A Free Template From Joomlashack

A Free Template From Joomlashack


View PDF
Home News


The Council have issued a questionnaire seeking our views for a new Local Plan.   

It is important if you treasure your allotment and our Green Belt that you personally enter your views, you can view the questionnaire online at

BLAST on behalf of all allotments in Leamington will be submitting the views below which you could use as a guide.  

Please do submit your own views because the Council will be more impressed by 700 gardeners responding along with BLAST.

LOCAL PLAN – Q6 Other Objectives

B.L.A.S.T. represents 6 allotment societies in Leamington with over 700 members feeding 3000 people good, wholesome, fresh food from their plots.    With over 200 on waiting lists for a plot our objective for the Local Plan is as follows:


  1. 1) PROTECTION – all existing allotments in Leamington must be protected and their future safety guaranteed, underwritten by the Council.
  2. 2) PROVISION – with a shortage of allotments it is right and proper the Council should provide more land within Leamington.   B.L.A.S.T. provided a proposal in 2009 entitled ‘Time to Grow’ which explains the importance of us all working together to find a solution    The other provision we believe should come with new build proposals is that the developers/builders provide adequate growing ground in the form of gardens on small developments, or, if 100 new homes, a piece of land set aside for communal growing or allotments.
  3. 3) PREVENTION – it is vital for the health and wellbeing of Leamington people  that any builder or developer is prevented from gaining planning permission on any Green Belt land around the north of Leamington and between the 3 towns;   this includes any green growing land on adjacent farms. When green growing land is tarmac’d or concreted it will never be returned to growing land again.



All these objectives will help reduce our carbon footprint and make us more self sufficient in the future.


Briefing Note on West Midlands RSS Phase Two Revision Panel Report

This briefing note has been prepared to advise on the Panel Report into the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) Phase Two Revision.

The Government Office for the West Midlands has published the Report of the Examination in Public that was held earlier this year into the draft West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) Phase Two Revision. The Report sets out the findings and recommendations of the Panel of Inspectors who were appointed by the Government to chair the examination of the draft RSS and its proposed strategy for distributing and managing development in the region for the period up to 2026. This report is not being consulted on and the Council are not invited to make any comments on the report. It is there to inform the Government’s response to the draft RSS which it aims to publish by the end of the year. Their response and any proposed changes to the draft RSS will be the subject of public consultation for 12 weeks, likely to be early next year. A summary of the key issues arising from the Panel Report affecting Warwick District are as follows: The Panel have recommended that Warwick District should make provision for 11,000 dwellings for the period 2006 to 2026. This is marginally greater than the figure of 10,800 dwellings within the draft RSS and has been referred to by the Panel as a “rounding-up” of the figure. The Panel have not supported the views submitted to the examination by the Government Office for the West Midlands/Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners for an additional 10,000 homes to be found within the District. In addition, the Panel recommend that around 3,500 dwellings be within Warwick District adjacent to the City boundary to the south in the vicinity of Gibbet Hill/Finham. This potential “overspill” from Coventry was acknowledged within the draft RSS within the sub-regional strategy but was not defined in terms of its size or location. The draft RSS did, however, acknowledge that any “overspill” would be a “last resort” following urban extensions within the City Council administrative area, and phased later in the plan period. The Panel have given a lot of consideration to the issue of phasing within their report but have not entirely endorsed the strict approach of the draft RSS. They cite the need to ensure delivery of housing numbers, the long lead-in times for major urban extensions in terms of infrastructure provision (approvals and funding), and the need for commitment at an early stage if they are to deliver during the plan period. They do, however, acknowledge that growth around Coventry should be carefully managed to avoid undermining delivery of urban sites, and that sites north of Coventry (within Nuneaton) would be preferable for the first half of the plan period as it would relate better to the rail enhancement programme for that area of the north-south corridor, with growth to the south being more appropriate for the latter part of the plan period. The total recommendation therefore is 14,500 dwellings within Warwick District.The Panel’s specific findings and rationale is set out in Appendix One. The Panel have recommended that Warwick District should have a 30ha rolling five-year reservoir of employment land and an indicative long-term requirement of 120ha.It has also recommended the deletion of reference to 50% of the University of Warwick expansion contributing towards the five-year reservoir. However, it has also recommended that Core Strategy DPDs only need to identify a 10 year requirement (i.e. 60ha for Warwick District) and broad indications for longer term needs if necessary. These recommendations represent an increase of 30ha on the draft RSS long-term requirement. However, this figure is only indicative and the Employment Land Review undertaken for the Council identified a much lower requirement (circa. 80ha). The Panel have endorsed Warwick/Leamington as a Settlement of Significant Development, Leamington Spa town centre as a strategic sub-regional centre, and the indicative figures for comparison retail and office floorspace development within or adjoining that centre. The Panel have recommended updating of the policy for Coventry Airport in light of the recent planning refusals (paragraph 7.17 of their report). The Panel have also recommended the land for expansion of Warwick University be removed from the Green Belt (see Appendix One). The full report can be found at www.gos.gov.uk/gowm www.gos.gov.uk/gowm As noted above, Members are not being asked to comment on the Report.The next opportunity for the Council to engage in the RSS process will be in response to the Government’s Proposed Changes (likely to be early next year). Gary Stephens Planning Policy Team Leader September 2009 The Panel have commented as follows, firstly in relation to development south of Coventry and at Warwick University (paragraph 8.36 onwards): “Considering Coventry first as the MUA core of the sub-region, the housing provision figure of 33,500 was not challenged in an upward direction as it had been significantly increased during the preparation of the RSS Preferred Option when Coventry was accorded NGP Status. Moreover, the RSS acknowledges that the provision figure is likely to exceed the physical capacity of the City over the plan period necessitating cross-boundary development to the north in Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough and to the south in Warwick District. The Provision figure is 16,700 over the NHPAU suggested distribution of their upper range figure and 11,900 over the latest CCHPR need figure. Even allowing for the prospective cross-boundary provision it is clear therefore that Coventry taken in isolation would be providing a reservoir of capacity to meet the shortfall in the core of the West Midlands Conurbation and/or elsewhere in the CSW sub-region. Perhaps unsurprisingly NLP did not suggest any additional provision. In terms of the scale and distribution of any cross-boundary provision it was immensely helpful that there was clear agreement between the three local planning authorities that there should be 3,500 dwellings to serve Coventry immediately to the north of its boundary in Nuneaton & Bedworth district and 3,500 to serve Coventry immediately to the south of its boundary in Warwick District. Although there were issues raised over the release or non-release of Green Belt land within Coventry itself, we can see no reason to dissent from this agreed distribution and will recommend accordingly. CPRE argued that the Coventry figure should be reduced if the City is not capable of meeting its needs without recourse to cross-boundary development or indeed to Green Belt release within the City limits which was contrasted with the strategy applied to the central MUA core. Development interests also highlighted this difference in strategy but with essentially the opposite intent of seeking to justify urban extensions to the central core. We probed the justification for the difference and concluded that it was based upon the differential nature of the regeneration sought in Coventry and Nuneaton & Bedworth where many of the areas of PDL are peripheral as a consequence of recent mining and manufacturing history, and the bespoke strategy of seeking growth at least in the northern part of the sub-region on a north-south axis. On the southern edge of the City, Warwick District Council canvassed three prospective locations for the Coventry-related requirement at their Core Strategy Issues and Options stage, one to the southwest in the vicinity of Kirby Corner in the Westwood Heath area, another to the south-east in the vicinity of Baginton and finally one in the Gibbet Hill/King’s Hill/Finham area. We received representations from the University of Warwick, which is located in the general vicinity of the first of these options, that land for its expansion should be withdrawn from the Green Belt, a point agreed by the planning authorities. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that additional general housing development in that locality did not make its way into the Preferred Option of the Warwick Core Strategy. Development interests canvassed the merits of land in the vicinity of Baginton, but the particular area explicitly highlighted (455/2) is very close to the Public Safety Zone at the south-west end of Coventry Airport’s runway. Again we can understand, given the controversies over the environmental impact of that airport, why the Baginton locality has not been taken forward. This leaves the central Gibbet Hill/Finham area. It was strongly opposed at the EiP by the Finham Residents Association but, we can see the strategic value in development in this locality on the north-south axis where it can be served by the upgraded Coventry-Kenilworth-Leamington rail line and would be well placed in relation to the University. Like the Keresley controversy, the detail of any such development should be for consideration in the relevant Core Strategy DPD.” In relation to phasing, the Panel commented that (paragraph 8.42)“The second point is in relation to phasing. We can appreciate the logic of seeking to develop PDL in advance of greenfield sites as a general principle and therefore why there are such references in the CSW section of sub-regional text. However, this is a general point applicable throughout the region, and is covered in Chapter 4 in our recommended approach to Policy CF4 and CF10. We are concerned that to elevate such phasing to sub-regional policy would be too rigid. The urban extensions should be linked to relevant infrastructure provision. Such provision often requires long-lead times both to carry through relevant consent procedures and to secure hybrid sources of funding. Thus, commitment to such extensions cannot necessarily be held back long into the plan period if the extensions are to contribute delivery at all in the plan period. Moreover, given the strategy for growth on a north-south axis, it is by no means obvious that any urban extensions wholly within Coventry will be more sustainable, and therefore deserving of higher priority, than those involving cross-boundary development. As we see it, a northern urban extension into Nuneaton and Bedworth would relate well in the first half of the plan period to the first phase of the rail enhancement programme with its new stations at Ricoh and Bermuda, while that to the south might fit well with later implementation of the second phase of those works with new stations at Gibbet Hill and Kenilworth in the second half of the plan period.” In relation to Warwick District’s provision, the Panel commented (Paragraph 8.49 onwards):we now turn to Warwick District. We have already addressed the issue of the cross-boundary 3,500 dwellings to be located south of the City in the Gibbet Hill/Finham locality and the need to make provision for the further development of the key economic asset of Warwick University by withdrawing the land for its expansion from the Green Belt. Textual amendments are also recommended in Chapter 5 to remove the inference that the development would be for business purposes rather than institutional development. With regard to the District’s own provision, this is the first authority in Warwickshire where a significant shortfall in proposed provision in the Preferred Option is indicated. The provision figure of 10,800 is 7,400 below the latest 2006 based CCHPR need figure. It is only half the NHPAU upper range suggested distribution figure. Perhaps unsurprisingly NLP recommended a substantial increase of some 5-10,000 dwellings and GOWM suggested an urban extension on the southern edge of Coventry. In effect the latter has been accepted by the authorities in the location proposed for 3,500 dwellings of the Coventry provision so that the Preferred Option would in fact be making provision for 14,300 dwellings in Warwick District. Development interests supported increases in provision arguing that the buoyant economy of the area warranted higher provision. In some instances they sought support from the SQW and Arup studies for AWM. We pressed AWM to explain the benefit in GVA terms indicated in the Arup study from higher housing provision in the south of the region, a point of even greater significance for Stratford-on-Avon District and some Districts further west. It seemed to us that all that the analysis was saying is that if you assume that future residents will have similar employment profiles to existing residents then these benefits will accrue. Large-scale employers were not necessarily being indicated that might be inhibited as a result of labour shortages. In the case of Warwick District there are specific high tech employment spin-offs from the University of Warwick and other sites on the fringes of Coventry and related to main towns. For the most part, however, AWM confirmed that in the southern Districts it is the residence of economically active persons who either commute long-distances or the home base of people in roles that may be nationwide or even worldwide that forms the basis for the assumed benefits. Such households are attracted by the environment and accessibility of these Districts and are not necessarily related to local employment. For Warwick District, the conclusion is that economic factors as well as past trends would indicate an upward pressure on provision and probably one of a significant degree. Conversely, however, the bespoke strategy of the CSW sub-region as well as the overall urban renaissance objective of the spatial strategy embodies a desired step-change in direction to accommodate more of Warwickshire’s requirements to the north of the County in and around Coventry. In the view of WMRA, CSW and the Council this justifies a lower provision in Warwick District than might otherwise have been anticipated in the light of past trends and economic buoyancy. With the University of Warwick straddling the Coventry City boundary and the Stoneleigh facilities near Kenilworth, it is evident that significant sources of the economic buoyancy of the locality do have roots towards the north of the District so that the strategy is not without a rationale over and above the desirability of securing renewal and renaissance of the urban fabric of Coventry and the more northerly towns. The journey to work pattern shows a complexity of movements, particularly into and out of Coventry. The District Council has taken its Core Strategy DPD work through to publication of a Preferred Option that would accommodate the RSS Phase 2 Preferred Option provision in addition to the 3,500 agreed provision for Coventry adjacent to its boundary that has already been detailed. The options considered elsewhere in the District included urban extensions south of Kenilworth as well as to its east within the Green Belt and options for urban extensions on almost all sides of Warwick/Leamington, a designated SSD under the Phase 2 strategy. Some of these, including land north of Milverton, would also be in the Green Belt, though most would be to its south. We received strong representations at the EiP from the Kenilworth Town Council against its outward expansion into the Green Belt as this would tend towards coalescence either with Coventry as proposed to be extended to the north or with Warwick/Leamington. Likewise we received representations from Warwick Society and Bishop’s Tachbrook Parish Council over the need to avoid swamping the historic town of Warwick and to avoid coalescence with nearby villages. The merits of various urban extensions to Warwick and Leamington were canvassed including those of land north of Milverton by Taylor Wimpey and land at Gallows Hill and more generally to the south of Leamington on behalf of clients of DLP, Barton Willmore and RPS. In total, the options that the Council canvassed would have provided for a higher total than sought under the Phase 2 Preferred Option. However, we would be cautious about the desirability of seeking to take all the option capacity into the RSS provision. The reasons given by the Council for discounting some sites in the Green Belt to avoid coalescence on the north-south axis of development and for not seeking the maximum possible from PDL within Warwick/Leamington in order to safeguard good quality employment land (in accordance with the views of AWM and as embodied in Policy PA6B) appear rational and not easy to disregard. Consequently, we recommend simply rounding up the required provision to 11,000 for the same reasons as at Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby. It needs to be remembered that this means that the actual provision required in the District would be 14,500, inclusive of the 3,500 for Coventry. We further recommend endorsing the requirement for Green Belt review to provide for the 3,500 dwellings adjacent to Coventry and for the expansion of the University of Warwick and indicating that further review of the Green Belt may be appropriate to enable the most sustainable form of development to be considered at Kenilworth and Warwick/Leamington in the Core Strategy DPD. The HA indicated that with the current improvement works at the M40 Longbridge Junction (15) and the possibility of junction improvements at other M40 and A46 junctions, such levels of development ought to be capable of realisation provided that local planning is appropriate and public transport improvements are carried through as proposed.”



For a good guide to Composting follow this link

The B.L.A.S.T. committee met and studied the Preferred Options questionnaire and agreed a considered response. Please use this as a guide to filling in your own questionnaire - if you have not obtained one yet go to Riverside House or go online & reply by 25th September www.warwickdc.gov.uk/corestrategy
Our response is written from a non political collective allotment view with positive suggestions but please feel free to give your own personal opinions to WDC. Remember B.L.A.S.T.'s objective is to protect existing allotments in the area and seek provision for future allotments by working with the Council, land owners and, yes, developers for the common good.


We represent several allotment societies in and around Leamington who joined forces to oppose any attempt to build on allotment land or Green Belt in North Leamington signalled as possible areas for consideration in the ‘Options for Growth’ questionnaire published in May 2008.

With the publishing of the Core Strategy Options in June 2009 we were glad to see the Planning Officers clearly realised the importance of protecting the Green Belt and did NOT suggest that allotment land and Green Belt land to the north of Leamington should be used. For this we are all extremely thankful and wish we had not needed to mount the extensive campaign to save our green spaces.

The protection of food producing land and seeking the provision of more land and space for allotments and food production is our continual aim. We intend to maintain our campaign and will gladly work with all the local Officers, Councillors and Land Owners to achieve this end.

Leamington and WDC need to use our food producing land as effectively as possible to help provide for our present and future needs as imports from overseas with carbon miles become more expensive with the changing climate and with the Third World food demand increasing.

Self-sufficiency and building on food producing land do not go together.

We at B.L.A.S.T. believe it is our right to determine our local targets. This report goes some way towards that right and defending local land against developers hungry for profit on this premise we accept this report and offer considered and constructive comments for your consideration.

Representation ID: 1550
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree with the Preferred Growth Strategy for Warwick District to 2026?

Representation: 3a On all future developments deliver a mutual beneficial policy towards green land for gardens and allotments, green spaces for recreation and healthy living, green attitude towards future self-sufficiency in home grown food production

Representation ID: 1549
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree with the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026?

Representation: 3b The vision needs to encompass the country's future needs for self-sufficiency and food production with in particular the ratio of garden land, including allotments, to house building being greater in favour of growing land.

Representation ID: 1552
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree with the Strategic Objectives for Warwick District?

Representation: 4a Develop a culture where the local community is engaged and encourage to partake in local gardening activities to grow food including allotments from existing land and future provision. WDC needs to use its food producing land as effectively as possible to provide for our present and future needs as imports from overseas with carbon miles become more expensive with the changing climate and with 3rd world food demand increasing. Self sufficiency and building on food producing land do not go together.

Representation ID: 1554
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new employment land?

Representation: 5a How many local people out of work who need housing? Is there a prediction for this? BLAST believe working people and the unemployed would benefit from the opportunity to spend time on allotments if available to provide leisure time for the employed and for the unemployed to grow food to supplement their expenses

Representation ID: 1555
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - (i) Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane

Representation: 5bi Where are the planned roads, schools and services including land available for allotments. Warwick Gates are still waiting for the school promised by Gallagher when they built there. Who are the people and companies wishing to move here?

Representation ID: 1556
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - (ii) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick

Representation: 5bii Where are the plans for the infra structure - schools, services, allotments etc? Where will the current number of households (4,692) on waiting lists fit into this plan and where will they go if they can't afford what is built?

Representation ID: 1557
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Tourism?

Representation: 7a We fully support the identified options and wherever allotment people can be involved to help deliver further tourist attractions we will

Representation ID: 1558
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Tourism, particularly in respect of visitor accommodation?

Representation: 7b Gardens both in the parks, historical locations and private, are a source of great tourist attraction to the district we must maintain and encourage our residents to get involved and develop even more attractions for the tourists that involve gardening - the project for the Pump Room Gardens is a good example. A living, working allotment in one of the parks would be a good idea as an incentive for people to try.

Representation ID: 1559
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Regeneration?

Representation: 8a We at BLAST believe that regeneration of under used land that could be made into growing land could provide opportunities to grow food and be more self-supportive across the community - it could also help to reduce waiting lists of existing allotments

Representation ID: 1560
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Regeneration?

Representation: 8b BLAST will be monitoring the progress of this strategy for sooner rather than later action

Representation ID: 1564
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Rural Communities?

Representation: 9a Allotment land provides a sustainable cohesion in rural areas and binds the fabric of the local communities to work together for the common good (as has been the case since feudal times). It is important to maintain the need to keep allotment land available around villages and not let them become expensive housing estates. While at the same time maintaining the rural space between rural and urban communities

Representation ID: 1561
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Rural Communities, particularly in respect of rural housing?

Representation: 9b It is important to maintain existing allotment land and seek provision for future allotment land to keep it available for the community and not let it become an expensive housing estate

Representation ID: 1565
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Infrastructure?

Representation: 11a Warwick Gates is living proof that developers can't be trusted to deliver the promised infrastructure - the estate has been built, the houses sold but still no school - a levy would have given the residents a school then whereas now it is still just promises and no action

Representation ID: 1567
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Infrastructure?

Representation: 11b Yes, yes, yes - developers must contribute to providing green spaces/allotments and, at ratios suggested by Cllr Goode, from the beginning, not at the end - five years later. If this is not the case developers must not be given permission to build.

Representation ID: 1568
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Open Space?

Representation: 12a All future developments must provide for garden and growing space as an initial part of the development plan with a definite designated area allocated to allotment use. It is predicted by the government that over 2.16 million homes will be without a private garden by 2010 all the more reason to plan for allotments now

Representation ID: 1569
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Open Space?

Representation: 12b The plans don't show as a percentage of space 40% of the residents wishes to protect open spaces including play areas, sports pitches, allotments. This must be seen along with housing space, employment space as green space and shown in the plan. It's vital for the local community to be given an opportunity to get into the fresh air, enjoy the healthy benefits from growing and eating own food. Leamington has over 200 people on allotment waiting lists imagine what 10,800 homes would add to these lists.

Representation ID: 1571
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Community Safety?

Representation: 13a Allotments within the district are becoming more and more the victims of vandalism and mindless damage to plots and crops through planned/focussed stealing of valuable and important equipment, while damaging the sheds where the tools, lawn mowers, rotivators are kept. Allotments on main roads and edges of estates are particularly vulnerable

Representation ID: 1573
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Community Safety?

Representation: 13b Future option must include allotment space that is well protected and near/close to the allotment users. Also the allotment should be regularly checked by police patrols.

Representation ID: 1574
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Inclusive Access?

Representation: 14a In the local allotment societies vulnerable and disadvantaged people are catered for such Mid Warwicks MIND and Ridgeway Special School who have their own dedicated plots supported by our members.

Representation ID: 1575
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Inclusive Access?

Representation: 14b Future plans must encompass more allotments with the accessibility & facilities for these many mixed groups and schools to enjoy the healthy outdoors.

Representation ID: 1577
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the Historic Environment?

Representation: 16a Yes we agree you have identified all reasonable options

Representation ID: 1578
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for the Historic Environment?

Representation: 16b We at BLAST fully support any plans to protect and maintain historic gardens both as an historic record but also as a living example for gardeners of all ages eg Warwick's Lord Leycester Hospital Victorian garden

Representation ID: 1580
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the Natural Environment?

Representation: 17a We find allotments across the district are home to diverse groups of flora and fauna along with providing a habitat for a great variety of birds, animals and reptiles including the protected Great Crested Newt and the national rarity Warwickshire Drooper Plum. May we once again remind WDC of the massive importance in maintaining green belt land between Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth and we fully support the decision to remove it from the Options for Growth

Representation ID: 1581
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for the Natural Environment, particularly in respect of amendments to the Area of Restraint designation?

Representation: 17b We believe that the concept of keeping a green gap between towns and villages is vital and must be maintained and in fact guaranteed against future development plans

Representation ID: 1582
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the Built Environment?

Representation: 18a It is important when designing/planning a built environment that adequate importance is placed upon green space and growing land in the shape of gardens and allotments.

Representation ID: 1583
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for the Built Environment?

Representation: 18b Where gardens are not possible eg flats adequate space must be found to provide green growing areas in the form of local collectives or establishing new allotments else we run the risk of healthy lifestyles being reduced

Representation ID: 1584
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Sustainable Buildings?

Representation: 19a We support that there should be targets but the WDC should aim for 50/60% now

Representation ID: 1585
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Sustainable Buildings, particularly in respect of higher targets for the reduction of carbon emissions?

Representation: 19b Having more allotments planned from the start will help reduce carbon emissions in the district. Recycling, water conservation and low or non existent energy use is the allotment way.

Representation ID: 1586
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Flood Risk?

Representation: 20a We feel the need for greater co-ordination between the different agencies to maintain waterways and drainage with planned development

Representation ID: 1587
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Flood Risk?

Representation: 20b Before any new development takes place the district's existing drainage system needs to be thoroughly sorted out, flood plains should be protected and extended never built on unless it was allowed for allotments use.

Representation ID: 1588
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Waste and Recycling?

Representation: 21a People with working gardens and allotments are past master at waste recycling, in fact the whole composting industry grew from our example. The council should offer anyone with an allotment or garden the latest of ideas like the green cone and should be made easily available

Representation ID: 1589
Core Strategy - Preferred Options - Do you support or object to the preferred option for Waste and Recycling?

Representation: 21b Encourage all residents to collect and compost waste, make the collection business simple and easy and as we say at BLAST 'Reduce, reuse and recycle'





Meeting on Core Strategy, Mon 17th August, 2009

Juliet Carter a committee member of B.L.A.S.T. (Bringing Leamington Allotment Societies Together) put forward these questions in a statement to the meeting:

1. Our concern is future provision for growing land in the form of allotments, communal gardens and decent sized gardens. A recent Government forecast claims the number of homes without gardens will be over 2 million next year.

We see no substantial promise or commitment in the Strategy Options in Section 12 Open Space. For example if over 40% of respondents considered it important why is it not shown on the plans?

2. Natural Environment - we at BLAST are concerned that the natural environment will be put under massive pressure from new housing - can we be assured that along with the Green Belt good growing land and green spaces between towns and villages are maintained and protected and not swallowed up to be lost forever?

BLAST represents several allotment societies all eager and willing to get involved with the council in the future planning for allotment provision.

BLAST member societies have over 200 local people on their waiting lists for allotments.

The meeting was very well attended, with over 300 members of the public in the audience. It went on a long time, until 10pm.

I did manage to read out the statement, and it received a round of applause… but no answer. Previously a woman from Warwick had asked why the recommendations which her group had passed on were completely ignored, and was told it was the decision of the management committee. No one was very pleased. There was a comment that the WDC has a preference to allowing building on land on which a developer has an option. Many people were complaining that no infrastructures were in place, schools, shops, leisure amenities, roads etc. Also that the recent building developments on lands have not erected the community buildings as promised, or schools. The tone of the crowd was not pleased. Plaskitt & White were doing a bit of “my party’s better than yours” for which they get told off by a member of the audience. Doody got frustrated that nobody liked the plans, and couldn’t really reply to the accusations, because they were all true… The issue of a Legal case against the proposals was popular with everyone. As was a 6 month delay. Hoping for an election, and the obligation to provide houses being removed altogether. However, we are urged to lodge our complaints to:
Comments / Objections by 25th September 2009 to:
Gary Stephens PO Box 2178 Riverside House, Milverton Hill, Royal Leamington Spa, CV32 5QH or email warwickdc.gov.uk
The clerk present was This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Mr D Maudlin

Dear Fellow Allotment Holders

You are probably aware of the withdrawal of the herbicide aminopyralid in July last year after a national outcry about the damag caused by manure contaminated with it.
Dow Agrochemicals have quietly applied for it to be reinstated and this seems likely to be granted by Govt unless protests from influential groups and individuals can prevent it.
I have put a petition on the No 10 website http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/aminopyralidban/
and ask as many as possible of your members and their contacts to sign it. For those who are unfamiliar with the problem, full details of the story which started in early 2008 can be found at http://www.glallotments.btik.com/p_Contaminated_Manure.ikml

Thank you in advance

John Shobbrook

Chair, Black Horse Allotments Association, Wednesbury
The BLAST committee will be meeting in August to discuss and complete the Questionnaire on the Core Strategy Preferred Options.

Please let us know if you have any views or comments that we can include in our collective response on behalf of Leamington Allotment Societies - please contact us before 24th August 2009.
If you haven't seen or read a copy yet please make the effort to do so because your views are vitally important in determining the future of this lovely part of the world.
<< Start < Prev 1 3 > End >>

Page 1 of 3