Do you agree with the Preferred Growth Strategy for Warwick District to 2026?

Object

Representation ID: 91

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.C. Allman

Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash have already been developed hugely without sufficient infrastructure in place for existing residents - e.g. a lack of local school places. The last thing that is needed is an increase in housing in this area to make the situation worse. In addition, these towns are now already in effect linked - and any further development, particularly in the direction of Bishops Tachbrook, will destroy whatever remaining rural charm and green space that remains, and replacing a rurual community with suburbia.

Support

Representation ID: 92

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.C. Allman

In principle it sounds fine - it is how this is implemented - and the plans to further develop around Warwick Gates / Harbury Lane / Bishops Tachbrook are not in line with this and I would strongly object to this!

Support

Representation ID: 107

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Agreed - there must be no incusion into the greenbelt separating Kenilworth and Leamington and Warwick.

Object

Representation ID: 145

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R Clipson

There is not enough use of existing brown field sites, for example, the Ford Foundry site. There must be NO use of greenfield sites.
The government & regional authorities must be told that the quality of life must be preserved for future generations. This will not happen if we allow masses of housing, with developers allowed to build 'executive housing' over the whole area.

Object

Representation ID: 157

Received: 07/07/2009

Respondent: G Ralph

I believe the land between Coventry and the Warwickshire towns should be maintained otherwise Coventry will envelop us all. Look at how they behaved over the airport expansion.

Support

Representation ID: 177

Received: 11/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Alexander Holmes

I believe the single most important issue here is the conservation of the Green Belt. The priority for new development must therefore be to the south of the main Leamington urban centre, linking with major transport arteries/motorway.

Object

Representation ID: 202

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Baxter

No.

Object

Representation ID: 223

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

I disagree with the need to expand on the borders of Coventry. This is green-belt land, and development should be strictly controlled: i.e. not allowed.

Object

Representation ID: 247

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Too much development in Warwick/Leamington where lack of adequeate infrastructure merges Leamington/Warwick totally. Building north of Leamington/Warwick which is closer to Birmingham and Coventry is preferable.

Object

Representation ID: 313

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

There must be no or at worst minimal use of Green Belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 314

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

Leamington and Warwick are almost as one now. Any expansion of housing etc.would be disastrous. The current intrastructure cannot cope as it is.

Object

Representation ID: 341

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

After attending the meeting at Warwick School on August 17th our overwhelming decisions are:

No - to all future development off Harbury Lane.
No - to massive increase in traffic congestion.
No - to the destruction of more green areas.
No - to more pollution which will affect our quality of life
No - to more schools - shops - surgeries and roads to cater for all this housing.

What a disaster.

Object

Representation ID: 418

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

With the proposed building of 4200 houses nad the combination of Warwick Gates you are creating a saturation area. NHS/schools would not cope and again you would be encouragin commuting by car.

Support

Representation ID: 469

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

I am concerned that allowance has to be made for Coventry's extended development.

Object

Representation ID: 524

Received: 01/08/2009

Respondent: Philip Simmonds

The continuing destruction of the green belt must be halted. The very identity of the 'rural landscapre' outlined in the 'vision' is at odds with the proposed developments. The impact of these developments would be colossal - I cannot recall seeing thousands of homeless people requiring housing so am unure about the base facts that are being used to support this expansion programme. Whilst not exactly paradise, once you've paved it, you wont know what youve lost!.

Support

Representation ID: 539

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 591

Received: 03/08/2009

Respondent: B A Alston

Essential that green belt is maintained wherever possible but particularly to the north of leamington

Object

Representation ID: 601

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 657

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: London Midland

Development alongside the Leamington-Coventry rail corridor would strengthen the case for a new station or stations and for improved rail services on the route. However, there would need to be sufficient demand generated in order to make additional stations and services viable and sustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 659

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

We agree with the Preferred Growth Strategy for Warwick District. Targeting of individual sites for rural exception housing should also be developed within the Core Strategy

Object

Representation ID: 662

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Susan Edkins

Green belt must be protected.pollution from more traffic must be prevented

Object

Representation ID: 675

Received: 07/08/2009

Respondent: Anna Sampson

We need to protect our green belts and our identity.
There is all ready enough housing which has been built and cannot be filled. Shops in towns are not filled.

Object

Representation ID: 692

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

No.

Object

Representation ID: 763

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

I believe the Coventry development conflicts with the strategy point that wants to maintain the Greenbelt area separating Coventry and Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 817

Received: 12/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Brian Croker

I most strongly object to further loss of green belt surrounding Coventry. The Proposed housing development is excessive, resulting in loss of farm land and in some cases destroying areas that have geographical and historical value.

Large increase in traffic volumes on what is already a poor and badly maintained road network.

Finally, Coventry's best asset is the countryside that surrounds it, take that away and what is left?????

Object

Representation ID: 818

Received: 30/06/2009

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Dinsdale

I would like to stress my continued opposition to the building of new homes on green belt land.

This vital, open-spaced arteryy between towns/cities should not be choked or blocked by new homes. It is vital as a wild-life corridor and a breathing space for local residents of the settled communities to enjoy the freedom away from suburban, built up areas.

Object

Representation ID: 823

Received: 30/07/2009

Respondent: Miss L R Vickers

I am against the using of green belt areas, much preferring brownfield sites. Anyway, its all very well saying we have to build all these extra houses, but will our present road system stand up to it all? I very much doubt it. I certainly don't want anything in Warwick, Royal Leamington Spa and Kenilworth altered at all. I like it the way it is, apart from the odd minor refinements, of course.

Object

Representation ID: 832

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

This is not my preferred growth strategy! Please keep the green fields and only allow building on brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 895

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Too much growth in rural areas - district should maintain at current levels to retain its charm and safe place to live. Too much social engineering.

Object

Representation ID: 946

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Dean Butlin

The green belt must not be built on. Who enjoys this? Who benefits from this? I absolutely only agree with brownfield site development.