Do you support or object to levels of housing growth higher than those proposed by the Preferred Options?

Object

Representation ID: 134

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Object to higher levels of housing growth

Object

Representation ID: 152

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R Clipson

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the level of housing proposed by the regional/national authorities and sited in the Nathanial Litchfield report.

Object

Representation ID: 175

Received: 11/07/2009

Respondent: Mr David Jordan

Don't just fill in every bit of green space with housing. Build affordable homes to satisfy the demands there are plenty of unaffordable homes already for sale.

Object

Representation ID: 200

Received: 12/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Field

I object to the higher levels of housing growth based on the finding of a single, outside reseach body. Any research into local housing need must be conducted by WDC to have any credibility.

Object

Representation ID: 235

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

Completely object. It's a terrible idea.

Object

Representation ID: 275

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Over-developed an not inkeeping with the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 305

Received: 17/07/2009

Respondent: Mr David Higgin

There are already over 1000 properties available in the area for both sale and rent, all I support is a reduction in the levels of housing planned

Object

Representation ID: 339

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

I strongly objesct to the levels proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 369

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 413

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Warwick District does not possess the infrastructure or space to accommodate higher levels of housing. Furthermore, the case put forward by NLP and GOWM is unproven

Object

Representation ID: 445

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 497

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

I am sceptiacal anyway about the figures which have been recently revised. If we build more homes will that just encourage more people in Warwickshire then commute to e.g. Coventry.
Note: - Housing on the Potterton site in Warwick remains mainly empty.

Object

Representation ID: 535

Received: 02/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Stratton

I support the statement that The Council does not therefore support higher levels of housing growth as suggested by the Government Office for the West Midlands

Object

Representation ID: 536

Received: 03/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Abbie Rae

I object to this.

Building on greenbelt by the edge of coventry is just bonkers.

There isn't the road system to jusify the use, plus you will lose all that lovely green space, Extra cars will cause even more enviromental issues.

Why can't you just leave it alone. look at what you have and rejuvenate,

Support

Representation ID: 568

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 631

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 678

Received: 07/08/2009

Respondent: Anna Sampson

More housing will go into green belt and put strain on the town. Areas of Coventry need to be looked at for regeneration.

Object

Representation ID: 720

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 750

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities should also take into account potential housing growth scenarios and how these may be accommodated within the District. It is important therefore that Warwick District Council presents a strategy for accommodating the proposed housing figures as these may yet be imposed by the RSS.

Object

Representation ID: 791

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

From evidence presented to me at local housing meetings I believe the growth currently proposed is too high.

Object

Representation ID: 859

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

Already object to numbers in 'preferred options'

Comment

Representation ID: 888

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: The Coal Authority

If higher levels of growth are imposed following the RSS examination,this may necessitate the further consideration of housing development on sites which have been excluded from the PO.In the event that it becomes necessary to consider housing development within the deep coal resource area the mining position of any potential development sites would need to be given due consideration in order that any stability/public safety issues are identified and addressed.This would be particularly relevant if the currently excluded SHLAA sites in the Burton Green area were to be re-considered for development as a result of any increase in housing requirement

Object

Representation ID: 923

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1004

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Strongly Object!

Object

Representation ID: 1028

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Believe levels proposed are too high.

Object

Representation ID: 1091

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Strongly object. Where are the jobs to sustain this number of houses? It would ruin Warwickshire for a tourist attraction.

Object

Representation ID: 1129

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

The figure of 10,800 is already far more than we shoudl be building.

Object

Representation ID: 1191

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Object

Object

Representation ID: 1249

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

Object

Object

Representation ID: 1316

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

Object