Development is just urban sprawl

I would like to add some observations on the plans and on the comments of some of those responsible for the consultation on them and implementation of them.

Firstly, when I expressed many of the concerns featured in your letters last week about the scale of development to the south of Warwick, I was accused of NIMBYism. Yet, I read in your paper that green belt land to the north of Warwick , which everyone must have considered suitable for development when it was proposed, has been ruled out. Why? Because of “a storm of protest.” That’s not NIMBYism then?

Secondly, there is something horribly disingenuous about the language used to describe the proposed development. All reference to houses to be built sound like certainties. “Warwick and Whitnash will take 4,550 homes.” But look closely at the enticing sweeteners and they are all much less certain. The plans “COULD” include schools ; there is a “POSSIBILITY” of an extension of the country park and space “COULD” be found for a football stadium. And as for a country park being established to prevent “the perception of urban sprawl”…if it is a large area of housing on the outskirts of a modest existing town, it is not a “perception of urban sprawl”; it certainly IS “urban sprawl”.

No wonder no real thought has been given to the degradation of already unacceptable air quality and the impact of many more cars moving through and round Warwick controlled by traffic lights and giant junctions.

I love Warwick. I realise it needs to grow and to accommodate more families, children , cars and open spaces, but a development of 4,500 homes, even if it is called a “garden suburb” to the south of Warwick, remains urban sprawl.

Kate Booty, Fields Court, Warwick