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

Object

Representation ID: 2279

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2380

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

No.

Object

Representation ID: 2417

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

No.

Support

Representation ID: 2483

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: British Waterways

BW is pleased to see the canal corridor mentioned within the vision. BW would welcome a move away from the green space reference to reflect its use as a multifunctional asset including sustainable transport, healthy living, recreation and tourism, setting for marina, residential and commercial development, flood and water management, heating and cooling energy management, ecology and historic sense of place.

Object

Representation ID: 2518

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Object

Object

Representation ID: 2544

Received: 10/09/2009

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

Number of people: 2

The area has developed naturally and retained its individual character. This proposed expansion of the district would further exacerbate the imbalance between homes and jobs. Until the existing retail premises can attract interest other than charity organizations no further premises required.

Comment

Representation ID: 2592

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Storey

I find the "Preferred Vision and Strategy" so unrealistic in the early stages of a deep recession, with a change of government and central policy by mid 2010, that I am unable to comment in detail on most issues.

Support

Representation ID: 2603

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Everthing appears to be covered.

Support

Representation ID: 2663

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 2726

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

But I would prefer Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash to be viewed as separate towns and in no way merged into on urban area. I would prefer the South of Coventry to be included as a growth area.

Support

Representation ID: 2780

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

A limited yes. We are advised to conserver our wildlife and its natural habitat but houses are being built all over England unecessarily.

Object

Representation ID: 2822

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2861

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2903

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: ALISON ELFWOOD

AS USUAL YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT THINGS THROUGH AND ARE GOING FOR QUICK FIX SOLUTIONS AND DAMN THE LONGTERM RAMIFICATIONS.

Support

Representation ID: 2918

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

Yes.

Object

Representation ID: 2965

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Have said no though we partially agree

Comment

Representation ID: 3022

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Rhyan Barry

I agree with the vision per se but do not think the vision should involve building on green belt. Also public transport is not reliable or convenient and (with having to pay car parking costs at train stations) not cheap. Cycle routes, although some have recently appeared, seem to be built in a half-hearted way. In the Netherlands, bicycles have their own traffic lights and the routes are safe and continuous. I would not feel happy taking my children to Warwick on the new route from Kenilworth as it comes to a stop at the outskirts of the town.

Support

Representation ID: 3038

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Katharine Whigham

I agree - the areas I belive are of particular importance are:

green spaces
good transport links
developing the centre of rural excellence at Stoneleigh Park

Object

Representation ID: 3068

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

There is too great a concentration of proposed development to the south of Warwick/ Leamington Spa - 4200 houses 39%

Support

Representation ID: 3132

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

With exception of any industrial development.

Support

Representation ID: 3137

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 3191

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Robert Burtonshaw

No building on North Leamington Allotments

Support

Representation ID: 3214

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: mrs stella moore

Seems to be balanced and look at providing jobs tourism and housing

Comment

Representation ID: 3248

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Julian Humphreys

All sounds very nice and says the right things, not clear how all of these will be achieved when you read what plans are in store

Object

Representation ID: 3251

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

Warwick District is over crowded with traffic now. The preferred vision would only make it worse.

Support

Representation ID: 3335

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3377

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Support

Comment

Representation ID: 3434

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Gill and Steve Hawkins

Development is contrary to vision of mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape

Object

Representation ID: 3435

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr P Dimanbro

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3468

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

I do not think that the Kings Hill area should be included in the Warwick's 'vision' as it comes under the Coventry allocation.