Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new employment land?

Comment

Representation ID: 109

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

There must be no constriction of the already narrow Green Belt north of Milverton. To allow such would be a hypocritical conflict with other objectives that require an healthy environment.

Object

Representation ID: 179

Received: 11/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Alexander Holmes

Much of this is commonsense and reasonable, but I totally reject the option of building on land that is currently designated as Green Belt, north of Milverton.

Support

Representation ID: 204

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Baxter

Yes.

Object

Representation ID: 225

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

I strongly disagree with the need to provide land for Coventry's employment needs south of Green Lane, in Finham, and the council should limit itself purely to brown-field sites when looking for expansion of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 249

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

The land at IBM and the Ford Foundry should be used for employment. Suggest develop further aroung Coventry and Warwick University.

Object

Representation ID: 310

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Warden

It's the easy option is to use Green Belt land, but worse to identify these locations then stop building mid phase like the Jaguar Whitley site. Phase 1 complete - Phases 2 & 3 postponed??? How were the figures for manufacturing requirements arrived at? There are plenty of Brownfield sites ready to re-develop within coventry/Warwickshire (Peugeot, Jaguar, Dunlop, Courtaulds, etc) if needed. The manufacturing industry has suffered massive decline over the past few decades, so why the sudden need to increase manufacturing capacity now? Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted springs to mind!!! Save our Green Belt!!!

Object

Representation ID: 316

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

Yes to development of Brown-field sites. Have all such sites been explored ? Keep off Green Field land.

Support

Representation ID: 420

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

The Ford foundry site would be ideal employment land also IBM Warwick. Easy access by public transport, would help ease congestion.

Support

Representation ID: 471

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 527

Received: 02/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Stratton

Only brownfield sites should be used. These should be absolutely exhausted before any greenfield is even considered.

Support

Representation ID: 541

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 593

Received: 03/08/2009

Respondent: B A Alston

General support, green belt to north of leamington (milverton) must not be permitted

Object

Representation ID: 603

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 664

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Susan Edkins

A great number of employment facilities are closing down so these areas could be used instead of providing new areas.

Object

Representation ID: 694

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

No. All brownfield sites must be used first.

Support

Representation ID: 765

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 884

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: The Coal Authority

The CA has no preference for any of the options.It is noted that there are proposals for expanding Warwick University and that these will contribute towards the employment land supply within the District
The CS should make reference for the need to obtain information on the mining position/ground conditions and incorporate any mitigation measures that may be required as part of the development process

Land instability/mining legacy need not prevent development and that development can offer an opportunity to treat any existing hazards to the benefit of local communities/interests of overall sustainability/public safety

To comply with national guidance as set out in PPG14

Object

Representation ID: 897

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

There are numerous empty office vlocks in the district e.g. Warwick Technology Park - have these been considered?

Object

Representation ID: 950

Received: 22/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft

Absolutely not on Greenbelt or Greenfield sites.

By allowing building on greenfield sites it makes it less economical for companies to regenerate urban areas and brownfield sites thus massive building in Warwick District will see urban areas of Coventry and Birmingham neglected and socially depleted.

There are plenty of brownfield sites across the district that would be suitable subject to good quality road infrastructure being provided to them. These must be used first.

If you regenerated the socially depleted areas first then maybe less people would want to leave them and therefore reduce the strain on Warwick District.

Object

Representation ID: 958

Received: 23/08/2009

Respondent: E Keogh

Failure to recognise or identify numerous undeveloped brownfield sites and empty employment premises.

Support

Representation ID: 963

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Support

Support

Representation ID: 980

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 1053

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Land around Longbridge (north towards Chase Meadow and east towards the River Avon) should be considered.

Support

Representation ID: 1057

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

However, 5.14 - Gardens should not be regarded as brownfield sites but should be protected - station approach 5.16 should be kept as employment land but well landscaped.

Object

Representation ID: 1131

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Alice Jarrett

Green Belt should not be industrialized, Coventry already has sufficient employment land.

Object

Representation ID: 1165

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

There are already many offices that are empty. More manufacturing should be encouraged first.

Comment

Representation ID: 1218

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

No -
There are several industrial units that lie vacant already on Tachbrook Par, Heathcote Ind, Sydenham, Queensway, Warwick Technology Park. Why do we need more?
NB Several have lain vacant for many years.

Object

Representation ID: 1266

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Margrave

The preference should be to identify and use all brown field sites and to identify all current empty employment buildings. These should be used to count towards the total amount of ha.

Also the plan is only considering land suggested by land-owners. Consideration of land north of Leamington should be given.

The existing heavy traffic and congestion around *Land west of Europa Way, Warwick and *Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane should rule-out at such a large development at these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 1288

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

No
Look at all th empty industrial units on Heathcote, Tachbrook Park and Warwick Technology Park. Why do we need more units building?

Object

Representation ID: 1356

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

More employment land is needed, particularly new business/enterprise parks. More encouragement towards new business and new enterprise as possible.

The Council has not considered other options in more rural areas of the district.

For example, It is not always appropriate to locate a new guide dog training school in an urban centre, where housing is close by.
The Core Strategy Preferred Options could be more flexible and response to the needs of differing organizations. Identification of new supply, could consider the types of sui-generis uses that may need to be accommodated on employment land, and locate it accordingly.