Q-V3.1: Do you agree that the Vision and Strategic Objectives are appropriate?

Showing forms 1 to 30 of 513
Form ID: 72227
Respondent: Mr Gary Stocker

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72241
Respondent: Graham Ball

Nothing chosen

The vision says that we should be "delivering homes that meet the needs of all our communities". But the vast majority of people in Warwickshire already have a good home and do not want additional homes. Please could you update your vision to state that you will: 1. Provide housing for the minority of people in Warwickshire who need it 2. Preserve countryside to meet the needs of the vast majority in the county who do not need additional homes but do need countryside for their mental and physical health

Form ID: 72353
Respondent: Mr John Greenshields

Yes

Comment: Yes, they are appropriate. As noted in the document it is useful to consider the weighting of different objectives. As some of the objectives can compete with each other. There is a desperate need for more housing and wider economic growth. Economic growth and security that will allow local individuals and businesses to invest in enhancing the environment. This is especially true in the countryside which is increasingly being left behind and naturally has a huge part to play in in continued investment in the environment and climate. The countryside contains a huge mixture of businesses and services which all must be provided with opportunity for growth and development so that the objectives can be met. Rural areas must not be disproportionately harmed by planning policy which prevents development (such as the Settlement Hierarchy) as this starvation gradually reduces the attractiveness and sustainability of such areas.

Form ID: 72377
Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72397
Respondent: Mr Stuart Boyle

No

Supporting vibrant and distinct centers is too passive, i.e it accepts a gradual switch from shops to cafes and restaurants in town centers. Eventually a tipping point will be reached when there is insufficient reason for people to frequent town centers causing cafes and restaurants close leaving the town centers derelict. The strategy needs to be proactive encouraging positive action such ensuring town center rents and parking charges are lower than out of town sites.

Form ID: 72419
Respondent: Mr Peter Howard

No

I do not agree with the excessive prioritisation of "climate change" and the goal of "net zero". There appears to be no financial consideration of this and the impact that South Warwickshire can have on global climate is minimal to non-existent. We are in danger of wasting huge sums of money chasing an unjustifiable and probably unachievable set of goals. Why are there no visionary statements around financial goals and the prosperity of the area. Surely one of the most important things for people living here is that that South Warwickshire is a prosperous and financially thriving community (just consider other parts of the country that have spiralled into decline, with collapsing employment, declining housing values etc etc - we must avoid this)

Form ID: 72421
Respondent: Mr Roger Lloyd

Yes

The Strategic Objectives seem to be appropriate and allow for carbon neutral activity / an environment maintaining places of natural beauty and sustainable infrastructure

Form ID: 72543
Respondent: Mrs Georgina Hawkins

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72581
Respondent: Mr Kevin Wrather

No

On completion of all planned developments in Kenilworth, net zero carbon emissions targets cannot be met due to the impact of additional traffic driving in town on the extremely narrow roads, especially during peak periods. The air quality along Warwick Road is already quite poor and will become even worse, up to very dangerous levels.

Form ID: 72582
Respondent: Thomas Bailey

No

The proposed development on the basis of overriding climate objectives has a disproportionate affect on rural communities. Proposed new settlements in rural locations on the basis of climate objectives satisfies urban desires but not rural ones. Greater weight should be given to preservation of green space between existing settlements, increase in local traffic on unsupported local road infrastructure and lack of supporting services eg GPs. Development at Lighthorne is a prime example of how to get this wrong.

Form ID: 72591
Respondent: Mr richard madder

Nothing chosen

Protecting the wealth of heritage and cultural assets an best be achieved by restricting house building to brownfield sites, preventing creeping development between nearby but distinct urban areas and mosgt importantly NOT BUILDING ON THE PRECIOUS GREEN BELT, that is vandalism. In north Kenilworth where I live the surrounding farmland, the castle and abbey fields are the principal attractions of the area and must absolutely be protected. Much of this focument proposes change for changes sake the changes are unnecessary and undesirable.

Form ID: 72598
Respondent: Clive Corrie

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72626
Respondent: Mr ROGER LAKE KAGAN

No

No answer given

Form ID: 72628
Respondent: Mr Andrew Metcalf

No

There is no strategic objective to protect the environmental, heritage and cultural impact this plan will have on existing houses and on the existing residents outlook and way of life. Provision should be made to create green spaces to prevent the proposed housing schemes spoiling the environment of existing house owners and tenants. The proposed housing sites will also join up Kenilworth with Burton Green in the North and Kenilworth with Leek Wootton in the south thus losing the unique cultural heritage and identity of Kenilworth.

Form ID: 72638
Respondent: Mrs Sian Corrie

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72716
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Elliot

Nothing chosen

Not enough thought given to turning small villages into towns with not enough infra structure for the houses that are already there. Not enough space in local school or at local doctors

Form ID: 72747
Respondent: Mr Michael Cooney

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72813
Respondent: Mrs Lesley Wilding

No

No. Henley In Arden is not the right place. Road network is insufficient already!

Form ID: 72840
Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Jackson-Taylor

No

I do not think the vision takes into account the local people.

Form ID: 72919
Respondent: Mr H Farmer

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72920
Respondent: Moreton Morrell Parish Council

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72963
Respondent: Mr Jake Evans

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 72985
Respondent: Mrs Sara White

Nothing chosen

You are aiming at green belt land which affects the rural community. There are plenty of brownfield sites which could be used instead

Form ID: 72988
Respondent: Mr guy evans

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 73001
Respondent: Mrs Laura Gibb

No

I don’t believe they are your primary consideration. You will pay lip service to ‘protecting and enhancing our environmental assets’ and it is clear from the developments already being built in Kenilworth that no attention has been paid to ‘creating attractive places’. They are identikit developments with no personality, no serious green credentials and a decimation of wildlife and habitats. You appear to have no desire to be truly innovative and inspiring with these new developments. All the same old, same old ugly boring housing.

Form ID: 73035
Respondent: Wootton Wawen Parish Council

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 73072
Respondent: Mr Stephen Everett

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 73096
Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Browne

No

We have enough housing. Leave the greenery as it is

Form ID: 73101
Respondent: Mrs alexandra glackin

Yes

No answer given

Form ID: 73117
Respondent: Mr Andy Green

No

If the fertility rate is at it's lowest ever & reducing every year why do we need to keep building new developments..?? Where are the people coming from..??