Do you agree with the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026?
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 97
Received: 03/07/2009
Respondent: Mr W C H Morris
While agreeing in principle the coucil previos and current actions to penalise local local shops and import large supermarket chains does not give me confidence that the town will not continue to die.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 106
Received: 06/07/2009
Respondent: R A Chapleo
Agreed - how could one disagree!
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 156
Received: 07/07/2009
Respondent: G Ralph
I feel that you have ignored the need for better roads. As Leamington develops the links to other towns needs to be better for vehicles.
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 162
Received: 07/07/2009
Respondent: mr John Wheatcroft
Lets sympathetically develop some of the rural villages around Leamington. This does not mean join them up to Leamington, heavens above no but just allow some relaxation of the rules regarding building in villages.
Cubbington for example is quite a good example of Old and New development, which is why we have "Cubbington" and "New Cubbington". It can be done and it can be done well.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 176
Received: 11/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Alexander Holmes
A well-crafted statement which balances employment and economy with community, environment and social issues.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 201
Received: 03/07/2009
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Baxter
The new houses should be built where it doesn't affect anyone else, i.e. a village of their own or by extending to Towns, not adding to already under-resourced villages.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 222
Received: 09/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood
There's nothing to disagree with there, but it is full of rather vague statements. It is the details that have the problems.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 246
Received: 10/07/2009
Respondent: Patricia Robinson
Point 5. The two main roads between Leamington and Warwick are very congested (Emscote and Myton Roads). They could not cope with additional traffic.
Point 9. Further development south of Leamington will spoil green spaces.
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 309
Received: 20/07/2009
Respondent: B A Alston
Generally support the Preferred Vision. However, point 5 relating to transport within the district needs a lot of consideration and careful thought if the district is not to become "grid locked" at busy times
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 312
Received: 21/07/2009
Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam
Overall in agreement but there needs to be greater emphasis on the road infrastructure in and around Warwick.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 340
Received: 22/07/2009
Respondent: Peter Pounds
No.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 403
Received: 24/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke
The preferred vision is entirely suitable for Warwick District.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 417
Received: 27/07/2009
Respondent: Peter Clarke
You say you want to reduce the need to travel, but with 4200 houses north and south of Harbury Lane you will be putting at least 10,000 cars extra on an already gridlocked area and sufficient public transport would not be possible.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 468
Received: 24/07/2009
Respondent: Georgina Wilson
Laudable - if a bit idealistic.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 525
Received: 02/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs J Stratton
Agree with the principles of the vision but am uncertain about the detail e.g. how new builds are only allowed if absolutely necessary and all exisitng housing is utilised/redeveloped, which retailers will be allowed to avoid yet more clone towns being created etc.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 538
Received: 27/07/2009
Respondent: Mr A M Webley
Support.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 600
Received: 23/07/2009
Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers
Object.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 658
Received: 06/08/2009
Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium
Agent: Tetlow King Planning
We agree with the Preferred Vision for Warwick District. Targeting of individual sites for rural exception housing should also be developed within the Core Strategy
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 661
Received: 06/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Susan Edkins
warwick should stay as is an historic town which encourages tourism in the area.Warwick should stay as it is with rural villages around it but not engulfed by larger conurbations e.g leamington and coventry.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 679
Received: 10/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Sheila Smith
The usual airy-fairy waffle. The details of putting so much development go completely against the councils vision objective 1
"A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with low levels of waste and pollution, and made a meaningful contribution to addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change;"
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 691
Received: 10/08/2009
Respondent: P.A. Yarwood
No.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 762
Received: 05/08/2009
Respondent: Faye Davis
Yes.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 815
Received: 03/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs I.E Rivers
Building so many houses on green belt land is contrary to the Council's own vision for Warwick District.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 831
Received: 18/08/2009
Respondent: Adrian Farmer
The anticipated growth estimate seems excessive. This district has already seen huge growth in recent years and I would prefer to see other areas taking a greater share of the growth.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 889
Received: 18/08/2009
Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft
Whilst I like the sound of your overall vision I am concerned that in reality most people will have jobs that require a commute by car, meaning that if you simply ignore that fact and focus only on your ideal view of the world, then the whole district will suffer and actually become a worse place to live. If you cannot accommodate for the traffic as it is today how can you expect to cope with the extra 15-20,000 extra cars in the immediate area? Fix this First then look at the rest
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 894
Received: 19/08/2009
Respondent: Christine Betts
Yes.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 955
Received: 22/08/2009
Respondent: E Keogh
I object to the development of the precious little green belt land that remains between Coventry and our neighbours in Warwickshire. It will have a negative impact on our unique communities, and the environment. There is no justification for this expansion which will put increased burden on already overstretched local infrastructures. I am also objecting on the basis that I believe WDC did not undertake the required consultation with interested parties under phase one, "The Preferred Vision".I am not aware of any direct public consultation with residents of Coventry with regards to proposed development on land adjacent to Finham, Coventry.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 960
Received: 21/08/2009
Respondent: Kirit Marvania
Don't believe the level of growth is justified.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 976
Received: 24/08/2009
Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon
Yes.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1050
Received: 24/08/2009
Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson
Support