Support

Representation ID: 6873

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Binswood Allotment Society

support

Object

Representation ID: 6882

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Higgin

On the recent Housing Needs Survey conducted in Bishops Tachbrook, 500 of the 750 homes in the village responded and told us that only 15 new houses were needed in the village. Therefore we do not need 4200 new homes.

o 4200 houses between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates threatens the very existence of Bishops Tachbrook as a village. If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook.

o Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.

o We think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

o Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need.

o The huge increase in traffic arising from at least 8000 new cars in this area will result in pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are grid locked, your proposed development is situated right along these roads, simply adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

o With the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London.

o We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.

Why did you decide not to create a brand new settlement within the district (like Southam) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the road network are very easily accessible? Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? Your "Preferred Option" was not the public's in the initial consultation so why have you ignored our views?
I do believe that some housing maybe needed for organic growth within individual communities; however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people not imposed from the Government in a top-down approach as it is at the moment and certainly not to the numbers you are suggesting.
We urge you to rethink the Options radically; to look again at regeneration possibilities in the towns, to work with owners and developers on imaginative schemes to bring forward brown field sites for housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 6891

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Mr J P Garrett

Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the "Core Strategy Preferred Options" document dated June 2009.

The specific areas I object to are, the housing proposals on:

1) Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane

And also:

2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick

My objections are based on the following:

* On the recent Housing Needs Survey conducted in Bishops Tachbrook, 500 of the 750 homes in the village responded and told us that only 15 new houses were needed in the village. Therefore we do not need 4200 new homes.

* 4200 houses between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates threatens the very existence of Bishops Tachbrook as a village. If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook.

* Large estates lack social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This proposal is the same size as Warwick Gates, Chase Meadow and Hatton Park all put together; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of this development? Especially as 40% will be social / council housing in an area with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.
* I think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, I fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resource they need.

* The huge increase in traffic arising from at least 8000 new cars in this area will result in pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are grid locked, your proposed development is situated right along these roads, simply adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

* With the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London.

* I see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.

Why did you decide not to create a brand new settlement within the district (like Southam) maybe below the A46/J15 inter-change where direct links to the road network are very easily accessible? Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? Your "Preferred Option" was not the public's in the initial consultation so why have you ignored our views?

I do believe that some housing maybe needed for organic growth within individual communities; however, I feel this should be decided at a local level with the support of the local people not imposed from the Government in a top-down approach as it is at the moment and certainly not to the numbers you are suggesting.
I urge you to rethink the Options radically; to look again at regeneration possibilities in the towns, to work with owners and developers on imaginative schemes to bring forward brown field sites for housing development.
1) What happened to local democracy? How can The District Council blatantly side with Central Government and the quango of an unelected regional assembly in forcing through such a blatantly undemocratic strategy? This strategy will have a detrimental effect on Warwick Gates, but its shock waves will also be felt in Bishops Tachbrook, Whitnash, Warwick, Kenilworth and further afield across the district.
2) Warwick Gates children already have to travel out of the catchment area to primary schools, so use some of the land near the estate to build the school you should have included for our children when the development was first proposed.

3) Use Brown field land within larger population centres such as Coventry, Leamington and near Warwick Parkway Station and The A46 first, for factories and businesses, so as to protect the countryside for residents of Warwick Gates, Bishops Tachbrook and Whitnash. Some of this land is already prone to flooding, so why not enhance the natural habitat rather than destroy it. Destroy it by building homes and businesses that will be at risk of flood damage.

4) The developments proposed for South of Warwick Gates will also have a negative effect on the value of our houses, increase traffic congestion and lower air quality. In short, it will leave us with a poorer general quality of life than we currently enjoy.

5) Our local doctors surgeries are already at capacity and facilities at Warwick Hospital have been steadily downgraded during the last five years, with a view to Wallsgrave Hospital serving the whole of Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth and Coventry. Add this to the extra traffic on the roads and there is serious likelihood that lives could be lost as a result of this development.

Object

Representation ID: 6941

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land at Woodside Farm
The land is Grade 2 Agricultural and an Area of Restraint .It is a prominent site at the NE corner of the junction of Harbury Lane with B4087. There is a significant fall across the site east to west from 68m at the junction up to 83m at the top of the hill on Harbury lane to the east over a distance of 300m with gradients up to 1:12. It is complemented by the Grove Plantation on the south side of Harbury Lane, the composition being of high landscape quality. The site is in a rural area and is not part of Leamington but within the
Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council
Response to WDC Core Strategy Preferred Option.
Bishops Tachbrook Parish boundary. Analysis of the 151 sites shows that the numbers of houses required can be provided by other suitable sites without requiring Woodside Farm so it‟s loss is unnecessary.
This Area of Restraint status should be respected. It should not be lost to development.

Support

Representation ID: 7000

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported

Object

Representation ID: 7192

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Object to all sites around Whitnash, Bishops Tachbrook, and Watwick Gates.
Problems with traffic, schools etc. Cannot cope with more houses.
Try to get children into local schools, drive around roads, walk paths, cross roads, use buses and local facilities before suggesting more housing. Area is above capacity.
New housing alwaysin Whitnash area, let other towns take strain. Hope infrastructure will be provided in any new development.
Whitnash was village but has grown and lost its heart. Involved in community life so able to comment on what would not work. Schools a particular problem with children having to travel to schools outside local area due to lack of places and pupil priority.

Object

Representation ID: 7207

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: W R Bethall

Against further housing in Whitnash and surrounding area.
History of new development south of Leamington and Warwick and development of green spaces between Whitnash and urban area.
Problems with roads and worsening conditions if more development takes place. Worry about where access will be for new development.
Extra schools needed. Warwick hospital unable to expand leaving local patients having to attend hospitals in Coventry in future.
RSS requires land at Finham and within Warwick district to be available for Coventry overspill. Enough is enough.

Object

Representation ID: 7238

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J E White

Whitnash is big enough. To build more housing, let alone business premises, would turn it into an urban sprawl, totally lacking in identity.

Support

Representation ID: 7480

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J C Evans

Harbury Lane provides a natural boundary line for developments. I have no objection to a small development in the area to the north of the lane but extending the housing southwards would create urban sprawl destroying the character of the district.

Object

Representation ID: 7502

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupiers

object

Object

Representation ID: 7519

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Ashbourne

object

Object

Representation ID: 7560

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Object

Representation ID: 7642

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

In terms of land allocations, we do feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the wider regional picture and that too much details is provided on the strategic sites. We feel that there are other more suitable sites available and that at this stage the plan should be more general in terms of its direction for growth without site specific details being put forward. If these are not deliverable, as we understand has yet to be proved, then the plan may generally not be deliverable and sustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 7694

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Environment & Economy Directorate

Focussing growth in this location will:
- Facilitate short trips to the existing employment sites to the south of Warwick and Leamington and minimise through centre traffic;
- Allow good access to Leamington rail station, without impacting on the town centre network;
-Allow longer distance car trips to access the motorway and trunk road network, minimising the impact on the local & town centres road network.
Traffic mitigation measures could include improved bus services, urban cycle network & traffic management; virtual park & ride facilty; bus priority lane & dualling on/of A452; cycle parking at Leamington rail station; and a new linkfrom J14/M40 to C209.

Object

Representation ID: 7710

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

Land is Grade 2 Agricultural and Area of Restraint. Is prominent site. Is complemented by Grove Plantation on south side of Harbury Lane, the composition being of high landscape quality. The site is in a rural area and is not part of Leamington but within the Bishops Tachbrook Parish boundary.
Analysis of the 151 sites shows that the numbers of houses required can be provided by other suitable sites without requiring Woodside Farm so its loss is unnecessary.
The Area of Restraint status should be respected. This site should not be lost to development

Support

Representation ID: 33562

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Thomas Bates & Son LTD

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

Support the preferred option for growth at Woodside Farm. The site is physically well contained and adjoins the urban edge of Whitnash. The site is available now, suitable and viable for development. The site can accommodate a mix of house types, affordable, sustainable buildings, access to community facilities, green space and footpaths. Vehicular access can be secured and the development can offer improvements to public transport.

The visual impact of development will be localised. A landscaping plan would protect existing properties.

Object

Representation ID: 33582

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Revelan Group

Agent: Harris Lamb

It is premature to allocate land for development until a comparative site assessment is undertaken based on a robust evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 33658

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Wish to object to Core Strategy Preferred Option to build 10,800 houses, the majority to the south of Warwick/Leamington - areas 1E, 1F, 2F, 3F, 1D.

Object

Representation ID: 33789

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Hancock Town Planning

The land at Old Budbrooke Road offers the following potential advantages which are not offered by this site:

- Much of the site is previously developed land;
- The site has little agricultural value;
- The site is not part of the wider landscape;
- Highly sustainable location within easy walking distance of Warwick Parkway;
- Easy pedestrian access to Warwick/Leamington via the canal;
- Well screened from Old Budbrooke Road by existing vegetation;
- Access can be gained from the site frontage.

Object

Representation ID: 33950

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Whitnash Town Council

Land was deemed unsuitable by an Inspector two years ago - land at Woodside Farm and the land between Whitnash and Radford Semele was retained as an area of restraint following an enquiry that cost thousands of pounds. Nothing has changed at Woodside Farm with regard to viable agricultural land, poor access, steep elevation and the underground power lines are still there!! Even if the Inspector's findings are officially relevant until 2011 since the criteria is current the findings should not be blatently disregarded. Why are areas of restraint included in Phase 1 of the Core Strategy 'Preferred Options' when they weren't in the previous proposal?

Object

Representation ID: 33953

Received: 02/11/2009

Respondent: S A Aston

Tachbrook will just be joined to Whitnash and Leamington

Object

Representation ID: 33971

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Shafiq Uddin

Also object to:
Land at Woodside Farm, north Harbury Lane:
Approx. 40% housing would be concentrated in areas south Leamington. Large housing growth in last 10 years. Local services/road network pressured.
Development would generate additional 6,000 - 8,000 cars. Europa Way link heavily congested.
More sense to spread housing across district making use of A46. No additional infrastructure. Supermarkets used almost to capacity.
If housing built north of Leamington and east of Kenilworth, supermarkets could bring needed jobs.
Areas chosen by public in consultation not in preferred options. Understand area at Finham promised to Coventry for overspill - no explanation.
If go ahead will be in direct contradiction to wishes of electorate.

Object

Representation ID: 35143

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

object

Object

Representation ID: 35153

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Stickley

object

Object

Representation ID: 35163

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: J J Gregory

object

Object

Representation ID: 35173

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terry Shepherd

object

Object

Representation ID: 35183

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: James Jack

object

Object

Representation ID: 35193

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

object

Object

Representation ID: 35203

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Thomas

object

Object

Representation ID: 35213

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

object