RDS4: The broad location of development
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56564
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: F S Johnson
Agent: MR. JOHN WILSON
The draft policy is supported as being consistent with the advice given in the NPPF. The overall strategy for villages aims to focus limited new housing development on the more sustainable villages, whilst recognising that smaller less sustainable villages may also benefit from limited housing growth.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56567
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Jim Darling
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
Significant concerns regarding the Council's strategy for the broad location of development.
The Plan is clear that Green Belt should be regarded as a last resort, in circumstances where all non-Green Belt alternative sites have been exhausted. Having regarding to the Council's important Duty to Co-operate, and the need to meet the full objectively assessed housing needs, the Council should consider alternative non-Green Belt sites, not only within their administrative boundary, but also in relation to neighbouring authorities.
An alternative option available is to consider less sensitive Green Belt release: alternatively to direct housing to meet Warwick District's housing requirements in a sustainable manner. This approach would avoid the need for the release the significant tract of land on the edge of Kenilworth.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56591
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Grevayne Properties Ltd
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
1,000 units identified to village locations are considered to be unreasonably low -only 15.1% of the total housing provision.
Warwick is a largely rural District with a significant number of villages and hamlets and the quantum of housing to be delivered to these locations in order to underpin the sustainability and viability of these villages and to meet housing need in the location in which it arises is not considered sufficient and should be increased.
Locations such as Baddesley Clinton should therefore see increased housing given their sustainability credentials and the need to underpin their sustainability and viability.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56597
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Lenco Investments
Agent: RPS Planning
The SHLAA Site at Baginton/ Coventry Gateway (reference C10) has been promoted through all previous stages of both the Warwick and Coventry Local Development Framework processes, as an appropriate site for a Sustainable Urban Extension.
It should be recognised by the Council as a sustainable site adjacent to the urban area and large-scale employment.
It could accommodate a significant proportion of housing that would contribute towards the growth of Coventry and support the Gateway scheme, ensuring compliance with the NPPF in relation to the duty to co-operate, and should be allocated within the Local Plan.
The site was identified in the 2012 SHLAA, ref. C10, but was discounted as being unsuitable for a residential development due to landscape impact, noise and air pollution from the airport, and air pollution from the sewage works.
Extensive technical assessments have been undertaken for the site in relation to flood risk, noise, ecology, conservation and heritage, landscape, which have previously been submitted to the Council.
These reports demonstrate that the site is suitable for a significant residential-led development either in isolation or in connection with proposals for the wider area. An Air Quality Assessment can also to be undertaken to demonstrate the site's suitability for development.
The principal reasons for discounting the site from the SHLAA as being suitable are therefore all unjustified and evidence has/can be provided to demonstrate already that the site is suitable.
In respect to landscape impact, not aware of any specific Landscape Assessment prepared to an industry standard methodology that provides the evidence that this area of land has significant landscape importance and the development would impact upon it.
The site was appraised for Landscape under the Green Belt Assessment work and scored Medium Value as part of a larger area of survey. However, this assessment is not sufficient to justify exclusion from the SHLAA on landscape impact as it has not assessed the site on that basis. The Council have no evidence that can justify this position at examination.
In progressing the Local Plan, Warwick District Council should ensure that it uses the most up to date evidence available to it and significant recent events to ensure that the plan is robustly justified at examination.
In this context, it should have due regard to the approval of the Gateway site and the most recent landscape evidence (submitted as part of representation) which indicates that the area can be incorporated into the landscape satisfactorily and that it has the opportunity to assist in developing local green infrastructure assets and the integration of the Gateway Development into the local landscape.
On this basis, the area clearly scores favourably on assisting the countryside from encroachment through improving the natural buffer and integration of the Gateway Site and the provision of Green Infrastructure Assets helps contribute to the setting of Baginton in a considerably positive manner through development, as demonstrated by the Council's own landscape assessment evidence.
Noise and Air pollution
Extensive technical assessments have been undertaken for the site in relation to flood risk, noise, ecology, conservation and heritage, landscape, which have previously been submitted to the Council.
These reports demonstrate that the site is suitable for a significant residential-led development either in isolation or in connection with proposals for the wider area. Similarly air quality would also not rule out the site's suitability for residential development.
It is also noted that the Council is consulting on the Gypsy and Traveller site options and have included a significant part of the site promoted (SHLAA site C10) as a suitable location for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.
Cannot see how the Council can consider the site acceptable for residential use for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the context of noise and air pollution and at the same time consider it not acceptable for residential use in the SHLAA on the same grounds.
The discounting of this site on such grounds for open residential use is therefore not justified.
Sustainability Appraisal.
This site should be considered as a reasonable alternative for accommodating future housing requirements. It offers a sustainable location on the edge of a significant urban area with extremely accessible links to existing and new areas of employment and can offer to meet the needs of Coventry and Warwick.
The site should therefore form part of the assessment of alternative and option sites and appraised formally through the local plan process.
This should also involve sufficient consultation by the Council prior to examination. Expects this site to be fully appraised alongside the preferred sites as a reasonable alternative in light of the Judgment on the appraisal of alternatives from the Norfolk authorities SA case. This expects alternatives to be given the same level of appraisal and assessment to that of the preferred approach.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 56653
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: One Hundred Percent Properties
Agent: Barton Willmore
Part of the former Honiley Airfield has the potential to accommodate residential development of a modest scale.
This could assist the Council in delivering its preferred option for the broad location of development, and in particular in relation to the growth required in smaller villages and hamlets.
The location of the site in the north of the District would offer a suitable alternative location for residential development to meet the needs of the smaller villages and hamlets in that part of the District. Linked to this, consider that paragraph 4.47 of the Revised Development Strategy could support the use of the former Honiley Airfield for residential uses.
Notwithstanding the above, have some concerns about whether the preferred option for the broad location of growth is deliverable and, in particular, question the ability of a housing market, which is emerging from a recession, to deliver the required housing on sites in close proximity to one another.
Specifically, GVA consider that there are a relatively finite number of prospective purchasers for whom South Warwick would be a viable location and this will inevitably have a significant impact on the rates of delivery that can be achieved.
Also concerned that this will limit choice in the location of housing and have a detrimental cumulative impact on infrastructure in the south of the District.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57015
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Gleeson Developlments Ltd and Sundial Group
Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd
The broad location of housing set out at table RDS4 does not accord with the objectively assessed need evidence set out in the SHMA, May 2012 document
The spatial distribution should be amended to reflect the findings of the SHMA, 2012 and as more appropriately set out under the distribution Option 3 as considered in the housing evidence and Sustainability Appraisal, ie 1,260 dwellings to Kenilworth.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57016
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Gleeson Developlments Ltd and Sundial Group
Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd
Support the principle of the distribution of housing to the east of Kenilworth. This in part reflects the need/demand findings of the SHMA. It also accords with the "golden thread" of sustainable development set out in the NPPF and the findings of the Joint Green Belt Review.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57024
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Armitage, Mrs Grimes and Richborough Estates
Agent: Strutt & Parker
Flexibility:
Over the past two years (2011 to 2013) the District has delivered 447 new dwellings - see Table 2 in the RDS - leaving the District some 919 dwellings short of their target for housing delivery early in the Plan period.
It is accepted that the current economic climate and access to development and mortgage finance has been difficult, but an important contributory reason for the historic under-provision has been the lack of a supply of deliverable housing sites.
It is unrealistic to expect the entire District's housing needs to be met at the later stages of the Plan period.
A failure to allocate sufficient land for development puts the Plan at considerable risk of being found unsound. It is better in terms of soundness to address this shortfall now.
By allocating sufficient land in sustainable locations around the principal urban areas of the District, the Council will be able to maintain a rolling five-year supply (plus buffer) of deliverable housing sites.
It is acknowledged that a Green Belt Review has already been carried out, but this was carried at a strategic, sub-regional level but believe that a localised Green Belt Review should be carried out around the most sustainable boundaries to identify sites on an individual basis suitable for release from the Green Belt.
Kenilworth is one of the most sustainable and desirable locations for housing within the District and should accommodate a larger proportion of new housing, particularly given its proximity to Coventry and the role it plays in the cross boundary Housing Market Area.
The RDS allocates some 700 new dwellings to Kenilworth all of which are to be accommodated on the proposed Strategic Urban Extension at Thickthorn.
This scale of growth is equivalent to approximately 10.5% of the total housing growth proposed within the District and would increase the size of the settlement by 7%.
There is no technical evidence to suggest that Kenilworth could not accommodate an increase of say 10 or 12% growth.
To be consistent with national planning policy, which seeks to boost significantly housing land supply, it is submitted that Kenilworth is suitable for a greater scale of housing growth, depending upon environmental and technical considerations.
There are no non Green Belt options available to Kenilworth for accommodating its future growth, which is a fact acknowledged by the Council in its emerging strategy for the town.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57048
Received: 27/07/2013
Respondent: Gillian Pearson
Warwick not geographically suited to large housing developments around its periphery - only two river crossing points and an historic centre which restricts traffic flow. This should be avoided if the quality of life is to be preserved.
Additional traffic will cause horrendous congestion and increased traffic pollution. The plan should reduce or at least not worsen traffic congestion and so out of town housing developments should be avoided. The increased traffic will diminish air quality of the even further.
Where is the need as many houses on the old Potterton site are still on the market after several years?
I believe that you have devised a plan to destroy Warwick and, as a resident of the town, I strongly object to its implementation. Here are my objections in more detail:
Housing and Traffic
Warwick is not geographically suited to cope with large housing developments around its periphery - we have a river with only two crossing points and an historic town with narrow streets which means that traffic movement is always going to be severely restricted. On these grounds alone, additional housing development around the outskirts of the town should be avoided at all costs if the quality of life of Warwick is to be preserved for future generations.
There is no point planning dual carriageways to carry the traffic to and from the new estates because when it gets to the town it will come to a halt causing horrendous congestion and increased traffic pollution. The situation now in 2013 is bad - Warwick is famous for its traffic congestion being much worse than Leamington or Kenilworth. For example, work colleagues refuse to drive into Warwick when we lift share because of the traffic problems here so I always have to drive out to meet up with them somewhere else.
You need to devise a plan that will reduce or at least not worsen traffic congestion and I'm afraid this means that out of town housing developments will need to be 'off the menu'.
Why do we need all these extra houses when many of the homes built on the old Potterton site are still on the market after several years?
Air Quality
The District Council is required to improve air quality which at present is above the legal limit, therefore the increased traffic from the new housing developments will diminish the quality of the air even further. How will you improve the air quality with this plan in place?
Gypsies
I object to the plan for so many gypsy sites in the area with so much council tax payers money being spent on a group of people who do not contribute to the economy of the district. It seems the council is bending over backwards to help this non-tax paying group whilst the council tax payers are getting the thin end of the wedge - could it be that the gypsies shout louder than the so-called 'settled community' (tax paying residents)? That certainly seems to be the case looking at the astounding number of proposed gypsy sites in the plan.
If the council needs to raise funds for new schools, improving infrastructure etc, I would be grateful if it would not sell the soul of the town it is meant to be representing to housing developers in order to achieve this. Please come up with a fresh Plan that honestly looks after the interests of the town and its inhabitants and which centres on quality of life in Warwick rather than a money grab that will blight the lives of future Warwick residents.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57216
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: David Dorsett
Unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. Dangerous and unrealistic to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. Appreciate that Warwick could have slightly better traffic flow, but this probably spoil the town and ruin it as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which would defeat the need for expansion.
I would be grateful if you could register my objection to the New Local Plan, in particular my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20 in the New Local Plan.
South West Warwick has been so heavily developed in recent years and there is so much ongoing development, especially on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park, that there is already an overburden on roads, schools and doctors.
I have concerns that having the large numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches so highly concentrated in these areas will have a negative impact on property prices, and on the pool of people who are willing to purchase. I am worried about the negative effect that an influx of travelling children will have on any one school. It is unlikely that these children will be at the same stage of learning as others the same age and their integration into the existing classes will require additional support from the teachers and teaching assistants. I don't see how this can have anything but a negative effect on the standard of teaching and learning that can be delivered without extra support being provided to the schools.
While I appreciate that sites needs to be provided, I think there should be some assurance that there will not be more than one site within a given radius, such as a 5 mile radius. I also think that sites should be no larger than 5 pitches, as this might feel more acceptable to people living close by. I personally have major concerns about management of the proposed sites. How will you prevent the expansion of any existing site? This is especially worrying where the proposed site has a large area for growth such as GT11.
I am most concerned with the proposal GT11 for the following reasons:
1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the school, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed site within the local community, this indicates that the site will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that this site will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.
5. This site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.
6. This site is located very close to the stable block that the Racecourse has built for the owners to prepare their horses, I have heard that there is a potential risk of disease from non-vaccinated animals. The racecourse brings many people into the town, this should not be put at risk.
7. GT11 is situated within a large area of land. I do not believe that there is any way of preventing illegal or legal growth at this site.
I have concerns with the proposal GT17, GT18 and GT20 for the following reasons:
1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the schools, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed sites within the local community, this indicates that the sites will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the sites and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that these sites, all visible on major routes into Warwick, will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. These sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.
I also have objections to the proposed numbers of new homes detailed in the New Local Plan. It is unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. It is dangerous and unrealistic to ask people to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. I appreciate that Warwick town could be developed to allow for slightly better traffic flow, but this will most likely spoil the beauty of historic Warwick and thereby ruin the town as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which will rather defeat the need for expansion.
Thank you
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57596
Received: 16/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Simon & Sukwant Drake
The developments proposed rely on car which flies in the face of all supposed principles and the needs to reduce energy consumption. The centre of Warwick is congested and illegally polluted at peak times. We only have one bridge across the river in Warwick which means that any development can only dramatically worsen this state of affairs.
The development of green land rather than brown land seems, again, to make no sense. Across the county and district, there must be better options
Flooding is already an isue. How will this be improved by concreting over green land
The proposals will ipact on the economy of the Town centre by causing congestion.
The proposals are not fair to the local commuity
myself and my wife (copied) are writing to you to object to the "Local Plan" and in fact to express our level of amazement that anyone could consider these proposals as in any way fair to the local community, or sensible in line with the needs and rights of current, or indeed future, residents of Warwick and its surrounding area.
It is clear that, as a country, we require more and better housing, However that does not mean destroying the character and environment of Warwick is the way to achieve this.
We have several key objections to which the information we have read so far appears to have no answers;
1. All of the developments proposed rely on car as transport, which flies in the face of all supposed principles that govern new developments and the needs of all of us to reduce costs and energy consumption. The centre of Warwick is already highly congested and illegally polluted at peak times. The fact that we have but one bridge across the river in Warwick, means that any development can only dramatically worsen this state of affairs. Has anyone even reviewed this, and if so what are the findings ?
2. The development of green land rather than brown land seems, again, to make no sense. Across the county and district, there must be better options (which perhaps do not fit so conveniently into the demands of the housebuilders?).
3. The numbers of houses planned are way in excess of estimated demand - this appears to be on the same principles of the mass proposed building in Stratford-upon-Avon - a case of "people want to live here, so let's build here rather than somewhere that has the infrastructure and ability to support such an influx of homes and people".
4. Environmentally, it currently does not take much heavy rain to flood Warwick and surrounding roads. How will this be improved by concreting over large swathes of green land nearby ?
5. Warwick has, despite current congestion, a town centre that is thriving and bustling, Turning it into a traffic queue will destroy that.
I can only state that any councillor which backs these proposals in their current state has no chance of keeping the vote of myself, my wife or indeed anyone I know locally.
I would appreciate the councils views on our concerns.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57624
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Gail Warrington
Object to proposals to build on land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook as land is rural and agricultural. Green land as important as green belt.
NPPF requires sustainable development to meet need, but forecast means 5 year supply already met balancing housikng and emplyment.
Stratford's plan to build at Lighthorne should be taken into consideration. Object to Gypsy and Traveller sites also being in same area.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57629
Received: 16/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Geoff Reynolds
If the Gateway scheme is to be the major employer then again it is naïve on the part of the traffic planners to say there will be little impact on traffic flows. Most people will therefore be making their way to the A46 Trunk Road and either Avon Bridge or Europa Way will become very congested indeed. It is already indicated that traffic at the morning peak will be moving at less than 5mph. This means maximum pollution for very little reward.
OBJECTION TO THE LOCAL PLAN FOR THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STATEGY
This is not a plan or a Consultation Document it is a mish-mash of isolated ideas and unconnected thoughts without any joined up thinking. I am repeating what I said at the meeting held at Hill Close Gardens a year ago. Fundamentally my views have not changed.
My major objections are as follows:
1. There cannot be any development in this area without the building of
* A new hospital which is fit for purpose as Warwick Hospital cannot cope with potentially 20,000 - 30,000 new patients
* Two new secondary schools need to be built and I can only see a site for "possible Secondary School". This has other implications on both schools in the area and on traffic flows at peak times.
* Where are these people going to work? Is it Sir Peter Rigby's new Gateway scheme that the WDC planners are so keen on?
2. No traffic assessment can have been done because if that is the case then the overwhelming case cannot be in favour of bringing traffic over a Grade II listed bridge that is already crumbling as the 7.5 tonne weight limit is regularly ignored. You only have to stand at the end of Myton Road between 8.00am and 9.00am or between 5.00pm or 6.00pm and you can see the effect. Warwickshire County Council's record in traffic management schemes is not one to have confidence in considering the mess they made of the recent "improvements" to the High Street and Jury Street. Indeed if these plans come to fruition then many of the streets in Warwick and surrounding environs will be just be arteries and I think here of Smith Street, St Nicholas Church Street, Bridge End, Myton Road, High Street, Jury Street, Castle Hill, Europa Way etc. The list is almost endless.
It has been suggested that the junctions become traffic light signal controlled. If they are anything like the new scheme that has been put in place at Princess Drive and the Recycling Centre then they will be an accident waiting to happen. It also adds nothing to the traffic flow and is far too complicated.
If the Gateway scheme is to be the major employer then again it is naïve on the part of the traffic planners to say there will be little impact on traffic flows. Most people will therefore be making their way to the A46 Trunk Road and either Avon Bridge or Europa Way will become very congested indeed. It is already indicated that traffic at the morning peak will be moving at less than 5mph. This means maximum pollution for very little reward.
3. At a previous meeting at Hill Close it was indicated that traffic issues at peak times would be a real problem issue due, in part, to school starting and finishing times. It was suggested that schools could be spoken to stagger their start and finish times. This I felt was naïve in the extreme as many parents drop their children off on the way to their place of work and this will not change. Thus that will not improve.
4. Developers will only build houses if they can sell them. Do people want to buy them and are they affordable. However once planning permission is in place then it is very difficult to stop it. This will be like having the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over us.
5. Surely 12,000 houses are excessive. I would have thought a maximum number of half that amount is what is actually required which would have a dramatic effect on the plan. Why is the vast majority of the development on Greenfield sites and not Brownfield ones. I understand that only 9% of Britain is developed but when cuts out most of Scotland, Wales some areas of Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland and others then the picture looks vastly different. We are already overcrowded as an island. Why must the residents of Warwick (mainly) and Leamington be made to suffer?
I am not a 'serial' objector but a very concerned resident of what is a jewel in the crown of Warwickshire that is likely to be desecrated by this plan.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57634
Received: 16/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Geoff Reynolds
The vast majority of the development on is proposed Greenfield sites and not Brownfield ones. this is not justified. We are already overcrowded as an island and . the residents of Warwick (mainly) and Leamington are being made to suffer.
OBJECTION TO THE LOCAL PLAN FOR THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STATEGY
This is not a plan or a Consultation Document it is a mish-mash of isolated ideas and unconnected thoughts without any joined up thinking. I am repeating what I said at the meeting held at Hill Close Gardens a year ago. Fundamentally my views have not changed.
My major objections are as follows:
1. There cannot be any development in this area without the building of
* A new hospital which is fit for purpose as Warwick Hospital cannot cope with potentially 20,000 - 30,000 new patients
* Two new secondary schools need to be built and I can only see a site for "possible Secondary School". This has other implications on both schools in the area and on traffic flows at peak times.
* Where are these people going to work? Is it Sir Peter Rigby's new Gateway scheme that the WDC planners are so keen on?
2. No traffic assessment can have been done because if that is the case then the overwhelming case cannot be in favour of bringing traffic over a Grade II listed bridge that is already crumbling as the 7.5 tonne weight limit is regularly ignored. You only have to stand at the end of Myton Road between 8.00am and 9.00am or between 5.00pm or 6.00pm and you can see the effect. Warwickshire County Council's record in traffic management schemes is not one to have confidence in considering the mess they made of the recent "improvements" to the High Street and Jury Street. Indeed if these plans come to fruition then many of the streets in Warwick and surrounding environs will be just be arteries and I think here of Smith Street, St Nicholas Church Street, Bridge End, Myton Road, High Street, Jury Street, Castle Hill, Europa Way etc. The list is almost endless.
It has been suggested that the junctions become traffic light signal controlled. If they are anything like the new scheme that has been put in place at Princess Drive and the Recycling Centre then they will be an accident waiting to happen. It also adds nothing to the traffic flow and is far too complicated.
If the Gateway scheme is to be the major employer then again it is naïve on the part of the traffic planners to say there will be little impact on traffic flows. Most people will therefore be making their way to the A46 Trunk Road and either Avon Bridge or Europa Way will become very congested indeed. It is already indicated that traffic at the morning peak will be moving at less than 5mph. This means maximum pollution for very little reward.
3. At a previous meeting at Hill Close it was indicated that traffic issues at peak times would be a real problem issue due, in part, to school starting and finishing times. It was suggested that schools could be spoken to stagger their start and finish times. This I felt was naïve in the extreme as many parents drop their children off on the way to their place of work and this will not change. Thus that will not improve.
4. Developers will only build houses if they can sell them. Do people want to buy them and are they affordable. However once planning permission is in place then it is very difficult to stop it. This will be like having the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over us.
5. Surely 12,000 houses are excessive. I would have thought a maximum number of half that amount is what is actually required which would have a dramatic effect on the plan. Why is the vast majority of the development on Greenfield sites and not Brownfield ones. I understand that only 9% of Britain is developed but when cuts out most of Scotland, Wales some areas of Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland and others then the picture looks vastly different. We are already overcrowded as an island. Why must the residents of Warwick (mainly) and Leamington be made to suffer?
I am not a 'serial' objector but a very concerned resident of what is a jewel in the crown of Warwickshire that is likely to be desecrated by this plan.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57637
Received: 16/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Paul Dawson
Too much new development is concentrated to the south of Warwick and will lead to much worse traffic congestion in an area that is already congested.
In the last 15 years 2 large developments have been built; one by the racecourse and the other on the edge of Whitnash. The result has seen a substantial increase in traffic on all roads leading into Warwick Town Centre yet the road infrastructure hasn't expanded to cope and of course the geography of the area means there is a limit on what can be done.
I travel through Warwick Town Centre everyday to get to work and on many occasions it has taken me almost 20 minutes to journey the short distance from my house opposite Myton School to the roundabout at Bridge End a distance of half a mile. In the evening, I have crawled down Jury Street again for 20 minutes or so during rush hour and this distance isn't even a quarter of a mile. I have also watched traffic heading into Warwick during the evenings from the Business Park behind Warwick School crawl for an hour into Warwick. This summer during the period of road works leading to the New Supermarket at the end of our road I have observed cars and buses take 1/2 hour to drive 200 metres past our house on Saturdays. Once I got caught in this traffic and it took me one hour to reach the roundabout by the new supermarket.
Clearly, we all have to live somewhere and I don't object in principle to the building of New Houses but I have to ask if those who have drawn up these proposals actually experience the problems of getting about Warwick in any form of road transport during the busy periods or when any sort of work is being done on the local infrastructure.
Maybe I could suggest building a road through the grounds of Warwick Castle to bypass the Town Centre? Of course this is preposterous but it appears that building in effect a small town next to a small town isn't!
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57638
Received: 05/08/2013
Respondent: Deen Heather
Too many houses in the wrong place
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57641
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Emma Williams
Increased housing numbers would put undue pressure on the local hospitals and schools and on the amenity services such as water and drainage.
Would increase the existing traffic congestion on all the roads in this area and town centre car parking would be put under yet further pressure.
Half the houses are to the south of Warwick and Leamington, even though the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by 2030.
Will result in loss of agricultural land and loss of local farming jobs from the economy.
More suitable and sustainable to identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington.
Should meet Gypsy and Traveller requirements through proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as more suitable, sustainable and integrated.
Should review Green Belt and allow sites north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth.
Please see below my representations to WDC's Consultation Programme on the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan. I object to the proposals on the following grounds:
* The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the local hospitals and schools.
* The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the amenity services such as water and drainage.
* There would be increased traffic congestion on all the roads in this area (for example: Banbury Road, Bridge End, Myton Road, Europa Way etc. and the knock on effects beyond). These roads do not cope well with current levels of traffic and any improvements to traffic flow would only improve it for that traffic and not for the vast increase in traffic flow associated with the proposed developments. All car and bus journeys in these areas would become much slower and the increase in the need for town centres car parking would be put under yet further pressure.
* The District Council has proposed the need to provide about 12,000 houses of which nearly half are to the south of Warwick and Leamington, even though the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by 2030.
* The combined sites result in a large loss of agricultural land when there is a need for more and cheaper food and the local farming community losing jobs from the rural economy.
* WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.
* WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed sites and exploit those properly first.
* WDC should combine its requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.
* WDC should designate large areas of land the south of Warwick and Leamington including Warwick Castle Park and its surrounds, The Asps and proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to protect the natural beauty of this part of the county (as it is to the north of the county) and to retain the identity and boundaries of the villages by surrounding them with Greenbelt to include proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 12, 16 and 20. This will spread the pressure around the county for new developments rather than focus it to the south.
* The proposal to build 70-90 new houses in Barford (a "Secondary Service Village")would have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children. The school would not be able to accommodate more school children associated with this additional housing and is therefore not sustainable.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57702
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Simon Sharp
Should meet Gypsy and Traveller requirements through proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as more suitable, sustainable and integrated.
Should review Green Belt and allow all forms of development north of Warwick and Leamington.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57737
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Harris Legal Recrutment Ltd
-WDC should revisit its green belt policy and release sites to the north of the district which would ease pressure on the south.
-WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of the district including The Asps and sites 5, 6 and 9 as green belt to provide a buffer to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or extend the country park as far as the Banbury road near castle park. This would ensure villages to the south of the district retain their identity.
-If the green belt policy is not reviewed, the south of the district will become over populated, road infrastructure will struggle and the historic villages will lose their identity. The district will become geographically unbalanced.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57739
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr James Harris
-WDC needs to revisit its Green Belt Policy. Sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington should be released to ease the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the NLP period to the south.
-WDC needs to consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5,6,9 and 10 as Green Belt to provide a buffer to the proposed developments to the South of Warwick and Leamington.
-WDC should consider extending the proposed Bishop's Tachbrook Country Park Development as far as the Banbury Road to Castle Park. This would ensure the vehicles in the south of the district retain their identity and not swallowed up by the ever expanding Warwick and Leamington conurbation.
-If the greenbelt policy is not reviewed, the south of the district will become over populated, the highway infrastructure and facilities will struggle and the historic villages in the south will lose their identity to urban sprawl.
-RDS should be requiring that G & T Sites are included within the major new housing developments in Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth. This would enable sites to be properly integrated and have proper access to facilities.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57752
Received: 16/09/2013
Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles
Objects to the amount of development intended south of Warwick and Leamington. The historic character of the three towns is already under huge pressure from previous developments.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57848
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Beatrix Law
Deletion of sites north of Leamington creates unbalanced plan loading devt. onto Warwick.
Original plan placed growth strategically around urban core spreading traffic, housing and services load. Now concentrated development to south of Warwick with new suburbs relatively distant from commercial and retail heart.
Initial proposal required relaxation of greenbelt to north of Leamington having little impact on gap with Coventry, making good contribution to housing need whcih would have had access to sub regional employment unlike south Warwick which will require journeys across towns to access.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57870
Received: 23/07/2013
Respondent: Miss L Buckingham
Development is far too concentrated in the south Leamington and Whitnash area. This area has taken the majority of recent development. It seems like North Leamington always remains undeveloped on the basis of green belt. This is not only unfair, but is resulting in significant traffic and infrastructure problems for the south of the towns. Whitnash, Sydenham and Bishops Tachbrook will all be joined together if development continues as it has.
Significant investment in infrastructure is needed if development goes ahead - roads, hospitals, health service, police. Can these facilities and services cope with such an increase in the population?
It seems like the people elected to represent local people are unable to resist national government pressure, regardless of what local people say.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57871
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Dr Colin Campbell
-The overall numbers are not sustainable from either an economic of environmental perspective as they are much greater than required.
-The proposed road improvements will not mitigate the increased traffic
-The flow of traffic is limited by the number of bridges.
-Air quality is already very poor and will get worse. This will affect Warwick Town Centre and Warwick School and Myton School.
-Many commercial premises in Warwick are yet to be taken up and some commercial land is already being redesigned for housing.
-Work and residential expansion should be in close proximity to each other.
-The proposals will permanently end the historic division between Leamington and Warwick and create a single town.
There will be significant damage to Old Warwick with the southern approaches to the town damaged. The Avon Bridge with views of the castle will be a permanent traffic jam.
-Traffic will be unbearable for residents.
-Air pollution will be further worsened.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57874
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs T S Blenkinsop
Warwick needs to be protected from:
-Further traffic congestion especially around the Morrisons Roundabout.
-The bridges in Warwick cannotsustain more traffic weight.
-Traffic at the Castle entrance roundabout causes back ups down the Banbury and Myton Roads and up Castle Hill.
-Waste disposal failure from too many buildings.
-Flooding
-Overload at the Hospitals
-Greater air pollution
-Increased security risk if gypsy and traveller sites are granted.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57879
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Miss M K Turner
The number of houses being concentrated south of Warwick and Leamington (4500), east of Whitnash (500), east Lillington (250) and east of Kenilworth (700) is too much concentration. Roads are already at capacity. This feels like a land grab by developers when the land is needed to produce food.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57881
Received: 03/07/2013
Respondent: R J Lane
Pleased that wdc has recognised that there are no special circumstances to support development in north Leamington green belt, taking away the risk of an unsound plan.
New development should be concentrated where there are existing opportunities and infrastructure.
Revised development strategy achieves those objectives.
see-attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57882
Received: 15/07/2013
Respondent: Mr J T Lane
Support:
Fair distribution across district
Most of proposed development will be close to towns
Employment opportunities clsoe to where people will live reducing travel
Less traffic congestion
Will save green belt between Leamington and Kenilworth
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57898
Received: 17/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs G Callow
The proposals will be damaging to Warwick with increased traffic through the already congested town, increased pollution resulting in health problems and damage to historic buildings as a result of traffic - especially HGVs.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57901
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs I & C Wilson
Too much building is being proposed for the Whitnash area. The concentration nof building to the south of Warwick and Whitnash has not been justified. This area already suffers from congestion. It will also impact on ecology (skylarks etc). More brownfield sites should be used and empty properties should be brought back in to use.
see attached