Do you support or object to the preferred option for Rural Communities, particularly in respect of rural housing?

Support

Representation ID: 1817

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Val Hunnisett

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 1840

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Helen Cheatham

As referred to previously, infrastructure not viable.

Object

Representation ID: 2053

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

because it is based on biased unproven numbers provided by New Labour to suit own ends in getting relected, to get votes from mass of welfare dependent unemployed/unemployable hangers-on it has created in 11 years of mismanagement.


and insufficent consideration of views of local peopel and affect on environment.

Support

Representation ID: 2168

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

Emphasis should be places on Parish level information setting the framework (9.9)

Object

Representation ID: 2317

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2375

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft

YOUR OWN CORE STRATEGY SAYS IT PERFECTLY!!!!!!!

"9.8 - It is clearly not possible or appropriate within the Core Strategy to identify, or plan for, what the local need should be in terms of new
development within each of the villages. The 'TOP-DOWN' approach of allocating development, such as new housing or employment, to specific sites around the villages is NOT considered a REALISTIC OPTION as it would be CONTRARY TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY and would be UNLIKELY to achieve the objective of strengthening rural communities."

Why then is it ok to put 4,500 houses around Bishops Tachbrook (a rural
community)?

Object

Representation ID: 2393

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

No.

Object

Representation ID: 2432

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 2493

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: British Waterways

Yes

Support

Representation ID: 2556

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson

Number of people: 2

As long as it does not provide inappropriate housing expansion.

Support

Representation ID: 2618

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 2679

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 2708

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Priority must be given to affordable housing combined with provision of local social facilities

Support

Representation ID: 2741

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

Housing allocations should meet local needs and be locally driven e.g. by Parish Councils. Village schools should be supported and helped to survive during times of lower recruitment.

Object

Representation ID: 2792

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

There should be a sensitive approach to small villages and their beauty preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 2833

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2872

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 2928

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

This Preferred option is thoroughly welcomed provided proper, full, local consultation and meeting only the community's clearly identified needs (and wishes) is irrevocably enshrined policy.

Object

Representation ID: 2979

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Strongly disagree

Object

Representation ID: 3021

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Bill McCutchon

The amount of unnecessary pain this will inflict on the local population with no identifiable gain for them and the loss of the opportunity which should be taken to spread the requirement for housing over a wider area to include the sensible development of rural communities, many of which are finding it difficult to survive as communities witnessed by the closure of schools, local shops, post offices, public houses etc.

Support

Representation ID: 3083

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3147

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

This Preferred option is thoroughly welcomed provided proper, full, local consultation and meeting only the community's clearly identified needs (and wishes) is irrevocably enshrined policy.

Object

Representation ID: 3159

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

Small villages eg Leek Wotton should not be turned into mini towns

Object

Representation ID: 3267

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

Local shops are not supported because it is cheaper to go to supermarkets, this a fact of life. If rural housing is so good just visit rural areas around Tamworth district.

Support

Representation ID: 3395

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3645

Received: 15/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Again the issue of highway infrastructure and/or public transport to outlying areas must feature in any plans to expand our villages.

Support

Representation ID: 3699

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3870

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

The area will be overfilled with 3500 houses and it will be very difficult to use Green Lane for traffic. The road is quite small.

Support

Representation ID: 3933

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

Affordable housing is a must with extra services, eg. Post offices and bus services.

Support

Representation ID: 4039

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Yes - flexiblity of approach and develpopment where needed/ appropriate must be right - and with urban development too in ourtrelatively small area.