Whole area

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed massive development to the south of Warwick and Whitnash.
This area already suffers appalling traffic congestion and new roads and larger junctions will only feed more vehicles in the existing pinch points.
The towns of Leamington and especially Warwick are small, the urban sprawl around is already large in relation to the town centres. This development would reduce the quality of life in the locality and put further pressure on already overloaded education and health services. The air pollution in Warwick, which is already at illegal levels will be made worse by increased traffic volumes and congestion, also covering these fields with buildings and roads will almost certainly result flooding in some places that had previously been unaffected.
Finally Warwicks magnificent Castle deserves some green space. Please Please reject this plan.

Having attended recent local meetings regarding the proposals laid out in the New Local Plan, We strongly object to the proposed
site for building circa 3000+ houses on the farm and agricultural land between Myton Road and Europa Way, on the following
grounds;

1) Flood risk - evidence has been presented to WDC of flooding and standing water in the area of The Malins and Myton Crescent since the
development of the Brittain Lane estate on the former Dormer Hall site on the Myton Road - there has also been flooding at the top of
Saumur Way which has also been reported to WDC; the whole area will be of great risk of flooding if the top soil is removed from the
fields which offer our area some protection from flooding.

2) Air quality - due to the constant backlog of stationary and slow moving traffic on the Myton Road and Europa Way at all times of day,
the air quality is poor, as it is in the centre of Warwick Town, many children and adults suffer with chest and breathing complaints due
to this issue; to even think of adding to this with thousands of additional cars on these roads is dangerous.

3) Infrastructure - there is no capacity to widen, extend or improve the over used Myton Road, you are proposing access
to part of this 'garden suburb' (Please!) via Saumur Way which is a tiny residential road which cannot cope with more traffic - not to
mention adding to our already poor air quality as more cars will queue back from the Myton Road causing more pollution for residents
of Saumur Way.

4) Fairness and quality of life. Speaks for itself - it is extremely unfair to dump a huge amount of housing on our small area as
we feel it is just viewed as an 'easy' or 'soft' option, showing no consideration or care for the quality of life of residents of Myton.

With regards to quality of life - we will no longer be able to sit outside of a quiet summer's day as you are proposing 15
years of construction at the end of our close, we know from experience - we have had to put up with the construction all of one
summer with Lidl (a big mistake as we told you at the time) then we had constant loud construction noise and road issues with the Brittain
Lane site; just when we thought we might get some peace we had 10 months of misery and upheaval with Morrisons and all the surrounding
road chaos.

Where is the quality of life for the people of Myton? it seems the planning department of WDC is hell bent on over building and
ruining this entire area.

Chris White has written to Cllr Doody expressing his concerns on all of these very points and calling for the NLP to be scrapped and
reconsidered; we wholeheartedly agree with and support his views.

There is a plan being put forward as you are aware with an alternative proposal spreading the building around the area more evenly
and more fairly to existing residents, this proposal should be considered immediately.

The number of houses 'needed' are not the same as the number of houses 'proposed' and the number of houses you are proposing
should be downgraded significantly; after all, have you taken into consideration the fact that families like ours will consider moving
OUT of the area if you continue to decimate it in this way?

Everyone accepts growth is necessary, but the way WDC is going about this is alienating WDC from the people is it here to present, trust
is very low and the people of Myton feel the WDC is choosing our district yet again as a soft option.

We also object very strongly to the consideration of Planning Applications at this stage for building on an Area of Restraint that has
not been authorised for building on - you cannot grant permission to build on an area which is still an AOR, we are still in the consultation
period at this stage, nothing has been agreed - it is issues like this that make the local residents feel even more strongly that they
cannot trust WDC on the issue of the NLP.

We therefore again call on WDC to reject the New Local Plan in its current form, and for WDC to considered the options presented
to it for smaller housing numbers to be spread evenly and fairly across the whole area.

i have great concerns about the amount of building of houses in and around Whitnash.There has to be other land in the north of Leamington that could take some of the pressure off Whitnash.As soon as new homes needed it seems to be Whitnash and the surrounding area is earmarked for developement.One only has to look at the map to see the huge brown area ,First we were a village then a town whats next a city?.Pleases think of our children and grand children they will have lost the country side between Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook,once the concrete has gone down it will be gone forever.I have lived in the area for nearly sixty years and when i saw tha plan it reduced me to tears

I wish to object to the very extensive development south of Warwick along side Europa Way. My reasons are as follows:
1) The development of 4500/6000 homes in that area is too large. The numbers of homes proposed appears to be based on encouraging net migration to the area rather than meeting the needs of local people. I totally disagree with this strategy and have seen no evidence that supports this. This would not benefit existing people who already live in the area,

2) It is unfair that so much of the development is south of Warwick and Leamington, and has not been shared out fairly throughout the whole of Warwick district. The land south of Warwick is very good farmland and should not been developed when land in the green belt, designated over 50 years ago, has been given an unjustifiable premium.

3) Road congestion in Warwick and Leamington is considerable and the changes proposed to roads seem to encourage cars to drive through the town centre of Warwick rather than using the bypass. This is a ridiculous approach particularly as air quality in Warwick and Leamington does not not comply with EU regulation. More cars will exacerbate health problems and Warwick DC plans will introduce in excess of 12000 cars to this existing poor air quality area.

4) Concreting over land west of Europa way will result in unprecedented levels of flooding. Flooding has continued to be an ongoing problem since Warwick Technology Park was developed and also houses on Trinity school site. Large areas of green area need to be included in any development plans.

5) Proposals for industrial areas are far to great bearing in mind it took many years to fill Warwick Technology Park. Land for industry by Warwick Gates has been reassigned to residential due to lack of interest and no companies have expressed an interest in the Ford Foundry site other than shops.

I suggest that a new village be developed by the Coventry Gateway area rather than making problems much worse in existing residential areas of War wick sand Leamington.

Overall after attending meeting at Warwick school to discuss new local plan .

It was increasing obvious that the whitnash south of warwick area seems to be the prefered option.

Mainly as not "green Belt"

My concern is the huge traffic problems at roundabouts/ europa way / and similar sites around shopping area at the end of myton rd;

Adding a few traffic lights will not stop chaos with possible 5000 houses / 10,000 persons plus extra cars..

Overall I feel brown sites/ council land/empty private sites/ houses could be developed first.

Dear Sir,
Re the proposed development of housing south of Warwick,it is surely too great for our road structure.
Warwick is a an historical market town,with narrow streets which were built for a small town use.The Butts was the area for the arrowmen to practice their bow & arrow technique,now it is being turned into a main thoroughfare.At times now there is only room for single file traffic at the junction with Priory Road.
How can we cope with further development of 4,500 houses south of Warwick?.
The bridge over the Avon will not withstand such an increase of traffic.No matter how many new roads or traffic lights you propose the town road structure cannot cope with it.
The High Street traffic is nearly always at a stand still since your `pedestrian friendly` alterations. Nobody knows where it is safe to cross and if a lorry is unloading there are too many bollards for the cars to get through.As this is proving with the number that are continually knocked down.
Warwick Historic town deserves more respect than you are giving it.
People travel from all over the world to see our town and castle but if we have more housing development which will be car dependant we will end up with a continual traffic jam in the town centre and people will not bother to visit Warwick and tradespeople will suffer.
Why can`t all the derelict buildings;ie;Leper Hospital,Gas Works,Fire Station empty offices, be redeveloped into housing before large development on our green fields.
When Round Oak school was built and the playing field level was increased the gardens in Myton Crescent suffered flooding in wet weather as you can see from the attached photos.Can you guarantee this will not happen again when you have concreted over land for 800 houses or more on Europa Way?
We now rely on a ditch with a pump in it in the playing field of Round Oak School and hope it will work in heavy rain.

Those who have put this plan together must: either live North Leamington or outside Warwick without commuting every day south Leamington and/or they do not have children!?
I invite you to go to Leamington at 8am from the M40 Junction 14 and you will discover that you are queuing dangerously on the hard shoulders and spend 30 minutes to do 3 miles to the town centre, this every morning (I experienced this for over 2 years before to move to Whitnash). Or shall I invite you to discover Leamington at 5pm between the town centre and the M40 to discover the joys of traffic jams.

The plans attached at not only going to make enormous traffic issues in these areas, this is a scar on the face of Leamington/Whitnash/Warwick. I'm proud to live in Whitnash and enjoy the life of Leamington; this will just become a monstrous urban sprawl joining these 3 towns. Putting pressure on town centre car parks, infrastructures, schools & nurseries for which we already see some issues of capacities and most of all our only hospital in Warwick...I invite you to discover right now the joys of its A&E waiting room and imagine it with a further 12,000 new families depending on it.


I have got 2 children, 4 & 1 years old, and I do not want them to live in a huge town out of control, I want them to live in the charming town of Leamington/Withnash. I want them to enjoy the views of the fields in east Whitnash with currently cows and horses, instead of new hideous houses. I also do not want them to go to school with their bikes and having breathing issues because of higher pollution rate.

We all know that you are just interested into Housing investors, but please expand on brown field sites and other towns. This plan is just a plan to destroy the current community feeling of Leamington.
DO IT ELSEWHERE, NOT ONLY SOUTH LEAMINGTON!!!

I hope the anger of other people will be powerful enough to stop this complete non-sense. I object to any of these developments. The only one I can see can happen without too much disruption might be Woodside farm. We have seen the development plan and it seems OK. All the others are just complete madness, and I can't bear the idea of East side Withnash being developped.


If any of these plans are going ahead, conservative party will just loose all of our votes. And if I do not receive a comprehensive answer in the coming days, I'll use all my will to give you a headache for the coming days, weeks and months ahead of you.

I wish to object to the high number of proposals for additional housing to the south of Warwick and Leamington.

In addition to being in contravention to WDC's own guidelines and a number of environmental indicators, the concentration of so much growth in one huge area is likely to destroy the much vaunted character of the two towns. The existing north/south road corridors through both towns can barely cope with existing levels of traffic. The dualling of approach roads will simply lead to traffic reaching the "pinch points" i.e. Castle Bridge, Prince's Drive, Lower Avenue a few seconds quicker. The potential gridlock will not enhance Warwick as a tourist destination nor Leamington as a shopping and employment centre. There appear to be no proposals in the plan to alleviate this situation.

I would maintain that spreading development, if it is ever required at the scale proposed, across the WHOLE district would better enable existing road capacity to cope with additional demands.

Dear Sirs

Revised Development Strategy Response

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 A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624455 / 07767 767565
Email: amanda.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
Ethinic origin: White British
Age: 45 - 54
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper


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.

We have been advised to write to you regarding objections to the Revised Development Strategy Local Plan. Having studied documentation and attended meetings I wish to object to the overall plan to build the number of new homes suggested in Warwick district and in particular the 3420 planned in the south of Warwick (zone 6).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. Imposing massive growth on an area with little expansion of employment would create greater numbers of people who would have to commute to work, much to the detriment of the area and a poor location of people.

Warwick District has already seen much development over recent years, much of it to accommodate those moving from the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham into a less dense area. Many of those still commute into Birmingham or London and if people are prepared to work in London and commute from the Warwick district this will do nothing to help keep the prices affordable for the locals who want to continue living here.

Warwick District population has in fact increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately 2x the rate of increase for Warwickshire; 2x the national average increase, and over 3x the increase for West Midlands.

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion being at Warwick Gates which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed.

By only building the amount of houses currently required for Warwick district this will discourage migration from other areas as has happened with past developments.

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area was identified as an area of restraint at the time of the agreement of planning for the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa, to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl.

There is likely to be considerable job creation towards Coventry, including up to 14,000 new jobs speculated at the Coventry Gateway scheme. Therefore several extra thousand people per day will want to drive through Warwick, morning and evening, which would lock up the highly congested

Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way at peak times and also the road layout of historic Warwick.

The suggested improvement to the junction to the end of Myton Road and Banbury Road is redundant. The bottle neck of the narrow historic Avon Bridge, constrained road layout and traffic calming in the Town centre, means such provision would not ease the current backlog along Myton Road at peak times.

The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and onto the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

Development of this particular site will have a profound impact on the area where the roads are already gridlocked for a considerable period every day during school term, not to mention the excessive pollution that would be caused. It is currently possible to queue from the M40 into Leamington and the length of Myton Road in both directions with queues heading down the Banbury Road and Gallows Hill. Narrow side roads off Myton Road, in particular Myton Crescent, are blocked by parking making it difficult to negotiate these roads as the schools come out.

There is no capacity on these roads for another 2-3000 cars to exit from this triangle at peak times and join the current traffic load plus, extra traffic from other proposed developments needing to use these routes at peak times. The access to Warwick and Leamington from the site would be queued back even at a fraction of the proposed development.

There is no capacity for extra cars at the stations in either Leamington or Warwick town centres for commuters. This means additional traffic driving through Warwick at peak times to Warwick Parkway.

Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way, the area of restraint, is an area of rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken and Henry VIII Trusts. There are wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc.

This is the type of area that should be being protected for recreation and education and healthy food to have a positive impact on the quality of people's lives with the traditional land-based activities such as agriculture, new tourism, leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. By building dwellings on this land, we will have no countryside left in the urban areas to make use of to support healthy lifestyles through ensuring sufficient land is made available to all for play, sport and recreation without travelling out of the area.

I ask, is developing the ASR a sustainable development? "Much rubbish is talked about sustainability, usually by developers. It does not mean that estates are built near to a bus stop or a primary school or a doctor's surgery; this is just moderately intelligent planning. To get to the correct definition it is necessary to go back to the source of the concept of sustainability which was the United Nations commission chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1980s. This said that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; in more simple terms it means that we should not destroy something which future generations would find valuable." (www.stortfordcf.org.uk)

Surely if all this land is built on to the south there will be nowhere that the future generations can use in Warwick for recreation other than St Nicholas Park. If the land was made into recreational use, as it was designated to be, that would serve not only our generation but those of the future too.

Development on the area of restraint threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the runoff is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields. At these times both ends of Myton Crescent become flooded with the current drainage system being unable to cope.

Property in Myton Crescent was flooded when development was carried out on the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 is the danger to Public Health as a result of exposure to dangerously high Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) levels. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. In 2012, air quality remained in breach of these regulations, and will become toxically high with the increased traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. Please see weblink: http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/action-plans/WDC%20AQAP%202008.pdf and particularly page 17:

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

It was pointed out at a public meeting in 2009 that part of this area may not be needed for development in the future but we learnt at the recent Warwick Forum that 2,000 homes planned for Milverton had been transferred to zone 6, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly the area of restraint.

This should, with immediate effect, be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found.

The further urban fringe development of Warwick is unsustainable with respect to saturated infrastructure, constrained historic town layout, and the existing Public Health danger that exists today as a consequence of high traffic volume.

Current infrastructure including town centre rail stations, schools, GP surgeries, sewage, water, drainage are at capacity with the current population, and will not sustain the proposed increased numbers within the proposed site at zone 6.

Numbers have reduced drastically in schools over the years with those such as Trinity and North Leamington moving to smaller sites and a number of primary schools having given over part of their accommodation for other uses, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into whose catchment area the whole of that site would fall.

There are suggestions that schools would be expanded or new builds created but a new primary school was in the plans for Warwick Gates which never came into fruition.




Warwick hospital is completely surrounded by housing and has no capacity for expansion so how will they cope with another 25,000 people based on the figures of 2007 with 71% in a traditional family set up with 1.8 children.

Why do district councils have to accommodate a certain amount of housing? Should the government not just be looking for appropriate sites for building? At that same meeting in 2009 the suggestion of a perfect site around Gaydon was mentioned for a new town but the response was "It's not in Warwick District". Not only would road improvement be possible where air quality is not already in breach of regulation but this site is perfect for links to the M40 and there is also a rail station already at Kings Sutton on the main Birmingham to London line so commuting traffic would not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. To build one whole new site would be more cost effective in the long run.

Stratford District have now put this area forward as part of their Local Plan. Can District Councils not communicate with each other? To have this large area developed as well as the south of Warwick District will create even more stress on the road structure towards Warwick.

There is also the possibility of more use being made of the land around Warwick Parkway, which is in Warwick District and again perfect for rail and road links to both Birmingham and London.

So what can be done to accommodate the Local Plan?

How about looking at sites already within the towns and regeneration areas? The infrastructure is already in place and could take out a large number of the dwellings required. I know this would not be chosen as great big swathes are cheapest but not necessarily the best option.

Build student accommodation near Warwick University in Coventry and reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, homes and family homes.

Villages could be given their communities back - expand them with affordable housing. Let those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there, stay there. Let them support the village schools and shops, some of which have closed over the past few years due to lack of numbers or use.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. The 90% of the district's population currently living in the urban areas occupy 10% of the district's land whilst the other 10% of the area's population live within the remaining 90% of the land.

The Core Strategy stated that there should be limited development within and adjoining villages so that they can be protected and the character of the villages kept. This is also the case within the towns. It is not that long ago that Whitnash was a village but is now a town along with Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth. These towns want to remain separate towns. They do not want to become joined and eventually become part of Coventry as the way Edgebaston, Hall Green, Moseley and Sparkhill are to Birmingham.

According to http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=15&chapter=4 the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026 will be

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with

low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"

If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, it will be far from that.

The Core Strategy also pointed out that the development should be directed towards the south of the urban area and this has been carried forward into the Local Plan apparently to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry. What this is in fact doing is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

If Green Belt land was taken to the north of Leamington and south of Kenilworth, to the east and west, to build the bulk of the houses required for Warwick District and included a supermarket for the residents of north Leamington, Lillington and Cubbington this would alleviate the need for them to travel to the south of Leamington or Warwick to shop and would not cause incursion into the West Midlands and Coventry or encroach on the current residents of those areas.

This Green Belt land could then be reclaimed to the south of Warwick and Whitnash and residents of the new dwellings would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Council to revise the whole plan taking into consideration the views of the residents of Warwick, not allowing any further planning applications to be passed on land within the Local Plan until it is fully agreed and finally to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

We have been advised to write to you regarding objections to the Revised Development Strategy Local Plan. Having studied documentation and attended meetings I wish to object to the overall plan to build the number of new homes suggested in Warwick district and in particular the 3420 planned in the south of Warwick (zone 6).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. Imposing massive growth on an area with little expansion of employment would create greater numbers of people who would have to commute to work, much to the detriment of the area and a poor location of people.

Warwick District has already seen much development over recent years, much of it to accommodate those moving from the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham into a less dense area. Many of those still commute into Birmingham or London and if people are prepared to work in London and commute from the Warwick district this will do nothing to help keep the prices affordable for the locals who want to continue living here.

Warwick District population has in fact increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately 2x the rate of increase for Warwickshire; 2x the national average increase, and over 3x the increase for West Midlands.

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion being at Warwick Gates which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed.

By only building the amount of houses currently required for Warwick district this will discourage migration from other areas as has happened with past developments.

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area was identified as an area of restraint at the time of the agreement of planning for the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa, to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl.

There is likely to be considerable job creation towards Coventry, including up to 14,000 new jobs speculated at the Coventry Gateway scheme. Therefore several extra thousand people per day will want to drive through Warwick, morning and evening, which would lock up the highly congested

Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way at peak times and also the road layout of historic Warwick.

The suggested improvement to the junction to the end of Myton Road and Banbury Road is redundant. The bottle neck of the narrow historic Avon Bridge, constrained road layout and traffic calming in the Town centre, means such provision would not ease the current backlog along Myton Road at peak times.

The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and onto the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

Development of this particular site will have a profound impact on the area where the roads are already gridlocked for a considerable period every day during school term, not to mention the excessive pollution that would be caused. It is currently possible to queue from the M40 into Leamington and the length of Myton Road in both directions with queues heading down the Banbury Road and Gallows Hill. Narrow side roads off Myton Road, in particular Myton Crescent, are blocked by parking making it difficult to negotiate these roads as the schools come out.

There is no capacity on these roads for another 2-3000 cars to exit from this triangle at peak times and join the current traffic load plus, extra traffic from other proposed developments needing to use these routes at peak times. The access to Warwick and Leamington from the site would be queued back even at a fraction of the proposed development.

There is no capacity for extra cars at the stations in either Leamington or Warwick town centres for commuters. This means additional traffic driving through Warwick at peak times to Warwick Parkway.

Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way, the area of restraint, is an area of rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken and Henry VIII Trusts. There are wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc.

This is the type of area that should be being protected for recreation and education and healthy food to have a positive impact on the quality of people's lives with the traditional land-based activities such as agriculture, new tourism, leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. By building dwellings on this land, we will have no countryside left in the urban areas to make use of to support healthy lifestyles through ensuring sufficient land is made available to all for play, sport and recreation without travelling out of the area.

I ask, is developing the ASR a sustainable development? "Much rubbish is talked about sustainability, usually by developers. It does not mean that estates are built near to a bus stop or a primary school or a doctor's surgery; this is just moderately intelligent planning. To get to the correct definition it is necessary to go back to the source of the concept of sustainability which was the United Nations commission chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1980s. This said that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; in more simple terms it means that we should not destroy something which future generations would find valuable." (www.stortfordcf.org.uk)

Surely if all this land is built on to the south there will be nowhere that the future generations can use in Warwick for recreation other than St Nicholas Park. If the land was made into recreational use, as it was designated to be, that would serve not only our generation but those of the future too.

Development on the area of restraint threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the runoff is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields. At these times both ends of Myton Crescent become flooded with the current drainage system being unable to cope.

Property in Myton Crescent was flooded when development was carried out on the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 is the danger to Public Health as a result of exposure to dangerously high Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) levels. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. In 2012, air quality remained in breach of these regulations, and will become toxically high with the increased traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. Please see weblink: http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/action-plans/WDC%20AQAP%202008.pdf and particularly page 17:

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

It was pointed out at a public meeting in 2009 that part of this area may not be needed for development in the future but we learnt at the recent Warwick Forum that 2,000 homes planned for Milverton had been transferred to zone 6, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly the area of restraint.

This should, with immediate effect, be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found.

The further urban fringe development of Warwick is unsustainable with respect to saturated infrastructure, constrained historic town layout, and the existing Public Health danger that exists today as a consequence of high traffic volume.

Current infrastructure including town centre rail stations, schools, GP surgeries, sewage, water, drainage are at capacity with the current population, and will not sustain the proposed increased numbers within the proposed site at zone 6.

Numbers have reduced drastically in schools over the years with those such as Trinity and North Leamington moving to smaller sites and a number of primary schools having given over part of their accommodation for other uses, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into whose catchment area the whole of that site would fall.

There are suggestions that schools would be expanded or new builds created but a new primary school was in the plans for Warwick Gates which never came into fruition.




Warwick hospital is completely surrounded by housing and has no capacity for expansion so how will they cope with another 25,000 people based on the figures of 2007 with 71% in a traditional family set up with 1.8 children.

Why do district councils have to accommodate a certain amount of housing? Should the government not just be looking for appropriate sites for building? At that same meeting in 2009 the suggestion of a perfect site around Gaydon was mentioned for a new town but the response was "It's not in Warwick District". Not only would road improvement be possible where air quality is not already in breach of regulation but this site is perfect for links to the M40 and there is also a rail station already at Kings Sutton on the main Birmingham to London line so commuting traffic would not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. To build one whole new site would be more cost effective in the long run.

Stratford District have now put this area forward as part of their Local Plan. Can District Councils not communicate with each other? To have this large area developed as well as the south of Warwick District will create even more stress on the road structure towards Warwick.

There is also the possibility of more use being made of the land around Warwick Parkway, which is in Warwick District and again perfect for rail and road links to both Birmingham and London.

So what can be done to accommodate the Local Plan?

How about looking at sites already within the towns and regeneration areas? The infrastructure is already in place and could take out a large number of the dwellings required. I know this would not be chosen as great big swathes are cheapest but not necessarily the best option.

Build student accommodation near Warwick University in Coventry and reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, homes and family homes.

Villages could be given their communities back - expand them with affordable housing. Let those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there, stay there. Let them support the village schools and shops, some of which have closed over the past few years due to lack of numbers or use.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. The 90% of the district's population currently living in the urban areas occupy 10% of the district's land whilst the other 10% of the area's population live within the remaining 90% of the land.

The Core Strategy stated that there should be limited development within and adjoining villages so that they can be protected and the character of the villages kept. This is also the case within the towns. It is not that long ago that Whitnash was a village but is now a town along with Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth. These towns want to remain separate towns. They do not want to become joined and eventually become part of Coventry as the way Edgebaston, Hall Green, Moseley and Sparkhill are to Birmingham.

According to http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=15&chapter=4 the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026 will be

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with

low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"

If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, it will be far from that.

The Core Strategy also pointed out that the development should be directed towards the south of the urban area and this has been carried forward into the Local Plan apparently to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry. What this is in fact doing is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

If Green Belt land was taken to the north of Leamington and south of Kenilworth, to the east and west, to build the bulk of the houses required for Warwick District and included a supermarket for the residents of north Leamington, Lillington and Cubbington this would alleviate the need for them to travel to the south of Leamington or Warwick to shop and would not cause incursion into the West Midlands and Coventry or encroach on the current residents of those areas.

This Green Belt land could then be reclaimed to the south of Warwick and Whitnash and residents of the new dwellings would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Councillors to join with your Conservative MP, Chris White, and ask for the Local Plan to be completely revised and also to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

Dear Mr Barber

LOCAL PLAN - REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Please take this as an objection to the Revised Development Strategy Local Plan.

Having studied documentation and attended meetings I wish to object to the overall plan to build the number of new homes suggested in Warwick district and in particular the 3420 planned in the south of Warwick (zone 6).

The whole basis for the homes is population growth nationally. The amount of employment land within the plan would not fulfil the amount of local unemployment and create enough for the amount of housing proposed. Imposing massive growth on an area with little expansion of employment would create greater numbers of people who would have to commute to work, much to the detriment of the area and a poor location of people.

Warwick District has already seen much development recently, much of it to accommodate those moving from the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham into a less dense area. Many of those still commute into Birmingham or London and if people are prepared to work in London and commute from the Warwick district this will do nothing to help keep the prices affordable for the locals who want to continue living here.

Warwick District population has in fact increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately 2x the rate of increase for Warwickshire; 2x the national average increase, and over 3x the increase for West Midlands.

Warwick has therefore already been subject to significant recent Urban Fringe development and population expansion, a large proportion at Warwick Gates which is in South Warwick where the majority of further development is now proposed.

By only building the amount of houses currently required for Warwick district this will discourage migration from other areas as has happened with past developments.

As it stands, I wish to object specifically about the development zone 6 in the area of restraint to the west of Europa Way. This area was identified as an area of restraint at the time of the agreement of planning for the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa, to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl.

There is likely to be considerable job creation towards Coventry, including up to 14,000 new jobs at the Coventry Gateway scheme. Therefore several extra thousand people per day will want to drive
through Warwick, morning and evening, which would lock up the highly congested Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way at peak times and also the road layout of historic Warwick.
The suggested improvement to the junction to the end of Myton Road and Banbury Road is redundant. The bottle neck of the narrow historic Avon Bridge, constrained road layout and traffic calming in the Town centre, means such provision would not ease the current backlog along Myton Road at peak times.

The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and onto the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road. The alterations made to the roundabout with the addition of Morrisons has made some current improvement but will not be able to handle the extra traffic created by the number of dwellings proposed for zone 6.

Development of this particular site will have a profound impact on the area where the roads are already gridlocked for a considerable period every day during school term, not to mention the excessive pollution that would be caused. It is currently possible to queue from the M40 into Leamington and the length of Myton Road in both directions with queues heading down the Banbury Road and Gallows Hill. Narrow side roads off Myton Road, in particular Myton Crescent, are blocked by parking making it difficult to negotiate these roads as the schools come out.

There is no capacity on these roads for another 2-3000 cars to exit from this triangle at peak times and join the current traffic load plus, extra traffic from other proposed developments needing to use these routes at peak times. The access to Warwick and Leamington from the site would be queued back even at a fraction of the proposed development.

There is no capacity for extra cars at the stations in either Leamington or Warwick town centres for commuters. This means additional traffic driving through Warwick at peak times to Warwick Parkway.

Furthermore, the land West of Europa Way, the area of restraint, is an area of rich agricultural land which has been under the careful stewardship of the Oken and Henry VIII Trusts. There are wide green hedges providing habitats for many species including woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, the occasional deer, as well as newts, hedgehogs etc.

This is the type of area that should be being protected for recreation and education and healthy food to have a positive impact on the quality of people's lives with the traditional land-based activities such as agriculture, new tourism, leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. By building dwellings on this land, we will have no countryside left in the urban areas to make use of to support healthy lifestyles through ensuring sufficient land is made available to all for play, sport and recreation without travelling out of the area.

I ask, is developing the ASR a sustainable development? "Much rubbish is talked about sustainability, usually by developers. It does not mean that estates are built near to a bus stop or a primary school or a doctor's surgery; this is just moderately intelligent planning. To get to the correct definition it is necessary to go back to the source of the concept of sustainability which was the United Nations commission chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1980s. This said that sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; in more simple terms it means that we should not destroy something which future generations would find valuable." (www.stortfordcf.org.uk)

Surely if all this land is built on to the south there will be nowhere that the future generations can use in Warwick for recreation other than St Nicholas Park. If the land was made into recreational use, as it was designated to be, that would serve not only our generation but those of the future too.

Development on the area of restraint threatens the local houses with flooding. At present, during heavy rain, the runoff is slowed by the pasture and crops. It backs up by the Malins and is relieved into the Myton School playing fields. At these times both ends of Myton Crescent become flooded with the current drainage system being unable to cope.

Property in Myton Crescent was flooded when development was carried out on the Trinity School site. Developing the Myton side of the site would threaten all of the houses south of Myton Road.

The most disturbing consequence of the proposed development of zone 6 is the danger to Public Health as a result of exposure to dangerously high Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) levels. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. In 2012, air quality remained in breach of these regulations, and will become toxically high with the increased traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. Please see weblink: http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/action-plans/WDC%20AQAP%202008.pdf and particularly page 17:

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

It was pointed out at a public meeting in 2009 that part of this area may not be needed for development in the future but we learnt at the recent Warwick Forum that 2,000 homes planned for Milverton had been transferred to zone 6, the worst area for infrastructural needs and more importantly the area of restraint.

This should, with immediate effect, be designated as the last site to be developed so as to protect this area until a viable alternative is found.

The further urban fringe development of Warwick is unsustainable with respect to saturated infrastructure, constrained historic town layout, and the existing Public Health danger that exists today as a consequence of high traffic volume.

Current infrastructure including town centre rail stations, schools, GP surgeries, sewage, water, drainage are at capacity with the current population, and will not sustain the proposed increased numbers within the proposed site at zone 6.

Numbers have reduced drastically in schools over the years with those such as Trinity and North Leamington moving to smaller sites and a number of primary schools having given over part of their accommodation for other uses, many having been 3 form entry 30 years ago now down to 1 form entry, whilst village schools have closed completely. This means that the schools in this area are oversubscribed, including Myton into whose catchment area the whole of that site would fall.

There are suggestions that schools would be expanded or new builds created but a new primary school was in the plans for Warwick Gates which never came into fruition.

Warwick hospital is completely surrounded by housing and has no capacity for expansion so how will they cope with another 25,000 people based on the figures of 2007 with 71% in a traditional family set up with 1.8 children.

Why do district councils have to accommodate a certain amount of housing? Should the government not just be looking for appropriate sites for building? At that same meeting in 2009 the suggestion of a perfect site around Gaydon was mentioned for a new town but the response was "It's not in Warwick District". Not only would road improvement be possible where air quality is not already in breach of regulation but this site is perfect for links to the M40 and there is also a rail station already at Kings Sutton on the main Birmingham to London line so commuting traffic would not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. To build one whole new site would be more cost effective in the long run. There is also the possibility of more use being made of the land around Warwick Parkway, which is in Warwick District and again perfect for rail and road links to both Birmingham and London.

Stratford District have now put this area forward as part of their Local Plan. Can District Councils not communicate with each other? To have this large area developed as well as the south of Warwick District will create even more stress on the road structure towards Warwick.

So what can be done to accommodate the Local Plan?

How about looking at sites already within the towns and regeneration areas? The infrastructure is already in place and could take out a large number of the dwellings required. I know this would not be chosen as great big swathes are cheapest but not necessarily the best option.

Build student accommodation near Warwick University in Coventry and reclaim the hundreds of dwellings (including Station House, Union Court, Chapel Cross and The George, as well as an infill site on George Street itself) in the South Town of Leamington to private affordable starter flats, homes and family homes.

Villages could be given their communities back - expand them with affordable housing. Let those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there, stay there. Let them support the village schools and shops, some of which have closed over the past few years due to lack of numbers or use.

Warwick District Council's original Strategy to 2026 stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. The 90% of the district's population currently living in the urban areas occupy 10% of the district's land whilst the other 10% of the area's population live within the remaining 90% of the land.

The Core Strategy stated that there should be limited development within and adjoining villages so that they can be protected and the character of the villages kept. This is also the case within the towns. It is not that long ago that Whitnash was a village but is now a town along with Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth. These towns want to remain separate towns. They do not want to become joined and eventually become part of Coventry as the way Edgebaston, Hall Green, Moseley and Sparkhill are to Birmingham.

According to http://warwickdc.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=15&chapter=4 the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026 will be

"Warwick District in 2026 will be renowned for being:
1. A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"

If this building work is allowed to go ahead as it stands, this vision will never be achieved.

The Core Strategy also pointed out that the development should be directed towards the south of the urban area and this has been carried forward into the Local Plan apparently to avoid incursion into the West Midlands Green Belt area and hence becoming part of Coventry. What this is in fact doing is encouraging the joining of the towns of Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash, making it one urban sprawl.

If Green Belt land was taken to the north of Leamington and south of Kenilworth to the east and west to build the bulk of the houses required for Warwick District and included a supermarket for the residents of north Leamington, Lillington and Cubbington this would alleviate the need for them to travel to the south of Leamington or Warwick to shop and would not cause incursion into the West Midlands and Coventry or encroach on the current residents of those areas.

This Green Belt land could then be reclaimed to the south of Warwick and Whitnash and residents would be a more central position for employment in Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

I urge Warwick District Councillors to join with your Conservative MP, Chris White, and ask for the Local Plan to be completely revised and also to consider the overwhelming number of objections received from Warwick residents at previous consultations.

Having lived in Warwick and its surrounds for the past 26 years, I have witnessed the mass developments of Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow. It seems to me that with the proposed new 6,630 homes to be built in the area, it will put strains on the infastructure, which is at times creaking, especially Myton Road which is currently impassible at certain times of the day, and having just suffered from the roadworks at the Ford Foundary Roundabout and also the ongoing disruptions of the sewage pipe upgrade, this leads me to believe that the level of traffic will increase significantly once some 6,000 more cars (assuming each of the new households will have a car) are inflicted on the area. The construction period is also a cause for concern with construction vehicles on the roads from now until 2029.

The provision of a good cycle network would help somewhat and not what we currently have which is where some bits of cycleway end up on the road in a very pot holy gutters on the narrowest part of the road (see the bit by Lidl which shoves you onto the road by the canal bridge which is new.)

As for the promise of an upgraded bus route to the new developments. Currently there is only one bus along the Myton Road which is the X18 this is an hourly service, maybe you should think of making that every 20 minutes and affordable - in this way there may be less cars on the road. In your plan what is there to stop the bus providers from modifying thei service from a 20 minute service to say, hourly in the future.

I like living in Warwick and my feelings are that the proposed new development would be detrimental to the towns of Warwick and Leamington Spa.

I understand that with all the houses you have to provide employment areas, but there are too many at present not utilised, may be rates etc should be given at a favourable rate to get these occupied before buildinga 22 ha site. Are you expecting a big boom in the economy in our area as most economists are prediciting a long haul out of the recession.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly on the above matters.

We set out below our reasons for objecting to the plan to build new homes on farmland south of Warwick to the west of Europa Way and the removal of an area of restraint, all of which amounts to a complete reversal of the Council's standpoint on the 'urban form' formulated only a few years ago.

1. At a time when the Council is fighting HS2 on the basis of its intrusion into the landscape it is difficult to see consistency in a development which would irrevocably change the landscape of a crucial area of open space which currently underpins the distinctiveness of two individual towns.

2. It will result irrevocably in the loss of good farmland.

3. It will only burden south Warwick with more car ownership and congestion without any foreseeable relief from a further river crossing.

4. It would be directly contrary to the Council's own statements and aims in paras 9.11, 9.12 and 9.13 of the earlier District Local Plan 1996 - 2011.

There is good reason why this area of restraint was maintained in successive editions of the Plan and why the ambitions of the Europa Way syndicate were curtailed.

The Plan endorsed the desirability of protecting areas of restraint which 'preserve open wedges that separate particular elements of the urban form' eg the 'west of Europa way' wedge which uniquely provides an open corridor between the south Leamington urban form (particularly the commercial part) and residential south Warwick. It is part of a longer corridor which has historically separated the two towns and helped them to maintain their individual identities ie the Avon valley past Rock Mill, the Edmonscote meadows, the Grand Union and the farmland west of Europa Way.

In para 9.11 of its Local Plan the Council itself observed that 'it is important to protect the areas of restraint from development proposals that could alter (their) predominantly open character. Their value and importance lies in their contribution to the structure and character of the urban area, providing open areas in and around towns and preserving open wedges that separate (one urban area from the next)'.

It's difficult to see how this could be better put. This is precisely the nature of the land west of Europa way. It is currently good farmland and serves as a cordon separating the towns of Warwick and Leamington making it possible for them to retain distinctive identities and loyalties, which is something that has been visibly lost elsewhere. In the West Midlands there are many examples where once separate and distinctive towns have been 'connected up' with the consequence that today many residents have no idea which of the villages and small towns they truly belong to ( eg are we in Moseley or Kings Heath ) or that these places were once vibrant communities in their own right.

In both 2006 and 2010 the Council rejected a proposal to remove the 'area of restraint' designation from this land using these very arguments.

In para 9.12 the Council pointed to the importance of protecting open space that contributes to the character and attractiveness of urban areas. The related Structure Plan made it clear that areas of restraint had a fundamental role in making urban areas attractive places in which to live. If an area has been identified as an area of restraint this is because there is good cause. The area of restraint 'west of Europa way' serves that 'fundamental role' in a way that an amorphous mass of housing in place of the current green wedge would not.


One of the attractions of our District is the distinctive characters of Warwick and Leamington. It will be no surprise therefore that at para 9.13 the Council observed that, in defining and implementing Areas of Restraint, consideration had been given to the need to protect sensitive areas, so as to ensure that the character and the setting of (existing) settlements is safeguarded. This was said in the context of justifying the area of restraint west of Europa Way. At the time the Council recognised that any development on that land would emphatically merge the two settlements into one urban mass and put this distinction in jeopardy. In the short time since that exercise, the force and basis of the justification used by the Council cannot have changed.

Alternative


In recent times therefore the Council have given consideration to the character and appearance of this very area and concluded that it should continue to be protected by an area of restraint. It is not as if there is no alternative which would not require the destruction of this separation belt. There is still space on the western edge of Warwick where development would not link up with any other historic entity, only a by-pass. This land may currently be allocated to non residential purposes but another business park is hardly a priority when there is so much empty space in existing ones. Some parts have been rezoned already and there seems to be no reason why the remainder cannot be treated similarly. Looking at the example of the south Warwick business park where commuters living outside the town are 'bussed' from the station by their employers and to which commuting traffic travels right through the town centre it does seem that any new jobs provided may not so much benefit people actually living in the two towns (including any new housing) but people choosing to commute from further afield.

River Crossings and Road Access to Leamington and Warwick

There is another concern relating to the river crossings and the impact of large scale development south of the river on the amount of traffic routinely using them. The rivers Avon and Leam serve as a barrier between the southern districts and both Leamington and Warwick town centres.

From any development off Europa Way there are only two effective corridors, both of which are already heavily used commuter routes leading in to Warwick and Leamington respectively from the M40. Warwick is served by one river crossing and Leamington by the Princes Road and Avenue Road bridges. However the latter effectively share the same corridor as access to them is through the 'funnel' of the Princes Road Railway Bridge and the section of Princes Road bounded by the new Morrisons superstore and the retail units opposite. (Recently a traffic light controlled crossing has been placed here to link the two, and when the developments are complete it can be expected that this will have greater repercussions for the flow of traffic through this 'funnel').

This is the reason why the Myton Road has extended periods of congestion already as traffic heads along it for one of the two north-south corridors. Anyone who regularly uses the river crossings at peak hours on weekdays or in the middle of the day on a Saturday will be aware of the high density of current traffic. Europa way itself is one long queue from end to end in the morning and evening peaks. The Ford (now Morrisons roundabout) already causes traffic to back up on both sides (along the Myton and Old Warwick Roads) largely because of the flow of traffic from and to Europa Way. At the other end of Myton Road commuter traffic using the Banbury Road in both directions (north towards Warwick or south towards the Business park) causes a similar problem

It seems extremely unlikely that there is scope for more bridge points linking north and south of the river, so we are left with what we have and the associated traffic queues generating as they do unsatisfactory levels of noise and emissions.

The development of land south of Warwick will only make matters, particularly along Europa way and the Myton Road, a great deal worse both for the residents of those localities and those commuting in.

I am writing to express my concern at the proposal to allow the building of a large number of houses on rural and agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbook. In my opinion doing so will destroy the separation and individuality of those areas, which is so important.
I am also concerned that the existing road network is already struggling and will be unable to cope with the inevitable addition of so many cars, and will create hazards to cyclists and pedestrians thus forcing even more cars onto the congested roads and causing even more pollution.
I also believe the long traffic queues and spoilt views caused by the proposed new houses will affect the attractiveness of Warwick from a tourism perspective.

We wish to voice our concerns regarding the above proposed housing which threatens to blight the lives of all who currently reside in this beautiful Town. Local residents of the Myton Road area have already been subjected to increased traffic and chaos as a result of the new commercial units, namely Morrisons, Lidl and Aldi.

The huge increase in traffic along the Myton Road which we believe is directly related to these units already brings increased risk of accidents and or injury to local residents, road users but more importantly the many many children who travel along this road by foot or bike en route to school would be at increased risk should the transport links become even more congested than they already are.

As parents of 2 children, the risk of increased pollution which would inevitably occur on an even busier road is also a major concern,not to mention the increase noise pollution which has already increased significant;y since the opening of both Morrisons and Aldi. We moved to this location just 5 years ago, believing it to be a desirable area with excellent links and amenities close by but close enough to be a couple of minutes from our beautiful countryside. We did not and would not choose to live surrounded by huge housing developments. We cannot possibly see how the local roads could cope with the increased traffic this would create. Roads may have additional lanes added to them but when they all lead through Warwick Town Centre, this surely creates no more than a thoroughfare through the centre of Warwick.

Warwick has always been a very desirable place to live and all locals should feel very fortunate to live in this beautiful town with its magical history, beautiful buildings and surrounding countryside together with local amenities. Let us all hope that we do not lose our beautiful town as a result of our Council ignoring the wishes of those who matter and subsequently making the wrong decision.

Please listen to those who are lucky enough to call Warwick their home before it is too late.

We are writing to express our concern over the proposed Local Plan, in particular the housing planned along the Banbury Road; Locations 2 and 3 on your map.

Our Trust was formed to ensure the well-being and setting of Warwick Castle Park, and we share the current owner's concern that the proposed housing will blight the setting to the immediate east of the Park.

We are encouraged to note that the Preferred Option for the Built Environment (Policy PO10) calls on the principles of sustainable garden towns, for which the policy adopted by Ebenezer Howard included wide and green approaches to the town centres, eg Welwyn Garden City. We would therefore ask that this policy is adopted for the Banbury Road, and specifically to include a 30m wide shelter belt of trees along the whole stretch of the Banbury Road from Gallows Hill to Grays Mallory, thus obscuring unsightly housing development from road users and from the users of the Park itself.

We feel that this feature is particularly important in maintaining the image of Warwick as a pleasant and welcoming town for the huge number of visitors, all of whom who contribute significantly to its economic viability.

We wish to respond to this consultation with considerable objections to the proposed development allocations south of Warwick and Leamington.
We also wish to make it clear that, as a result of the agreement between the Garden History Society and the Association of Gardens Trusts, this should be considered as a response from the Garden History Society.
The objections relate to:
* The impact of development adjacent to the Grade I registered Warwick Castle Park (area 6 in the WDC leaflet, but area 14 in the Arup traffic document)
* The impact of traffic generated by all of the south Warwick proposed development, and of the proposed mitigation measures in the Arup traffic document as they affect both Warwick Castle Park and the historic fabric of Warwick itself.
* General observations on the justification for the proposed allocations and the economic impact. These are within our remit inasmuch as the background calculations have led to the pretty pass in which the future of the setting of Warwick's heritage now finds itself. In that respect we consider we are entitled to comment.
1. IMPACT ON WARWICK CASTLE PARK
Warwick Castle Park was initially created in 1743 to form a landscaped setting for Warwick Castle. It was developed incrementally during the time of the first Earl (Francis Greville, d1773) as the gardens were progressively extended. The park, in its form up to 1773 was much influenced by Capability Brown, brought in to advise and supervise much work from 1849 onwards.
The second Earl (1773-1816) was responsible for the extension of the park to the east, creating the present boundary, and the further extension of the gardens, closing Castle Street and creating Castle Lane adjacent to the present line of the castle wall. It might be supposed that the present line of Banbury Road was simply devised to enclose the enlarged park and particularly a greater length of the Ram/Tach Brook so that its lake could be lengthened and widened by enlarging its dam.
In fact, examination of the boundary demonstrates that it was carefully aligned to be part of the design of the park. The road rises from the viaduct which crosses Ram/Tach Brook to the ridge of Temple Hill, from which it can be seen to be aligned directly on the spire of St Nicholas's church.
The "Approach" to Warwick Castle formed part of the plans of the second Earl from as early as 1773, when he discussed them with other proponents of the "Picturesque" style, so there can be no doubt that the alignment of the road which formed the perimeter of the park was as much a part of the design of the park as the rides and walks within it.
The Castle first comes into view, in a way which was clearly planned, on the approach to Castle Bridge. The bridge had been enabled by an Act of Parliament of 1788, when the line of the road from the Asps had been completed, and was encouraged by an engineer's report to the council, that the only way to avoid the continuing maintenance problems of the old bridge was to re-locate it upstream of the castle mill. Apart from £1000 paid by the town council, whose responsibility the bridge legally was, the expense of the work was undertaken by the second Earl. It is therefore quite clear that the alignment of Banbury Road from the Asps to Castle Hill was part of the designed landscape of the park, culminating, after the bridge was completed, in the creation to the new gatehouse on Castle Hill and the present entrance drive.
The development of the eastern side of Banbury Road as a "garden suburb" would therefore be extremely detrimental to the historic landscape of the Grade I registered park.
2. IMPACT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE SOUTH WARWICK PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
The Arup traffic impact and mitigation study essentially demonstrates why development in this location should not take place.
This is a document of which Arup, as its authors, should be ashamed, and the County and District Councils, as its commissioners should be ashamed to have accepted. People with two degrees find it virtually impenetrable, and it is disgraceful that such an obscurely written document (and ill-proof-read, with sentences without verbs, for instance) should be offered for consultation by the public.
However, it is apparent that Arup are offering mitigation proposals for the adverse traffic impact of the proposed development, without which the impact would be even worse.
These mitigation proposals are totally barbarous and unacceptable for the environment of a county town which has main roads passing over one of the most famous viewpoints in the country, and along historic streets crammed with listed buildings.
The fact that such measures are proposed in mitigation demonstrates that the development which makes them necessary should not and cannot proceed.
The setting of not only the castle and its park, but of the whole town, is defined by the presently open areas of the proposed development and the tree-line highways of the approach roads to Warwick. In recent years this has been defiled by widening and the creation of a turning lane at Ram Brook (apparently implementing an old permission to prevent its expiry) and the new junction at Gallows Hill (apparently not needing consultation because purely highway works).
The highway works proposed by the County Council to mitigate the proposed development would have an infinitely more devastating impact on the setting of the town. The widened junctions and increased lanes would make it much more difficult to experience the famous views on foot. The view from the bridge and the entrance at the 1800 gate house would lose their impact. The open space of St Nicholas Park, protected by covenants when initially transferred to the Council, would cease to have the semi-rural character with which it was planned.
The economy of Warwick town centre depends significantly on visitors. Many businesses would fail to prosper without the addition of tourists, while others would not exist at all. It takes little effort in examining websites and twitter feeds to see that in recent years Warwick has pulled itself up by its bootstraps and made itself into a vibrant community, with a heavy reliance on "cafe culture" promoted in the previous Local Plan. But it is dependent on the ambience of the town to continue to thrive. The leisurely but quality environment on which these trends depends would be totally undermined by the level of traffic forecast in the Arup report. The so-called mitigation measures which it outlines are entirely directed at improving traffic flow, with no consideration of the impact on quality of life and the environment of the town. The beneficial results of the recent work on High Street and Jury Street in making the roads ore inviting to cross, would be lost.
It seems most probable that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the delicately balanced economy of the town, leading to reduced maintenance of historic buildings as more of them became difficult to let.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
We find that the closely argued calculations of the real need for housing development in Warwick District as presented by objectors to these proposals are compelling. The District Council's calculations appear to be based on what would sell if built, rather than what is actually needed. This might appeal to the vanity of some councillors and officers, in increasing the population base of the council, but would adversely affect the attractiveness of the district and would be particularly detrimental to existing residents.
Although this might increase the Council Tax base of the District, it would undermine the viability of the town centre and old suburbs, potentially leading to neglect and loss of attraction to the town.
The proposed development is not sustainable. Firstly, there is little likelihood of people choosing to live in the new houses working locally. There is only a very small allocation of employment land, while allocations from the last and the previous local plans are still not being taken up and are being canvassed for a change in allocation from employment to housing. Other current employment land is being proposed for housing development (Such as the Eagle site) This means that the ratio of housing to employment is constantly being eroded, leading to the prospect of Warwick and Leamington becoming dormitory towns. Even if the (disputed) prospective jobs at Coventry Gateway are factored in, residents of south Warwick would have to drive around 10 miles to work there. There is a limited number of crossings of the Avon and the Leam which are already highly congested at morning and evening peaks. The existing infrastructure cannot cope without more traffic needing to make these river crossings. The situation would only be mitigated by the brutal Arup proposals, so that the ambience of the town, with higher pollution, noise and vibration would be set on a downward spiral.
We consider that the proposals for development allocations south of Warwick will be unacceptably detrimental to Castle Park and to the setting of the historic town and should be abandoned.

I wish to make comments on the proposed Local Plan, specifically the sites chosen for further housing development.

My objection is to the continued development of the areas south of the river. This area of Warwick District has already supplied much of the housing need for the District. In the last decade or so the Whitnash/South Leamington has seen substantial development; South Farm extension, Whitnash Allotments, Warwick Gates plus the industrial development and shopping provision in the area. All of these developments have put huge pressure on the existing infrastructure, and coupled with access to and from the M40, means that the area cannot take any further development. This part of the District has already taken more than its fair share of the District's new housing provision.

The development along the Tachbrook Road shows that the existing roads cannot take any increase in vehicle movement. I would say planning in Warwick District, especially in and around Leamington, is totally hampered by the constraints caused by the River Leam, the canal and the railway line. These are barriers that nobody seems to be able to address. It is difficult to get from South Leamington/Whitnash to the North of the town at peak times. It is difficult to get north/south via Warwick also. Additional development will make these moves even more difficult. Until someone can devise a way of getting over these obstacles there should be no further development south of the river.

The plans solution on dual carriageways to move traffic will not work as there will still be the bottle necks where traffic needs to cross the river, canal and railway. Whilst dualling the road out of Leamington might get traffic away more quickly, will not help ease problems for traffic coming into Leamington.

Until there is a properly integrated public transport system, that is reasonably priced, people will not use any public transport. I find it odd that you want to build on the Station Approach (I assume) car park. Where will train users park if that lane is built on? That will not encourage use of public transport. The plans for park and ride also seem totally hit or miss. There needs to be public transport, fully integrated (rail and bus), that is easily accessible for all users. Your plan does not seem to address this.

Warwick District is happy to breach the Green Belt for industrial/employment land, so why not for housing north of Leamington. It is entirely possible that the jobs created around Baginton Airport will be taken by people from the Warwick District area, or people who would want to live in the area.

I do not believe that previous decisions by the authority stand up to too much scrutiny in terms of overall planning. It is my view that the number of vehicle movements associated with the recent developments in and around Whitnash were seriously under estimated, and the impact on the local environment and community similarly under estimated. There is no room for any further development in this area.

I am writing to you all to register my strong objection to the Warwick District Council New Local Plan.

I appreciate there will be a need for a certain amount of new housing over the coming years but believe that this plan it enormously biased and unfair. The scale of proposed building sites encircling us is unbelievable.

Almost all of the proposed sites are 'South of the River' with barely anything in North Leamington or elsewhere. Why is this? Is it felt that the south is not as rich and therefore the people are not as important? Is it believed that the residents in these areas don't need green spaces and views, areas to 'breath'? Is it felt that the children living here shouldn't have the option of attending a single form intake school? Or do you believe that we just don't care what you do to our home towns?

I live in Whitnash, and I love Whitnash. I have an active role in community life and I am raising my two children to love and respect their town. I have many concerns with your poposal.

Firstly the HUGE loss of green fields, the trees, wildlife, the views, the areas to walk to with the kids and just stand and be peaceful and look at the view. This is enormously important to people, their wellbeing and their health. Too many people and not enough space leads to a reduced quality of life. And the damage to our local wildlife should also be of great concern to you all.

Please can you tell me why planning permission was granted to have THREE new supermarkets built within spitting distance from a huge Sainsburys? We do not need this much choice for our weekly shop! Why were these areas of Brownfield land not used for housing? And why isn't a greater effort being made to bring back into use the many derelict homes in warwickshire?

I am also very concerned that this amount of housing would bring THOUSANDS of new families and children to our area. Where will they go to school? After Warwick Gates was built, Briar Hill school became a three form intake. I DO NOT want my children to be one of 90 four year olds starting school. I want the option of a single form intake as it currently is at Whitnash Primary. Please can you tell me what plans there are to cope with this or if our local schools will be forced to increase in size? And what will our secondary schools do? Do you plan to cram more kids into there too?

The volume of traffic is lightly to increase to a level that makes travelling in the area unbearable. No matter what new road traffic management systems you come up with, you cannot make a potential 22, 000 cars disappear. What will life be like? Ages spent on the road just to 'pop' into Warwick and misery brought to all those who commute to the area. The area leading from the M40 up to Europa Way is already a nightmare. Will this make the area attractive to workers and employers? Let alone residents.

Pressure on our ONE busy hospital, doctor's surgeries, children's nurseries, potential flooding, loss of agricultural land and the misery, sadness and anger brought to so many Warwickshire residents. Just a few more of my concerns.

Please do not destroy the very things that make living here so great. I, like so many others, love this area very much and am proud to live here. If you allow these developments to go ahead I believe that there will be a great number of voters that will never forgive you. I hope that you have the intelligence, decency and humility to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new 'Plan'.

I write with reference to the Proposed Revised Development Strategy for Warwick and Leamington as proposed by the local Council and my concerns in this regard.

As a local resident I have grave concerns regarding the proposed plan for our town and the effect this will have on the local environment and more importantly the historic and wonderful town of Warwick.

I understand the overall plan proposes over 12,000 new homes in Warwick and Leamington and in particular the overly proposed allocation of 6,630 new homes south of Warwick town. I have been advised that based on the last 10 years births and marriages a truer reflection of our needs would be 5,400 new homes. I am gravely concerned that the over populating of our town with in excess of 12,000 homes will have adverse effects in many ways and am not convinced that this proposal is a true reflection of our requirements.

I believe this proposal will be the ruination of historic Warwick which should be protected at all costs. This proposed plan is not a sustainable development and is not in the interest of Warwick but favours the feathering of developers pockets only.

The loss of agricultural land and green space is appalling and the plan saturates the south of Warwick with over development whilst the North of Warwick is spared. Whilst the North of Warwick is allocated as Green Belt land the South is equally if not more important to retain as green land and the Council should have protected this by applying for Green Belt status for this area.

I remain concerned that the increase in traffic that such a development would cause has not been properly considered and whilst dual carriage ways are proposed for all main routes from the M40, the volume of traffic trying to cross over what can only ever be 3 bridges over the river will bottle neck and cause Warwick to come to a complete stand still during peak hours. I am particularly concerned that the Bridge over the river by the castle simply cannot cope with this level of traffic and will be destroyed. It is considered that 76% of traffic will be through traffic crossing to the North side of Warwick towards employment in the Coventry area. To develop the South instead of the North is simply ridiculous.

The Air Quality in Warwick is at illegal level already, and as my husband is a sufferer of asthma since we moved here we know the importance only too well of this problem. It has recently also been linked to cancer and as such I would request the Council to provide information regarding the Health Impact and a commitment to what plans they have to resolve what will be already illegal and unacceptable levels.

No commitment to what impact this excessive development will have with regard to if the local facilities such as the Hospital has been provided.

As a resident of Saumur Way, I am absolutely horrified that not only will our wonderful Warwickshire views be destroyed but that our quiet cul-de-sac is to become a through road. A key factor in our purchase of our home 15 years ago. The cycle path that is frequented by school children and is a safe passage way for their journey to school will become a danger spot. Whilst we are assured that only a section of the proposed estate will access from Saumur Way and bollards will prevent other cars from using this access, it is obvious that motor cycles will use this route as a rat run to the Myton Road.

Not only is this development proposed but an additional 1,900 homes at Light Heath currently being applied for which will add another 4,000 vehicles crossing through Warwick. It would seem that Warwick Council and Stratford Council have not liaised regarding this development and therefore this additional traffic is not considered in the Warwick Plan.

The proposal allocates a certain amount of land set aside for business development. Currently allocated business assigned land cannot be sold for this purpose and is in the propose of being re-allocated for housing. An indication that this proposal will not be sustainable and will increase the unemployment of Warwick.

I am concerned off the flooding indications of such a development. In the recent winter the fields of the Henry VIII trust land currently farm land were flooded and I know that in previous years this land has flooded onto the properties within the Saumur Way site. I do not believe the area can safely accommodate such a development without flooding risk to the houses already here.

I strongly object to this proposed development plan which I believe to be the ruination of a wonderful historic town destroying and altering forever the landscape and views from our wonderful Castle which can never be undone.

Myton Road is already overloaded with traffic. It is home to some 3500 schoolchildren during the school day and the road just can't take any more traffic. I am retired but have to time any outings by car to avoid the delays inherent in setting forth between 8am and 10 am. as it can take me half an hour just to get to the outskirts of the town. The road is jammed between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. every morning during term time.
The same is true in the afternoon. The schools stagger their finishing time in the hope of distributing the traffic. This is fine but the effect is that there are several peaks when even getting to my house from Warwick is impossible without substantial queuing. The first wave is about 3.15 p.m. with further jams about 4 p.m. and the inevitable rush hour jam between 5.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m.
The new houses proposed will inevitably increase the traffic and make a chaotic situation even worse. Clearly no houses should have direct access onto Myton Road; that would be madness. However, even building in the vicinity will inevitably bring some traffic to the road. The fact is that there is no road in the whole of Warwick District that has a worse traffic problem than Myton Road.
But it is not just Myton Road that is overloaded. The roads in the centre of Warwick are gridlocked too.
The infrastructure in Warwick
Traffic frequently queues back from the Eastgate traffic lights to the Castle roundabout and from there to the bridge over the River Avon and beyond. These are historic areas, part of the heritage that makes Warwick a tourist town; we can't afford to fiddle with the road layout. No one wants to see King's High School demolished to make way for a roundabout with Eastgate in the middle. And yet, if we want to reduce the traffic, it is obvious that we need to stop any more house building to the south of Warwick.
The proposed Traffic modification scheme for Castle Hill involving extensive modifications to the area including Castle Hill, Smith Street, St Nicholas Church Street and Banbury Road appear to have one main objective which is to manage through traffic to the detriment of local traffic and local residents. It will have the effect of damaging the very structure that makes Warwick a tourist attraction and provides revenue to the local businesses and facilities to the local residents. The scheme generally assumes a significant growth in traffic over the 200 year old Avon Bridge, and yet there has been no study commissioned to determine its capability to carry the estimated 10% increase in traffic expected to be generated by the housing/ business / through traffic growth.
It is clear to me that no amount of tinkering can deal with the fundamental problem - the number of residents, shoppers and schoolchildren already using the road. It is surely time to stop adding to the problem.
Air Quality
The Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000 (as amended) set out objectives for improving the air quality in our towns and cities. In particular, the objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was set at 40 ug per m³.
Readings were taken in the centre of Warwick in 2007 and High Street, Jury Street, St. Nicholas Church Street, Smith Street, Bowling Green Street, Theatre Street, Saltisford and The Butts were all above this level. Indeed Pageant House with a reading of 56.4 ug per m³ was the highest in the whole area covered by Warwick District Council. A massive 41% above the minimum level deemed acceptable by the government.
It is argued that new technologies for vehicles have improved levels over the last 5 years, but I doubt that this is the case. Government incentives have concentrated on the level of CO2 (carbon dioxide) not NO2. Furthermore, there has been a general trend towards more diesel cars and these emit more NO2 than petrol driven ones. Recently the new road layout in Jury Street and High Street will have slowed traffic down. Of course, this is a benefit (in one way), but it means traffic spends longer in Warwick and emits more nitrogen dioxide.
What sort of policy is it when you concentrate most of your building in an area where air quality is worst? To make it even worse?
Coalescence of Warwick and Leamington
The Public Inquiry into the (then) proposed development of the Aragon Drive estate. Warwick District Council (who were objecting to it) and Warwickshire County Council were very specific about the fact that it was important to keep a green buffer zone between Warwick and Leamington Spa to prevent the 2 towns becoming one big urban sprawl. Indeed, it was stated that the cycle path on the outskirts of the estate was specifically designed to mark the boundary of development and the land behind was to be retained in perpetuity as an area of restraint. The Inspector was no doubt influenced by this when he gave permission for the development.
We need to have boundaries between our towns to give everyone a sense of identity. Jephson Farm provides a useful buffer zone to the north of Myton Road and this land should provide a similar buffer zone to the south.
Rate of Growth
I understand that the size of Warwick has increased by 1% a year over the last 10 years, double the rate of growth for Warwickshire as a whole and double the national average. Surely it's now time to look elsewhere. We need to reduce this to help to assimilate the new houses already built (and still being built) within the current structure.
The planned development in Warwick and Leamington appears to be designed to meet a target for the wider area, including for example the Stratford on Avon, whilst totally ignoring significant development proposed in that neighbouring town, including the controversial Shottery development for 800 houses already approved in that area, to name but one.
The proposals for the whole area are designed, not just as an organic growth to satisfy our local demand of around 5,000 homes which could be satisfied by development on existing brown-field sites, but apparently to bring in from far and wide new residents to the area which will have the net effect of turning our lovely ancient market town, an attraction to British and Overseas tourists, into an ugly dormitory for the major conurbations of Birmingham and Coventry.
Agricultural Land
According to the Agricultural Land Classification Map, most of this land is of Grade 2 quality. To put this into perspective only 0.1% of agricultural land in Warwickshire is Grade 1 (mostly in North Warwickshire) and only 11.9% is Grade 2.
In other words, this land is probably in the top 10% most productive in the whole County. Our population will inevitably rise in years to come and we will need to get the most from our modest resources. Surely it isn't sensible to build houses on the best land first.
The land too is brimming with wildlife - I have seen foxes, deer, pheasants, woodpeckers, bats, rabbits, newts and hedgehogs. We can't build on this sort of environment; it needs to be retained for future generations.
Flooding
A casual glance is sufficient to inform anyone that this site slopes gently from south to north. And slopes can bring flooding. There has already been considerable flooding in the Myton Crescent area when the old Dormer School site was built upon. It is inevitable that the same will happen here and yet the Local Plan is silent on the subject.
At the very least there will need to be a buffer zone between the old and new developments to allow for some natural drainage. Although the best answer is to leave things as they are and allow Myton Brook to take excess surface water safely on its way.

I am writing to object about the new local plan for over 7000 houses to be built in Warwick.
We live and work in Warwick and it currently takes me an hour in the morning in the evening to make a 2 mile round trip from my home at Ward Grove, off the Myton Road, to my daughter's nursery on Heathcote Lane, my son's school (Coten End on Emscote Road) and my work (Warwickshire County Council on Barrack Street). This is both costly in terms of fuel - at a time where our family budget is very restricted - and time consuming and stressful. It also creates significant pollution which could harm my children's health.
Furthermore, my son's school - Coten End - is also massively oversubscribed even now, and will be expanded this year from 60 to 90 children in each year. It goes without saying that this means less 1:1 time for teachers to spend with young children at the start of their education, and very crowded lunch halls, sports fields and assemblies.
Our local doctors (Cape Road) has had to close its books as it is over-subscribed, and our local hospital - Warwick - is relatively small, and cannot cater for such a massive population increase.
Building a significant amount of new housing in Warwick will significantly increase these problems and make Warwick a very unpleasent place to live for families. I am also not sure why houses need to be built on greenfield sites where there are a number of run down industrial estates in the area which are unsightly and would be better served being knocked down and built upon.

Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on the Warwick Local Plan Revised Development Strategy.
Midland Red (South) Ltd trading as Stagecoach Midlands, is the leading commercial bus operator in Warwickshire. The company operates the vast majority of bus services in Warwick District, including Leamington Spa and Whitnash, where we operate a comprehensive network designed to offer both convenient local trips, but at least as important, services offering residents effective choices for longer journeys. The great majority of these routes are commercial, fully funded by our passengers
We also operate services supported by Warwickshire County Council, won following tenders for best value. We always strive through disciplined reliable operation, quality customer service and on-board experience, and effective marketing, to build revenue on such services as far as possible with a view to taking them on without public funding at a future date, where possible. These services to a great extent follow timetables and routes specified by WCC, as socially necessary services, where patronage today could not support a commercial operation by us or another bus company.
Stagecoach in particular has a national, independently assessed reputation for delivering among the highest levels of customer satisfaction. As well as offering reliable convenient services we are constantly investing both in existing services and our operational bus fleet, and developing new products and services aimed explicitly at providing greener smarter travel choices to the public, and especially those who do not yet regularly travel by bus.
Stagecoach proactively seeks to identify and pursue business development opportunities, and the company recognises the role it plays in delivering sustainable development. We welcome the opportunity to comment on, and help shape development proposals to the advantage of the community and the wider travelling public.
High-quality bus services are one of the most credible means of preventing car dependency, mitigating local highways impacts as far as possible, and achieving sustainable development. This includes not only environmental but also socio-economic goals.
We submit that there is a clear alignment of interests between stakeholders in the planning system, and ourselves and other commercial bus operators.
Strategic Vision
Stagecoach Midlands therefore wishes to generally support Warwick District Council's Strategic Vision, which is essential in setting the basis on which sustainable development can be realised, but has strong reservations about certain of the measures proposed, which we do not believe will deliver the vision. As this Vision is taken forward through robust policy-led prioritisation of actions, Stagecoach Midlands will be much better able to support the LPAs objectives while achieving our strategic goal to provide further high-quality greener smarter travel choices to the District's residents and visitors.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes clear in paragraph 7 that the "golden thread" of Sustainable Development that runs through it, includes economic, social and environmental goals. Stagecoach Midlands recognises not just its general responsibilities as a good corporate citizen, but the particular key role our business plays in securing these objectives at a local level.
Every day, Stagecoach buses:
* connect customers to markets and employees to businesses. Stagecoach Midlands itself is a locally-significant employer and customer of UK businesses
* connect people of all socio-economic groups to school, college, further and higher education; and of course to leisure and recreation opportunities
Our operations achieve all of this in a way that reduces congestion, and emissions. DECC statistics demonstrate that in the UK, personal transport use generates as many greenhouse gas emissions as the entire residential dwelling stock.
Not only do we reduce personal travel carbon footprints radically, but we are making strenuous efforts to reduce the carbon intensity of our own operations. Stagecoach Group announced in January 2013 that it has cut the carbon impact of its businesses in the UK and North America by more than 20% in the past four years. The transport group's absolute annual carbon footprint is now nearly 56,400 tonnes of CO2e lower than in 2007-08. The annual carbon saving is equivalent to the CO2e produced by powering nearly 11,000 homes for a year. Measured by carbon intensity (kg CO2 per £ of turnover), Stagecoach's carbon impact now is 22% less than four years ago.
As a result, Stagecoach Group is the first Transport Company to reach the Carbon Trust standard for emissions reductions.
Where land-use planning, and local transport policies align to facilitate high quality efficient commercial bus operation, then a full range of highways management, economic development, environmental sustainability and socio-economic inclusion objectives are all simultaneously met.
Where bus services are not effectively and positively planned for, and bus operators and their customers are marginalised, then unsustainable car-dependent development is the unavoidable result, contrary to the overarching intent of National Policy, and the explicit principles set out in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Stagecoach therefore regrets that connectivity is not given much priority in Warwick District Council's Strategic Vision, although we understand the preoccupation with meeting housing need.
Transport, to the extent that as it is addressed at all in the Strategic Vision, is largely considered in terms of lists of hard infrastructure projects, designed in response to the modelled impacts of the Revised Development Strategy. Transport measures therefore seem entirely to flow out of the Development Strategy, rather than the Strategy firstly taking account of "the opportunities for sustainable transport modes (to be) taken up, depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure" as required by NPPF paragraph 32.
This risks a strong misdirection of attention into physical highway works without looking at more creative and holistic approaches which better address the wider needs of communities, now and in the future. This is explicitly required by paragraph 17 of NPPF. Specifically, it states that plan-making and decision- taking should:
"actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable."

Stagecoach also submits that the approach being taken, with its emphasis on hard engineering, is likely to prove more costly than one which identifies and takes up the existing opportunities presented by more sustainable modes of transport, in deciding the location for new development. This approach risks the delivery of that development, by imposing additional burdens on development viability than might strictly be necessary. We note that, just before this consultation closed, the promoters of the greater part of the Myton Garden Village site west of Europa Way, have tabled an application for up to 800 dwellings, of which only 20% are affordable, rather than the 40% sought in Warwick DC's emerging Local Plan policies. The applicants submit a full viability appraisal, by professional development economic specialists, that demonstrates that the cumulative burden on viability of planning requirements, including transport, does not permit the Council's target to be met.
NPPF is clear that planning should also ensure that:
"improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost-effectively limit the significant impacts of the development."

NPPF paragraph 31 also explicitly requires that plan-making bodies should
"...work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development."

We therefore are disappointed that the Revised Development Strategy and supporting Warwick Strategic Transport Assessment (WSTA) makes little or no provision for infrastructure to support delivery of high quality bus services, and in particular, bus priority at key points and on key corridors to the South and North of Leamington where congestion is already becoming a significant difficulty for us, and where future development proposals will greatly increase pressure on the highway network.
Stagecoach Midlands is very concerned that, based on the Warwick Strategic Transport Assessment Phase 3 modelling, undertaken in support of this strategy, the following effects arise, even with all the prioritised mitigation in place:
* A deterioration in traffic conditions in both Leamington and Warwick Town Centres
* A general decline in traffic speeds during peak hours, especially in the network south of the Avon
* That with all model runs, the biggest residual deterioration in road network performance occurs on the south and eastern flanks of Leamington Town Centre, on the one hand, where scope for engineering-driven mitigation is most limited; and on the Europa Way and Tachbrook Road corridors.
* A general increase in peak delays and queuing, in both town centres and on key arterial routes. The modelled increase in queues even at full mitigation at the Victoria Terrace/Spencer Street lights, and the Old Warwick Road/Princes Drive junction, through which a large number of our services must pass to serve the proposed southern focus of planned development, is especially worrying; and barely less so at the Tachbrook Road/Heathcote Lane junction. We are equally concerned, on the opposite side of the urban area, that a similar deterioration in traffic conditions is anticipated at the A46 Thickthorn Interchange.
The result is that each bus within our Leamington and Warwick network will cover less mileage in a given period of time, at the end of the Plan Period. Therefore, just to "stand still" in terms of journey frequency, Stagecoach Midlands will have to find additional resources: buses, drivers and overhead; to maintain the current timetable offer within the urban area and environs. Actual journey times will be slower, which ordinarily would be expected to produce a decline in overall patronage.
There is a real risk that, far from improving the conditions to deliver improved modal choice, in conformity with the requirements of NPPF, the Revised Development Strategy undermines it, because of the absence of specific targeted and comprehensive measures to deliver bus priority.
With regard to the developments themselves, while we do note WCC's preferred strategy on bus service specification to serve specific major development south of the towns in particular, the sense from the consultation document is these and all other bus services, will also have to fight for space on the existing network, alongside all other traffic, with negligible rebalancing of the highway network in favour of the bus as a more sustainable travel mode, as required by NPPF Paragraph 29.
WSTA Phases 2 and 3 modelling do assume certain very limited bus priority measures, though these are largely focused at the northern end of Europa Way. These mainly take the form of priority bus gates to allow buses to enjoy priority release from signals, but do not allocate dedicated lanes for bus services over any distance.
We also note that there is a considerable discrepancy between the Virtual Park and Ride frequency for which WCC are seeking developer funding, and that modelled in WSTA. The Revised Development Strategy sets out a 30-minute frequency service to Warwick, and a 20-minute frequency service to Leamington. WSTA Phase 3 assumes a 9-minute service frequency to Leamington, and 12-minute to Warwick throughout the day (WSTA Phase 3 section 9.2, p.95).
There is also some lack of clarity about the P&R routing and operating mode assumed by the WSTA models. It appears the WSTA Phase 3 modelled a dedicated direct Park and Ride bus service as it is not clear that any allowance is made in the journey time for the service to stop en-route to pick up and set down between the facilities and the town centres, as the "virtual P&R" concept envisaged in the Revised Development Strategy anticipates.
We are also very concerned at the journey time penalty suffered by Park and Ride users, compared with car users, that the model produced. We are therefore extremely sceptical that the mode shift assignment of travel demands to the bus service will occur at the level anticipated by the Plan. We do not see that motorists will see any advantage in parking, waiting up to 20 minutes for a bus to Leamington, and then suffer a slower journey than cars taking a parallel route into town (WSTA Phase 3 figure 30, page 101).
To re-iterate, the Park and Ride bus services are anticipated to operate as a conventional bus routes, and will therefore also act as the main bus links from the proposed development allocations to the Town centre. We do not believe that this service should make an initial journey first to the park and ride facility, before making its way into town, without enjoying any bus priority at any stage. In the absence of bus priority measures, the 15% mode shift target required by the Strategy would be much better achieved by those services serving the developments taking the most direct route into town.
The time disadvantage that WSTA assumes for bus passengers at peak times seriously undermines the credibility of the mode shift targets for bus use required by the Strategy. This time penalty can only be addressed by the introduction of comprehensive bus priority measures on the main affected corridors, and in the town centres of Warwick and Leamington.
We also note that the Leamington Park and Ride Route has been modelled to operate through the Myton Garden Suburb area, a parallel but not comparable route with Europa Way in terms of speed. In fact, depending on urban design approach, this route, with the potential for multiple accesses, side roads and on-street parking, is likely to be, and perceived to be, slower and more circuitous than a service running directly along Europa Way, if conventional urban and highways design approaches are used.
We are aware that a formal outline planning application for the bulk of this area was submitted just before this consultation closed (W13/1016/OUT). It is clear that the Master Plan and Movement Strategy is quite conventional.
We will be making our own submissions in response to the application. For now, in response to this Policy consultation, we would say that there are a number of ways to address this journey time disadvantage by Master Planning and highway design within the Myton Garden Suburb site, which we cover later in this submission. For the avoidance of doubt, we can see the considerable merits of combining a service through the Myton Garden Suburb with the "virtual" Park and Ride operation, BUT for this to work effectively and be attractive to potential passengers, great care needs to be taken in the overall design approach to the actual bus corridor within and adjoining the scheme, and the urban design of the proposals as a whole.
The approach taken within the modelling to the assignment of patronage to P&R is high-level and is therefore relatively inaccurate. Experience over many years demonstrates that park and ride delivers significant mode shift, and commercially-sustainable levels of patronage, only when parking at the destination is highly constrained, very frequent bus services are offered, and significant on-line bus priority exists, to allow motorists to see buses passing them while they sit in queuing traffic.
Looking both at the national experience of successful Park and Ride schemes, and then at a growing list of failed Park and Ride operations in some other towns, we consider that the virtual Park and Ride proposals need far more robust and nuanced operational and commercial modelling, based on a service design that offers very much clearer and more credible advantages for potential customers, if this part of the Revised Development Strategy is to achieve the necessary impacts.
To conclude and summarise, no bus operator can provide high quality mode choices when its costs are increased by operating in heavy congestion, while its customers face delays and unpredictable journey times. Real mode choice requires that the relative attractiveness of more sustainable travel modes needs to be enhanced. The Revised Development Strategy makes almost no explicit provision for such rebalancing, at least as far as bus services are concerned.
Indeed, the relative silence of the Development Strategy on the role of bus services in securing a sustainable form of development is quite notable, despite the weight attached to the effectiveness of certain bus-based elements in the WSTA.
The Councils' own retained specialist transport consultants conclude at the end of the WSTA Phase 3 Report that "further detailed assessment of the potential benefits of the P&R should be undertaken although it is imagined that such testing would be intended to compliment an over-arching feasibility study of the P&R site meaning allowances for mode share and interception could be included within the modelling to allow a better understanding of both the benefits and impacts of delivery." We strongly agree. In fact, we do not understand how the Revised Development Strategy can be considered robust without this work having informed the Strategy.
WDC/WCC's own highways technical consultant explicitly states that "it is critical that sustainable transport improvements form part of the mitigation package to support the housing and employment growth proposals within the District." (WSTA Phase 3 Appendix H Technical Note 21/5/13, page 1).
Stagecoach Midlands considers, having carefully reviewed the revised Plan proposals and the supporting evidence base, that a considerable amount of further work needs to be undertaken, in partnership with promoters, WCC and bus operators, as required by NPPF paragraph 31, to arrive at a deliverable, robust package of sustainable transport measures in support of a much more sustainable local Statutory Development Plan for Warwick.
RDS1 Stagecoach Midlands has no comment to make.
RDS2 Stagecoach Midlands has no comment to make.
RDS3 Stagecoach Midlands wishes to object to the proposed preferred option for the broad location of development, because of the difficulty in serving the sites on a sustainable commercially viable basis.
We strongly agree that a strategy of urban concentration makes best use of existing public transport infrastructure, and allows existing bus services to perform significantly better in terms of load factor. Such an approach also gives scope for a virtuous cycle of service enhancements to be delivered based on an overall larger quantum of demand from which to draw, by developing the network.
This supports travel mode shift not just from within the new developments, but across the improved network as a whole. It is likely, for example, that new or augmented routes serving development to the south of Warwick would continue, as today, across the town centres providing new direct links as well as enhanced frequency. This would improve the overall attractiveness of the service offer, subject to operating conditions being at least as supportive as today.
There is currently virtually no bus priority within the Warwick and Leamington urban area. Were measures to achieve bus priority to be introduced, then the positive effects outlined above would be greatly magnified.
We also concur with WDC and WCC that there is scope through a concentration of development south of the towns, to kick-start a radically improved level of service in an area in which historically it has proved very hard to offer frequent, direct bus services, not least because of car-dependent urban design, and a lack of critical mass of demand. In addition, the major local highway corridors, in particular Tachbrook Road and Europa Way, are already affected by peak-time congestion, even before any new development is constructed.
This opportunity to improve the public transport offer will only be realised, however, by positively planning for the bus to play a much enhanced role. While some of this is implicit in the intent of measures set out in the Revised Development Strategy, we are concerned that overall there is no clear agenda, nor specified measures, to ensure that the opportunities provided by the Strategy to deliver a much higher quality of public transport offer have been taken up, in the form of sufficiently well-developed actions required by Policy. We will address the opportunities we identify in more depth later in our responses.
As such we submit that the Strategy is not in conformity with NPPF.
Stagecoach Midlands OBJECTS to the location and distribution of the quantum around the south of Leamington and Whitnash.
In general, we consider that insufficient consideration has been given to achieving higher density development across the sites, or parts of them, sufficient to make best use of existing and credible future quality public transport provision. While we recognise the attractiveness and desirability of the Garden Suburb vision, the provision of effective high quality bus services is undermined by the relatively low housing densities involved, and the consequent likely impact on the dwelling stock mix.
The current Strategy, in proposing a relatively large development footprint also effectively gives rise to a much greater expanse of development south of Harbury Lane, than is easy to serve by a single high frequency bus route. Diverting existing service 68 through these areas will pull it away from existing development at Warwick Gates OR risk creating a circuitous service design that will be very unattractive to existing bus passengers, while being even less attractive to car owners.
Large parts of the development footprint in Myton Garden Suburb in particular, are much closer to existing local employment and amenities, and are also most closely related to the existing urban area. This development proposal is expected be within easy reach of the proposed high frequency bus corridor incorporating the "virtual Park and Ride". Depending on the master planning approach, higher densities might be justified in Myton Garden Suburb adjoining this bus corridor, either on the eastern flank if the service uses Europa Way, or, if a bus priority corridor were delivered within the scheme, within 250-300m of that. Higher densities, of up to 45 dwellings/Ha, would support much better patronage levels for the proposed bus service.
If it were possible to accommodate a larger development quantum at Myton Garden Suburb overall, which is the location best able to take advantage of sustainable transport measures, it might be possible to avoid the need for land releases elsewhere, which are currently very much less easy to access by sustainable transport modes.
In particular Stagecoach Midlands considers that several small-scale proposed land allocations east of Whitnash/South of Sydenham look to be difficult to serve on a sustainable basis, by attractive public transport services, without significant infrastructure measures being put in place, that are not anticipated by the Revised Development Strategy.
As stated above, the Strategy proposes that the development footprint extends much more than 300m south of Harbury Lane. The development quantum on land allocated beyond this threshold would be equally hard to serve with a bus service sufficiently frequent and direct to be attractive. In addition the wider public concerns expressed about incipient coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook could also be mitigated by a revised approach that reduced the development quantum that needs to be accommodated here by achieving a higher-density more compact urban form on development sites better related to existing and future sustainable transport opportunities.
We particularly object to the smaller scale releases of land south of Sydenham/east of Whitnash. These areas are well beyond 400m of existing bus services. Extending services into this area will require an additional vehicle resource, even at a modest half-hourly frequency. We do not consider that the potential patronage that would be generated by the proposals would sustain a credible commercial service in the long term. In fact, the need to split access to land south of Sydenham with a second access across the current Campion School site, makes this problem much worse, with only an additional 300 dwellings available to support the operating additional operating costs involved, which are likely to be between £130-140,000 per year at current prices.
However, were direct bus-only vehicular access provided across the railway between Whitnash and the land South of Sydenham, we see much greater potential to incorporate these areas into a high-quality commercial bus network, subject to appropriate pump-priming funding being available during the build out period to deliver this service appropriately early. This would require a bus gate incorporating a pedestrian and cycle link; and a high-quality bus circulation facilitated through the site, also picking up the proposals at Fieldgate Lane west of the railway.
Such an approach would lead to Sydenham potentially being directly connected to employment both existing and proposed south of Leamington. We consider that this would significantly enhance its connectivity to these opportunities and greatly improving the socio-economic sustainability of the Strategy. A dedicated transport crossing would also give public transport and other sustainable modes a major advantage over private car use from all the development east of the railway, and as a result these additional measures would offer a much more sustainable location compared with further development south of Harbury Lane.
We support the proposals at Redhouse Farm Lillington where the whole proposal falls within easy reach of an existing commercial high frequency service. It is the one proposed allocation that best makes use of existing public transport services and infrastructure in a location that is already sustainable.
We note the current proposed approach at Kenilworth. We recognise the need to meet the housing requirements of the town, and can see the landscape and other factors that favour Thickthorn. However we object to the current proposals because:
* We see that with the main access being proposed on to the A46 interchange, it will prove to be an exceptionally attractive location for car-based commuting, causing additional peak time congestion and undermining the effectiveness of the Strategic Highway Network, and potentially delaying our existing services, not least those offering fast links to Coventry and Warwick University via A46.
* When evaluating how we might serve the development, it is unclear that the quantum of development proposed there, and that existing adjacent, is sufficient to support a dedicated high-quality bus service longer term. Were we to divert existing routes it would in effect lead to other large parts of Kenilworth which currently enjoy frequent services, being either unserved or much more poorly served.
We also strongly support the additional development envisaged outside the main towns, particularly in larger villages. Bus services to these villages already typically offer hourly services, or better, but the longer-term sustainability of the current level of service does depend in most cases on higher levels of demand. We submit that, at a time when Warwickshire County Council is faced with ever increasing pressure on its budget for socially necessary but uneconomic bus services in rural areas, the approach taken by the Revised Development Strategy outside the main urban areas, is a prudent one to maintain and indeed possible allow some enhancement of bus services to outlying settlements. Walking and cycling do not present as credible a sustainable travel choice in these locations.
We would suggest there is likely to be scope for the kick-start of improved service patterns in certain rural corridors, facilitated by limited developer funding sought across multiple developments served by a rural bus route corridor. This may not only involve added frequency, but also more direct services, making elapsed journey times much more competitive with other modes such as car or scooter.
RDS 5 Proposed Allocations
Station Approach: Stagecoach Midlands would point out that a substantial portion of this site is our existing operational depot for the area. The depot provides the bus services for Leamington, Warwick and most of the surrounding area. No suitable or cost-effective alternative location for a replacement facility has yet been identified. Therefore the site is not available and is thus not currently deliverable or achievable.
Hampton Magna: If it were possible to create a greater allocation here, this would offer a larger population and a wider socio-economic mix that would be much better able to support the ongoing commercial operation of a bus service in this location, and one that is less circuitous than the present route, which given existing levels of patronage, requires Local Authority financial support.
Hatton Park: If it were possible to create a greater allocation in this area, this would offer a larger population and a wider socio-economic mix that would be much better able to support the ongoing commercial operation of a bus service in this location, and one that is less circuitous than the present route, which given existing levels of patronage, requires Local Authority financial support.
The current design of internal roads also makes the existing development exceptionally difficult for bus services to penetrate, owing to the detailed design of traffic calming features. Any traffic calming measures introduced must be low floor bus friendly and very minor works within the highway could address this as part of future development proposals, and should be required to do so.
RDS 6 Employment Land requirement: Stagecoach Midlands has no comment to make.
RDS7 Location of new employment land.
Stagecoach Midlands supports the provision of employment land at the western end of Thickthorn, which could be served by our existing services; and also and allocation adjoining Warwick Technology Park (WTP).
The augmentation of employment at WTP could help create greater critical mass of demand for existing and future augmented services here, as well as reducing the average distances residents in the locality will need to travel to work from the new development overall. Shorter travel to work distances give scope for more sustainable modes, including bus services, to offer attractive options compared with personal car use.
It should be possible to address the current very unsatisfactory bus circulation and stopping arrangements within the existing Technology Park site, and the problems associated with on-carriageway and other inappropriate parking. Rigorous Travel Planning formulation and delivery should accompany proposals for this location to avoid exacerbating existing car-dependency and congestion. If a direct bus-only link could be provided from the north or north-east of WTP, through a Technology Park extension sited north of Harbury Lane, and into the wider Myton Garden Village beyond, this would make the resulting bus journey quicker than the car for many trips at peak times.
Chapter 5, Strategic Development proposals
Stagecoach Midlands has concerns that the strategic development proposals set out in the Strategy are coming forward through the development control system in an uncoordinated manner, in advance of the strategic Policy framework to guide this development being in place. These proposals now account for the majority of the strategic quantum. Having reviewed all of them, we find that in most cases, little consideration has been given to providing a sustainable high quality bus service within convenient walking distances of homes. We will make our separate representations on individual proposals in due course.
In general, Stagecoach Midlands believes that the density proposals do not support high-quality public transport provision. Within an average density of 30-35 dwg/Ha Master Plans should make provision for higher density along proposed bus corridors, even if this is offset by lower densities in the more remote areas.
Myton Garden Suburb: We are aware that a formal application has been submitted by the promoters ref W13/1016/OUT, for the bulk of the proposed allocation west of Europa Way, and was registered less than a week before this consultation closes.
This proposed allocation offers by far the most compact urban form of the sites identified in the Revised Development Strategy. In the view of Stagecoach Midlands, this site is the most critical to the success of the proposed Strategy. This is because it sits between the existing urban area, including Leamington Town Centre, and most of the proposed new strategic development. The main new strategic bus corridor is proposed to run either alongside or within the site. En-route, this corridor serves key destinations such as the Station, Morrisons, Leamington Shopping Park, existing employment at Europa Way, and the existing and expanded Technology Park, before continuing to serve the greater portion of residential development proposed in the Strategy.
Creative and imaginative urban design and master planning could deliver bus priority through or alongside the development, thus unlocking the viability of:
* The proposed virtual Park and Ride
* The new bus route
and by extension all the other public transport initiatives supporting the strategy
By linking together the Technology Park, its extension, the Park and Ride, and the residential area using a dedicated bus-only link through or alongside the development to create a bus priority route to Europa Way; the opportunity will have been taken to protect and exploit sustainable transport modes in line with NPPF paragraph 35.
A number of alternative approaches within the control of the promoters of Myton Garden Village could secure this outcome, including:
* peak bus priority along the dualled Europa Way, with the nearside carriageway being a bus lane at peak times.
* An additional bus lane or dedicated bus road provided over and above the dualling of Europa Way for general traffic
* A purpose designed bus corridor within the Garden Suburb, which may be used by vehicular traffic for portions of its length, but with a bus gate or gates to prevent rat-running.
Without such measures, we believe that the Strategy as a whole will only perpetuate and exacerbate the existing car-dependence in this area, in direct contravention of NPPF. Such an approach would be unsound, as it would be inconsistent with national policy.
South of Gallows Hill: Stagecoach Midlands supports this allocation in principle. The initial proposals made in a formal outline application by the developers for the eastern portion of this area did not anticipate bus services entering the site. The road layout would involve excessive circuity and only allow buses to serve the far edge of the development, which would mitigate strongly against effective and attractive bus service provision.
Those proposals have recently been withdrawn. We submit that any future master planning approach for this site and the land to the west, should be comprehensive, and assume the retention and enhancement of the existing bus routing, with good, well-surveilled pedestrian links to quality bus stops provided on Harbury Lane, spaced between 280-330m apart. This justifies higher densities on the northern edge of future proposals.
Proposals here should help support high-quality links from the area towards Warwick and thus can be considered to support the consolidation of demand on an existing public transport corridor.
We agree this area is less suitable for employment-led development, from a public transport perspective, not least because we believe it is more operationally expedient to provide the P&R and the Technology Park extension to the north of Harbury Lane, immediately adjoining the Technology Park and its extension.
West of Warwick Gates: Stagecoach supports this allocation in principle. Stagecoach Midlands reiterates that this site needs to make provision for high-quality roadside infrastructure and associated pedestrian links to them if the site is to be sustainable, and the overall Transport Strategy is not to be undermined.
Lower Heathcote Farm: We note a formal planning application was made for the northern portion of this site. Stagecoach Midlands notes that the promoter has made no provision for a bus service to penetrate the site directly or indirectly in those proposals. These have now been withdrawn. We found this omission most concerning. We submit that any future proposals for this land should assume the retention and enhancement of the existing service along the existing route/s, with attractive pedestrian links to quality bus stops provided on Harbury Lane. This approach justifies higher densities on the northern edge of future proposals that come forward. As a corollary it may be appropriate to reduce densities at the southern edge especially if these plots end up being outside a reasonable 400m walking distance of stops on Harbury Lane.
This would also support wider urban design and planning objectives.
We object to the development footprint extending further south onto land beyond the initial application site, as this land is well over 400m away from Harbury Lane and will not be within reasonable walking distance of a good bus service.
Former Sewage Treatment Works: Stagecoach Midlands objects to the proposed allocation. The Company does not see that a viable bus service could be provided, as this area could foreseeably be within 400m of a quality public transport corridor. Planning applications made on adjoining land to the east (Grove Farm) and west (Lower Heathcote Farm) make no apparent provision for an efficient bus route linking through this land. In any case, as discussed above, even if a comprehensive approach is taken to deliver a bus corridor south of Harbury Lane, this would draw any service away from the existing development north of Harbury Lane, or lead to the splitting of the provision such that the frequency of service offered would not be sufficiently high to be attractive. We therefore submit that, with the possible exception of some limited development on the northern edges of the site, this option is not sustainable.
Grove Farm: This site is not currently within easy reach of existing bus routes operating at regular high frequency. It is possible that a new service might be provided along Harbury Lane to the north of the site. Alternatively the existing hourly X18 running to the east of the site offers a much more direct route to the town centre, and might be augmented. We note an application for an initial 220 dwellings, all within 400m of Harbury Lane, is already submitted (W/13/0036/OUT). We can see that the layout affords a potential link to land to the south. The full quantum proposed, alongside proposals to the NE at Woodside Farm, might support the provision of a new local bus service, or a wider network recast to improve local bus frequencies serving the site.
However while in landscape terms this site functions as a unity with proposals to the west in particular, and equally adjoins the urban area, it will be much harder in this area to take advantage of the bus service improvements serving the wider area proposed by WCC. We consider this site less sustainable in terms of making best use of existing bus services, or logical improvements to the local network. We believe developer contributions from this site, and Woodside Farm, would be justified to kick-start a much better frequency of service on the Tachbrook Road corridor serving both this site and Woodside Farm, over and above those already being sought by WCC.
Woodside Farm: We note the site is the subject of an undetermined application W/13/0776/OUT. This site is relatively hard to serve directly by public transport. Providing a bus turning circle within the site, in line with the current proposals submitted earlier this year, or a bus-only gate giving through access to Harbury Lane, might achieve a 30-minute commercial service at final build-out when combined with the full quantum at Grove Farm, and a suitable means of running buses within the wider Grove Farm development. We recognise an existing PRoW offers direct access to our existing G1 Goldline service, but its width and quality is very poor, and many dwellings will be beyond the limits of a 400m walk to the stops on Coppice Road.
In our view, as stated for Grove Farm, additional proportionate developer contributions might be secured towards kick starting a new or augmented bus service via Tachbrook Road running at least every 30 minutes, and preferably every 20 minutes, serving these sites, and the poorly-served eastern end of Warwick Gates.
Employment Site Option 2: As noted above we support this option over a site south of Gallows Hill, subject to effective linkage both between the existing Technology Park and the site; and also the proposed residential development further north at Myton Garden Suburb. As discussed above we see a number of means whereby a creative and effective solution might be achievable.

Chapter 5.1: South of Leamington Infrastructure requirements
Stagecoach Midlands objects to the infrastructure strategy as the measures would not deliver a high quality public transport service and is thus inconsistent with the objectives of the strategy.
We have been previously notified by WCC of its intentions and approach to securing bus service improvements in support of the Strategy. We broadly concur with the overall shape of the strategy.
However it is clear to us that the 15% mode shift sought demands much higher bus frequencies, in particular on the virtual Park and Ride services. This would demand the pump priming of additional vehicles, above the four for which WCC is seeking funding.
Not least, the additional development quantum south of the towns that that RDS now proposes, demands significant additional capacity to achieve the required mitigation. Today the bulk of our town services operate with 38-seat midibuses. A 20-minute frequency would offer only 112 one-way seats per hour to Leamington. Full sized single decks would offer up to 46 seats per journey. If the Park and Ride is to be successful, and secure a significantly higher bus mode share from new residential development, which accounts for up to 3195 new dwellings and a new population of about 7,200, this capacity will not be sufficient
In particular we believe that a second new direct service needs to be offered via Europa Way and there must be sufficient bus priority to ensure that the speed of the service is attractive enough to encourage its use by the residents of this area.
We also strongly endorse WCC's view that a Park and Ride needs to be an integral part of the wider bus network to be viable.
We consider that a 20-minute direct and 30-minute indirect service to Leamington town will be not sufficiently attractive to persuade motorists passing the P&R site to use the service, or encourage local residents to make use of the facility. The time penalty associated with waiting for a bus is likely to be, or perceived to be, too high. Experience across Stagecoach operations shows that urban services ideally require a "turn up and go" frequency of between 10-12 minutes to provide an attractive choice for casual bus use by customers who have a car available. A 15 minute frequency is the absolute minimum service that might achieve this goal.
In addition to be financially sustainable the proposed Park and Ride site must be of sufficient capacity to cope with the existing pressure on parking at WTP, the proposed new employment park and shopping, casual leisure or tourism visits. We believe that a greater provision is warranted than the 500 spaces proposed due to the above demands. We look forward to working with the Council's consultants in further exploring how Park and Ride could be made to work successfully, through a robust and comprehensive design and operational approach.
Developers south of Warwick are also currently being asked to fund an additional bus resource on service 68. This service is now partly supported by WCC between Warwick Gates, Warwick town centre, and points further west. It is a 30-minute frequency service designed principally to meet essential socio-economic needs. Both in terms of frequency and routing, the service is not attractive to existing car users.
We now understand from the RDS and supporting WSTA phase 2 and 3 that the additional bus for which WCC is seeking funding, is merely to maintain the existing frequency as journey speeds slow down along what is a very long route. This is not what we, and some developers' consultants, have been previously led to believe. This no doubt arises from an assessment of the congestion produced by the proposed development; to allow further diversions into the Park and Ride; and provide possible extensions to serve some development roads. Stagecoach Midlands questions how this is either financially sustainable after a subsidy period ends, of how far such a service will perform much meaningful mitigation. This measure cannot be considered a service enhancement.
A 30-minute service 68 would not be able to perform a meaningful Park and Ride function between the proposed virtual P&R and Warwick, given that if a bus has just left, it would be as quick for a reasonably able person to walk the 1900m to Warwick Town Centre.
There is a large inconsistency between the Park and Ride service specification set out in the Revised Development Strategy, and that actually modelled by WSTA to develop and test a credible highways impact mitigation package. The WSTA Phase 3 model assumes a 9-minute bus frequency to Leamington and 12 minute to Warwick. From what we can ascertain in the Consultation Document, the Strategy and associated infrastructure schedule is seeking funding to maintain a 30-minute frequency on service 68 to Warwick and a new 20-minute frequency service to Leamington. The discrepancy between the RDS proposal and the supporting evidence base offered by WSTA is considerable, and we would appreciate clarification.
The Councils' own evidence makes clear within the results of the WSTA Phase 3 model runs, that should the P&R-based mitigation strategy fail, the implications for the wider network are very serious. This is demonstrated by the queue length outputs, and the average traffic speed outputs, presented at section 9 of WSTA phase 3, and attached appendices D-G. There appears to remain a significant risk that if congestion rises further this will create a vicious spiral of lower bus use, higher costs, and ultimately service reductions, aggravating the problem.
Stagecoach Midlands also wants to highlight the significance of the tradeoffs between the costs of on-site and off-site highways and engineering measures, other necessary infrastructure, and the delivery of other policy objectives.
We realise that the proportion of affordable housing provided is particularly liable to reduce to redress the difficulties of overall development viability.
This is very relevant to the robustness of the Plan, in terms of the opportunity to make best use of sustainable transport. We recognise that the 40% affordable housing target aspired to by WDC is relatively high. Experience nationally is starting to make clear that this does support generation of much higher bus service patronage on new developments.
In order for the package of additional bus services to the area to be sustainable long term, it is very important that the maximum affordable housing quantum is delivered. However, we can already see publicly available detailed evidence, in the form of the viability assessment provided by the applicants at Myton Garden Suburb attached to application W/13/1016,that a level only half that aspired to, may actually be deliverable based on the emerging infrastructure strategy.
On the basis of the above issues we object to the Infrastructure strategy, as it makes little or no explicit provision to rebalance modal dependence in favour of public transport. There is little provided in the way of bus priority and there is a risk that the impacts of the Strategy may undermine current bus operations.
Achieving mode shift and a parallel reduction in operating costs through higher vehicle productivity is of the essence in delivering the optimised transport strategy for the area. We are thus very concerned, that no mention is made of comprehensive measures to assist public transport and redress the current conditions in the area today that all favour personal car use over more sustainable modes.
It should be noted that today a disproportionate level of bus operating mileage within the area earmarked for strategic growth needs to financially supported, compared with the rest of Leamington and Warwick, where services are generally fully commercial. Thus the Strategy needs not only to deliver augmented service that can credibly be sustained through revenue alone at the full build out period, but to recover a modest deficit situation.
The current difficulties operating bus services in the proposed growth quadrant arise to a great extent from historic approaches to land use and urban design. Previously, planning did not make any provision for the creation of effective bus routings. In fact, master planning and detailed design of streets have led to a situation where bus services have had to be retrofitted on some roads within the Warwick Gates development that are barely able to accommodate the vehicles. There is virtually no provision of high-quality roadside infrastructure in the wider area. Any perpetuation of this approach would be inconsistent with NPPF.
We therefore welcome that the Plan Strategy makes explicit reference to high-quality bus stop infrastructure, at least incorporating high profile flags and timetable displays, a suitable boarding area to offer level access to the disabled and infirm, and additionally, high quality shelters where appropriate. We would urge that this takes a more prominent place within the final Plan. Given the difficulties encountered retrofitting bus stops after initial consent we strongly urge that sites are agreed as part of initial master planning at Outline submission stage, where urban design and effective pedestrian accessibility can be considered with bus stop location in the round, and not at the determination of Reserved Matters.
We also support WCC's design standards for residential streets (2002) which requires 6.5m widths to accommodate bus routes, or 6.2m where on-street parking bays are provided. We recommend tracking for 12.2m Scania K230UB or Optare Versa V1200 single deck buses should be assessed to test all proposed bus routes within submitted layouts for fitness. Effective and efficient bus operation means that routes for buses should avoid multiple changes in priority, and sharp bends. Equally, tight radius corners, however subtle the turn, cause buses disproportionate difficulty, and we recommend they are avoided.
Chapter 5.2 Sites at Whitnash/South of Sydenham
We object to the proposed infrastructure requirements as we believe that they will be insufficient to facilitate the provision for sustainable bus service.
The now-consented appeal site south of St Fremunds Way cannot be served by a further extension of service 67, as a further vehicle resource would be needed. Much less will be possible to serve an additional 300 units to the south, for which separate access is envisaged, and therefore an entirely separate bus route would be required. As outlined above, merely extending services into this area at existing limited frequencies will require substantial additional resource, the costs of which, if developer-funded, would neither meet CIL Tests of reasonableness across such a limited housing quantum, nor would it likely to be commercially sustainable at full build out.
As we have said elsewhere, without a bus link across the railway offering scope to tie this area into the wider network to the west we do not see how this proposal can be considered sustainable.
Final Comments
Stagecoach Midlands is very aware that land-use planning must resolve a very large number of conflicting objectives and interests, to the ultimate benefit of the community.
The Company also recognises the particular challenges involved in today's economic climate, and equally respects the plan-making efforts sustained by both Councils and other stakeholders over a very considerable period to date, that have led to the current proposals.
We trust that Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council recognise that we are very willing to play an active and constructive role in further shaping the Development Strategy, as key stakeholders in securing sustainable development now and into the future.
Stagecoach Midlands would be happy to meet with representatives from the two Councils, developers and their respective specialist consultant teams as required, to assist in achieving the optimum development strategy for Warwick District over the next 20 years, and to help ensure that the objectives of sustainable development are met in the detailed design of the development proposals.

I am well aware that we need more housing in the area and that everyone needs somewhere to live however I do not think that the present planning suggestions have been sensibly thought through and I feel that I can only comment on the South Warwick plans.

I could write several pages of my thoughts and suggestions but think it would be easier for all concerned to list the obvious below:

* Excessive traffic on Banbury Road, Myton Road, Gallows Hill, Bridge End Roundabout , Castle Hill, The Butts, Smith Street, St Nicholas Church Street etc and even Emscote Road.
* More traffic crossing the Historic Bridge originally built for Horse and Carriages and indeed the ONLY bridge accessing Warwick Town
* Movement of traffic through town when M40 has a problem - from experience Warwick comes to a standstill already. It cannot cope with any more.
* Emergency Services access - Banbury Road to the Hospital is a regular route especially when there is a motorway accident.
* Increase of the already excessive pollution with schools, parks and children's playgrounds all within the vicinity
* Ability of parents and children crossing roads to Schools, Parks , Castle, Leisure Centre and all other amenities. Also the elderly and infirmed who have to date lost yet another pedestrian crossing.
* Damage that is likely to affect our Tourism.

I am sure that people North of Warwick will have their own objections but if you take into consideration the major road structures ie A4177, A46, this would allow residents easier access to Birmingham, Coventry, Stratford upon Avon, Kenilworth and Junction 15 of the M40 and Warwick Parkway surely it would be somewhat more realistic to increase the size of Hatton Park and Hampton Magna.
Please can we all remember that Warwick is a Historic County Town with a magnificent Castle. Surely it should remain as such and not become a huge housing estate, large traffic island or another "Milton Keynes".

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.

I am well aware that we need more housing in the area and that everyone needs somewhere to live however I do not think that the present planning suggestions have been sensibly thought through and I feel that I can only comment on the South Warwick plans.
I could write several pages of my thoughts and suggestions but think it would be easier for all concerned to list the obvious below:
* Excessive traffic on Banbury Road, Myton Road, Gallows Hill, Bridge End Roundabout , Castle Hill, The Butts, Smith Street, St Nicholas Church Street etc and even Emscote Road.
* More traffic crossing the Historic Bridge originally built for Horse and Carriages and indeed the ONLY bridge accessing Warwick Town
* Movement of traffic through town when M40 has a problem - from experience Warwick comes to a standstill already. It cannot cope with any more.
* Emergency Services access - Banbury Road to the Hospital is a regular route especially when there is a motorway accident.
* Increase of the already excessive pollution with schools, parks and children's playgrounds all within the vicinity
* Ability of parents and children crossing roads to Schools, Parks , Castle, Leisure Centre and all other amenities. Also the elderly and infirmed who have to date lost yet another pedestrian crossing.
* Damage that is likely to affect our Tourism.
I am sure that people North of Warwick will have their own objections but if you take into consideration the major road structures ie A4177, A46, this would allow residents easier access to Birmingham, Coventry, Stratford upon Avon, Kenilworth and Junction 15 of the M40 and Warwick Parkway surely it would be somewhat more realistic to increase the size of Hatton Park and Hampton Magna.
Please can we all remember that Warwick is a Historic County Town with a magnificent Castle. Surely it should remain as such and not become a huge housing estate, large traffic island or another "Milton Keynes".

From reading the Revised Development Strategy leaflet and attending The Guy Nelson Hall, Warwick School on Monday 22nd July, I was made aware of the full extent of this plan and the negative impact it would bring to Warwick and Leamington Spa.

I live in Warwick, on Camel Close, off the Myton Road and have lived in Leamington & Warwick over the last 20 years and consider this the most beautiful region in the Midlands.

During my time here, I have seen many changes in the region and with some of the recent developments around the new Morrison's and ALDI stores, I can see that the nature of the surrounding town areas are becoming overly congested and normal day to day commuting becoming more arduous.

When looking at the website for Warwick District Council, I have read the comments from Les Caborn and struggle to understand the points being made, as there is several areas of contradiction:
"Councillor Les Caborn, the lead councillor for the Local Plan said "I believe these proposals set out an approach which will enable the district to continue to grow and thrive, at the same time as protecting and enhancing many of the things that make Warwick district a great place"
Interesting... By exponentially expanding the requirements for new homes, the infrastructure required to support this and socio-economic factors it brings will not protect or enhance our region. On the contrary, it can only been seen that these changes will threat the things that make this a great place to live.

He also says:
"I'm really pleased to be putting forward proposals that provide for some real improvements in housing needs, a new country park, opportunities for employment, as well as transport schemes, schools and community facilities. I look forward to hearing what people think of these proposals."
But what about improving the stock of potential homes we already have available? Would this not remove the issues of additional transport schemes required (which would only worsen the situation), burden on schools, hospitals etc?

When looking at the proposed plans, I have major concerns and therefore need to make an official objection on many levels upon why these plans should be rejected.

1. New Homes and Projected Volumes?
District Council proposal for more than 12,000 new homes to be built by 2030?
This is a staggering amount of new homes to be built. A detailed explanation is required to understand how this calculation has been made?
When looking at the overall census from 2001 - 2011, there has been a steady increase in numbers over that period. When projecting this into 2030, an expansion of 12,000 new homes is an exponential growth. How can this be? With the increase of jobs in the automotive sector, this still does not cater for this growth.
Therefore, it is requested that the calculation of new homes is made available to be verified and cross checked with other external bodies.
See section 158 - NPPF: "Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

2. Empty homes currently within Leamington & Warwick and existing brown field sites
Has the existing stock of empty homes and properties available for renovation within the Leamington & Warwick been considered? Would it not make sense to address the issues in the town to rebuild and improve these properties, which are currently abandoned and derelict? Would it not be advisable on a planning perspective to make good these properties and bring them back into a good condition and build up and improve existing areas given the infrastructure we currently have? Is this not more sustainable?
(See point 17 of the NPPF: "encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high
environmental value"
See point 51- NPPF: "Local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory purchase powers. They should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for
additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate " - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf


3. Empty Office buildings.
In addition to empty residential homes, is it possible to convert existing business / office buildings into a residential properties. Looking around Leamington and Warwick, there are many areas identified that have been unoccupied for several years. Given the economic climate, it is likely that these properties will remain empty and potentially fall derelict.

As per point (2) and (3), it would only be in the council's favour to allow these properties to be converted into homes, such that they can start gaining revenues for council tax!

In addition to this, I see that additional offices are also being suggested within the plan.. Why are the planners doing this? If we can't fill the existing office spaces around Leamington & Warwick, why are we building new offices?
If there is new offices being built, exactly how many people would it support, if all units were occupied..? Would it cover the additional people moving into the area?
Given the current economic state, it is likely for more offices to remain empty. Given this, if the economy took a further downward spiral in the next 10 years, it is likely that the ratio of unemployed to working people would also rise. How does that help the district to grow and thrive?
See point 51- NPPF: - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

4) Green spaces in Warwickshire
One of the many positive aspects of living in this area is the consideration given to green spaces, that makes this region so special.
When looking at the plans of south Warwick, a large area of green fields could potentially be lost due to the unnecessary expansion between Warwick and Leamington.
In addition to this, it is important to consider proper planning and restraint when converting green field sites to urban sprawl. The conservation of wildlife is becoming even more important, but no references has been made to this within the plans for the protection thereof.
Yes, yes.. I see that there is plans for a country park in Whitnash and Sydenham, but lets not forget, this area is already a green field site. How does overstating this on the plan actually improve the wildlife conservation in South Warwick?

In addition to this, one of the biggest assets in our region is Warwick Castle. Why is it that this is the biggest area of expansion.. This can only be described as wilfully irresponsible, which will ruin one of the things that really makes this a great place.
See section 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment of NPPF.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

5) Transport
Currently, the road networks around Leamington and Warwick are barely adequate to deal with traffic today. Most homes will typically contain at least 1 if not 2 cars.
If we draw an average of 1.5 cars per household, that will be an addition 18,000 cars on the road. If only half of vehicles travel through Leamington / Warwick during peak times, that will be 9,000 cars...
Expanding the region to deal with this extra volume will only create havoc during peak periods.
The plans show several 'Grade 1 Junction' improvements. However, the network is fundamentally flawed as there are key bottleneck's. All roads tend to lead through the centre of Warwick or Leamington.
Warwick is not able to further increase the flow of traffic due to the smaller streets. Leamington has several rivers and bridges. Access over these bridges are limited.
Therefore, making better junctions will not improve the situation when adding additional cars on the road.
How can this make our region grow and thrive? What will it do to our open spaces? How would this affect the current lifestyle that we enjoy today? How can our roads be safer with more cars on the road?
Have the planners considered this when building the plan? If so, what is their response to traffic management, other than making roads bigger / wider? (which we suggested does not solve the root cause).
With these issues of traffic build-up within the town, it can be seen that issues along the A46 and M40 will also arise during peak periods, adding to the problem.
See a link to an interesting article published by the Project Manager for Transport and Safety in York.
(http://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=12475)

6) Air Quality
Given the traffic buildup at peak times, the schools and homes based along these main roads, it will be apparent that air quality will be affected. According to tests currently being undertaken, the air quality in certain parts of Warwick are not acceptable and increasing traffic flow by 9,000 - 18,000 cars.
What is the planners response to this? Again, is this responsible planning?
In addition to this, new research proves that air quality is linked to the higher risk of lung cancer and heart failure.
See the following link:
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/10/air-pollution-lung-cancer-heart-failure)

See point 124 - NPPF : "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf


7) Infrastructure - Schools - Hospitals - Water - Drainage
With the added demand placed upon schools, expansion of existing schools is required plus additional new schools to be built. What does this mean to the overall quality of the existing schools today? Are they able to adequately expand to meet this demand? Will they be over subscribed per classroom, such that the quality of education in these schools drop?
I have 3 children in Primary and Secondary education and this is a very important concern that I have. Taking additional demand in existing schools as well as building a new school will incur a huge investment, of which children's education could be compromised. How does the planned respond to this? What assurances can they provide, not only for children in the area, but also children who wish to move into the area?

Added demand to Warwick Hospital. This is a site which is set within a residential area. Is it possible to expand this hospital to cater for any additional 40,000 - 50,000 people? What is the planners response to dealing with this additional demand. Are there enough beds within specialist wards within the hospital to cater for this growth? (As point 6 reveals, with the added pollution in the area, additional demands may be placed on hospital services).

Water and Drainage is already something of an issue, as works have been carried out within the town to repair this. How would the additional infrastructure cope with this increase in capacity?
Also, would the building of these new homes be placed on any land prone to flooding? Is this something that should be avoided?

See point 162. - NPPF : " Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:
●● assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and
●● take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

8) Alternative plans?
Given that the expected number of homes appears to be excessive and not clearly explained within the notes, the majority of these new sites are south of the region.. Why? Has it been explored if some capacity could be shared in the north of the region?
The protection of green belt land has been discussed for the North, but this is something that I believe should be explored further. Is it not already possible for the local authority to change the use of this green belt for the north? Why has this not been explored? Why is the focus of all the development concentrated on the south?

Has the planning office consulted with planners in other regions surrounding Leamington and Warwick?
What other plans have been submitted in Stratford or Kenilworth districts? Are there other developments already going ahead that the planners in Leamington and Warwick don't already know about? Is there some planning duplication being made upon the number of houses being built?


As mentioned before, I am opposed to these plans and have described over 8 separate and individual objections.

I would welcome a response to the issues raised and a chance to meet and discuss further.

Objections to Development of South Sites (areas south of Warwick)
Since there is a proposal for 'a major sub-regional employment site in the North East of the district' it appears very odd to site 3,195 houses South of Warwick, which almost inevitably will create huge volumes of traffic - the plan for which appears to be to direct it along the Banbury Road over the Avon Bridge through the town and out along the Coventry Road, presumably heading to the 'sub-regional employment site in the North East'.
It appears that the proposals regarding roads are to the benefit of traffic - easing as much through the town centre as possible...the document refers to 'a more attractive route to vehicles'.
An audit of current pavement usage? What about the current users of the pavements? Has the Local Plan taken into consideration the current numbers of pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, joggers, parents with prams and toddlers in tow, tourists photographing the castle, school children walking in groups to and from all three Warwick Foundation Schools and Myton School at key points during the day.
St Nick's park is really well used. Rowers and various boat users on the river Avon, walkers, joggers and children. Sea Scouts is based in the park. One of Warwick's most beautiful spots is the iconic view from Avon Bridge across to the castle. It's simply stunning. Lots of tourists congregate on the bridge to take photos; it is not a road that could/should take large volumes of traffic.
The Banbury Road needs to keep the pedestrian crossings. Numerous children cross there daily to get to school. There also seems to be a trend for office workers from Heathcote Industrial Estate to take a healthy walk around Bridge End at lunchtimes. People currently enjoy living and working in Warwick.
Traffic Noise/Pollution Warwick Prep School Playground for the youngest pupils is next to the Banbury Road (pollution levels? Noise in classrooms?) The Avon Bridge, St Nick's Park (which is extremely well used and visited), the Myton Road with its 3 schools, are not areas to try to increase the volume/speed of traffic. A Left filter turn into Myton Rd seems particularly worrying- a school girl broke her leg being hit by a car there around Easter time. To have a filter lane - which encourages continual movement - by a very large school seems absurd. A left lane filter would remove an area that is currently pavement and landscape and a buffer between school children and the numerous coaches and cars that turn there during school hours.
Green Belt Vs Historic Buildings? It appears that some previous plans did not progress due to concern for the Green Belt north of Leamington. The traffic will be increased in parts of historic Warwick, especially over the grade II listed Avon Bridge. Bridge End is a conservation area, the route along the Banbury Road is landscaped which is meant to reflect the tradition of Warwick Castle Park. The impact of additional signage and traffic lights on the historic vistas through the town centre would be detrimental.
If there is to be some increased housing in Warwick, such as that of the Myton Road, surely the priority is to ensure that children living in those houses can cycle to Myton/Warwick school and allow their parents to walk or cycle to work in Warwick/Leamington town centres. Therefore increased cycle lanes would be paramount to any green plan for the area.
There's nothing in the plan to benefit those people with shops and businesses in Warwick. The town centre needs a better parking plan. There is nothing to encourage the volumes of traffic to be directed through the town to stop and enjoy the things that Warwick has to offer.
Misguided traffic proposals. The idea to block one entrance of Bridge End is unworkable. Cars are invariably parked on both sides of the length of Bridge End and there are already occasional problems with deliveries. This conservation area needs to keep access for emergency vehicles, refuse collection and deliveries.
All traffic should be directed out of the centre of Warwick - not through the middle of it! It is imperative that any new houses based south of Warwick should have major road access to the by-pass/motorway or other links to major employment areas. The roads and buildings in Warwick are such that there will always be a maximum capacity however much tinkering goes on to 'improve traffic flow'. The town environment and historic nature of the area deserves much better than to make its roads the main priority.

Objections to Development of South Sites (areas south of Warwick)
Since there is a proposal for 'a major sub-regional employment site in the North East of the district' it appears very odd to site 3,195 houses South of Warwick, which almost inevitably will create huge volumes of traffic - the plan for which appears to be to direct it along the Banbury Road over the Avon Bridge through the town and out along the Coventry Road, presumably heading to the 'sub-regional employment site in the North East'.
It appears that the proposals regarding roads are to the benefit of traffic - easing as much through the town centre as possible...the document refers to 'a more attractive route to vehicles'.
An audit of current pavement usage? What about the current users of the pavements? Has the Local Plan taken into consideration the current numbers of pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, joggers, parents with prams and toddlers in tow, tourists photographing the castle, school children walking in groups to and from all three Warwick Foundation Schools and Myton School at key points during the day.
St Nick's park is really well used. Rowers and various boat users on the river Avon, walkers, joggers and children. Sea Scouts is based in the park. One of Warwick's most beautiful spots is the iconic view from Avon Bridge across to the castle. It's simply stunning. Lots of tourists congregate on the bridge to take photos; it is not a road that could/should take large volumes of traffic.
The Banbury Road needs to keep the pedestrian crossings. Numerous children cross there daily to get to school. There also seems to be a trend for office workers from Heathcote Industrial Estate to take a healthy walk around Bridge End at lunchtimes. People currently enjoy living and working in Warwick.
Traffic Noise/Pollution Warwick Prep School Playground for the youngest pupils is next to the Banbury Road (pollution levels? Noise in classrooms?) The Avon Bridge, St Nick's Park (which is extremely well used and visited), the Myton Road with its 3 schools, are not areas to try to increase the volume/speed of traffic. A Left filter turn into Myton Rd seems particularly worrying- a school girl broke her leg being hit by a car there around Easter time. To have a filter lane - which encourages continual movement - by a very large school seems absurd. A left lane filter would remove an area that is currently pavement and landscape and a buffer between school children and the numerous coaches and cars that turn there during school hours.
Green Belt Vs Historic Buildings? It appears that some previous plans did not progress due to concern for the Green Belt north of Leamington. The traffic will be increased in parts of historic Warwick, especially over the grade II listed Avon Bridge. Bridge End is a conservation area, the route along the Banbury Road is landscaped which is meant to reflect the tradition of Warwick Castle Park. The impact of additional signage and traffic lights on the historic vistas through the town centre would be detrimental.
If there is to be some increased housing in Warwick, such as that of the Myton Road, surely the priority is to ensure that children living in those houses can cycle to Myton/Warwick school and allow their parents to walk or cycle to work in Warwick/Leamington town centres. Therefore increased cycle lanes would be paramount to any green plan for the area.
There's nothing in the plan to benefit those people with shops and businesses in Warwick. The town centre needs a better parking plan. There is nothing to encourage the volumes of traffic to be directed through the town to stop and enjoy the things that Warwick has to offer.
Misguided traffic proposals. The idea to block one entrance of Bridge End is unworkable. Cars are invariably parked on both sides of the length of Bridge End and there are already occasional problems with deliveries. This conservation area needs to keep access for emergency vehicles, refuse collection and deliveries.
All traffic should be directed out of the centre of Warwick - not through the middle of it! It is imperative that any new houses based south of Warwick should have major road access to the by-pass/motorway or other links to major employment areas. The roads and buildings in Warwick are such that there will always be a maximum capacity however much tinkering goes on to 'improve traffic flow'. The town environment and historic nature of the area deserves much better than to make its roads the main priority.