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

Support

Representation ID: 1054

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Provided housing does not erode the Green Belt to a significant amount.

Support

Representation ID: 1121

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Alice Jarrett

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 1161

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Support

Comment

Representation ID: 1215

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

No-
Point 1 - Housing development would threaten " characteristics & identity" of my community - preferred option contradicts this.
Point 4 - Motor industry has declined-
Point 7- Education facilities stretched to breaking point & no room for primary children in local schools. Preferred option contradicts this
Point 10- Building in agricultural land contradicts this.

Object

Representation ID: 1223

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: MS Judith Bennett

I object to the use of green belt land along the boarder with Coventry. I cannot understand the need for the development of this land where is the proof that there is need for this level of development? The damage to the environment and to wildlife will be emense and unjustifiable.

Object

Representation ID: 1264

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Margrave

The vision is Warwick, Leamington & Kenilworth centric.
There is no mention of how Whitnash fits into this plan. The Trident Centre may seem to be in Whitnash, but only it's car park is in Whitnash.

What is the preferred vision for Whitnash? To merge into Warwick, Leamington & Bishops Tachbrook as single urban sprawl?

Object

Representation ID: 1281

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

No
Point 1 Character of Whitnash is under threat from more housing.
Point 4 No more manufacturing/ reduced manufacturing.
Point 7 Schools overcrowded so local children havinig problems getting into local schools. This goes against the Preferred option.
Point 10 Building on agricultural land is against this point.

Object

Representation ID: 1352

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

Too much emphasis placed on conservation and protection rather promoting the authority as a fous of housing growth and employment.
Too much emphasis should not be placed on th protection of the Leamington conservation area, so that it stifles developement as noted in PPG15 para 4.16.
A balance should be struck between protection and compliance with WMRSS policies which directs growth outside MUAs towards town such as Leamington and Warwick. Feel that Leamington should be a priority for development.

Object

Representation ID: 1408

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Kevin and Sylvia Burke

Number of people: 2

The development south of Harbury Lane would go against the Council's original vision of a mix of historic towns in a rural landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 1418

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs N&M Woods

Number of people: 2

Contradicts itself in proposing housing development on land south of Harbury Lane and Whitnash.

Object

Representation ID: 1471

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kundi

Number of people: 2

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1503

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

Some reservations with the vision

Support

Representation ID: 1535

Received: 29/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Roberts

Agree - vision should be one of historic towns and viollages set in open farmland and coutryside.

Support

Representation ID: 1549

Received: 31/08/2009

Respondent: B.L.A.S.T.

3b The vision needs to encompass the country's future needs for self-sufficiency and food production with in particular the ratio of garden land, including allotments, to house building being greater in favour of growing land.

Object

Representation ID: 1592

Received: 30/08/2009

Respondent: EUNICE NICOLSON

I strongly object to the proposal to build on green belt land at King's Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 1600

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: William Bethell

No. Little if any vision on the impact of the existing Leamington/Warwick District residents in terms of quality of life.

Object

Representation ID: 1615

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Cowden

The proposed development of housing south of Harbury Lane goes against the Council's own vision "mix of towns within an attractive rural landscape".

Object

Representation ID: 1665

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: J.G Whetstone

South Leamington has seen maximum housing development in recent years and should not form part of any future development.

Support

Representation ID: 1675

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D zacaroni

For tourism development, it is important that the area is protected and meets the vision for Warwick.

Object

Representation ID: 1773

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Max Bacon

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 1798

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Val Hunnisett

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 1800

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Helen Cheatham

Warwick cannot sustain any additional traffic. Already considerable congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 1921

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ferguson

Without the infrastructure it will be a disaster - the Shires retail is already jammed on weekends and the tip is already full at peak times.

Comment

Representation ID: 1972

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ken Hope

(3.a) No real comment - it's very 'nice'

Object

Representation ID: 1985

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: K A Ferguson

The amount of new housing proposed contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has " providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parks".

Object

Representation ID: 1998

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: A. J Daubnley

The amount of new housing proposed contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has " providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parks".

Object

Representation ID: 2011

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

The amount of new housing proposed contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has " providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parks".

Object

Representation ID: 2031

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.

Support

Representation ID: 2065

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Kerr

I agree with the 'preferred Vision' as stated on page 16 and in particular item 9.

Support

Representation ID: 2132

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

Para 1 - vital to continue to protect individual characteristics of towns and villages. Large growth will destroy this.