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

Object

Representation ID: 2022

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: G Pritchard

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in

the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2032

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

because it is based on biased unproven numbers provided by New Labour to suit own ends in getting relected, to get votes from mass of welfare dependent unemployed/unemployable hangers-on it has created in 11 years of mismanagement.

Object

Representation ID: 2033

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

because it is based on biased unproven numbers provided by New Labour to suit own ends in getting relected, to get votes from mass of welfare dependent unemployed/unemployable hangers-on it has created in 11 years of mismanagement.

Object

Representation ID: 2034

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

because it is based on biased unproven numbers provided by New Labour to suit own ends in getting relected, to get votes from mass of welfare dependent unemployed/unemployable hangers-on it has created in 11 years of mismanagement.

Object

Representation ID: 2035

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

because it is based on biased unproven numbers provided by New Labour to suit own ends in getting relected, to get votes from mass of welfare dependent unemployed/unemployable hangers-on it has created in 11 years of mismanagement.

Object

Representation ID: 2036

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

no, because it is based on spurious unproven claims for population trends, housing needs and employment conditions to suit new labour politicians

Support

Representation ID: 2066

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Kerr

Note: Linked with the Growth Strategy shouls be iten 9 of the 'Preferred Vision' to ensure the preservation of all existing 'open spaces'.

Support

Representation ID: 2067

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Kerr

Note: limked with the 'Growth Strategy' should be item 9 of the 'preferred Vision' to ensure the preservation of all existing 'open spaces'

Object

Representation ID: 2103

Received: 06/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Janet Richardson

Green belt should remain as green belt to continue existing quality of life for Warwickshire residents.

I firmly believe focus should be on developing the many available 'brown field ' sites.

Object

Representation ID: 2104

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: J Wenzel

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2112

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: B & N Blackham and Ellis

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in

the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2120

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in

the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2128

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: S P Jones

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in

the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2129

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: S P Jones

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2133

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

3.14 Growth in the south of the urban area will harm green belt areas there, in order to "protect the West Midlands Green Belt to the north east and west."

Object

Representation ID: 2145

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: D E Alderson

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in

the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2156

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2177

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: The Keefe family

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2218

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: G Lane

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2228

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: A B Partridge

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2238

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Gerrardo Luccio Luccio

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2244

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Peter and Anne Wing

Number of people: 2

* The number of proposed new houses is far too many for a town the size of Warwick.
* The whole question of demand for new houses in Warwick and Leamington Spa should be revisited.
why do all the new houses have to be in one area to the south of the town which has already had considerable development?
There are no plans for infrastructure; roads, schools, sewers etc.

Object

Representation ID: 2250

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2259

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: M Weeks

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2260

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: M Weeks

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2270

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Pye

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2281

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: S Shanahan

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2296

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: M Wiles

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 2297

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2381

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

No.