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

Object

Representation ID: 4910

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joyce A Green

Object to Kings Hill site:
Sceptical as to need for 33,500 new homes in Coventry. Should not be buidling to allow for increased immigration. Concerns for lost generation of school leavers, currently not earning or learning new skills. Perhaps birth rates will fall in future.

Object

Representation ID: 4922

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: L Hughes

Object to Thickthorn site:
Most statistical evidence collected prior to current fiscal catastrophe and should projections now be made, convinced different set of conclusions would be identified. Core Strategy therefore will be dated and irrelevant.

Object

Representation ID: 4937

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sukhjeet and Uinkar Dhillon

Object to sites in Harbury Lane and Whitnash area:
Why have council not challenged figures?

Object

Representation ID: 4970

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

OBJECT-To the principle of 'parachuting' an arbitary distribution of additional housing into the planning system at critically late stage. If the extra housing is needed, then it should be planned properly through the RSS.

Object

Representation ID: 5057

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

The problem is - how is the growth calculated.

Object

Representation ID: 5080

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Dr Neville Hunt

Object to Kings Hill site:
Scale of development is breathtaking. Currently only 2,000 homes in Finham, increase of 3,500 would dominate the area, swamp its infrastructure and ruin its semi-rural tranquility. Smaller scale on edges of identified site less contentious. In particular Kings Hill itself is prominent and cherished local landmark not without historical significance and idea of capping with modern housing visible from miles away, unthinkable.

Object

Representation ID: 5088

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: James Pinkerton

Object to sites south of Leamington:
Why are houses proposed to be built where needs survey has identified need for 10's not 1000's?

Object

Representation ID: 5140

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs ME Shaw

Object to sites south of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington:
No evidence for vast numbers of new houses talked about.

Object

Representation ID: 5151

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

We already have two major cities on the Warwick doorstep, both of which exhibit large social and economic problems, I'm assuming the target is to aspire to these glorious examples of town planning! Enough is enough.

Object

Representation ID: 5220

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sonia Owczarek

There is no need for this level of housing to be built.

Object

Representation ID: 5248

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

Far too high

Object

Representation ID: 5273

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: Mr A Emerson

Object to Kings Hill site:
Do not wish to see green belt/farmland destroyed in favour of housing that is not required but is being forced upon us by MPs.

Object

Representation ID: 5290

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

The figures quoted in clauses 10.42 et seq do not appear to have any justification and consideration of levels of housing growth higher than those in the 'Preferred Options' paper would only bean unnecessary distraction from the present process and is therefore not justified

Object

Representation ID: 5350

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

There is no tangible justification even for the 10,800 requirement

Object

Representation ID: 5402

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

No it is not necessary

Object

Representation ID: 5442

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

I object here largely because it is a whole new subject and should go through the same processes as the Core Strategy

Object

Representation ID: 5480

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Strongly agree with the Preferred Option's resistance to the WMGO/Nathaniel Lichfield's absurb figures for housing growth

Object

Representation ID: 5534

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

We will already lose significant green belt land which makes a mockery of the term 'greenbelt' which in my book is a useless term anymore. We cannot allow more growth even now we should not allow it to happen. Best way is to develop another Milton Keynes and have a brand new town developed to hit the targets. What happens when the UK populeation hits 200 Million in the year 2200? When will it stop and where will everyone come from.

Object

Representation ID: 5579

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: George Martin

I would support only if the 'Growth is within environmental limits' and if it adds no net gain to the carbon footprint of WDC.

Object

Representation ID: 5608

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Duncan Gowing

Object to Kings Hill site:
Overspill from Coventry due to ludicrously high number of houses they are planning.

Object

Representation ID: 5665

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

I am still unconvinced about the real level of demand for housing which is anticipated by the government in requiring WDC to submit this Core Strategy .

Object

Representation ID: 5711

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Warren

I strongly support the Council's opposition to the Government's 20,800 houses: It is indeed inappropriate and impossible to accommodate.

Object

Representation ID: 5738

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft

Object to
Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane
Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane
Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
Figures are incorrect and based on previous levels of migration when we are supposed to be getting less migration than before according to RSS. Why still forcing this number of houses upon us? Warwick only needs in the order of 4000 houses based on organic growth rate over 30 years rather than 5 years when irregular growth spurt due to frantic building. No additional housing needed either south of Warwick and Leamington or around Kenilworth or elsewhere in the district other than on brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5774

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

Housing growth should not be linked to unrealistic housing quotas imposed from Whitehall.

Support

Representation ID: 5798

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: PG Swann

Support

Object

Representation ID: 5819

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Alison Cox

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 5857

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Already building too many houses. Why do we have to have some of Coventry's as well?

Object

Representation ID: 5925

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C G Price

Angain any housing growth would lead to more traffic congestion. Get a council officer to stand on the rounabout at the Gallows Hill and Europa Way and another councillor to stand at the bottom of Gallows Hill where it meets the Banbury Road between 7.30 Am and 10.00am. It is the same in the evening when people are going home from work. Then imagine work people trying to get onto Europa Way from an estate on the west side of Europa Way.

Object

Representation ID: 5931

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

Housing figure supply should relate to the needs and the ability of an area to accommodate the development.

Object

Representation ID: 6006

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

Object.