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

Object

Representation ID: 948

Received: 22/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft

The strategy for predicted Growth by your own admittion is based on the rapid growth between 2001 and 2006, which is due to construction of Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow.

Also by your own admittion "The majority of this growth has resulted from people moving into the District from other areas, notably the urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham."

Therefore what you are saying is if we build houses people will move into them, so if we build another 10800 houses people will move in.

Based on that strategy we will continue to build houses forever well beyond 2026.

Object

Representation ID: 956

Received: 22/08/2009

Respondent: E Keogh

There is no valid argument to support the scale of the proposed development of precious green belt between Coventry and our neighbours in Warwickshire. For aesthetic, community and environmental reasons, this development should not take place. WDC should concentrate their efforts identifying brown field sites and the stock of empty properties before entertaining this form of development. Additionally, I am not aware of direct consultation with residents of Coventry regarding development of land adjacent to our city.

Object

Representation ID: 961

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Don't believe we should develop at Kings Hill. Not enough infrastructure and we would loose distinction between Coventry and Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 978

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Spatial Strategy Unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 1051

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

The analysis is misleading as Whitnash is described as a town, like Warwick and Leamington, but is really a district like Lillington or Cubbington. As such, the growth proposed would totally overwhelm it. More growth is needed in villages where shops & pubs are closing and school places are not filled. Smaller family homes are needed heree, jobs/workers balance will not be maintained due to market forces. Experience in existing Warwick Gates development showed all houses sold, but no customers for commercial land.

Object

Representation ID: 1055

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Quesion the need for so much growth in the present economic climate, Kenilworth needs more jobs before additional commuters houses.

Object

Representation ID: 1127

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Alice Jarrett

1. Believe development (controlled) should be encouraged in villages to increase their viability.
2. Proposed "urban fringe" development for Coventry is being used to suggest a massive urban expansion, with neither Council (Warwick or Coventry) having to assume full responsibility.

In terms of vision, just because a block of land is "available" does not necessarily make it the best place to plan development, especially when it leads to suggestions for massive urban expansion in unsuitable Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1162

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Support

Comment

Representation ID: 1216

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

No -
Warwick Gates is a major recent development that should preclude any further development around Whitnash.
NB: Whitnasn is only"urban" because of recent development.
WDC have effected a change of character/classification that now threatens to harm our community further.

Object

Representation ID: 1224

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: MS Judith Bennett

There are many empty properties in Coventry how can we possibly need more housing in the boarder area around Kings Hill Lane?

Object

Representation ID: 1226

Received: 01/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Julie Warden

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook and was very concerned to read of the proposed new houses in this area. My main objection is that the area just cannot cope with any more houses, we are barely coping with the influx of new houses and cars from the Warwick Gates development and to build even more houses seems ludicrous.

We need to preserve our green spaces not fill them with more and more new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 1227

Received: 01/07/2009

Respondent: Leticia Oyamburu

As a resident in the village of Bishops Tachbrook I am shocked that once again we are having extra housing pushed our way. After having to tolerate the Warwick Gates development it seems very un-necessary to have more houses built right on our doorstep once again.

Traffic is already very heavy heading in and around Leamington at peak times.

Object

Representation ID: 1253

Received: 30/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.C. Allman

This is a short-sighted and ill conceived plan.
The proposed development will merely add to this problem and help destroy the last remaining green space in the area and any remaining rural appeal, quickly consuming the l village of Bishops Tachbrook into the ever-growing Warwick-Leamington conurbation.

Object

Representation ID: 1265

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Margrave

I object to the idea of focussing expansion around Whitnash (point 1 in Preferred Growth Strategy), especially in Warwick District Councillors' preferred plan 1c,1d,1e,1f,2f,3f.
Because:
It is counter to point 1 in your Preferred Vision.
No consideration has been carried out by WDC, WCC on the impact of local infrastructure to assess whether the schools, road, sewerage & water supply system can cope. But it seems obvious they can't.

Object

Representation ID: 1286

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

Whitnash has already had Warwick Gates imposed on it. No more building should now happen. Whitnash used to be a village, surrounded by fields, WDC has made it urban.

Object

Representation ID: 1347

Received: 20/07/2009

Respondent: Ms Jennifer Drake

I am writing to object to the proposal to build so many new homes in Warwick and to object to the proposed location of those homes.

How has the Council come to the conclusion the area needs approximately 11,000 new homes?

How does the council think the area can provide the infrastructure for so many homes?

Wouldn't it be more sensible if the council considered other less intrusive areas and a much lower number?

Object

Representation ID: 1349

Received: 14/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs D.E. Farrant

I oppose the Core Strategy Preferred Option because it will mean our village will loose its character and become part of a large suburb, a maze of streets.

In this instance Bishops Tachbrook is being swallowed up with very little between the village and the already encroaching Warwick Gates development. The Leamington Spar area would also start to change from being an attractive town to a vast sprawling boring one.

Support

Representation ID: 1353

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

Agree with Strategy as it directs growth to the District's urban areas.
Agree with para 3.8 which acknowledges Leamington as the larger urban area and therefore a more suitable location to focus growth compared to Warwick. Thisis reflects WMRSS. We support these findings and consider that Leamington should be a focus for additional growth. The approach to enabling limited development to villages and hamlets is a sensible one and reflects the guidance in PPS7, in terms of focusing development to identified service centres.

We also recognize that there should be development in rural areas in the open countryside where necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 1400

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs P Frazier

Number of people: 2

Object to the building of 4200 houses on Europa Way, Woodside Farm and land south of Harbury Lane. It is unsuitable option.

Objection to the proposed housing impact on the infrastructure. There is already traffic congestion and insufficient school places. Proposed housing would make this situation much worse and have an adverse impact on the community.
More suitable options could located in Kenilworth, land west and north of Warwick, along the A46.

Object

Representation ID: 1401

Received: 14/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Noreen Doherty

I wish to object to the proposals in the Core Strategy.

It is aimed at persuading us that the only practical way forward is that Leamington should become as large as possible and the way to achieve this is by a further major expansion to the south.

No traffic survey has ben done and no proposals for healthcare, education or recreation are in place yet.

Object

Representation ID: 1403

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs John and Mary Fletcher

Number of people: 2

Object to the development which will overload existing struggling infrastructure. The construction of 2500 houses will lead to destruction of Tachbrook Valley, loss of countryside, overcrowded services and overburdened infrastructure. Loss of character and distinctiveness of area.

Support the need for more housing but only in sustainable location which protect the greenbelt

Would to see housing growth dispersed through villages and brownfield land sites

Object

Representation ID: 1413

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: P Vickers

I am writing with regard the proposed building in the Heathcote and Whitnash areas.
Traffic is already difficult and dangerous in Bishops Tachbrook and around. The network would not cope with the increase if development.

Skylarks and Yellowhammers can both be seen in this area and would likely disappear.

Object

Representation ID: 1415

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Alison Nichol-Smith

Oppose strategy to direct growth south of Leamington.

Warwick Gates already lacks infrastructure and is not meeting local needs as many people commute with good access to the M40.

More development will create a Middle Class Ghetto lacking facilites.

Object

Representation ID: 1420

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs N&M Woods

Number of people: 2

Ill conceived and poor thought out plan

Object

Representation ID: 1427

Received: 04/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Wendy and Eric Euston

Number of people: 2

Grave concerns about the construction of large housing estates south and north of Harbury Lane and Europa Way - would create a landscape of mass housing generating too much pressure on existing services and infrastructure, higher pollution levels.
Why arent more brown field sites being used
Sites south of Coventry and Peugot plant could be used for housing.

Concerns about what sort of heritage will be left for future generations with the loss of rural land.
Homes necessary but should be built in a more sympathetic way to environment, not using rural areas.

Object

Representation ID: 1429

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: Mr John Morris

The housing plans will have serious deleterious effects on the Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash areas, including the nautre and character of towns and villages in the District, valuable open space, existing areas of restraint, schools, traffic management and local amenities.

The necessary infrastructure for this development has not been taken account of.

As such Members of the Council should call for a delay to the process until impact studies have been carried out.

Better would be the longer term deferrment of housing proposals by way of a legal challenge to the housing proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 1430

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Lyn Lewis

Concern about 4000 houses to be built in one area. The houses are not for local needs. Only 15 new houses needed for Bishops Tachbrook.

This amount of proposed housing changes the character of the semi rural character of Bishops Tachbrook, blot on the landscape like Warwick Gates.
Proposed new housing should be dispersed across the district's villages and towns.
There should be greater use of brown field sites and area like Finham
Any available sites appear to be used for student accommodation

Object

Representation ID: 1434

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Robert A Smith

Preferred Option of Building 4,200 houses South of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington is senseless and would have a massive detrimental effect on the whole of the intended area to include the following:-

It would demand new roads, bridges, schools and sewage facilities, none of which have been planned.

Increase in all manner of pollution.

Massive increase in traffic and reduced safety for pedestrians.

Increase in journey times for emergency services, plus an increased burden on the NHS.

A marked decrease in the water supply.

Destruction of our historical heritage.

Creation of "rat runs" through Bishops Tachbrook.

Comment

Representation ID: 1438

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Stoneleigh & Ashow Parish Council

The above Parish Council are pleased that at present there is no development in their Parish.

Object

Representation ID: 1443

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: K Dorning

Considers that the Core Strategy would cause irrevocable damage to the character of Bishops Tachbrook. Questions the need to put housing on land south of Harbury Lane when there is land at Finham
Concerns about the ability of the existing infrastructure to cope with housing in this location on this scale.Argues that the housing with some affordable housing should be distributed throughout the district,around the towns and villages so that local young people can live in their local area. Considers strategy is at fault.

Argues that the housing with some affordable housing should be distributed throughout the district,around the towns and villages so