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

Object

Representation ID: 2418

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

No.

Object

Representation ID: 2468

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Edna Hemming

Object most strongly against any further developnent on greenbelt land, allotments and school playing fields. There comes a time to say enough is enough.

Object

Representation ID: 2471

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Mr G.C. Allman

I can see no way that I can support a strategy developed in order to satisfy central government, based on requirements that nobody locally thinks are accurate, and does not have any sort of reasoning or effective planning/consideration for the implications of such growth envisaged by the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 2480

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft

The core strategy believes that the projected growth is "particularly unrealistic" but is ploughing on regardless of this and is trying to force the additional housing anyway without any evidence that it is needed.

The numbers are solely based on a recent 5 year growth spurt and not on any long term historical trend for growth that would probably be more accurate.

The emerging West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy is trying to reduce the amount of migration from Coventry and Birmingham which must therefore reduce the extra 25,250 people to a smaller number as migration was the biggest factor in recent growth.

Object

Representation ID: 2484

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: British Waterways

The canals form a non-footloose corridor, which in the main passes through open countryside within Warwick District. It is a multifunctional asset which delivers on the growth agenda within rural areas by the positioning of small businesses within redundant canal buildings and location of off-line moorings/marinas and tourist/recreational opportunities. British Waterways would not wish to sterilise the potential for this growth within the open countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 2543

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Beausale, Hasely, Honiley & Wroxall Parish Council

The Parish Council support the Core Strategy preferred options but think that the numbers of houses planned is excessive.

Object

Representation ID: 2545

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson

Number of people: 2

KENILWORTH. Expansion would destroy the character of the town and much green belt would be destroyed. Also a ribbon development along the A46 would be created and the approach from the east would be spoiled.

Object

Representation ID: 2593

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Storey

no.

Object

Representation ID: 2604

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Area to east of Kenilworth will severely impact on Glasshouse Lane residents (traffic etc).

Object

Representation ID: 2633

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr James Delaney

Towns in Warwickshire (Kenilworth, Warwick, Leamington) already have overstretched infrastructure. New development would best be served by a "new town" starting from scratch, along lines of Milton Keynes (road network designed for forecast population, and good transport links).
Development between Kenilworth and Coventry would lose the individuality of both areas. Gap critical to each areas community and identity.

Support

Representation ID: 2664

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 2727

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

It would be better to distribute growth between the four towns including kenilworth to encourage smaller industrial units to set up there, encouraging similar development of surrounding villages as well as the south of Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 2781

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

Open ground should be retained to allow rain to soak away in these times of climate change and predicted rainfall. New housing could be a disaster.

There will be more traffic chaos in Kenilworth at peak times as more people get to work.

We cannot allow Coventry encroach into our precious Greeen Belt! That will prove the thin end of a very large wedge.

Object

Representation ID: 2823

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2862

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2904

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: ALISON ELFWOOD

YOU'RE NOT TARGETING THE RIGHT AREAS.

Object

Representation ID: 2919

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

The facilities/infrastructure are neither available nor easily provided.
Major traffic issues into/out of Leamington and Warwick. Will need significant road improvements and at least an extra river crossing.

Section 3.14
Points 3 and 4 are fine but bullet points 1,2 and 5 should be changed to spread development more evenly over the FOUR towns, the A46 corridor and south of Coventry.

Finham should be targeted as the prime location for placement of the bulk of extra housing allocated to WDC, in particular accommodating the expected influx from the major conurbations.

It should not be allocated to accommodate Coventry's allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 2956

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Golf Club

Kenilworth Golf Club does not have a view on the Preferred Growth Strategy for the District, nor does it have a view on the priciple of any housing or employment allocations proposed in or around Kenilworth.However the Club wishes to draw attention to comments in Section 11(a)with regard to the potential effect on the Club of the housing and employment proposals in Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 2966

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Strongly object to any building on green belt until all other options have taken place.

Object

Representation ID: 2988

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Williams

It would be far better to develop a number of housing sites in various locations rather than have concentrated housing in one location which will increase pressure on local infrastructure and introduce bottleknecks. The area around Hampton Magna and Budbrooke is an excellent location that is within walking distance of the great facilities of Warwick Parkway train station and seconds from the A46. This area should be seriously considered.

Object

Representation ID: 3015

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Bill McCutchon

This is far too high a number of dwellings to place in this particular locality because of the huge increase it will generate of vehicular traffic and the affect this will have on the main thoroughfares in the locality and to and from Coventry and adjoining towns.

Object

Representation ID: 3023

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Rhyan Barry

The United Kingdom has already gone beyond the optimum number of residents. The infrastructure is being pushed far and beyond what it is capable of. Traffic jams are common place, waiting times for hospital appointments, the list goes on; our public services are overstretched and under-resourced. And now we are going to start building houses on green belt. Will this 'growth' only stop when there is no blade of grass left? We have a responsibility to this land of which we are failing!

Support

Representation ID: 3039

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Katharine Whigham

There is no easy answer to this, however I belive on balance this is the best compromise to meet the needs.
Of key importance is the balance of workers, infrastructure for any development , and most of all strict control development in open / green spaces.

Support

Representation ID: 3055

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Alison Oliver

Sounds sensible

Support

Representation ID: 3069

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

Except for the proposed intense housing development to the south of the Leamington Spa and Whitnash.

Object

Representation ID: 3119

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Tracey Latto

I strongly object to any further development to the south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash. Radford Semele has long been a small village on the edge of Leamington Spa and long should it remain so!

Object

Representation ID: 3121

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mel Gillman

The proposals do not teake into account the infrastructure required to support such a proposal. Roads, schools etc are already overloaede within these areas particularly in the Bishops Tachbrook / Witnash area. There will be loss of green space and village identity.

Object

Representation ID: 3133

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

There is no need for any growth

Object

Representation ID: 3139

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

Facilities/infrastructure are neither available nor easily provided for. Will lead to major traffic issues into/out of LeamingtonWarwick. Needs significant major road improvements and an extra river crossing.

Section 3.14
Bullet points 3,4 are fine. Points 1,2 and 5 should be changed to spread development more evenly over the FOUR towns and south of Coventry.

Finham should be targeted as the prime location for placement of the bulk of extra housing allocated to WDC, in particular accommodating the expected influx from the Birmingham and Coventry conurbations.

It should not be allocated to accommodate Coventry's allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 3192

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Robert Burtonshaw

No building on North Leamington Allotments