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

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 902

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 97

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mr W C H Morris

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Agreed - how could one disagree!

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 156

Received: 07/07/2009

Respondent: G Ralph

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

No.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 403

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Representation Summary:

The preferred vision is entirely suitable for Warwick District.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 417

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Laudable - if a bit idealistic.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 525

Received: 02/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Stratton

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 600

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Representation Summary:

Object.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 658

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

No.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 762

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 815

Received: 03/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs I.E Rivers

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 955

Received: 22/08/2009

Respondent: E Keogh

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Don't believe the level of growth is justified.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 976

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1050

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Representation Summary:

Support