Whole area

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

I am a resident in Daly Avenue, Hampton Magna.

I have attended the local public planning forum held in the Community Centre in the consideration of the major development proposed at Hampton Magna and wish to object, having given the matter serious consideration.

I support the objection set out in the Petition Statement by Hampton Magna Village Action Group set out in the June 13th Revised Development Strategy document within Hampton Magna. Several issues were raised and you, of course, already have a copy of this document.

In addition to this objection statement, the following further issues need to be considered:-

a) The residential area surrounding the school and adjacent to the new proposed development was principally built in the 1960's and 70's. The width of the roads at that time were such to take the existing development and in reality, as time has moved on, these roads are considered to be narrow and inadequate. There is already substantial traffic congestion, particularly relating to the school. Further development will increase the congestion and could well be a danger to school children/the elderly living nearby and emergency services if ever required.

We do not believe that the development proposals have had proper regard to appropriate access to cater for the increased traffic flow which will be generated. This is a very serious objection.

b) My other objections relate to local amenities and the capacity of the school which are clearly inadequate for this new development so will have to be positively addressed.

c) What about the wildlife habitat in the local area ?

d) There is also the matter of increased crime in the area once the proposed traveller site on the A46 northbound is constructed. This new development will virtually link us directly with the traveller site.

We objected to the installation of Warwick Parkway a few years ago for the same reason. Literally within weeks of Warwick Parkway opening, we had our vehicle broken into one week and the following week the vehicle itself was stolen and found in Birmingham. On both occasions the vehicle was parked directly outside my house.

These are just a few of my MANY concerns.

see-attached

As a local resident, I am absolutely appalled at the proposed housing developments being suggested for the South of Warwick. The impact of this on traffic, schools, medical facilities, pollution, water provision and control, the character of Warwick as a town is all detrimental.

It is the kind of planning that gives planning a bad name. The number of new houses proposed exceeds our needs. The original exhibition at Myton School in March 2013 about the scale and impact of the development.was economical with the truth. As a result I find myself being suspicious of developers and distrustful of planners and their motivations.

Given the current comments by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others that the precious, inspirational and irreplaceable English countryside is in danger of being eroded by poorly (some might say lazy) planned developments; it seems my views are justified.

I urge you to rethink, to scale down substantially this development, to take more notice of local feeling, to find alternative locations (preferably brown-field sites to infill), to recognize the constraints on development imposed by schools, traffic congestion, etc. That would be what I would call planning.

Along with many other residents of Myton Road, I attended a presentation of a very tentative local plan at Myton School last March, when we were assured that the total of new houses would be 1,100. Now it seems that that number is to be trebled even quadrupled. I was embarrassed when one resident pretty much called the presentation a bunch of lies. I now think I may have been over-trusting, and that the angry resident was right. If you have been given the impression that residents of this area don't have strong concerns or objections, then you are quite mistaken.

Getting out of the Myton Road these days is more and more a grim prospect of gridlock and endless parking by parents dropping off and picking up their offspring from the schools along this road. The roundabouts at Princes Drive and Banbury Road are ever greater bottlenecks. And what do we hear will be the solution to all these extra houses? Why! Europa way may become a dual carriageway! No new roads to divert the vast increase in traffic. We all had our severe doubts when the March presentation assured us the Europa Way and traffic lights at the Myton Road roundabouts would solve the problem. Even more so whenever we try to negotiate the bonkers new traffic system on Jury/High Street, Warwick, and wonder if we will ever see all the bollards and direction arrows up and intact at any one time. It does NOT give us confidence in the local plan's future road system "solutions".

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

Whilst we agree with the principle of concentrating development around the existing towns, we believe that the concentration of development to the south of Warwick an Whitnash will create further congestion and put pressure on the infrastructure and community facilities. We note the various facilities and road improvements suggested as part of the scheme but we believe they will not overcome the problems identified.

We believe a more appropriate plan would be to spread development around the edges of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth.


2. Sites for Gypsies and Travellers

We object to the sites relying on the facilities provided by Barford village because
* there is a lack of appropriate facilities in the village, even the village shop could be described as serving the premium market.
* public transport is relatively poor and infrequent
* there has been no account taken of neighbouring sites already designated by Stratford District Council

As residents of Bishops Tachbrook, I write with concern over the proposed development plans for the areas around the village.

My husband and I attended the recent consultation meeting in the village. After listening to the Council representative, and villagers views and concerns, we came away with the strong feeling that this is already a 'done deal'. The meeting was for the purpose of letting the villagers and those affected close by, know what was to happen to the land surrounding Bishops Tachbrook and Whitnash. It was a marketing ploy aimed at selling us on the 'proposed' developments.

We came to live in Bishops Tachbrook 10 years ago as we wanted to live in the village, experience life in the village community, a semi rural location. We paid a premium for our property to do this.

Why is there such a need to develop every piece of green field, build housing estates on them and let the local residents views become obstructed with bricks and mortar??? Where is the respect for the local residents?

Our farmland is set to become a mass of building developments, and we object to it!

Why so many houses? With banks and mortgage market being slow to respond to demand for borrowing, and so many young people unable to get onto the mortgage ladder, who will occupy these houses? We understand that there will be social housing, and this in itself, sadly brings concerns with it.

Now, it appears, that in a few short years, this will all change, and for us personally, not for the better. The 'village' will no longer be. With the proposed building of approx 3,500 new homes, what can the residents expect?

Our concerns are that:

1. With the proposal of approx 3,500 new homes comes the prospect of approx. 7,000 more vehicles within this villages boundaries. In today's lifestyle, rarely does each home have less than 2 vehicles. Volume of traffic increases significantly where schools are located.
2. This alone presents a real concern, as increased traffic indicates increased air pollution. People living in this area will rely on transportation.
3. The main road through the village becomes a short cut for an increased number of motorists trying to get to the Banbury Road/M40. This affects those who live in the village that also have a need to access these roads, resulting in further delays in commuting to from/work.
4. Employment Land - the suggestion was made that this would be to the benfit of local people by encouraging companies to locate to the area. In our experience, people commute to/from their workplace even if it relocates
5. Residents of Bishops Tachbrook do commute to areas outside of Leamington Spa/Warwick etc., and always will do. We have to go where the work is and some don't have the luxury of choosing where they work!
6. Travel time to/from our place of work increases with the increase in traffic.
7. The value of our homes will reduce if/when proposing to sell
8. Within the next few years, Bishops Tachbrook will become like Whitnash, now a part/extension of Leamington Spa
9. Proposed Primary & Secondary Schools/Local Centre/Medical Centre and certainly a Park & Ride facility? These do not suggest that Bishops Tachbrook will not be affected greatly by the proposals
10. How does the council propose that Warwick hospital will cope with the extra demands on it's already stretched services?
11. Who pays for the sizeable infrastructure required?
12. How will the residents of Bishops Tachbrook benefit from this?
13. How will this new home 'proposal' be policed?
14. Residents express a concern over personal safety/security. How will this be addressed?
15. How will the 999 services cope with the extra demand when they are under manned and already suffering as a result of governmental/council cutbacks?

I support development which is close to A46 i.e. Thickthorn East of Kenilworth and any other development both housing and employment which has direct access to A46 and the motorway network. The obvious places to build are north of Warwick district towards the proposed Gateway development and in the direction of Gaydon where Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin have built close to the M40. The areas which will be devastated by the building of HS2 should be considered for industry and employment.
Any development south of Warwick which will have an impact on Warwick town centre should be avoided at all costs. The historic buildings are being eroded and the health of its towns people is at risk NOW from the pollution and poor air quality in the town centre. These beautiful buildings directly and indirectly provide for this town and must not be put at risk. We should be encouraging visitors to the town (what about a park and ride?) to boost the economy not providing a rat run for commuters to Birmingham, London and Coventry.

Dear Mr Barber

Warwick Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Consultation

Thank you providing English Heritage the opportunity to comment on the Revised Development Strategy.

My response is mindful of the expectation the Warwick Local Plan enables the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF , with one of the core dimensions being the protection and enhancement of the historic environment .

This letter responds to the proposed strategic site allocations at Thickthorn, Whitnash and south of Gallows Lane, and also considers the implication of the infrastructure provision to accommodate such growth.

Thickthorn, Kenilworth

"There is the potential for significant long term negative effect on heritage as Thickthorn Manor and Stables (Grade II Listed Buildings) are adjacent to the site and a small portion of the north east of the site contains part of a Scheduled Monument (Roman settlement at Glasshouse Wood). Stoneleigh Abbey Historic Park and Garden (Grade II) is also adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, albeit separated by the A46".
(Paragraph 4.58 Warwick DC Local Plan Interim SA Report June 2013).

It is surprising that section 5.4 (Thickthorn) of the Revised Development Strategy makes no reference to the number of heritage assets directly and indirectly affected despite the above comments in the SA and similar references in the SHLAA. There appears an absence of evidence to demonstrate there has been a proper assessment establishing what it is about each of the affected heritage asset that is important; how the land/site proposed for development contributes to that significance, and; what in turn this means for the principle of development, and any future design response (mitigation).

You should note that this explicit point has been made to you in previous correspondence.

You will also appreciate that due to the former Roman occupation of the site there also needs to be an assessment of the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets (of potential national importance) will be discovered .

Without such assessments you may not be able to assert that the objectives for sustainable development have been understood and therefore cannot say whether the objectively assessed development needs of the District will be met or not in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Consequently the Plan may be considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of the NPPF and therefore unsound.

It is expected that evidence has been taken into account when considering the impact of the proposal on heritage assets, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal .

You will appreciate that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and there is a legislative expectation that special weight is paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of any affected heritage asset.

The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage Guidance October 2011) provides a robust assessment methodology to help determine the extent to which this and other strategic allocations would impact upon the significance of any affected heritage asset and how decision making and potential mitigation may respond. We strongly recommend you apply this guidance before the principle of development is determined.

www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/setting-heritage-assets/

Whitnash

I note this sizeable development is proposed at the end of Church Lane, near the historic core of Whitnash and village conservation area that includes a number of listed buildings. Has the impact been considered?

South of Gallows Lane/west of Europa Way

As this particular site to the south of Warwick clearly has the most acute and evident impact on the significance of the historic environment I will focus my response accordingly. Nevertheless you should be mindful of the cumulative impact of progressive encroachment into the rural landscape from the number of proposals via this Plan and from adhoc planning applications. The Local Plan needs to determine a coherent landscape policy.

The site to the south of Gallows Lane is adjacent to Warwick Castle Park, which is included on the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens at grade I. This encompasses Warwick Castle which is partially grade I listed and partially scheduled as an ancient monument. The setting of the park to the north-west is the historic town of Warwick. The key building of the town which dominates views from the park in that direction is the tower of St Mary's Church. The site in question lies to the east of the park and is visible in distant views from the towers of the castle and the roof of St Mary's Church tower.

The park would have spilled over into this area and is therefore a consideration for how the park as a heritage asset is experienced.

We have inspected this area, including viewing the site from the roof of St Mary's Church tower, and from within the historic park. It seems to us that there will be an impact on the setting of the park, which is a part of its significance, and that it is such that it brings the development if this site into question.

The park was bounded by a circuit drive which ran through the woodland belt on the east side of the park adjacent to the site and in places was close enough to the edge of the park to permit views out. Whilst this historic tree belt provides a degree of screening it is relatively narrow and composed mainly of deciduous trees so when leaves are shed considerably less screening is provided.

As you would expect, the park incorporates a number of viewing points including, for example, Lord Brooke's clump, with a drive running to it; and the dam over New Waters. No assessment has been made of the impact of development on these viewpoints.

It should be noted that experience has shown that even vegetative barriers or shelter belts of a depth of 50m+ may be ineffective if the objective is total screening (as opposed to baffling development), especially if predominantly deciduous species are planted (native planting likely to be requested), which will be ineffective in winter.

It should also be noted that the historic park was intended to extend beyond this boundary into this proposed development site and also that modern traffic has considerably more impact now than during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Even allowing for relatively low scale development and landscaping development is still likely to impact on the significance of the park during both day and night time. There will be increased urbanisation as the result of, amongst other matters, lighting, increased traffic and noise. Impact will be accentuated by proximity.

The implication for the sense of arrival to Warwick, the setting of the Park, the Castle and the Warwick Conservation area appears not to have been thoroughly considered; an important material consideration and therefore a serious omission. As we know, visual impact is but one contributor to the setting of a heritage asset and in focusing only on visual impact any assessment is deficient.

I repeat the point made with regard to development at Thickthorn, that you should appreciate that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and there is a legislative expectation that special weight is paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of any affected heritage asset.

The Richard Morrish Landscape study objects to the principle of development at the Asps but surprisingly not to the site south of Gallows Lane/west of Europa Way which is a similar area of land immediately to the north i.e. closer to the town. Surely the very same concerns relating to the Asps also apply to the site south of the Gallows/west of Europa Way i.e. it "...provides a historic context to the castle park. As open land it is prominent in terms of approaches to Warwick and provides a valuable setting to the town." In consequence, surely the Richard Morrish Landscape study should come to the same conclusion i.e. the development is unacceptable in principle?

Whilst the attempt to militate against harm is noted we are not confident that even if development were one field depth back, and reinforced by a narrow shelter belt it would provide a sufficient response as screening/ filtering belts of trees are seldom effective in winter, even at 100 metres depth.

The SA considers development of this site would have significant medium and long term negative effects on the landscape, the town and the historic park. This is a significant statement.

Surprisingly however it does not question the principle of development on the site due, we deduce, to the principle being established by the SHLAA. It is not clear why this should be the case as the SHLAA is a fairly crude assessment which has not fully applied the policies of the NPPF; an example being that this site conflicts with policies for the protection of heritage assets in the NPPF (impact on the setting of Grade listed Castle Park) but the SHLAA considers it to be "suitable".

The SA suggests the significant medium and long term negative effects on the landscape, the town and the historic park can be mitigated by design. However it does not clearly set out what the negative effects are (views from the Castle; approach to Warwick from the south etc.?) so one can judge whether the design response would overcome those concerns.

One would have expected that a transparent methodology such as English Heritage's Guidance on the assessment of setting published in 2011, and by English Heritage's Conservation Principles would have been undertaken and applied to explain the rationale for including this strategic allocation. As it has not there is no evident justification.

District wide transport works to facilitate future development (section 5.6)

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of proposals on the historic environment must be appreciated. An example of an indirect effect could be the infrastructure required to accommodate additional traffic movements from major new development through historic towns such as Warwick and Kenilworth which may in turn have a profound impact on historic character and significance of affected heritage assets. Such potential harm must be considered at this stage of the Plan.

The Plan proposes a number of major highway engineering interventions with the potential to have an extreme adverse impact. English Heritage is particularly concerned regarding proposals 11, 12, 13 and 24 and the subsequent substantial harm to a number of nationally significant heritage assets.

It is surprising there is no reference to the townscape/landscape implications of these proposals in either the Revised Development Strategy, or SA - a serious omission.

An increased in traffic using the A425 (Banbury Road) adjacent to Castle Park.

The consequence of further increased use of the road in terms of noise, light pollution and visual intrusions from highway paraphernalia such as signage does not appear to have been considered; again an important material consideration and therefore a serious omission.

What are the implications for the sense of arrival to Warwick? What are the implications for the setting of the Park, the Castle and the Warwick Conservation area?

In accordance with the expectations of the NPPF, how has the Plan demonstrated that it has considered the opportunities to enhance the setting of the historic town and its nationally important assets between the Toll House (at the junction of Banbury Road and Gallows Hill) and the East Gate, a stretch of road blighted by past 'dramatic' road works particularly the Caste Hill Gyratory?

A substantial increase in traffic through the south and east of the historic town will have significant implications. Is there evidence of an appropriate assessment of the consequences for the historic environment, in particular for St Nicholas Church Street?

Castle Bridge - circa 1790 schedule monument and grade II* listed building.
This is another significant heritage asset that may be affected by the cumulative impact of development in the area. The direct impact on the bridge of considerably increased traffic movements and the inevitable 'highway works' in the vicinity will affect its setting which needs to be considered and resolved at an early stage.

Is there evidence available to reassure that this historic structure actually has the capacity to accommodate a significant increase in traffic?

The Warwickshire CC Strategic Transport Assessment Overview Report 2012 recognises at para 2.2.3 the national policy context to inform its transport planning in the District, and in particular makes reference to the need to accord with the NPPF and conserve heritage assets "in a manner appropriate to their significance" . However subsequent reports in the evidence base do not appear to address this matter at all; again a significant omission.

An objective for these schemes should be that they cause little or no damage to the historic environment. This means minimising any adverse impact on the rural context of Warwick from the south and the landscape setting of the Warwick Castle and nationally important Park. It is imperative that proposals are designed with utmost care. The NPPF expects those assets of the highest level of importance, such as these, be given the highest level of protection.

How compatible are the proposals with the ambitions of the Warwick Town Centre Action Plan regarding public realm and townscape improvements? How will these proposals enhance the experience of historic Warwick?

How can the Plan reassure English Heritage that these highway schemes will protect, and where appropriate, enhance the historic environment including the setting of individual heritage assets?

The Local Plan must be absolutely clear what it expects in terms of the design execution of these schemes. I refer you to the Manual for Streets (versions 1&2) (Department for Transport, March 2007 and September 2010).

You may wish to confirm that these traffic schemes will be sensitively designed having regard to Manual for Streets, and Streets for All to ensure they are all integrated into the landscape/townscape and take the opportunity to enhance the experience of the historic environment.

I hope this comprehensive response and further constructive involvement can help you to ensure a sound Plan and in doing so secure an effective conservation of the historic environment and the delivery of sustainable development.

If there any issues you wish to clarify please do not hesitate in contacting me.

I am writing to you in objection to the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy, which is currently the subject of public consultation. I am extremely concerned with these proposals and believe them to be wholly inappropriate and an unfair burden on the small areas of Warwick district that will be affected by these developments. I expect you to respond to all of my concerns in detail, justifying your "Revised Development Strategy" with factual and appropriate data. My concerns can be summarised as follows :-

New Housing


Number Of Houses & Impact To Local Infrastructure.

In the 20 years to 2011, the population growth in our area has already been unnaturally high at 18% due to the high level of new housing. This has seen a significant number of new people migrating to the area, many of whom do not work in the vicinity. This is already placing an unacceptable and unmanageable burden on the local infrastructure which in turn is having a negative effect on the local inhabitants. To propose a further increase of 20% over the next 15 years is not only inappropriate but also irresponsible toward all of the existing residents. It is quite clear that the local infrastructure will not be able to manage as it is already failing to cope with the existing levels of traffic resulting in congestion ranging from long slow moving queues to complete grid lock Monday to Friday during rush hour and also on much of Saturday. Significant data is readily available in the public domain that proves this to be the case (Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment). Typical proposals of widening and adjusting existing roads and junctions will not resolve this problem as is clearly evident around the site of the old Ford foundry which is already a traffic congestion black spot since its completion a few weeks ago. Unless major new roads are built with additional crossings over the natural barriers of the River Avon, River Leam and the railway then your proposals for improving the road infrastructure to cope with these extra homes will fail. Such major developments to break these traffic bottle necks will not only be inappropriate in the areas of Warwick and Leamington due to their aesthetic and environmental impact but will also not be financially viable.

All of the major amenities (shops, hospital etc) are located on the opposite side of the river in either Warwick or Leamington. This means that the existing bridges will become a major bottleneck due to the increase in traffic. For example, Castle Bridge in Warwick has a capacity of 900 cars per hour, a figure which is already exceeded on a regular basis, indicated by the subsequent congestion that occurs. The capacities of the other river crossings in the area are likely to be similar. In addition, the adjacent roads leading to and from these river crossings are also restricted and regularly congested.

The siting of 4000 houses between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook will also result in large amounts of traffic using the M40. The roads that link the two M40 motorway junctions with this area are not capable of coping with this extra traffic capacity.

I therefore challenge you to demonstrate how the current road infrastructure can cope with an extra 12,300 houses or state in detail what changes to the infrastructure you plan to make in the same timeframe to support these additional dwellings.

In addition to the road infrastructure problems, there is also no indication as to how other key infrastructure improvements will be delivered in the same time frame. An increase in population of circa 40-50,000 that 12,300 homes will bring will require additional capacity for the hospital, doctors surgeries, schools, public transport, police and fire services etc. How will these be delivered in the same time frame as 12,300 houses and how will these be funded ?

Housing requirements based upon the natural growth of the population indicates that only circa 5500 new houses are required and not the 12300 being proposed. A recent housing needs survey in Bishops Tachbrook identified a total housing need of 15 additional properties (from a response rate of 500 homes from a total of 750 in the village). So based upon this, why are so many houses being proposed in the locality of the village ? Building an artificially high number of houses will simply encourage more migration to an area which is a nicer place to live than many inner city urban areas. There is also little need to create more local business and industry in the area since the unemployment rate in Warwick District is only 1.7% so if this is reason being used to justify the number of new houses proposed this is also inappropriate and flawed. Building an excess of new houses will promote more commuting which is something that is already causing a major problem in the area through traffic congestion.


Location Of Proposed Development

It is wholly inappropriate for a few small areas of Warwick District to shoulder the entire burden of the number of houses being proposed. This will guarantee that a small amount of the current population of Warwickshire will be significantly and unfairly affected by the building of these new homes while the majority of the district will not be affected in any way at all. Warwick district is a large and diverse area and the burden of extra home requirements should likewise be shared across all of the district's towns and villages calculated by conducting simple housing needs surveys as already completed in Bishops Tachbrook.

The visual impact of 12,300 houses in the rural area of Warwick District will be very significant, particularly those being proposed on the higher greenfield lands south of Harbury Lane. To back this up, during the previous round of proposals to build new houses in the area, a government planning inspector stated that "no build now or in the future" should occur at the site of Woodside Farm. WDC's landscape consultant, Richard Morrish also referred to the land south of Gallows Hill that "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development".

The building of these extra homes in such few areas will decimate two historic villages, Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory. Your previous "Preferred Vision For Warwick District to 2026" contained quotes and statements which are clearly breached by the proposals now being made one of which related to the importance of retaining this rural area, an example as follows :-

"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."

This is a rural community. The building of 12,300 additional houses in this area will result in significant parts of it ceasing to be rural !

My personal view is that you have proposed to build these houses in such a few areas to reduce the overall cost of the project and to limit the number of people that are affected (and hence those likely to object). This then makes it easier for you to secure developers whilst limiting the amount of "fallout" and "challenge" you receive from the residents of Warwick District. Spreading the number of required houses across all of the District's towns and villages would significantly reduce the impact of those houses on the local infrastructure. This is therefore an example where cost and ease of execution have taken priority over what would cause least impact to the District as a whole and therefore be in the best interests of the Warwick District residents.


Location Of Proposed Development Near To Bishops Tachbrook.

Whilst I am in favour of retaining green space between Bishops Tachbrook and the houses proposed South of Harbury Lane, there is little point in this if it results in a major development being within a few hundred yards of the village and being on an elevated site. This will have the affect of dominating the village both aesthetically and from a noise perspective. This area of restraint should be from the Harbury Lane which already forms a natural juncture between the development of Warwick Gates and the "green field" areas surrounding Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory. Any breach of this existing boundary by large housing developments will challenge the criteria of a village and hence negate the green space acting as an "area of restraint" It will also make future development of what will be a smaller area of undeveloped land between the new development and Bishops Tachbrook more likely. I consider the current distance between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook to be a minimum of that required to protect and maintain Bishops Tachbrook and Tachbrook Mallory as villages. The area of restraint also does not give any protection to the existing mobile home park off Harbury Lane. This is destined to be completely engulfed. Why is no area of restraint being afforded to this existing development. Again, maintaining the current natural boundary of the Harbury Lane as the edge of the area of restraint would also protect these local inhabitants.

The filling in of the various vacant areas around the Warwick Gates site would provide sufficient extra housing in this area if the overall burden of the required increased housing is spread across the whole of Warwickshire as I have previously suggested. The village of Bishops Tachbrook could also accommodate its own requirement for new houses which has already been determined through a housing needs survey.

The reason why I am so passionate about Bishops Tachbrook remaining a real village and not just by name is that it enjoys all of the benefits of an English country village. The local children go to the local school, this then ensures that the adults mix and communicate with one another. The local parents help out at the school, they also run Brownies, Rainbows, Youth Club etc. These organisations then support the local church and vice versa. All of this ensures that the village is a safe, happy and rewarding place to live. This is not something that can simply and easily be created but it can be very easily lost. All of these things will gradually fade away if the village loses its identity. The development of Warwick Gates is a good example where, due to a lack of up front planning and foresight, there is precious little sense of community and engagement between the residents.

The Bishops Tachbrook local history group recently wrote a complete history of the village and sold over 700 hundred copies. I encourage you to read it. You will then get some indication of the depth of feeling towards the village and the number of people who consider it something worthwhile that should be protected. It has developed as a village since before the Norman Conquest (1066) and should not be allowed to disappear into a mediocre suburb of Leamington Spa as Warwick Gates has become.


Use Of Green Field & Brown Field Sites.

In light of the current need to protect the environment as much as possible, it is essential that brown field sites are used for future housing development prior to the destruction of further green field areas. Your plans do utilise a proportion of brown field sites however, as you are planning to build houses in such few areas of the county this is therefore limited. There are also significant brown field sites that have not been proposed. The now defunct Coventry airport site is of significant size which could be utilised to build houses. There are also several smaller areas in the Leamington and Warwick areas such as the Leamington "Arches" area.

I challenge you to confirm the total area of brown field sites within the county and explain why all of these cannot be utilised to provide the necessary building land for the extra houses required to avoid further use of green field areas. Unless it can be shown that there are insufficient brown field areas in Warwickshire and the surrounding West Midlands, it is wholly inappropriate and irresponsible for you to be proposing the use of any green field sites whatsoever.


Gypsy & Traveller Sites.

With regard the proposed gypsy and traveller sites around the Bishops Tachbrook area (Nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 15) I have the following objections based upon the fact that they do not comply with the Travellers Consultation Document :-

* Sites 3, 4 & 6 are very remote from major amenities.

* Sites 5 & 9 only have access onto a busy road, have no pedestrian access and could result in unacceptable visual impact to Warwick and the listed buildings also on this side.

* Sites 6 & 9 have no pedestrian access.

* Site 10 is close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre and so any site could interfere with their sensitive breeding activities ref noise, site contamination (due to business activities) etc. It is also remote from major amenities and has no pedestrian access.

* Site 15 is located on the banks of the Tachbrook so there is a risk of contamination from the site (ref acknowledgement that business as well as domestic activities are likely to occur on the site.

In addition, the school in Bishops Tachbrook Parish is only a single form entry and is fully subscribed in many years. It is therefore not capable of providing schooling for extra 10-30 extra children from local traveller sites.

One area that has not appeared on the list of suggested sites is the caravan / camping site that was installed on the Banbury Road south of Warwick near to Temple Hill Spinney. This area was developed into a campsite / caravan site some years ago and has been unused ever since. A suitable junction and pedestrian access has been provisioned for and its location is close enough to the amenities of Warwick to make this an appropriate site. I don't know if this is a private site or if it was developed by the local authorities. If it was the latter then it is a disgrace that this site has not been used since its creation and demonstrates a total waste of local tax payers money. Its use as a gypsy / traveller site would provide at least some value from the monies already spent. As a brown field site it would also constitute a lesser impact on the development compared to some of the other proposed sites.

In the same way that I expect brown field sites to be used for the proposed 12,300 houses, I also expect you to do the same for the gypsy and traveller sites. There are sufficient sites available for this (Nos 17 & 18 for example). Until all the brown field sites in the district have been used, it is irresponsible and unacceptable for you to be proposing green field sites as an alternative. The environment is coming under increasing pressure and by proposing green field sites you are maximising the amount of this pressure.

Overall I expect you to only propose and develop areas that comply with the Travellers Consultation Document and that have a minimal impact to the environment and those existing residents of Warwick District. Any that don't comply should be removed from the proposal list.


I look forward to your response to my challenges and questions.

With reference to the new draft Local Plan, we wish to express our objections as follows:
Wildlife
Increasing the size of the sprawl of Leamington/Warwick is going to have a detrimental effect on the local wildlife as it will push out the wildlife further away from the towns having a negative effect on the eco-systems and peoples enjoyment of the wildlife. The proposed plans do not include enough of a green buffer between the existing developments and the proposed developments.
Potential Flooding Risk
We share the concern that the existing drainage/sewerage infrastructure will not be able to cope with such a high number of additional households. With current climate predictions indicating increased frequency and level of rainfall the risk of flooding to existing and new properties will only be exacerbated. To date Warwick Gates development has not experienced flooding, but if predicted strain on existing drainage results in flooding in this area and is attributed to the new developments, then who will bear the cost of any damage to properties - the Developers or the Council?
Areas of Restraint
The proposed plan is to build on Areas of Restraint. Whilst this may be understandable if it were to be a low number of properties, the proposal of some 4500 new properties makes a mockery of the very concept of an Area of Restraint. Why were these areas of proposed development designated as Areas of Restraint in the first place?
Infrastructure Improvements
If this plan goes ahead, there would need to be improvements made to the existing infrastructure in terms of roads and provisions of services such as schools, hospitals, doctors, shops etc. Who will pay for these improvements? We believe these costs should be borne by the Developers and not left to the tax-payers to fund. The Council must ensure that any commitments given by the Developers are delivered in full.
With the Warwick Gates development the local infrastructure has already had a massive strain placed upon it which it has still not recovered from. Traffic/congestion levels have risen to an almost unacceptable level.
Adding yet more people and cars living in this area will make these so much worse - quality of life is sure to suffer. Any new Development of the size proposed must include a school, Doctors surgery, Post Office and shops, Community Centre and Leisure Centre which are within walking distance of the new properties. It is not acceptable to expect the residents of the proposed developments to have to resort to motorised transport to reach such facilities.
Legal Challenge
The number of houses required that has been proposed by Warwick District Council should be legally challenged immediately so that tax-payers money is not wasted on plans that are likely to be legally challenged themselves on the basis that the number of houses proposed is based on unrealistic forecasts.
Commercial Buildings Land
There are vast amounts of land which has been designated for Commercial Property which have been lying fallow for many years now. Any proposal must address this waste of land by re-designating it for Residential Properties. Where necessary, Compulsory Purchase Orders should be made. More housing should be built on land closer to where businesses are located to reduce commuting by motorised transport.
Schools
Because Warwick Gates doesn't have its own school, this has resulted in children from here going to lots of different schools which has led to increased travelling, congestion and pollution. Another problem is that it has had a negative effect on the sense of community on the estate. Any new development of this size or more would need its own school so these problems are not repeated.
Air Pollution
Levels of air pollution in Warwick are appallingly bad. The proposed plans offer nothing to reduce this and the increased congestion would only make it worse because the proposed plans are just adding to the sprawl with Warwick and Leamington as the nuclei. The existing proposals are unimaginative and simply ratchet up the pressure on two towns which are centuries old and ill able to support more traffic. Warwick District Council should reject the proposed plans and give the developers the challenge of creating new towns or villages within Warwickshire which are self-sustaining, forward looking and fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Please take our comments into account when considering this application.

Royal Leamington Spa Town Council broadly welcomes the Revised Development Strategy and in the attached document gives a more detailed response to items within it.

Royal Leamington Spa Town Council broadly welcomes the Revised Development Strategy and in the attached document gives a more detailed response to items within it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dispute the need for 12,000 houses in Warwick District as independent sources indicate less than 6,000 required and ask what is in it for the council to build so many houses.

Such a massive development would turn the historic town of Warwick into an urban sprawl.

The already overstretched infrastructure cannot cope with what would be a massive increase in traffic, being out of town most people would have a car, working couples possibly two. The road bottlenecks at Castle Hill and the viaduct cannot cope with thousands of extra vehicles.

I dispute that no building can take part on the green belt to the north as the council have already allowed green belt land to to be included in the Gateway project.

I object to large areas of farmland being built on as this will have a serious impact on wildlife with the removal of hedges.

There also a serious risk of flooding in the Aragon Drive / Saumur Way area if the adjacent farmland is cleared.

Allowing traffic to access any new building behind Saumur Way will increase the risk to the many school children who use the cycle path that runs past the proposed development.

The council is being less than open about the developments as the plan calls for 12,000 homes but only 6,000 identified so far. With no building in the North of the district the other 6,000 can only be built in the South but WDC have been evasive when asked the question about this.