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

Object

Representation ID: 6602

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Martin & Kim Drew & Barnes

Preferred Option highlights deficit of 20 ha of available land on which to build employment premises.

Object

Representation ID: 6623

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: James Mackay

Suggestion that houses will be close to work so that people will walk to work, unrealistic

Object

Representation ID: 6656

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

My objections are based on the following:

* With the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms, employment opportunities for incomers are diminishing. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London.

* There seems to be poor sense carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population that works elsewhere. Remaining agricultural land should be preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 6673

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Hardeep Lider

I am writing this letter in order to express my strong objection to the following Core Strategy Preferred Options document:
Land at Woodside Farm north of Harbury Lane,Whtinash
Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Land at Lower Heathcote Farm south of Harbury Lane
Land west of Europa Way Warwick

My objections are based on the following reasons:

* Why is such a massive development being considered when we are losing hundreds of jobs in the area ?(AP,Ford,Wolseley,C&G.HSBC to name a few)

Support

Representation ID: 6677

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

Good to keep employment near housing to help in reducing travel times and fuel use in going to work.

Comment

Representation ID: 6707

Received: 05/11/2009

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

Whilst not objecting to the principle of some development on the sites at Lower Heathcote Farm, west of Europa Way and Thickthorn, this should be subject, given the existence of archaeological interest and the possibility of further, previously unknown, remains existing here, to a programme of archaeological assessment and, where appropriate, mitigation; this may require preservation in situ across parts of the sites should significant remains be found.

Support

Representation ID: 6773

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

Thickthorn in Kenilworth is the obvious location to create employment land (in our view 25 acres minimum- to provide an average take up of say 2 acres pa) plus additional infrastructure and ancillary uses- residential on the area going towards Rugby Club would be the obvious addition. The A46 provides a natural boundary of this expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 6777

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: ed boyle

THE CORRIDOR
A rough and notional corridor drawn by Coventry, Nuneaton/Bedworth and Warwick runs north to south through their areas. The object of this was to identify areas which are suitable for housing and employment use to be put forward to their core strategies. To apply this rigidly seems flawed and impractical in that the substantial area of the new Ansty Business Park , the existing Rolls Royce works and the Peugeot works, are both to the east of Coventry's boundary in Rugby's jurisdiction. The Ansty Business Park is about to embark on the second of its three phases of development.
To apply this theoretical strict corridor solely to housing omitting Coventry's employment land targets is flawed in practical terms. Especially in respect of suitable alternative housing sites immediately cross border in Rugby District.
Coventry has stated in a publically published document to the Coventry Scrutiny Board 3, Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee and City Cabinet dated 24th and 29th June 2009 (ref.page 3,#3.10) that Warwick is obliged to find land - ie Kings Hill - to satisfy Coventry's developable land shortage. This is not specifically the case.

Object

Representation ID: 6787

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Linda Bromley

22. Why did you state that there is employment at the University of Warwick when you knew that there is a major redundancy programme currently ongoing there?

Object

Representation ID: 6794

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Simon Ericson

I wish to register my strong objections to the proposals in the WDC Core Strategy on the following grounds

8. Employment and Local Economy - where are the Jobs for the planned occupants of these 8,100 households? Will there be enough funding to enable purchase of the homes? How will the necessary additional local retail and service facilities be located and financed? - Answers Not Available

Object

Representation ID: 6796

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Ray Steele

South Leamington is not the only option. North Leamington has plenty of space that would not ruin the lives of thousands, unlike the "Preferred Plan".
Since the plans were commenced, locally we have lost Fords, IBM, Wolseley and significantly Peugeot. Government is continually allowing core businesses to be sold off to the highest bidder. The inevitable result is employment disappears as the new owners take the manufacture out of the country. Add to this the loss of many other smaller employments and it adds up to a shrinking job market, and therefore a shrinking economy.
Yet we are still looking at 10,000 more homes. Employment Land Within the plans there is a bright spot in that some consideration has been given to including some employment land to allow all those new residents to have a job. It is a fact though that Gallagher was required to include land for employment for the Warwick Gates development. Now more than 10 years later it is still there - virtually empty, and that was before the recession. Why have WDC planners not taken account of this fact?
We Need Industry Producing Wealth As a Chartered Engineer I receive regular updates of the state of our manufacturing base. It is true to say it has never been in such a sorry state. There are a few brave developments taking place but nothing is planned of any significance in the Warwick District.
Why has this not been taken into account when planning to build 10,000 houses? The result of this - if ever it takes place- will be a disaster for the area.
environment, serious, as that would be.
No additional employment would mean mass commuting (assuming there would be work elsewhere). The M40 - already a dangerous motorway - would be terrifying at commute times with bottlenecks at exits causing tailbacks onto the motorway.

Object

Representation ID: 6797

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Ray Steele

Objection to the Siting of the Plan
Gary Stephens went to great length to explain they had looked at possible sites North of Leamington, and they had essentially dismissed them on the grounds that commuters would have to cross Leamington to get to the employment land that is largely in the South of Leamington.
That is not a good enough reason. A Leamington by-pass would alleviate the problem and leave Whitnash and Tachbrook intact. So there has to be another hidden reason. Whitnash has already suffered the onslaught of so called 'Warwick Gates', so as an area it has suffered enough. I believe the hidden reason for its acceptance was on the grounds that it was actually in Warwick. It may be in the pencil line boundary of Warwick, but Whitnash residents now suffer the ill effects of the development.
Ask the average employed person who has to suffer the rat-run round Leamington and Warwick and they would applaud the idea of a by-pass - except that we need it now.
It is suspected that South Leamington is selected so as not to 'spoil' North Leamington. Sorry but we do not accept that reasoning. Developers have had their eyes on the land for many years and have options at least on the purchasing of it.
South Leamington is not the only option. North Leamington has plenty of space that would not ruin the lives of thousands, unlike the "Preferred Plan". However this does not change the fact that employment would still be insufficient. Even if for a moment we were to believe the guesstimates of 10.000 homes, there are no such guesses of the amount of employment there would be by the time these home would be built. That makes it a flawed plan. You cannot built homes if there will not be sufficient employment.

Object

Representation ID: 6816

Received: 13/09/2009

Respondent: Dr Caroline Robinson

Current plans also include additional development for 'Employment use' in areas 1E,1F,2F and 3F. Given the number of vacant industrial and office buildings in Warwick, as pointed out by councillors in the public meeting on 17th August 2009, we would question the need for such development, and therefore object to it.

Object

Representation ID: 6826

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Boyle

Employment

Companies such as National Grid and Wolesely have moved large offices and warehouses into Warwick District during the last decade. However, often this hasn't created new jobs in the district but instead relocated jobs from outside. Consequently we now have several thousand employees living outside the district who commute into it to work. This dislocation of employment from housing exacerbates traffic congestion, increases emissions and wastes a lot of resident's time.

I object to the creation of an additional 10,800 new properties within the district where there is no plan for increasing employment by a similarly large scale. Indeed, the recent economic crisis has significantly reduced employment in the district due to the contraction of the automotive industry. The proposed developments will create dormitory areas for people working outside of the district, chiefly in Coventry and Birmingham. It would be more appropriate for new housing to be created closer to these conurbations and where people work.

Support

Representation ID: 6830

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

KCOT wholeheartedly support the proposals to create more employment land in Kenilworth. Thickthorn provides opportunity to create high quality business park [employment uses - B1/2/8] with a new access off the A46 Bypass island. KCOT also see the opportunity for Hotel but would not support additional licensing premises/bars/restaurants outside hotel. No support for retail/warehousing or large distribution over 2500 sq.m. Suupport for limited trade counter uses. Requirement for development brief with infrastructure before any development granted. KCOT should be gifted a strip of legacy land under S106/CIL at the end of any development to protect green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 6833

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Paul, Elizabeth & Thomas Karnik

You said yesterday that you HOPE employment would be encouraged into the area - its no good hoping, you must have a clear plan and you do not have one.
Current plans also include additional development for 'employment use' in areas 1E, 1F, 2F and 3F. Given the number of vacant industrial and office buildings in Warwick, as pointed out by councilors at the public meeting on the 17th August 2009, we would question the need for further development and therefore object to it. As I said earlier you need more than hope to attract business to the area - you need a plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6854

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Green

* as there is not at present enough employment for the residents of Coventry and Warwickshire it is likely a very large proportion of those who would be living in the new houses would be commuters to other areas. We do not want this to become a 'dormitory' area

Support

Representation ID: 6860

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Binswood Allotment Society

support

Object

Representation ID: 6888

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Higgin

o With the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London.

Object

Representation ID: 6899

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Steele

It is clear the planned number of houses is not to satisfy the needs of the area but will be used as a dumping ground from other areas. Is it not logical to build the houses where there is a need - such as close to employment?

There is insufficient employment in the area to satisfy current needs. This would mean further mass commuting - following on the trend set by the Warwick Gates development

Object

Representation ID: 6921

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Employment
The Parish Council does not believe that all reasonable options for employment land have been identified. Significant areas of employment land have been vacant for the whole of the last economic cycle. Therefore there is insufficient demand for further employment. Supporting this, developments within Warwick Technology Park have also been vacant for extended periods, post completion.
Types of employment are changing from manufacturing (requiring large sites) to high technology based which is more suitable for mixed development. This also gives better opportunities for shorter journeys to work reducing transport and parking needs. It allows better use of land with multistorey provision giving more jobs/ha. and can be more acceptable to town centre locations. Employment development can only be initiated by businesses with a need. We should only accept requests for permission where the number of jobs/ha is above a determined level depending on location. There is little benefit on more warehousing that only gives a few low grade jobs/ha. Consequently, existing poorly used employment land should be comprehensively planned to give high return in jobs/ha, improving poor brownfield sites and relaxing demand on agricultural land, which is of course employment land as well being land essential for supplying food for the population. Agriculture hardly gets a mention in your preferred option document except to mention a strong agricultural economy. Thereafter, it is ignored or damaged by rampant development proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 6968

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

Thickthorn in Kenilworth is the obvious location to create employment land [in our view 25 acres minimum - to provide an average take up of say 2 acres pa] plus additional infrastructure and ancillary uses - residential on the area going towards Rugby Club would be the obvious addition. The A46 provides a natural boundary for this expansion.

Support

Representation ID: 6982

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported

Comment

Representation ID: 7036

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Cllr Bill Gifford

Recognise change in nature of employment and reducing demands on land; look carefully at reallocating some of the land currently zoned for employment use and see if it would not be better zoned for residential use. More likely to be the case with Leamington than Kenilworth. It is particularly important to continue to encourage the diversity of employment and to provide employment for less skilled.

Object

Representation ID: 7043

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

There appear to be no new employment opportunities suggested for Warwick and therefore no economic benefits for Warwick retailers and businesses from those employees.

Object

Representation ID: 7046

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick and Leamington Green Party

Throughout our responses to the Core Strategy, the Green Party insists that development be restricted to brownfield sites within our town boundaries before any option to build on Green Belt or Green Field sites is considered. In Leamington alone we have a major development sites in Court Street / Althorpe Street and the Gateway site from the old Ford foundry to the Station.

Object

Representation ID: 7065

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

Kenilworth is ideally positioned to take advantage of its close proximity to the regional and national economic hub represented by the University of Warwick. We believe this advantage has been underplayed in developing local employment opportunities. For instance we are well positioned to accommodate spin out companies from the university in a similar fashion to the economic competitive advantage which has been realized by Cambridge through the deployment local land and the economic potential generated by a world class University.

Comment

Representation ID: 7092

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire

. We find it difficult to reconcile a growing economy with the declared aim of sustainability. Indeed paragraph 5.8 refers to "sustainable growth" and this appears to us to be a very difficult concept to achieve.

We believe that the policy should encourage employment development only to meet an identified local need, not to encourage businesses and people to move into the District at the expense of the Major Urban Areas of the region and other less-prosperous parts of the country.

Support

Representation ID: 7117

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Advantage West Midlands

Support protecting existing employment sites and re-developing vacant sites as high quality employment. Allocated, readily available employment sites are valuable resource not to be lightly transferred to alternative use if District is to maintain attractive portfolio of sites to promote sustainable economic growth. Pleased to see identification of key strategic sites and inclusion of University expansion within employment land supply. Little reference to Stoneleigh Park given importance of large strategic development site for district and region. Stoneleigh Park key economic asset whose redevelopment of significant importance but unclear if plans are included within employment figures.

Comment

Representation ID: 7160

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E F Trafford

There is currently little employment in the Whitnash area. Historically there were a number of large employers ie AP, Ford, Flavel, Courier Press etc. These now either no longer exist or employ far fewer workers. Additional people located in the Whitnash area would therefore need to commute to their place of work.