Approved plans for schools and 150 new homes on outskirts of Leamington faced considerable opposition
There was considerable opposition to plans to build two schools and 150 new houses off Harbury Lane and Oakley Wood Road in Leamington.
More than 100 letters of objection were received by Warwick District Council together with a petition containing 1,027 signatures, which said that the country park part of the plans would be reduced to little more than a footpath.
But at the council’s planning committee this week (Tuesday, November 5) councillors voted unanimously in favour of the plans after hearing from planners that there was nowhere else for the secondary and primary schools to go.
The scheme will now include a reduced country park with some of the green space being used for school playing fields and sports pitches.
County councillor Colin Hayfield, the education portfolio holder at Shire Hall, said: “Here we have the opportunity to work with partners to deliver a brand new school in an area where we believe places are going to be needed in the near future.
“The proposed site will allow the county council to deliver 1,600 educational places to accommodate children from ages 0 to 18 - it will be an all-through school.
"There will be early years provision and special education needs provision.
“This is a great opportunity to build this new school and for us this is the right site for the school.”
He added that a number of organisations had already shown an interest in running the new school.
Several members of the public spoke out against including the extra housing in the plan and Cllr Neale Murphy (Con Warwick Myton and Heathcote) asked if they were really necessary.
He said: “150 houses in my opinion is an overdevelopment on this site - why do we need them in this area?”
But the council’s head of development and planning, David Barber, said: “The land simply wouldn’t be available unless the landowners are willing to bring it forward so we cannot deliver the land for a school here without the housing.
“You could choose to reject it on the basis that 150 houses is too much but the risk you take with that is if the developer doesn’t come back. If it is not viable for the developer then they wouldn’t bring the land forward.”