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

Object

Representation ID: 4072

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

I strongly object to higher levels of housing growth being suggested by Govt and support WDC stand against this.

Object

Representation ID: 4082

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Yes - much too high.

Object

Representation ID: 4104

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Jerry Woodhouse

yes I certainly do object

Object

Representation ID: 4161

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Elizabeth Heigl

Recent housing needs survey shows only 15 houses required in Bishops Tachbrook.
4200 houses between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates threatens existence of Bishops Tachbrook as village. Some housing may be needed but this should be based on local need from bottom up, not top down from govt. and not the numbers suggested.

Object

Representation ID: 4186

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

I also object to the level of housing growth specified in the preferred options is far too high for local needs, and the numbers of additional houses should be significantly reduced. Why is it OK for Bishops Tachcbrook to join the conurbation and not for example, Milverton?

Object

Representation ID: 4267

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Kulwinder Fathers

The level of housing growth specified in the preferred options is far too high for local needs, and the numbers of additional houses should be significantly reduced.

Object

Representation ID: 4293

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Miles

Look for brown field sites instead
Challenge number of homes required

Comment

Representation ID: 4297

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Heather Cooper

Any new development should be employment led - why build new houses in area of high unemployment? Where would these people go to work?

Object

Representation ID: 4306

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: E V Wade

Object to Kings Hill site:
Not enough information to justify why extra housing required.

Object

Representation ID: 4318

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor E Wood

No explanation as to why houses and employment needed. Process based on statisitcs known to be flawed and change daily.

Object

Representation ID: 4322

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Peter and Olive Kerr

No supporting evidence for a revised figure of 9,500 new homes.

Object

Representation ID: 4334

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Janette Eslick

Wish to see plan withdrawn and alternative presented reflecting public opinion.

Object

Representation ID: 4365

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Kirby

Bishop's Tachbrook housing need is for 15 houses, not 4,200
4,200 houses on strip of land between Warwick Gates, Whitnash & Bishop's Tachbrook to everyones detriment because it will virtually join communities.

Object

Representation ID: 4376

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: A Picken

The current housing growth proposal would create numerous problems-Traffic Environmental, Infrastructure etc, Higher growth proposals would be a disaster.

Comment

Representation ID: 4386

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Daniel & Elizabeth Sheethan

Object to positioning and quantity of housing

Object

Representation ID: 4391

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: R.F. Garner

Need - based on acceptance that another 4200 needed in this area. Survey identified need for 15 new homes in Bishops Itchington - if not justified, what is being done to resist it.

Object

Representation ID: 4441

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

Not acceptable - damaging impact on district.

Object

Representation ID: 4478

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Brian Hier

Object to site at Kings Hill:
Housing predictions are at best, educated guesses. Local govt. then expected to toe the line and look for possible sites. Quality being sacrificed for achieving numbers dicatated by distant govt. Decisions should be made by those living and working in an area.
Brown field should be developed first and needs careful monitoring to ensure that full capacity is achieved before green belt land considered.
Green fields between Coventry and Kenilworth is essential to quality of life of both communities.
Currently used for crops and livestock as well as habitat to wildlife, which is disappearing elsewhere.
In current economic climate, govt. putting 'cart before the horse'. People need employment to earn money to buy homes. Who will be living in new homes? Until resurgence in the economy, picture is unclear - another reason for more measured approach to housing development.
Need for detailed survey of infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 4492

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Declan Mee

Object to Kings Hill site:
Lack of demonstrable need for new dwellings when we are in downturn with no signs of jobs returning to Coventry area.

Object

Representation ID: 4547

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

Loss of Greenbelt, willages melding with towns andl losing identity. Narrowing Coventry - Kenilworth Gap

Object

Representation ID: 4607

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

Nor should Coventry overspill be accommodated.

Object

Representation ID: 4612

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Verrier

10,800 new homes seems to be a govt. figure plucked out of thin air with no thought for where and without the necessary economic support with local industry and for infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 4712

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

Levels of housing at present are projected figures only. Housing in Warwick District has already increased, now we are supposed to have more - when will it end?
At presen, sadly on some estates where mix of housing and affordable housing are built I believe (hopefully I am wrong) that there have been social problems for residents, ie Warwick Gates. WDC do appear to have best interests of residents at work, do not buckle.

Object

Representation ID: 4754

Received: 02/10/2009

Respondent: Cllr Bob Dhillon and family

Object to building houses south of Warwick:
In South West and South East and East there have been legal challenges (to RSS), are you planning such an action to West Midlands strategy?

Object

Representation ID: 4762

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Margaret Pyner

Object to Kings Hill site:
Unhealthy, unbalanced allocation of majority of housing to Coventry conurbation, compared to Warwick and Solihull areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 4774

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: K Dorning

Residents need to know how the housing figures were arrived at.

Object

Representation ID: 4813

Received: 18/10/2009

Respondent: Ian Frost

Object

Object

Representation ID: 4816

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Nigel Warden

Disagree with Coventry City Council's Core Strategy decision to opt for hugely disproportionate amount of housing as part of govts. plans to solve housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 4834

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

No Proven requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 4879

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

WDC should urgently carry out it's own housing needs survey based on the current population. This would be the basis for negotiating realistic housing numbers with government.