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

Object

Representation ID: 4427

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: J & P Foley

More jobs needed - not enough for people living here.

Object

Representation ID: 4481

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Brian Hier

People need employment to earn money to buy homes. Who will be living in new homes? Until resurgence in the economy, picture is unclear - another reason for more measured approach to housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 4498

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Matthews

Object to site at Kings Hill:
Where are jobs for increasing population even after recovering from the recession.

Object

Representation ID: 4506

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E R Matthews

Object to sites south of Whitnash:
Further loss of employment opportunities and therefore inward migration.

Object

Representation ID: 4509

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

Main emphasis seems to be on housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4513

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: A K McArthur

Object to Plan 5:
Is there associated strategy for new businesses?

Object

Representation ID: 4517

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Julie and Ronald Hyde and Miles

No new employers to support need for house numbers proposed.

Support

Representation ID: 4579

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

support

Object

Representation ID: 4648

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Blundell

Not enough jobs in area for existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 4651

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

I would object to any greenfield sites to be used for employment, land used for employment in the past has since been used for housing, ie. Dalehouse Lane, Kenilworth!!!!

Object

Representation ID: 4690

Received: 02/10/2009

Respondent: E Holroyde

Extra people unlikely to find jobs near to home increasing commuting.

Object

Representation ID: 4696

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Prof Maurice Shutler

Need a Core Strategy constructed by WDC starting with affordable homes for genuinely affordable homes for lcoal people providing jobs to go with them.

Object

Representation ID: 4756

Received: 02/10/2009

Respondent: Cllr Bob Dhillon and family

Why was employment at Warwick University stated knowing that major redundancy programme starting?

Object

Representation ID: 4759

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Margaret Pyner

Object to Kings Hill site:
We are in a downturn. No prospect of jobs returning to Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 4772

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Anthony and Pauline Coutts-Smith

What is meant by employment land? Will factories be built on green belt land?

Object

Representation ID: 4777

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: Julian H and Judith M Wood

Object to Thickthorn site:
Insufficient employment opportunity in Kenilworth to justify and accommodate additional inhabitants.

Object

Representation ID: 4787

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: richard keylock

This statement is not made clear in the proposal. Not clear to me what "employment land" implies

Object

Representation ID: 4803

Received: 18/10/2009

Respondent: Ian Frost

No, new employers should be encouraged to take over sites vacated by departed employers of which there are a good number. Any new employment locations should be well away from Warwick/Leamington since the roads into those towns are already over stretched, people even travel straight through Warwick (and queue in the process) to get to the business park on the south
side. Was that planned for?

Support

Representation ID: 4822

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: 4826

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

To plan for using green belt land for housing is bad enough but to consider it for employment use is bothy criminal and madness when so many other options are available

Object

Representation ID: 4852

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

Far too much land has been allocated for employment. Many redundant sites ( some new like Gallaghers on Heathcote) have been empty for years. Already many people work from home or in small teams, the trend will increase. These brown field sites should be redesignated for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4976

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Richard J Bennett

Object to Kings Hill site:
Can't imagine influx of people as no jobs, not even a passenger airport.

Object

Representation ID: 4996

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs P E Hunt

Object to sites at Bishops Tachbrook/Warwick Gates:
Employment - that generated by development will end when contract complete leaving more unemployed. Govt. should be supporting existing businesses and safeguarding jobs.

Object

Representation ID: 5023

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Whilst the principles of maintaining a thriving economy are sound any new development showed be kept within the present towns and on brown field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5072

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Keylock

This statement is ambiguous thus I am unable to comment further

Object

Representation ID: 5098

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

Many retail/industrial units are vacant in disrepair. Encourage development here.

Object

Representation ID: 5106

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Patrick Ring

Object to sites south of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington:
No local need for housing and no extra employment opportunities available.

Object

Representation ID: 5114

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

Development should be directed towards brown field sites. For example ex Ford, Peurgeot works (etc etc). Also there is already too many run down areas within the towns, these areas should not be ignored and allowed to decay further to benefit developers.

Object

Representation ID: 5188

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sonia Owczarek

NO DO NOT AGREE - Due to Inappropriate use of and building/development on GREEN BELT LAND!

Support

Representation ID: 5264

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

As already noted and although I did not express any views on the 'Issues Paper', I concur with the view expressed in clause 5.5 that development of employment opportunities in Kenilworth is highly desireable