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

Support

Representation ID: 1383

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

There should be greater levels of housing growth in the district than proposed in the Preferred Options.

The Council has identified a target of 10,800 homes within the plan period. This was originally 11, 300 by the GOWM but was reduced by 500. We argue the figure should be 11,300 as originally proposed by regional government.

The Council include 1, 125 homes with p/p which may or may not be built. We argue a slippage figures of 10% will not come forward because of the recession.

The Council have included a 2,100 windfall allowance but where is the evidence these are available and achievable? They may not all be so (estimated 20%)

Object

Representation ID: 1522

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

Strongly object to any additional housing above the 8000 units.

The West Midlands has many areas of steep population decline from the main urban areas such as Stoke, Birmingham and the Black Country, with huge areas of brown field sites; these would be a much more logical places to build.

Over development of the WDC historic towns will destroy their character and remove their essence which their economy and desirability is based upon.

Object

Representation ID: 1541

Received: 29/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Roberts

Same reasons thatt he council objects. Need to ensure that towns/ villages do not jlooin into an urban jungle and we should protect green belt around the area to avoid undermining the warwick districty core values of rural living.

Object

Representation ID: 1648

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: William Bethell

How can we justify any further use of urban greenfield sites. Quality of life is the prime objective, surely.

Object

Representation ID: 1700

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: J.G Whetstone

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1744

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D zacaroni

Object

Object

Representation ID: 1772

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Max Bacon

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1843

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Val Hunnisett

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1882

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Helen Cheatham

Silly question

Object

Representation ID: 1948

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ferguson

8000 is already too many.

Object

Representation ID: 1981

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ken Hope

(10.f) There is no immediate demand for higher levels of growth and many things might have changed before the need arises so decisions made now would be on the wrong basis. They should be left for now.

Object

Representation ID: 2057

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.

Object

Representation ID: 2102

Received: 06/09/2009

Respondent: Nick Booker

I object because of:

significant loss of Green Belt land;
the coalescence of the urban areas between eg Kenilworth and Coventry;
development within areas of high landscape value, with potential significant adverse impacts on Historic Parks and Gardens, areas of ecological importance and ancient woodlands;
significant infrastructure works, particularly in relation to roads including major highway alterations to the M40 and A46 junctions, and the road network through eg Kenilworth

Object

Representation ID: 2192

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

The building of any further large housing development within the District is strongly objected to. The existing character of our towns and villages is seriously damaged by such large scale building.

Object

Representation ID: 2247

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Peter and Anne Wing

Number of people: 2

* The findings of the Lichfield report are ridiculous and if the number of new houses has been in any way based on this then it reinforces the point that the demand for houses should be reassessed.

Object

Representation ID: 2330

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2407

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

No.

Object

Representation ID: 2445

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2537

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Kay Cugini

there is not the infrastructure to support another development, there are no more school places, inadequate public transport and gridlocked roads. Do not ruin the area more than it has already been by a constant stream of building which is unneccessary and unwanted by local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 2538

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Kay Cugini

not needed, area does not have infrastructure to support more houses

Object

Representation ID: 2562

Received: 10/09/2009

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

Number of people: 2

We consider the current proposals to represent a gross over expansion to the district and would object most vehemently to any further expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 2632

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2637

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr James Delaney

Preferred Options already excessive development proposed for the area.

Object

Representation ID: 2673

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Maisey

Completely and strongly object.

Object

Representation ID: 2691

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

Parallel to any new developments far more pressure should be put on house or brownfield land owners to restore or develop such a properly. The housing stock is generally good but there are still places in poor repair.

Object

Representation ID: 2755

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

There is no need to build at a higher rate than proposed in the Preferred Options. It will destroy urban and rural locations and erode the spaces between them. It assumes there will be demand which may not materialise in the current economic climate.

Object

Representation ID: 2799

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

This cannot be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 2843

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2882

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2911

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: ALISON ELFWOOD

IF WE STOPPED IMMIGRATION THE POPULATION NUMBERS WOULD EVEN OUT, WHY SHOULD WE PAVE OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY BECAUSE THE POLITICIANS ARE TERRIFIED OF BEING LABELLED RACISTS. WAKE UP, IT'S ABOUT SPACE, NOT RACE.