Whole area

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, where I live with my wife and family.
We have lived in the village for 9 years and chose the location because we wanted to live in a quiet village location away from the town centre.

I have read the WDC Revised Development Strategy (2013) and I have attended a public meeting where I viewed the WDC RDS PowerPoint presentation. What follows is my considered response to the proposed housing developments and Gypsy Traveller sites.

The RDS completely contradicts WDC's strategic vision "to make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit" (RDS 3.1).
An increase of 12300 homes will not achieve this vision and will in fact have the opposite effect for a number of reasons:
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the district is 5400. This is based on factual information derived from the national census statistics, and allows for migration. Where is the evidence to support WDC claim that 12300 homes are required?
The WDC presentation states that, in order to provide for growth of the local population (RDS 3.5), sites for 550 new homes per annum would need to be identified. Over an 18 year period this totals 9900 homes. Where does this number fit in with the 12300 WDC claim are needed to meet growth?

Why has the WDC empty home strategy not been included in the 5 year plan? WDC has developed 250 homes back to use under this strategy and further homes have been identified. http://www.emptyhomes.com/ identified approximately 1350 empty homes in the Warwick district in 2012, why isn't more work being done around this type of development of existing homes rather than proposing large scale new developments. There does not appear to be any mention of empty homes into RDS.

Warwick District currently has a very low unemployment rate, with only 1.6% unemployment (claiming JSA). If some of the proposed development is about economic growth where is the evidence to show that people moving into the area will be able to find work?
Much of the employment land in the district has not been fulfilled and may subsequently become land for housing but where are the jobs for the people moving into the area?
I have heard the growth of Jaguar Land rover cited as a employment opportunity which would require homes for employees moving to the area. However, the WDC RDS does not take account for the fact that Stratford District Council are in the process of consulting on a proposed development of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. This would be closer to the JLR than any of the Warwick District developments in terms of homes for JLR employees.
Why have WDC and SDC not communicated about their development plans when they are so close? As a Bishops Tachbrook resident we will also be affected by the SDC plans as any commuters and/or visitors to Warwick and Leamington from the new developments will increase the traffic and associated problems, noise/ air pollination etc.

The visual impact on the view from Bishops Tachbrook, Harbury Lane, Tachbrook Valley, Gallows Hill will be hugely significant for existing residents but also visitors to the area. No amount of 'country park' can make up for the loss of beautiful countryside and open fields which would be lost to thousands of homes and the associated environmental impacts such as noise and light (from houses, cars and street lighting). The planning inspector who reviewed the current plan in 2006 said that Woodside Farm should not be built on then or in the future. The WDC's own landscape consultant, Richard Morrish, said in the Landscape Area Statement (2009) referring to the land south of Gallows Hill "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development". The RDS goes against this recommendation, why?


The local infrastructure cannot support such a significant number of houses in one area. The Southern Site already has significant issues in terms of volume and flow of traffic. The RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements would alleviate any of the problems that would come with such a large development. No number of dual carriage ways will improve the flow of traffic through the 'pinch points' such as crossings of canals, rivers and railways and the RDS does not provide any realistically deliverable to solutions to these problems. There are major problems for traffic trying to get into Leamington on weekday mornings when the traffic backs up all the way onto the main carriage way on the M40. Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment shows traffic speeds of only 0-10 mph in large parts of Warwick. Any increase in traffic, never mind the exceptionally large numbers proposed in the RDS, will make this situation worse. Rather than increasing trade in the town centre it is likely that people would be put off visiting the shops because of the volume of traffic. This view was supported by the Chairperson of the Warwick Chamber of Trade, who echoed this point at the public meeting I attended.

A lot can be learnt from previous developments in terms of the volume of traffics. The Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow developments prove that the people who move onto these developments will use their car to commute to/from work and to/from shops and town centres. The bus services serving these developments are not self funding and rely on subsidies to run. It would be naive and idealistic to think that this would be any different on new developments. Most houses have more than one car and most people will drive to work. The location of the Southern Site development would require most residents to commute to work.
A lot can also be learnt about sites identified on plans for facilities such as schools and play areas which are not followed through. The Warwick Gates plans contained a site for a school which was never built. This subsequently but huge pressure on surrounding schools and thee is still and annual scrabble for places amongst the Warwick Gates residents who have a nervous wait to see if their child will get their preferred option. Therefore I have no faith that if the proposed plans go ahead the schools will come to fruition. Similarly, the Chase Meadow development had a playground site on the plans and again this was not built. Also many of the properties on both of these developments are rented out and therefore not lived in by the people who bought them.

One of my main concerns is the health implications. I have read the Local Air Quality Progress Report (2011) and the areas already identified in this report as 'Air Quality Management Areas' will be affected by an increase in traffic volume as a result of the proposed developments. As the Air Quality is covered by the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (amended 2002) and the Environment Act 1995 as well as various other legislation I cannot understand why a full Health Impact Survey has not been commissioned. How does WDC know that the proposed developments will not take air pollution levels above the legal limits. It is not acceptable to just go ahead and worry retrospectively when we are talking about serious health implications. Many schools, nurseries and parks are in the vicinity of the Southern Site and the Heath of the children who use these facilities could be at risk if this goes ahead without a full assembly of the potential impact of such a large development. I seriously worry about the effect on my children's health and other children in the area. In my opinion this should take priority over everything else and I am extremely disappointed that WDC are not giving due consideration to this aspect of the impact on local residents.
In terms of Bishops Tachbrook, the village is already a cut through for many vehicles on their way to/ from the M40. When I walk my dog in the morning there is a disproportionate amount of traffic travelling through the main roads in the village, in comparison to the number of residents. Speeding along these roads has always been an issue and the speed reduction measures are ineffective. Mallory road leading to the Banbury road is also prone to flooding and has sometimes been impassable. There have been no improvements made to the road systems or pavements since the development of Warwick Gates and I see no acknowledgement of this need in the RDS. This is yet another example of WDC failing to recognise and consider the wide reaching impact of large scale housing developments on existing infrastructures. If the proposed develop goes ahead it will increase the volume of traffic through Bishops Tachbrook and that will increase the risk to residents of Bishops Tachbrook as there are no proposed improvements.

The housing proposed for village settlements has categorised Bishops Tachbrook as the largest type (100-150 homes). The Bishops Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a need for only 14 homes. Again, where is the evidence to support the need for 100-150 homes? Why would this many houses be needed in the village when 3400 homes are proposed for the Southern Site development? With regards to the visual, environmental and infrastructure issues I echo what I have said in the above paragraphs.

Why are we insistently building on prime agricultural land? Surely this land is needed to feed the ever growing population of the country or we will become more reliant on importing food and pushing prices up even further. Obviously the developers prefer this option as it's easier and means more profit for them.

I have read the criteria for the sites for Gypsy and Travellers from the consultation document. I do not think that the proposed sites are distributed evenly around the district and again the south contains a disproportionate number. All of the above points I have raised would also apply to the development of a Gypsy and Traveller site in this area.
In terms of the relevant criteria I do not consider the following sites to be suitable:
Site 3: this site is very remote and does not have easy access to facilities, access, pedestrian access and is prone to flooding.
Site 4: as above.
Site 5: The access is onto a very busy road and there is no pedestrian access. There would be a visual impact on the approach to Warwick and there is a listed building on the site. There would be undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services of such a small village.
Site 6: has no pedestrian access and is very remote in relation to distance from main centres and services.
Site 9: there would be a visual impact on the approach into Warwick and there are listed buildings on the site. The access is onto a busy road and there is no pedestrian access.
Site 10: Too close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
Site 15: This site is located on the banks of the Tachbrook. As the proposed site may be used as a place of work there could be a risk of contamination.

The school in Bishops Tachbrook has one class of approximately 30 children per intake. A GT site of 5,10 or 15 could be home to 10, 20 or 30 children. As Bishops Tachbrook is a small school already at capacity is could not support the needs of the site. There are other schools in the district that are not at capacity that could support the need.

The sites around Bishops Tachbrook are too remote to support the development and the village and its facilities are not big enough to support such an increase in population, in terms of infrastructure and facilities.

I am also concerned about the negative impact these sites will have on local house prices and increases in house and car insurance. Statistics show a rise in crime rates.

I understand the requirement for WDC to provide 31 pitches but I strongly feel that a larger number of smaller sites evenly distributed across the district in areas where the existing facilities can accommodate the need is the most appropriate way to meet the requirements.

Dear Sir/Madam
This letter is my objections to the WDC local plan. My main objection is to the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The area at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area.
Local need
The local need for housing is 6,000 new homes by 2030, why is it proposed that 12,000 new homes be built? From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland and not on existing brownfield industrial sites.
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with new patients. There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the area around the proposed housing. Europa Way and the lead up to Leamington is already a nightmare at peak hours. With the possibility of all these extra vehicles this would just get worse
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this thus creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the increased traffic, exhaust pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.


Flood risk
The area propsed for building between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
The plan states that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. The secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
Will the current catchment areas change? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. The village will become an extension of Leamington with just one field separating it.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are proposed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here.
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is mainly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon? Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities.
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a viable option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of three separate proposals. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions.

I am writing with reference to the Revised Development Strategy for Warwick District, and specifically to raise concerns that I have with the number of new homes to be built in Warwick (South) between now and 2029.

* The land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook is predominantly rural, and further development upon this land, merging these areas into a single suburban sprawl, would be of significant detriment to the feel of the town(s). The rural space is as important as the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and Warwick, and should be safeguarded just as strongly. Warwick is a beautiful, historic town, and turning the surrounding area into sprawling suburbia would seriously detract from the town's allure - negatively impacting upon tourist numbers, and the quality of life for Warwick residents.

* The projected housing requirment of 12,300 new homes to be built seems much too high, with less than half that number needed to meet local needs (as outlined at a recent local meeting at Warwick School that Warwick District Council representatives "were unable to attend"). Without having sufficient employment opportunities for an increased population, it seems highly inappropriate to allocate greenfield land now for housing that is not required by the local population. There are sufficient brownfield sites in Warwick (and immediate environs) to meet the projected local housing need.

* The roads to/through Warwick are already congested at peak times, and Warwick District's proposed transport strategy is further automobile-based, squeezing more congested traffic on to the existing road network. The roads, and in particular bridges, cannot support further traffic; walking and cycling would be less attractive; and air quality would become far worse.

* Pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington, is already worse than is legally permitted. For example, levels of nitrogen dioxide, a direct product of traffic pollution, is already consistently exceeded in many areas of Warwick, by up to 154% (Warwick District Council Progress Report, April 2011). Further through-traffic, as a result of the population increases associated with the scale of development proposed, would clearly increase pollution levels, to the detriment of the health of local residents. Such pollution has been causally linked to conditions such as COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder), as well as further suggested links to conditions including lung cancer and asthma. The District Council is legally required to improve air quality, but the present plan and its transport strategy would worsen it. And as well as the long-term health impact upon residents, businesses and tourism would be negatively impacted upon.

* Furthermore, I am concerned that the proposed development would require significant infrastructural development, specifically relating to education and healthcare facilities. I also have concerns about potential risks to water supply, sewage and drainage. Significantly, I am told that Warwick hospital is already "stretched", and would require significant expansion to cope with the increased population numbers proposed.

There are far better alternatives. Primarily, lower housing numbers are required to meet local needs, rather than encouraging in-migration. Any such in-migration certainly should not be encouraged without the provision of local employment opportunities: there is no point building further, unnecessary homes here, only for people to commute elsewhere to work. Brownfield development must be absolutely prioritised over greenfield land, and all such brownfield land exploited fully before the green spaces around our town(s) are encroached upon any further.

The presently proposed Warwick District plan is not at all balanced, and comes across as a "charter for developers" rather than a balanced plan aimed at meeting the needs of local residents.

Thank you for taking these points into consideration, and I hope for a sensible resolution to be made regarding the issues mentioned.

see attached

see attached

write in response to the consultation period currently in operation with respect to the "Local Plan Revised Development Strategy."

I firstly write to support the removal of planned development on greenbelt land to the North of Milverton. Development here would be totally unacceptable and in direct contravention of the NPPF. The fact that Warwick District Council has now developed both the "Core Strategy" and "Local Plan Revised Development Strategy" without development on this greenbelt land effectively proves no exceptional circumstances exist.

To U-turn to a plan which does involve development on the North Leamington Greenbelt would be unacceptable because there would be far too great a risk of coalescence with Kenilworth and Coventry. There is a very well used public footpath running through the greenbelt land there providing an excellent leisure and exercise resource for the local people of all ages and free of cost. Trying to incorporate this into development there would not be successful and would result in a loss of that resource. Furthermore the transport assessment the council has produced/published shows that development in this area would result in greater congestion and therefore pollution than development in the South. There has quite clearly been immense local opposition in the previous consultation to development on this greenbelt land and all the points raised opposing development there that were raised in the previous consultation must be carried forward to this consultation, I will not be able to list them all here but expect them to be noted in the summary of consultation responses to this consultation, to not do this would be a lack of joined-up thinking by the council. In short development on the North Leamington Greenbelt would be in direct contravention to the NPPF in terms of not meeting the exceptional circumstances requirement, would be unsustainable for the future of the district and would require an entire new consultation process which the district does not have time to do because of the serious delays that have already been incurred in getting this plan out and the subsequent knock of damaging effects of not having a plan.

I realise that a Joint Strategic Housing Need Assessment has occurred or is on-going, it is essential that the council put together a strong argument as to why Warwick District cannot accommodate any of Coventry's housing needs. However if they fail to do this it is imperative that any additional development is not located on the land to the North of Leamington - indeed there are further development opportunities on non-greenbelt land and on brownfield land that must be brought to bear first. For example the removal of development from "The Asps" is bizarre. The argument is that development would be seen from the castle and therefore would change the historic setting of the castle. Castles were traditionally built on hills in order to look over the towns they were charged with, if there was to be a heritage loss by building on land that can be seen from the castle/can see the castle then development around almost every castle in the entire country would be, according to these principles, incorrect! Indeed there have been many developments in view of the castle/viewing the castle in recent times. This argument is null and void, the heritage value is within the castle itself and it's immediate surroundings (which the Asps does not qualify as). Should you want to preserve a view of the castle from the Asps then this could easily be incorporated by use of a linear park. The Asps is just one example of many non-greenbelt sites that should be built on before greenbelt land.

Furthermore should more housing be needed, a proper, formal assessment of a new village to the South of the district has not been completed, there is ample space to build one of these and this assessment must be completed before development is considered on greenbelt land. This assessment should be started from the position of "Is it possible to build a new village in the South of the district?"

Finally the council has identified a huge number of potential gypsy sites, the requirements needed to make each site suitable to be selected are very similar to the requirements needed to make sites suitable for housing developments. Therefore all proposed gypsy sites that do not accommodate gypsys could accommodate housing development before greenbelt land. This particularly includes land to the West of Warwick Racecourse that is conspicuous in it's absence from planned development - whilst some of this site floods the majority of it does not, and can therefore be built on. The allocation of the site as a potential gypsy site includes the "racecourse spur," unless the council has been disingenuous in it's inclusion of the site as a potential gypsy site then this spur should thus not create a barrier to development, finally there is already road access to this site and it has been offered up for development by it's owners.

There are therefore many options for development of housing on land that is not greenbelt land to the North of Leamington and these must be built on before development on the greenbelt. Were the plan to develop on the North Leamington Greenbelt be re-ignited then so would the immense local opposition and the plan would be fought right through to the inspectorate and judicial review beyond that, based on the sound knowledge that the plan would be the wrong plan for the future of the district.

There are positive aspects to the current plan, which is why it should remain in place; by placing development in the South then accommodation can be near existing employment facilities and the M40. Concerns raised by people across the county about pollution and congestion clearly demonstrate that development should be in the South. The transport assessment shows that development in the South reduces pollution compared to building in the North. This goes not only for the current plan, but also should any more development be needed - this too should be located in the South. If development was not located in the South then people would have to travel to supermarkets, employment land and to the motorway and there is no convincing guarantees whatsoever that this could be mitigated.

A further advantage to the development in the South is that public services can be targeted to that particular area, with new schools etc, that are purpose built to meet the needs of that population, spreading development over the district with bits here and there would mean a make-do-and-mend approach would need to be taken, with worse outcomes for the current population, future population and the education of the next generation.

At meetings regarding the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy there have been arguments that the plan is 'not fair.' These and other simply emotional arguments should be ignored, the plan is fair - there remain plans for development in North Leamington, including on the greenbelt eg at Thichthorn and Lillington and significant development in villages including Milverton . Emotional arguments should be ignored and politics should not intervene in planning the future development of our district. Planning should be based on planning principles. Indeed the reason that these emotional arguments have arisen, I believe is not due to the plan itself, but the way it has been presented to residents by the council. For example development in direct-contravention to the NPPF should never have been proposed in the North Leamington Greenbelt in the first place, doing this has caused the South to see "a change" this should never have happened, furthermore there has been no attempts to demonstrate the attractive nature of development to the South. For instance better and bigger provision of schools, pollution mediation methods, or the advantages of the Community Infrastructure Levy. Perhaps the greatest failing is the failure to properly use the proposed country park to the South of the Town to mitigate development and improve that area for local residents, rather than build it on the outside of the town so far fewer people can benefit from it. I will now discuss this in greater detail:.








Proposed Country Park to South of Town

The proposed country park demonstrated in the image on the left is totally in the wrong place. It has I believe been put there not for planning reasons, but for political reasons. It has been put there to appease the tiny minority of people who live in Bishop's Tachbrook. Interestingly the county councillor for Bishop's Tachbrook is the district councillor who seems to be in charge of the local plan.
I agree that a park in this area is absolutely essential to development in this area, but rather than being placed on the outside of the new development it should be placed bordering the existing housing. This would mitigate the quality of life impact of the new development for people living in existing housing. It would also act as a green lung and therefore help to mitigate the pollution impact of new development. In effect locating it next to existing development it could mitigate the concerns of the many existing local residents have and what will no doubt be their responses to this consultation. This should be the council's response to their concerns.
In it's current form this park is in direct contravention to the NPPF - it is not sustainable as the plan states that is would create a permanent boundary to the South of the town. This is unsustainable. Development cannot happen to the North of the town due to risk of coalesnce with the major urban areas of both Kenilworth and Coventry. However the next major urban area to the South is Banbury many miles away. Therefore in the future the town must develop Southwards and this park prevents that and is unsustainable because it fails the NPPF's economic test of sustainability - "ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation;" it contravenes it's social test for sustainability "meet the needs of present and future generations;" and it fails the environmental test by not maximally "minimis(ing) waste and pollution" as a park adjacent to existing development would act as a green lung and reduce pollution.
The park also contravenes the NPPF because building this park adjacent to existing development and not where currently planned would contribute to "improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure" as this land would be more accessible to more people and would thus be more of a "creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives." By having walking and cycleways across this park this would encourage sustainable activity again meeting the NPPF's demand to "actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling."
Using this park in this way would also take account of point 66 in the NPPF "Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design nof the new development should be looked on more favourably."
It would also meet paragraph 69 "safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas" as this land would be more accessible and better used.
It would further meet paragraph 73 "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities." because a park between existing and future development would be more accessible to local people.
Therefore in conclusion to this section there are very many reasons why this park should not be located in it's current unsustainable location as a Trojan horse to force future unsustainable development on the Northern Greenbelt, risking the future of this district out of a seemingly politically motivated desire to provide a quite excessive level of protection to Bishop's Tachbrook, which is still quite a way from the proposed development anyway. Many people feel very strongly on this issue and it would certainly make representation to the inspectorate regarding this element of the plan and indeed it would be a shame for the plan to fail on something which could be a great opportunity but is currently being mis-used. A much better location for the country park is shown on the right:

Objection to revised local plan:

I write to object to the revised local plan, specifically, to any development on the Area of Restraint land and fields lying between Myton Road, Gallows Hill and Europa Way in Warwick.
Detailed responses and critical issues have been delivered to you in previous consultations, therefore I would summarise the grounds for objection as follows:
Planning:
1) Development levels within the South Warwick area have been disproportionately high compared to other potential sites, and many times more than the national average. South Warwick is far from being a 'NIMBY' population; rather, we have already endured more than a fair share of housing development over the last decade.
2) Housing developments in the past (e.g. Warwick Gates estate) have yet to deliver on promised infrastructure developments to ensure sustainability (schools in the example of Warwick Gates). There is a need to make up the existing shortfall first before any further development can be considered. Please refer to 2013 admissions guide for Myton School with 594 preferences for 275 places.
Environment:
3) The revised plan would destroy the last remaining green space separating Warwick and Leamington, thereby driving urban sprawl and setting a precedent inappropriate future development.
4) The Area of restraint land within the Myton area is rich agricultural land, supporting many rare and important animal and plant species. The scale of development proposed would destroy irrevocably much of this important habitat, depriving future generations.
5) Flooding risk has been highlighted by Myton residents, with photographic and written accounts (see attached letter from Malin's and Myton Crescent residents from previous consultations). The revised plan does not mitigate flooding; rather it guarantees property damage and environmental damage due to flooding caused by over development. The area of restraint land serves as an important water sink, and in the context of predicted increased rainfall over the next several years, needs to be left alone.
6) Air quality has been extensively studied and reported on in the Warwick area. The WDC commissioned report of 2009 revealed a widespread breach of air quality standard around the entire perimeter of Warwick Town centre. It is clear that the revised plan would cause many thousands of additional car journeys per day that would further deteriorate levels that are already breaching EU requirements. The revised plan represents a major public health risk to current and future generations of inhabitants.
7) Infrastructure within Warwick is not capable of expanding to meet the significant additional demands that the revised local plan would generate. Traffic will clog at the constricted entrance and exit points of the medieval town layout (see photos in the attached previous response). Leamington Spa train station is already often full to capacity and parking expansion seems highly unlikely in the revised plan.
Process:
8) King Henry VIII / Oken Trust, current owners of much of the Myton land earmarked for development, have clear conflict of interest given the position that WDC Councillors hold on the Trustee board. Prior to any formal engagement of land sale, The King Henry VIII/Oken trust must be independently audited to ensure covenants of sale are not compromised.

9) There has already been an overwhelming response by Myton residents to object to previous preferred options (in 2009 and 2012), that were almost identical to the revised local plan. Previous public consultations seemed to have failed completely, as the Myton area is now proposed for even greater intensity of development. Therefore, please take into account previous objections rather than brush them aside.

I am writing to make my objections to the local plan Revised Development Strategy clear. My main objection is to reference number 6 on the Revised Development Strategy, particularly the area south of Harbury Lane, between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook. The small pocket at Heathcote does not form part of my objection nor the Heathcote Hill Farm area. I believe that the area between Europa Way and Oakley Wood road, incorporating Grove Farm should never be built on as it provides a green space barrier between town and village.
Local need
It is my understanding that the local need for housing is for less than 6,000 new homes by 2030, but that it is proposed that 12,000 new homes be built, with the vast majority (4,500) of them being South of Warwick and Leamington Spa. From looking at the plans it appears that a huge amount of the proposed housing will be on farmland. I would like to know why existing brownfield industrial sites are not being used?
It is my understanding that using projections based on natural growth of the population with an allowance for migration this would mean a total of 5,400 homes would be required. This information was taken from a paper prepared by Ray Bullen in July 2012 that was updated using 2011 census data in 2013.
I also understand that Warwick District Council's own consultants, GL Hearn, gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast study in December 2012 in which they arrived at a figure of 4405 houses required.
Warwick District has a low unemployment level of 1.7% and so increasing the housing to meet job needs is not an issue. The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment said that overall "Warwick District had a very good jobs-homes balance.
Why is the local plan proposing more than twice the amount of homes identified as being required?
Medical facilities
If this were to go ahead it would put a huge strain on the already stretched resources available. Warwick Hospital already struggles to see Accident and Emergency patients within 4 hours and I struggle to get an appointment at my doctors within the same week. The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
There are no dental care facilities in Bishops Tachbrook.
Utilities
The current water supplies, drainage and sewerage would not cope with an extra 12,000 homes. Will Severn Trent water be upgrading their current systems to cope with the extra demand?
Transport
The population of any new housing developments would be car dependant as there is no provision for jobs within the immediate vicinity of the proposed housing. Indeed, if the plans were to go ahead as proposed then the major employment area being built near Baginton will require a commute either through the already congested Leamington Spa town or back towards the Europa Way/M40/A46 which again struggles to cope at peak periods already. What are the plans for dealing with the major improvements that will be required for the roads in and around the proposed housing areas? Europa Way and the area around Leamington Shopping Park is often gridlocked at present. With the possibility of an extra 20,000 vehicles being added into the mix this would make it an unacceptable journey. It would in fact discourage visitors and tourists to the town areas as well as people looking to buy property.
I have seen Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 assessment where it shows the major issues this plan will cause in 2028. The large areas of 0-5mph average speed during the morning rush hour are unacceptable. How can you expect people to want to live in an area where their daily commute has to deal with this? Would people be looking for other routes to avoid the nasty congestion? Will smaller streets and village routes be used as rat runs for this this creating an unsafe environment for our children and elderly folk?
The impact on 'pinch points', crossings of the canal, river and railways shows no realistically deliverable solution to the problems posed by the proposals. I note it states possible park and ride facilities. I would suggest that this needs to be definite park and ride facilities in place prior to any building work commencing. There is no evidence within the plan to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can or will be delivered by the Developer in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
What is the cost of the proposed traffic measures? Who will pay for this? The taxpayer or the developers, and if it is the developers is it a condition of sale or just a desirable measure?
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."
These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.
Pollution
In those areas most affected by the 'snails pace traffic' pollution will increase. It is my understanding that Warwick District Council are required by law to reduce the pollution from vehicle exhausts. This plan would significantly increase the volume of traffic thus increasing the levels of vehicle exhaust pollution. Those people that choose to walk or cycle will have to fill their lungs with the increasing pollution levels. Who would want to live next to or in these areas of high pollution? What provisions have Warwick District Council made to adhere to their responsibilities by law to reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts?
Have any studies been done on the impact the proposed measures will have on local residents health?
Noise pollution from the significant increase in traffic will increase
People choose to live in a village for many reasons, one of which is a better air quality. With the proposed increase in housing and traffic, air quality will be compromised, with the long term impact being an increase in the requirement for medical intervention.
Flood risk
Areas of Whitnash, Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook are already prone to flooding. The area between Grove Farm and Windmill Hill is prone to flooding according to the Environment Agency website. What provisions have been made for this? Will there be flood defences as part of the plan?
Education
What about schools? I notice it says that there will be 3 primary schools South of Leamington and a 'possible' secondary school. I would respectfully suggest that the secondary school would need to be guaranteed and in place along with the primary schools BEFORE the majority of any housing is built in order to protect the current pupils in the area and their education. I would also expect that people moving into the proposed housing would be reluctant to do so until adequate educational facilities are available.
It does not seem fair that people that live in certain areas to ensure a placement at a specific school should end up with a less desirable option for their children when newcomers to the area will get the advantages that should be provided to the loyal local residents. Will the current catchment areas change? I suspect so. How is this fair on current residents? What about siblings that will be applying in the future? This could result in siblings attending different schools and could have further impact on working families as well as further traffic implications.
The Catholic Primary school in Whitnash, St Josephs', has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Bishops Tachbrook school is already at capacity.
Bishops Tachbrook
The housing planned between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook would turn a beautiful piece of rolling scenery into a view of a housing estate. The whole character of Bishops Tachbrook will be lost. The unique desirability of the village will be lost. It will merely be an extension of Leamington Spa and Warwick Gates. The visual impact of the beautiful landscape around the village and the unique character of this village will be destroyed. Have you had a look at the view from Bishops Tachbrook looking towards Warwick Gates, between which some of the planned housing is proposed. The planned housing will be clearly visible leaving just a field between it and Bishops Tachbrook. The visual impact will be devastating.
If the 100/150 proposed homes within the envelope of Bishops Tachbrook are propsed to be built on the Windmill Hill side of the village it will leave virtually no green space between the village and Warwick Gates.
Large areas of the landscape south of Leamington and Warwick are considered to be uniquely beautiful, a rolling landscape with far reaching views. Given the overriding concerns about the excessive numbers of new houses proposed is it right that this landscape should be lost forever?
It should also be noted that the planning inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should never be built on.
Warwick District Council's landscape consultant Richard Moorish referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "the study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development" in the Landscape Area Statement of 2009. Why has Warwick District Council gone against this recommendation?
Current residents
There seems to be no consideration in this plan for the people already living in the area. The emphasis seems to be on the new people requiring homes. What about those of us who have worked hard to pay for a house in a quiet village, substituting facilities for a peaceful and safe environment? We choose to live in a village with limited facilities and accept that as we gain in other areas. This plan will take away the reason for us living here. For many they will have no option but to stay as their houses will not be worth as much or they may be too old to contemplate moving.
There is a considerable impact on current residents and those people choosing to live in a village with limited facilities.
Country Park
What will this look like? There are few details about this area, will it be secured from future development? Who will provide the upkeep of this area and at what cost? In order to make an informed decision about the proposals we really need to know all of the information. Will a further consultation be conducted with further details of this plan?
Agriculture and local businesses
The land south of Harbury Lane is predominantly high grade agricultural land. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon. Wouldn't it be better to allow these farmers to improve their businesses thus making them more sustainable and creating further job opportunities for local residents? What about those farmers and land owners that have to face compulsory purchase orders? How is fair for land that is rightfully theirs to be purchased against their will? This could be their retirement fund or their inheritance for their children that they have spent years building up and attempting to make a profit.
Green space
This plan will devastate Bishops Tachbrook with the loss of green fields and green space around it. It will effectively lead to significant urban sprawl. The unique rolling green fields will be lost forever and the historic Bishops Tachbrook (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will merely become an extension of Leamington Spa.
Proposals
I would suggest that these plans need to be scrapped and that the planners should look to set a level of new housing which meets the population growth for local needs. Any homes required should then be built in areas where people will want to live as the infrastructure is in place to meet their needs without impacting hugely on the current population.
To minimise the impact on local residents I propose that any new housing developments should be smaller developments spread evenly throughout the district and neighbouring local authorities. I understand that there is a major development proposed around the Gaydon area. If this is to be supported by the correct infrastructure then surely increasing this will help to absorb some of the previously mentioned problems. Has consideration been given to a new town/village similar to that proposed near to Gaydon?
This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington. What about North Leamington? If the planned major employment site is to be near to Baginton and therefore North of Leamington Spa, shouldn't the housing also be in this area so as to reduce the transport/commute required? The local plan states that the 22.5 hectares of new employment land is to meet local need over the next 15 years but it would appear that this is not the case as I suspect the vast majority of it will go to newcomers to the area.
It would appear that North Leamington has been largely left alone from these proposals and local concern is that this is due to the wealth of the people that live in North Leamington. It would make more sense to have the majority of the housing in the North of Leamington, Kenilworth and Cubbington areas as they are closer to the planned major employment area and do not have any greenfield areas separating them. They are already a continuous sprawl of housing. This would mean less of a commute and better air quality. The area to the North East of Kenilworth would seem a sensible option.
Using brownfield sites for as much of the development as possible would be a better option thus reducing the impact on greenfield sites and local villages.
Ensuring the housing developments are close to peoples work, schools and recreational facilities to negate the need for commuting and traffic congestion and pollution is essential. Ensuring that there are good facilities to reduce commuting - more cycle lanes, bus lanes, better bus and train services etc
Ensuring that the correct level of infrastructure is provided. This must include better transport links and better traffic management to reduce congestion to an acceptable level. Also must include educational facilities, health care facilities, leisure and shopping facilities.
Ensure clear boundaries are kept between towns and villages thus ensuring the area does not become a continuous sprawl of housing.
Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied and utilising this.
There is an area of non green belt land to the left of the racecourse in Warwick. It already has a park and ride facility, is near to a secondary school and access to the A46 reducing the need for traffic to drive through the already congested Leamington Spa and Europa Way areas. There are also pockets of space around the new estate near to Aylesford School that could be used stretching across towards Barford. These sites would provide much better transport links and would reduce the need for traffic to travel through Leamington. There is also the field on the opposite side of the motorway to Longbridge.
A further unexplored site is the area between the A452 and the A425 near to the Police site.
Is there capacity to increase the development at reference number 7?
Other comments
The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."
I understand that new housing is required but this must be in the right numbers and the right places with the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support it, and without the irrepairable damage to the life of the existing community.
Please reconsider the scale of the housing proposed and also the positions. Without the correct infrastructure to support this plan Leamington Spa will become nothing more than a sprawling town with no character, major traffic problems, poor medical and educational facilities and an altogether undesirable place to live.
It seems wholly unfair that the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook is to be the subject of what feels like a 3 pronged attack. Proposals for 3195 new homes will effectively join the village to Leamington Spa and mean that it will no longer have the community feel for which it is famous. The proposals for 7 Gypsy sites will add to the impact of the housing along with the further 150 houses within the village. There are large areas of Leamington (predominantly in the wealthy North greenbelt) that have no proposals for any of these three things.
Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved. This is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.
I really am disgusted at the lack of information provided as part of this consultation. In order to provide a considered response we require all information. It would appear that this is not the case.
I would appreciate a response to the questions raised as part of this letter and hope that you will consider my objection, concerns and proposals properly before making any firm decisions on mine and my childrens futures.

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Having reviewed the Council's proposals for a new Local Plan we have the following observations and objections.
Viz: It is likely that according to a recent study that the need for new housing in the district is less than 6000 rather than the grossly inflated figure of 12000 new homes as proposed by the Council. Such great numbers will require building on farmland and considerable infrastructure development - Fire Protection, Policing, Roads, power, water, sewers, transport,education, healthcare and sufficient work available to sustain such a proposed development.The district has many brownfield sites which should first be developed. Homes do not have to be single dwellings. Flats, of low skyline intrusion would surely meet the needs of many of the projected growth population.
Whilst we object to all of the proposals in the Whitnash/Harbury Lane/Gallows Hill areas we are particularly concerned of the area east of the railway line in Whitnash for this area is in the heart of the Whitnash - Harbury ridge valley, an area rarely visited at the moment by other than dog walkers. It is in fact an area of extreme beauty, quintessentially English. Rural England at it's best; a tranquil, housing free, area of productive farmland from Whitnash Church to Chesterton Windmill to Harbury and round to Radford. An area supporting considerable wildlife and at the time of writing a 'golden valley' full of ripening barley. The Valley provides not only food for us all but gives us an area of valuable air quality. Which is going to be needed even more so if we are to be surrounded by 12000 new houses.[have any councillors visited this area?]
Our specific objections include Fieldgate Lane -application W/13/0858 - 94 houses on a rural area that is already subject to flooding will cause roads,already congested to be overloaded. and a further demand on local and district services.
As far as 'travellers' sites are concerned the district is being held to ransom. We have all seen the devastation of sites visited by travellers and have had to contribute through local taxes to the enormous cost to the community of cleaning up after them. Why; the Council cannot even collect parking money when travellers park for 10 days or more on a pubic car park ( Myton Fields) yet I am expected to pay. If travellers want a permanent site they should be encouraged to do as the rest of the community, to buy a permanent house. But then they would be subject to all of the responsibilities of us other citizens.
We are shrinking Island with a finite land area, we cannot afford to waste it by concreting it over. We are the trustees of the earth as were our forebears before us, we have a responsibility to protect the earth and in this case Warwick District from the devastation that is being thrust upon us.
Please give close consideration to our objections outlined above.

see attached

see attached

see attached