This could affect the area around Kenilworth and Finham. I would be in favour of accepting 11,500 homes only and this would leave Green belt development free.

Having reviewed the new local plan for additional housing in and around Leamington, I am writing to let you know that I support the revised plan currently going through the consultation period.

A.C.Lloyd Homes Ltd wish to support the identification of 1,000 dwellings (15.1%) of the District's housing requirement to be provided within Village Development. The supporting text to this policy states that the overall strategy for the villages aims to focus limited new housing development on the more sustainable villages. This approach is endorsed as it accords with the governments' key objective of providing housing in the most sustainable locations whilst recognising the need for new housing to support local services.

The Green Belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt land in "exceptional circumstances". No such circumstances have yet been demonstrated given the ongoing future housing uncertainty and the rural community should be protected

As a younger person who has grown up in the village of Hampton Magna and enjoyed so much about the community , countryside, open spaces it would upset me and i cannot agree to see the loss of any of the green belt that in part makes the village what it is. Such spaces should be protected at all costs which is what I understand the green belt is for.

The Green Belt must not be eroded further and should be protected in line with central government policy to only use green belt land in "exceptional circumstances". No such circumstances have yet been demonstrated given the ongoing future housing uncertainty and the rural community should be protected This issue has already been flagged and supported in the House of Commons.

We believe that this plan fails to maximise the potential for brownfield sites to absorb much of the development requirement and that similarly a far too great percentage is being allocated to the villages which are inherently less sustainable, although we were pleased to see that such village numbers MIGHT be somewhat responsive to actual village needs rather than simply imposed - let's hope that is how it might actually work!

This is unacceptable concentration south of the towns. WDC needs to implement imaginative insertion of some development into the Greenbelt area of the district. This is entirely possible without damaging the fundamental purpose of the Greenbelt which is actually to separate the Birmingham conurbation. Failure to do this will drive the increasing population of the Greenbelt area to leave that area and come to the south of the district or further afield. The northern district Greenbelt NIMBY protest has been taken too seriously and must be challenged.

The southern sites are a big improvement on the previous incarnation but are still grossly excessive and must be reduced - reduce numbers and locate some to the north. The southern site encroaches to far into the rural area.Extend the Country Park further west to meet up with Warwick Castle Park.

I object to the the proposed local plan on the grounds that;
There has not been sufficient evidence put forward on the requirement for 12,000 new homes and there is contradictory evidence for this requirement.

The plan to only build in the south of the district is unfair to the local residents and will has a serious impact on there quality of life.

I do not believe the reasons given for not building on greenbelt land in the north given that the same council has given permission for greenbelt land to be used in the Gateway project.

The local infrastructure cannot support such a massive development with the schools would be overloaded the local hospital and GP,s could not cope with up to 20,000 extra residents.

The road infrastructure could not cope with the extra volume of traffic, being an out of town development most of the new homes would have a car with professional people probably having two which would be an extra 16,000 plus cars on the roads. Many of those new residents would have to travel though the Viaduct or Castle Hill to get to work, two areas that are already congested.

There will be a serious risk of flooding if the farmland behind Saumur Way is built on.

School children using the footpath that runs past the end of Saumur Way will be put at risk by the extra traffic crossing it.

The preservation of green belt land in warwickshire.

I agree as this is the best option to protect the maximum amount of green belt around Leamington & Warwick, ensuring nearly all of the build is on non-green belt land.

I object to the proposal to build 4,550 houses on land on the edge of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash. This accounts for 68.8 per cent of the total development and is excessive.

This level of development would create a continuous sprawl of housing that would change the character of the area, increase traffic and worsen congestion to unsustainable levels and worsen air quality in Warwick where pollution levels are already excessive. It would also encourage many more people to move into the area rather than provide appropriate types of homes to meet the needs of local people.

Sport England can not and will not support the release of any land for housing which is currently used or was formally used for sport unless the land in question is shown to be surplus for sport through a robust assessment. Sport England is aware that WDC is producing a Playing Pitch Strategy, but until it is adopted Sport England would expect any planning application to show through a robust assessment, that the sports land/facilities are no longer required.

Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy,

We are very much in favour of the proposals as explained in the 70 page revised strategy document.
From a planning perspective they take into account the main objections that have been raised against the original Plan, and include those submitted by us.
These are specifically with regard to protection of Green Belt land, and the best utilisation of Brownfield and similar areas.
Thank you.

Why is all the development in the south of the district which is already the more developed part. You say that the north part of the district has more green belt but how do you expect to have a balanced district in terms of housing, infrastructure and employment if that is maintained and you continue to develop the south part of the district. As you state in your information a major employment site is going to be built in the north, where development would be more appropriate.
Whatever you say about improving the infrastructure, with this amount of new housing, it will in no way compensate for the massive increase in traffic. Have you ever travelled around Warwick and Leamington in rush hour (anytime between 8 - 10 and 4 - 7). It is like one big car park. Warwick will in no way be able to cope with this.
Why don't you and other local councils work more closely to ensure that all of your local plans work in harmony with each other to improve the larger Warwickshire area. 2,000 homes near Gaydon will just add to the problems I have already stated.
Why aren't you utilising more brownfield sites and regenerating existing populated areas.
Why are all of the gypsy and traveller sites within a relatively small area again, within the south of the district. Regardless of there being a lot of green belt in the North of the district it must be able to accommodate some of the sites. Again you are putting all of the pressure on the south.

The broad use of villages particularly where green belt land exists should be stopped to protect that heritage. That is why the green belt exists

Although I support the use of urban brownfield sites for development I am against the concentration of development on greenfield sites on the edge of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash. Even with road improvements the concentration of development south of the river will still lead to congestion at the sites where roads cross river, canal and railway either by bridge or underpass especially as many residents will still need to travel northwards for access to work and hospitals. I also believe the amount of development in villages should be much lower as the infrastructure in most villages will be inadequate.

The extremely high number of new homes proposed is not sustainable and will totally change the character of Warwick/Leamington as places to live or visit. Building work over the next 16 years is unacceptable. Despite the revised infrastructure plans I do not believe Warwick can sustain such a high influx of new residents. I chose to live in Warwick for the ambience and beautiful surroundings. This WILL be lost.

Section 4.3.5 states that there is a general desire for more development on brownfield land. The allocation proposed of 380 houses (5.7 %) does not reflect this desire.

This is puts a grossly unfair burden on one area.

This shows a gross burden put on one area.
I have no problem with a smaller quantity of housing but the number proposed in one area is ridiculous. The result will have several ramifications.
The visual impact of the area, the local infrastructure, traffic volumes, air quality etc etc

No justification for placing the majority of new housing south of Warwick.
This just appears to be the easy option for developers, very popular for incomers who will work elsewhere and commute using the M40

It is not clear why the allocation of development to the villages has increased since the 2012 Plan although the balance of housing to be provided on new allocated greenfield sites has decreased.