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

Object

Representation ID: 3507

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3556

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jean Drew

Vision: Loss of village identity would contradict vision

Support

Representation ID: 3596

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Sport England

We support the preffered vision

Object

Representation ID: 3635

Received: 15/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

My concern is No 5 which does not differentiate between congestion in towns, eg Warwick and congestion in the wider highway network. The Vision needs to include specific provision for reducing congestion in towns. See supporting letter.

Object

Representation ID: 3655

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

The use of prime green belt land for such a large amount of housing without employment opportunities is illogical.The proposed development in the King's Hill area will lead t increasing congestion and difficulty accessing the University area.

Object

Representation ID: 3684

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

I agree with 1-4 and 8-10 which constitute a vision. Points 5-7 are secondary, a by-product of this Core Strategy. I live in a place that is renown for beauty, gentility, history and success - not by its transport connections or quality of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 3826

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

The vision is clumsy, not joined up and contradictory within the vision itself.
The vision must take into account what already exists and then enhance that. You either want 'an attractive rural landscape developed and grown in a way which has protected the individual characteristics' or you want 'a hub for successful and innovate hi-technology, manufacturing and research and development companies alongside a range of national and regional head offices and businesses' . The vision should be achievable and it should be developed in close consultation with the community. Careful examination of this vision shows it cannot deliver, it needs changing.

Object

Representation ID: 3842

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

I realise that Warwick District's Vision is trying to help people in the future, but why look at Coventry, Kings Hill, not at other ideas.

Object

Representation ID: 3899

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Kim Matthews

The vision assumes that population growth in the district is desirable or at least inevitable. The most sustainable development is to put housing near where the jobs are to minimise transport requirements. That means the strategy for the district should be to only allow housing growth where there are more jobs than homes and otherwise to reject the need for growth which should be fiocussed on the larger cities in eth region where employment is found (I have just moved to Kenilworth on the basis I can cycle to Stoneleigh Park to which my job has relocated).

Support

Representation ID: 3967

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Trilogy

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

In particular, support the role of Leamington Spa as a strong sub-regional centre offering major stores alongside niche retailers in a high quality and safe environment.

Object

Representation ID: 3976

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M Abba

The plan does not have a full infrastructure plan, the area is already congested any further development (residential or business) will only make things worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 4001

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Hard to disagree with wording, but amount and positioning of some of the development contradicts some of this - e.g.retaining separate identities of towns/villages.

Support

Representation ID: 4007

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

I agree with the analysis of the potential in the Warwick district. I support the need to make use of all brown field sites/redevelopment of exisitng housing stock before building on green field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 4036

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Keith Turfrey

Greenbelt used to be an area that helped protect the environment and avoid unseemly development. use for leisure is permitted as has been the case in Kenilworth with well used facilities for rugby and cricket. To destroy the area proposed is totally contrary to the objectives set out in the opening section. It also takes seems to put no protection in for the conservation area known as Glasshouse Spinney.
This side of Kenilworth has already been overdeveloped leading to an out of balance town poor infrastructure and terrible road communication. Well done for proposing a strategy to make things worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 4057

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Jerry Woodhouse

It is also important to keep the boundaries between Kenilworth and \coventry and to maintain Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 4125

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Andy Robb

The vision is a disparate list of wishes which are not joined up. In total they would not enhance what already exists. You can either enhance an 'attractive rural landscape' or develop a 'hub for successful and innovative high technology, manufacturing and research and development'. Neither the vision or the strategies are clear on how this would be done.

Object

Representation ID: 4162

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Elizabeth Heigl

Number of new homes contradicts vision.

Comment

Representation ID: 4187

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

Not really sure

Object

Representation ID: 4225

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

I do not agree with the preferred vision

Support

Representation ID: 4251

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ashley Ball

I am in general agreement with the Preferred Vision.

Object

Representation ID: 4314

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor E Wood

Object to:
Vision, strategy and strategic objectives are all poorly conceived and do not stand up to scrutiny.

Object

Representation ID: 4342

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Clive Letchford

Proposed development south of Leamington contradicts vision

Object

Representation ID: 4347

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: A Picken

The land at Thickthorn is green belt- not green field, developing this area would increase existing peak hour traffic problems. Kenilworth is a dormer town - employment land not be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 4351

Received: 25/08/2009

Respondent: Dominic Simpson

Expanding Leamington through Whitnash and enveloping villages opposes vision and goes against recent poll which suggested significantly fewer new homes were needed.

Object

Representation ID: 4366

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Kirby

Contradicts vision of 'mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands'.

Object

Representation ID: 4397

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Andrew, Julie, Eleanor, Henry Day

New building will change character of village. No longer mix of historic towns and villages set in rural landscape of open farmland and parks as website states if development goes ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 4405

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.L.K. Drew

Bishops Tachbrook will feel less of a village, reducing quality of life for residents and at Warwick Gates and Whitnash. How does this square with the vision when it will destroy open farmland and obliterate one of the valued villages?

Support

Representation ID: 4505

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

Support

Support

Representation ID: 4576

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

support

Comment

Representation ID: 4645

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

The vision sounds 'wonderful' but is it achievable in order to maintain character green spaces and green belt must be protected, building more homes and infrastructure may erode 'green'