Do you agree with the Strategic Objectives for Warwick District?

Support

Representation ID: 3193

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Robert Burtonshaw

No building on North Leamington Allotments

Support

Representation ID: 3216

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: mrs stella moore

Agree with these objectives so apply them to kenilworth and do not ruin its historical nature with a big housing development leading to inevitable congestion

Object

Representation ID: 3254

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

As above (3a and b)

Support

Representation ID: 3338

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3379

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3437

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr P Dimanbro

Warwick District must dispute the impositon of the 8500 share of new housing as we have little non agricultural land. There is ample such land in other parts of the UK.

Comment

Representation ID: 3470

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

Support but Kings Hill is not the area for development.

Object

Representation ID: 3513

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Simon Harris

The proposals do not seem to meet the following objective since there are very few brown-field site proposals:
"To help disadvantaged and deprived areas through supporting regeneration;"

Object

Representation ID: 3638

Received: 15/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Again housing expansion must be wholly dependent on the ability of the highway infrastructure to cope.

Object

Representation ID: 3657

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

This proposal does nothing to protect the environment. Concreting over green belt destroys the environment for future generations

Object

Representation ID: 3686

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

Re-drafting of the "Key Issues" has diminished their clarity and impact. The Strategic Objectives have lost sight of the Key Issues - Key Issue B10 (Air quality) has disappeared completely. The Strategic Objectives are now bland, generic and linguistically-contorted and could as easily refer to Milton Keynes or Preston as here. Please re-instate the Key Issues (or show the relationship to the new Objectives).

Object

Representation ID: 3833

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

Your strategy should be to keep existing employment sites for employment -eg ford foundry for employment, otherwise that will be left derelict and existing fields will be turned over to factories.

You have not used any govt or academic research to show why you feel MORE LAND is needed for future jobs. Evidence shows more jobs are desk based, working from home etc. Where is your evidence for your strategy? Perhaps you should check out the land in this area already designated for factories and employment that is still vacant 10 years on. Your strategy is flawed - review it.

Object

Representation ID: 3901

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Kim Matthews

Areas for employment need carfully rethinking to ensure that access to industrial areas is NOT via existing residntial streets. How will access at Thickthorn, Kenilworth be developed to allow this?

Support

Representation ID: 4013

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Hard to disagree.

Support

Representation ID: 4017

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

I support the strategic objectives but do not feel that the preferred option around the development to the south of Coventry will deliver them.

Support

Representation ID: 4065

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Jerry Woodhouse

Looks fine

Object

Representation ID: 4131

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Andy Robb

How can putting extra burden on our existing infrastructure help the disadvantaged and deprived areas of the town?

Attaching the existing rural communities to the town doesn't strengthen them it dilutes their identity.

The local economy would be supported by the effective and sustainable regeneration of SouthTown, not by drawing more money and development out.

By destoying the natural environment you will not improve access to it.

Again, as with your Vision, this is a disparate and unachievable wish list.

Comment

Representation ID: 4224

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Aldi Stores Ltd

Agent: WYG Planning & Design

Strategic Objective 2:

In the light of the findings of the Council's Retail and Leisure Study, it is unlikely that all identified retail needs will be able to be met within or adjoining town centres and scope should be provided within policy for appropriate out-of-centre development, subject to compliance with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4316

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor E Wood

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

Object

Representation ID: 4349

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: A Picken

In principle - subject to comments above.

Support

Representation ID: 4508

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

support

Object

Representation ID: 4578

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

Object

Comment

Representation ID: 4650

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

Objectives sound good, but no greenfield sites should be used for industry and housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4761

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Margaret Pyner

Object to Kings Hill site:
Not protecting sports facilites and securing open space if building on Alvis sports site in Green Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 4784

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: richard keylock

We need to ensure we improve our current position in relation to supporting and improving social, economic, poorly designed estates, environmental issues and crime levels before considering developing new areas.

Object

Representation ID: 4802

Received: 18/10/2009

Respondent: Ian Frost

Not all. We should recognize that Warwick is increasingly a commuter district with easy access to employment in large urban areas close by and new or planned business/employment parks on the fringe of the district eg Solihull and the former Peugeot plant. Improved transport links eg Warwick parkway, Kenilworth rail station, increased train frequencies will simply strengthen this.

Support

Representation ID: 4821

Received: 07/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

Qualified YES - The approach is piecemeal and lacks a coherent thrust. The response to climate change is woefully inadequate - adapatation isn't just about reducing flood risk, nor just about new development.

Object

Representation ID: 4825

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

Once again there is no case we have huge amounts of unused industrial land for development for both homes and industry in Warwickshire

Object

Representation ID: 4851

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

Regeneration in urban areas must be a priority to achieve a strong sustainable economy. Pollution and poor air quality must be tackled and targets for improvement defined. Rural communities' environment and social wellbeing need protection. Large (500plus) housing developments should be avoided because of negative impact on social cohesion

Support

Representation ID: 5022

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Particularly the objective to protect the natural environment.