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

Support

Representation ID: 5977

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

Yes.

Support

Representation ID: 6017

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 6059

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 6237

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

Appears sensible but I do not agree with accommodating any land requirement for Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 6298

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Cheatle

This area has been overdeveloped in the past 10 years. There will be virtually no countryside around and the area will look the worse for it. It is not the image of Warwickshire to be total housing.

Object

Representation ID: 6320

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Totally Excessive
Figures used are flawed therfore all assumptions made are incorrect.

Object

Representation ID: 6381

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Jessamine

No.

Object

Representation ID: 6414

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

Vision should place more emphasis on families, their place in each community. From this the vision should be for stronger communities, especially in villages which currently get less resources allocated than towns. Finally local government, both District and County, should be more in tune with the needs and wishes of local communities in both Town and rural areas.

Object

Representation ID: 6498

Received: 11/08/2009

Respondent: Edgar George Cousins

Original vision has gone wrong.

Object

Representation ID: 6550

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs E R and B Edwards

Number of new homes contradicts vision

Object

Representation ID: 6599

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Martin & Kim Drew & Barnes

Development would be contrary to vision.

Object

Representation ID: 6654

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dominic Ashley-Timms

The specific areas I object to are, the housing proposals on:
1) Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane
And also:
2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
* I think that such a number of new homes 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 parklands".

Support

Representation ID: 6674

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

NO.9 Could mention in the 'recreation and healthier community' sections the provision of active food production, eg. in the many allotment sites.

Support

Representation ID: 6688

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Heritage & Culture (Museums)

We are pleased to see the commitment to protecting local distinctiveness and the acknowledgement of the District's heritage.

Comment

Representation ID: 6703

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Heritage & Culture (Museums)

We strongly support objective 12 (protection and enhancement of historic environment)

Support

Representation ID: 6768

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

support

Support

Representation ID: 6857

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Binswood Allotment Society

WDC Planning Department is to be commended on the comprehensive presentation of the Options Document.

Object

Representation ID: 6886

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Higgin

o We think that such a number of new homes 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 parklands".

Object

Representation ID: 6895

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Mr J P Garrett

* I think that such a number of new homes 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 parklands".

Object

Representation ID: 6919

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council believe that the Preferred Option is not the best choice for Warwick District - but that it is possible to find a better alternative
ï‚· The popular Options and Directions of Growth have been set aside
ï‚· The key issues (e.g. air quality) have disppeared
ï‚· Regeneration of the deprived areas of the towns is not persued
ï‚· The quantity of green field proposed for development is much higher than it needs to be
This culminates in the proposal for development on the green fields of Lower Heathcote Farm and Grove Farm, on the south side of Harbury Lane and the northern bank of the Tach Brook.
This is something that we find wholly unacceptable because it threatens the very existence of our village. As a group, we know our residents do not want this.
For this reason, we strongly object to WDC's Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have thoroughly reviewed the sites listed in the Housing Land Assessments, and we believe there are brown field sites where gains in employment land or housing could be made. We are therefore able to propose at least one alternative which:
ï‚· Honours the outcome of the Public Consultation into the Options.
ï‚· Retains the historic buildings against a rural backdrop - the fundamental essence of Warwick District.
ï‚· Seeks to regenerate the deprived areas.
ï‚· Seeks to better utilise brown field sites.
ï‚· Reduces the quantity of green fields required for development.
ï‚· Requires less infrastructure.
We recommend that the Council re-considers the Preferred Options in order to achieve the outcome which is the least harmful to Warwick District.
Vision & Strategy
The Parish Council does not agree with the Vision in the Preferred Option. Either within the 10 statements or in additional statements the following should be included in the Vision.
1. A significant proportion of the population lives in rural communities (56,000). Village communities should be protected from urban development and nurtured by providing essential resources. The vision gives more attention to conserving buildings than conserving communities.
2. No vision is provided for the growing problem of an ageing population. There will be greater numbers over 65 and active elderly requiring independent living but with support and social facilities that could be helped by the retirement village concept, releasing family homes to the housing market.
3. Statement 3 should be extended to include provision of more University Halls of Residence to release family homes occupied by fulltime students in both Coventry and Warwick DC. In 2001 6,424 students were resident in Warwick district. Warwick university has 16500 ft students (soon expected to be 20,000) of which 5000 have halls accommodation If 5000 more were in halls, over 1000 houses would be released towards the supposed housing need and many of these would be affordable letting homes. Could be funded in part by development levy or housing associations.
The Parish Council does not agree with the Growth Strategy in the Preferred Option.
1. There are no references to improving transport and mobility for the whole community.
2. Objective No5 implies that development is the only remedy to improve vibrancy. There is also no reference to developing a learning culture and insufficient reference to the development of cultural attractions.
3. No 6 should state that Grade 1 & 2 agricultural land should not be considered for housing development because of the need to avert national future food production crises. Land that is currently subject to rural area policies should remain protected in order to facilitate objectives 10 & 13.
4. The strategic objectives should recognize the interdependence between WDC and neighbouring authorities in particular Coventry and Rugby. Many WDC residents work in them and many of their residents work in WDC. Hence when considering employment, housing and transport issues, authorities should work together to produce plans that help all communities.

Support

Representation ID: 6942

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 6978

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Cliffe Allotments Association

Cliffe Allotments is associated with BLAST , which has submitted a response on behalf of a number of allotment societies in Leamington .We are in agreement with the BLAST submission ,and their responses also count for us as a distinct allotment society .

Support

Representation ID: 6979

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

I consider this vision and strategy form a good basis for a way forward but have concerns that the Rural/urban balance is not yet correct.

Object

Representation ID: 7059

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick and Leamington Green Party

Central objection to Core Strategy is that it fails to grasp significance of sustainability and assumes that it is both possible and desirable to maintain economic growth to 2026; not only irrelevant to future well being of residents but deeply destructive. Vision for sustainable communities, sustainable buildings and sustainable waste management. If this is to mean anything must include strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 2020. Fails to look into future and provide a route map into a low carbon, knowledge based, sustainable society.

Comment

Representation ID: 7127

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: The Theatres Trust

We note that the previous Vision was deemed too succinct but suggest that the Vision in this document is now too long and recommend that it be contracted.

Object

Representation ID: 7384

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr A Dobrovin - Pennington

Objection to the lack of dispersal of planned growth - growth is focussed entirely in the area south of Leamington. This area has already been developed significantly in recent years - options would result in over development of this area

Support

Representation ID: 7385

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Europa Way Consortium

Agent: Entec UK Ltd

The Europa Way Consortium supports the Preferred Vision for Warwick District and believes that a high quality, residential-led, mixed-use development at Land west of Europa Way will help the District Council deliver the Preferred Vision through the following means:
*Providing a high quality safe environment
*Opening up view lines of Warwick Castle and St Mary's Church
*Provision of employment space
*Provision of pedestrian and cycle routes and public transport nodes
*High quality housing will be provided with a mix of size and tenure
*A mix of supporting uses will also be provided
*Development will be informed by a Landscape Framework

Object

Representation ID: 7400

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr A Dobrovin - Pennington

We wish to see the whole plan withdrawn and an alternative presented that reflects the overwhelming opinion of the Warwick population( as reflected by the public meeting on 17th August 2009), and that will preserve the character of Warwick as an historical county town.
Object that the area of restraint (1E) is one of the first to be developed and should with immediate effect be designated as the last developed site and be protected until a more viable site is found and await for potential change in government and associated policies to occur.

Support

Representation ID: 7405

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Agent: Holmes Antill

Support

Support

Representation ID: 7414

Received: 09/12/2009

Respondent: Sackville Developments

Agent: Framptons

Support