Publication Draft

Comment

Representation ID: 33916

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Green belt north of Leamington should not be included because great value in providing clear definition between towns. Support continuation of area of restraint between Leamington/Radford Semele.
WDC should be allowed to restrict number of houses in multiple occupation, as increasing numbers of such risks losing family homes.
Favour developing in partnership with Coventry, area of land immediately to south of Coventry near Baginton. Consider Coventry Airport as site of substantial residential development. Could bring substantial benefits to village and remove noise/traffic problem. Area has considerable employment, frequent public transport links .
Strongly support phasing of housing because whatever sites finally agreed should be allowed scope to scale down.

Comment

Representation ID: 33917

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Number of houses to be built in towns on brown field or windfall sites is now lower and more robust. Earlier figure would result in poor design/ excessive back garden development.
Future residential development should primarily be family houses with garden, not flats. Support proposal to gather evidence and raise % of affordable dwellings to 50%, lowering threshold for scheme. Within allocation of affordable houses should be preponderance of houses available for rent from RSL. There is need for affordable housing in villlages.
In favour of 'pepper-potting' of affordable housing in new schemes and against socially damaging separation of affordable housing from market priced housing.
WDC should be allowed to resume building council houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 33918

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Would like to see more awareness of specific requirements of elderly residents in Core Strategy. Population of Leamington is increasingly an ageing population whose requirements need to be taken into account. Provision of suitable housing for elderly people to move on to would help release much needed family housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 33919

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Recognise change in nature of employment and its reducing demands on land, look carefully at reallocating some of land currently zoned for employment use and see if it would not be better zoned for residential use. More likely to be case with Leamington than Kenilworth. Particulalry important to continue to encourage diversity of employment and provide employment for less skilled. In general would also hope there could be maximum opportunity for local people to have access to training for local jobs. The Queensway Estate is very underutilised at present as industrial land and it might be better used for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 33920

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Allotment land should be excluded from options because of enormous amenity/ecological value. Particularly allotment land to north of Leamington. Important that allotment land is provided as part of new developments and sugget there should be provision of one new allotment for every ten houses. Particular shortage of allotment land in south Leamington. St Mary Allotments have long waiting list. Extra development likely to produce greater demands.
Account should be taken of ecological value of residential gardens, especially as wild life corridors. Strongly advocate should not normally be considered for development. Options for Growth document does acknowledge ecological value of such spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 33921

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Vital there are major additions/improvements to infrastructure to take into account proposed growth. Need to take into account transport, education, health and drainage. Would like to see major improvements in provision of cycle paths/ bus routes. Considerable thought needs to be given to strengthening transport links from South Leamington to M40, as already overstretched. Think carefully about public transport provision, especially to NHS facilities, which are totally inadequate. In particular provision of new schools in south Warwick and Whitnash area is already required and further proposed development in that area will make such provision even more important. In total any option that is considered must minimise cross-town traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 33922

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Some concerns about proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Can see some advantages in CIL of developer contributions being pooled, especially from smaller developments. However, there are fears that this could mean contributions from local developments being used to fund major infrastructure projects elsewhere in the Midlands. Most of the extra needs that new development puts on the community infrastructure should be met within the town or the district; therefore would expect that most of the money raised from developers would be required to be spent locally.