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

Object

Representation ID: 7166

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Katie-Louise Hopkins

No jobs in the area currently with 10,000 new families where are the jobs to support them.

Object

Representation ID: 7169

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Chris Hopkins

In turn lack of jobs to support 10,000 more families will be detrimental not only to those families but to existing families.

Object

Representation ID: 7172

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Penny Hopkins

Where are the jobs for 10,000 new families where are the schools for 20,000 more children.

Object

Representation ID: 7185

Received: 16/07/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs A Andrews

There are not the jobs for people to want to live in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 7199

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: The Occupiers

Where will the jobs be for all the new people moving into the area.

Object

Representation ID: 7205

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs B Thorne

Many people are out of work, companies closed. People apply for jobs to try and stay in the area they live and for their childrens education and close to family. Focus on jobs for the people who are here now. Don't make them move as you see housing so important.

Object

Representation ID: 7211

Received: 09/08/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs H Williams

We have no work or industry in this area and will only put people in trouble claiming.

Object

Representation ID: 7219

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Bill Hart

How on earth can a 'core strategy' involve building the equivalent of a small town in an area that is bleeding jobs?
Would make more sense to build smaller developments closer to areas where there is more work.

Object

Representation ID: 7228

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Stacey

There are no jobs, factories closed, companies going into administration - where will these people work (e.g. 10 jobs in the paper this week). The West Midlands has had the highest rise in unemployment in the UK!!

Object

Representation ID: 7275

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: R Harris

As there are no jobs who are the houses for?

Comment

Representation ID: 7279

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

Not enough schools or work in this area for existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 7292

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Louise Young

The roads are busy enough and with lots of job losses in the area I feel Whitnash folk are being neglected on their views by the local council.

Object

Representation ID: 7320

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: Mr G A Cox

As stated before, where are the jobs for all these people who would buy these homes and is there really a shortage of houses for sale in this area anyway?

Object

Representation ID: 7363

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

There is no proven requirement for any significant increase in housing to support local employment requirements.
One has only to look at the traffic travelling on to the M40 both south and north also to the full car parks at Warwick Parkway to realise that any additional housing here will serve only as a dormitory area to serve the larger 25 miles or more areas where various levels of employment exist.

Object

Representation ID: 7399

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sackville Developments

Agent: Framptons

It is recommended that the preferred option be amended to introduce the following new bullet point
- To support Class C2 uses that generate employment opportunities as part of a mixed use with offices/hi-technology

Support

Representation ID: 7408

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Agent: Holmes Antill

Support

Object

Representation ID: 7416

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr A Dobrovin - Pennington

Object to the need for any more employment sites in the area when there are already numerous vacant industrial units in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 7434

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & William Davies Ltd

Agent: Stoneleigh Planning

The Preferred Options do not make sufficient provision for land for employment across the District and more specifically for uses B1a and B1b which will be the principle drivers of the future growth and prosperity for the sub-region.

No great reliance should be placed on the existing forward supply of employment land to meet most of the changing requirements for employment sites.

Additional employment land therefore needs to be identified which can in part be met by the allocation of the site at Gallows Hill in the Core Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 7442

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: University of Warwick

Agent: Turley

It is questionable whether the Core Strategy can account for the contribution of the University expansion towards its employment land supply, despite the potential for employment generation.

The University fully supports the option of removing the built-up area of the existing campus from the Green Belt and identifying it as a strategic site for development (for university purposes). The exceptional circumstances needed in order to remove the land can be demonstrated on the very special circumstances accepted as part of the masterplan proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 7461

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hatton Estate

Agent: RPS Planning

Support

Object

Representation ID: 7496

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupiers

Demise of existing firms in District - many residents particularly people living in Warwick Gates work outside area.

Object

Representation ID: 7516

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Ashbourne

Many people have left the area looking for jobs with the demise of AP, Fords, Wolseley, IBM. Commercial buildings remain empty.

Object

Representation ID: 7537

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Support

Representation ID: 7564

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Agent: Framptons

Support

Object

Representation ID: 7630

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

In terms of land allocations, we do feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the wider regional picture and that too much details is provided on the strategic sites. We feel that there are other more suitable sites available and that at this stage the plan should be more general in terms of its direction for growth without site specific details being put forward. If these are not deliverable, as we understand has yet to be proved, then the plan may generally not be deliverable and sustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 7655

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Forrester of Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe

Agent: Barlow Associates Limited

Land west of Guys Cliuffe could in part be used for live/work units.

Object

Representation ID: 7675

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

Significant areas of employment land have been vacant for last economic cycle. Insufficient demand for further employment.
Types of employment are changing to high technology based which is more suitable for mixed development. Better opportunities for shorter journeys to work reducing transport/parking needs. Allows better use of land with multi-storey provision giving more jobs/ha. can be more acceptable to town centre. Little benefit in more warehousing - gives few low grade jobs/ha. Existing poorly used employment land should be comprehensively planned to give high return jobs/ha, improving brownfield sites and relaxing demand on agricultural land. Agriculture hardly gets a mention.

Object

Representation ID: 33530

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Rail Property Ltd & Network Rail Infrastructure

Agent: G R Planning Consultancy Ltd

The allocation of the Former Goods Yard site in the adopted Local Plan for employment uses (specifically B1 development) should be maintained. This allocation should be promoted in conjunction with the potential for the site to also be developed for residential purposes as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Stagecoach and Former Quick's Garage sites.

In relation to the smaller BRBR site, there is no reason as to why this should not be allocated for residential development with the option of it being developed separately.

Comment

Representation ID: 33539

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Rail Property Ltd & Network Rail Infrastructure

Agent: G R Planning Consultancy Ltd

We would request therefore that the DCS include a further employment allocation to accommodate a relocated Bus Depot. In our view (and as the Station Area Brief accepts within its written text) the former Ford Car Park site remains the best and most suitable location to accommodate Stagecoach's requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 33551

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Crackley Residents' Association

Does not agree with employment/ development on the Kings Hill site because of the reasons detalied above- i.e. adverse impact on the green belt.