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

Object

Representation ID: 2942

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

STRONGLY OBJECT - This area has a relatively poor supporting infrastructure, other than good motorway access, and it is our belief that the numbers already imposed/accepted are significantly in excess of local needs and are too accommodating of outflow from Birmingham, Coventry and other areas.

Object

Representation ID: 2962

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs. penny Spooner

there are limits to what the infrastructure will stand

Object

Representation ID: 2993

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Less not more

Object

Representation ID: 3051

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Katharine Whigham

The proposals are already for a high level of additionla housing.

Object

Representation ID: 3065

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Alison Oliver

There will be more than enough housing under the current proposed strategy

Object

Representation ID: 3097

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

The levels of proposed housing growth are far too high, particularly for the areas south of Whitnash, Leamington Spa and Warwick.

Object

Representation ID: 3124

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mel Gillman

Object. The levels in the preferred option are already far too high.

Object

Representation ID: 3171

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3175

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

STRONGLY OBJECT - This area has a relatively poor supporting infrastructure (compared to most other areas of the country - why is this the case? We are constantly surprised as we travel about on how much better other, apperently less wealthy areas cope!), other than good motorway access, and it is our belief that the numbers already imposed/accepted are significantly in excess of local needs and are too accommodating of outflow from Birmingham, Coventry and other areas.

Object

Representation ID: 3281

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

As 10d.

Object

Representation ID: 3330

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3371

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3405

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3482

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

Object

Comment

Representation ID: 3549

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: Chris and Pauline Vaughan

Enough housing built over last 15 years. No need for more - who will buy?

Object

Representation ID: 3572

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

object

Object

Representation ID: 3629

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Donald Gregson

Council has not challenged housing requirement based on alleged flawed data.

Object

Representation ID: 3634

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Dominic Simpson

Fewer homes will result in lower population increase leading to area of rich heritage with attractive green spaces and strong agricultural economy.

Object

Representation ID: 3675

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

object

Object

Representation ID: 3712

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

I think that 10,800 over the period 2011-26 is too much already. The figures relating to housing demand arising from local poulation growth are erroneous - if the houses at Warwick Gates, Hatton Park, SW Warwick had not been built in the last fifteen years, the population wouldn't have grown as much! Which came first - chicken or egg?

Object

Representation ID: 3736

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: D S Edwicker

Housing figures not justified by employment and business needs.

Object

Representation ID: 3744

Received: 13/08/2009

Respondent: Alan N Gandy

Horror at vast numbers of houses proposed. Do not need or desire development on this scale. Unclear who is to be accommodated.

Object

Representation ID: 3749

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Objection detailed in letter above

Object

Representation ID: 3831

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: Philip and Barbara Lennon

Council has doubled amount of green field land needed between May 08 and 09 Why? How do current and shadow MPs react to this when contrary to govt. recommendation for brown field/green field devt. proportions? Agree some housing needed in future for elderly independent housing, sheltered housing, single person, family and low cost private and rented accommodation. Survey needed across the district to disprove govt. figs based on NLP report. Legally challenge govt. figs.

Object

Representation ID: 3850

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Paul and Caroline Whitwood

Top down approach to housing figs. unappropriate and flawed. Should be based on local need.
Why 4000 houses proposed in vicinity of Bishops Tachbrook when 15 housing need?
Re-evaluate calculations based on local population, available employment and hence population growth.

Object

Representation ID: 3880

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

Yes - Far too many

Object

Representation ID: 3907

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

I am quite sure you will happily listen to these objections to this higher level of housing growth. You must not do this in isolation.
Look at the arguments you put forward for these addtional 5000 homes and put forward the same argument for putting 4000 homes in the same place. Stop contradicting yourself and listen to your customers - us. There should be NO large housing developments at all anywhere. Distribute them and create smaller developments of 200 houses or less.

Object

Representation ID: 3963

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr John Archer

I do not believe it would be appropriate to pursue higher levels of housing. There are considerable uncertainties in the market, both in relation to finacial support for greater housing delivery and the difficulties that the house builders would have in achieveing even higher annual totals. Given such uncertainties it is far better to look to provide for the level sof growth that are proposed, which will at the very least go some considerable way towards longer term need, and monitor and review at a later period.

Object

Representation ID: 3989

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M Abba

Just read the adverse impact in the strategy, The strategy lacks any mention of suitable infrastructure to support this growth ie roads, services(water, sewerage, power) No mention of any new schools or expansion to the existing schools, children in Warwick gates do not live within walking distance of catchment schools so this increases congestion on the roads.

Object

Representation ID: 4059

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Keith Turfrey

The Govt proposed levels are excessive and it seems this is recognised here. Even then the levels could still be seen as excessive. Generally houses at the smaller end of the market are seen to be far smaller than the continental average and proposing high densities of build ends up with unsatisfactory housing conditions and is a backward step in a developed nation.