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

Object

Representation ID: 6033

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6083

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6129

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard and Judy Swallow

Number of people: 2

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6151

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Angela Fryer

Object to Kings Hill site:
Figures include those which were never going to be able to be built within Coventry and are now to be built as overspill within Warwick's boundary on the edge of Coventry. Whole basis for numbers is unsound and should be rejected. Returning to original projections would increase numbers for Warwickshire, but could be dispersed across larger land mass. There are rural areas that need affordable housing to survive.

Object

Representation ID: 6168

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Finham Residents Association

Object to Kings Hill site:
Coventry's bid for 33,500 new homes too high for the amount of land it has to develop within its boundary. This target should be reduced. If Coventry has overspill to accommodate in Warwick, only three places on the borders it could be.

Object

Representation ID: 6204

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Object

Representation ID: 6271

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

Potential for damaging impact on District! Not acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 6354

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6397

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ed & Zoe Rycroft

Number of people: 2

Object to any housing growth in excess of what is put forward and also question how numbers were initially derived.

Based section 2.2 the same levels of migration will occur as before.

Section 2.3 states "The above projections of growth are particularly unrealistic". Then why are 10,800 homes still being forced on us?

Based on past trends between 1971 and 2001 Warwick District only needs approximatedly 4000 houses. Therefore there is no need for development on greenfield development in the district.

The 6,800 homes that WD doesn't need can put on Coventry Airport or within Birmingham.

Object

Representation ID: 6451

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

10800 is already too many.
WDC should carry out as a matter of urgency its own HNS, based on the current population - this should be the basis of negotiating realistic housing numbers with government be it regional or Westminister.

Object

Representation ID: 6489

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Graham & Maureen Sutherland

Support councillors and MP in requesting additional time for full and proper appraisal of housing and employment land requirements for the period to 2026.
Question projected population growth which core strategy states is unrealistic and which assumes continued inward migration from adjoining urban areas before determining how many new houses are required.

Object

Representation ID: 6496

Received: 11/08/2009

Respondent: Edgar George Cousins

Do not want or require people from outside to live here. Own survey shows need for only 15 more houses.

Object

Representation ID: 6518

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Saward

Pleased that council didn't accept findings of Nathaniel Lichfield which would have been disasterous.

Object

Representation ID: 6535

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs G Walton

Not convinced proposed increase in housing in this area is justified. Based on arbitary figures produced by government and undemocratic agreement between local authorities, not on need.
Not sensible or practical to plan housing up to 20 years ahead - too many unkown factors. Local authorities are using housing development as spur to local growth rather than by increase to employment.
Unconvinced that Coventry has made a case that extra housing could not be built within its boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 6541

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Anne Steele

Where are the people to live in new properties? No concrete proof of projections.
Led to believe that there is a housing waiting list of 500,000, yet local people will not be given priority as housing associations can offer homes to anyone on their waiting list. Is this going to be the same mistake as was made at Warwick Gates - moving people to a strange area away from families and into an area where employment is at a premium.

Object

Representation ID: 6582

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Prof & Mrs R & S E Carey

Object to Kings Hill site:
Plans were drawn up in 2005/6 when economy was buoyant. Since then serious recession resulting in loss of major manufacturing in Coventry. Will there be working population in future to occupy proposed dwellings?

Object

Representation ID: 6593

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs C Gregson

Object to sites at:
South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Woodside Farm
West of Europa Way
Population forecasts thought to be flawed and should be subject of legal challenge.

Object

Representation ID: 6600

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Martin & Kim Drew & Barnes

Recent housing needs survey carried out a Bishops Tachbrook identified requirement for 15 dwellings, not 4200.

Object

Representation ID: 6616

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: James Mackay

Population 'projections' which lead to development proposals are not forecasts with any realistic basis - assumes continuing in-migration at rate between 2001 and 2006 when house building was allowed to greatly exceed local needs. Demonstrates false and circular arguement that population growth was driven by house-building not the other way round. Should be based on local needs otherwise Warwick and other towns in the district will become part of increasingly sprawling West Midlands Conurbation, based on growing and unsustainable car use and destroying qualities of County's towns.

Object

Representation ID: 6626

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: A Walton

Object to Kings Hill site:
Not convinced proposed increase in housing in this area is justified. Based on arbitary figures produced by government and undemocratic agreement between local authorities, not on need.
Not sensible or practical to plan housing up to 20 years ahead - too many unkown factors. Local authorities are using housing development as spur to local growth rather than by increase to employment.

Object

Representation ID: 6631

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Lesley Pritchard

Object to Kings Hill site.
It is questionable whether Coventry requires additional housing. The allocation of 33,500 homes in Coventry is way in excess of other areas in the sub-region.

Object

Representation ID: 6639

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen Fitzpatrick

Object to site west of Europa Way and others south of Leamington:
Questionable figures for housing. Has real inquiry taken place or are figures snatched from the air? Pre-supposes migrant movement from outside the area as opposed to probable conclusion that movement would be from within Leamington area itself, freeing up accommodation in immediate area.

Object

Representation ID: 6646

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pat Fitzpatrick

Object to site west of Europa Way and others south of Leamington:
Questionable figures for housing. Has real inquiry taken place or are figures snatched from the air? Pre-supposes migrant movement from outside the area as opposed to probable conclusion that movement would be from within Leamington area itself, freeing up accommodation in immediate area.

Object

Representation ID: 6652

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dominic Ashley-Timms

The specific areas I object to are, the housing proposals on:
1) Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane
And also:
2) Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
3) Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane, Whitnash
4) Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
My objections are based on the following:
* On the recent Housing Needs Survey conducted in Bishops Tachbrook, 500 of the 750 homes in the village responded and told us that only 15 new houses were needed in the village. Therefore we do not need 4200 new homes.
* 4200 houses between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates threatens the very existence of Bishops Tachbrook as a village. If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook.
* I think that such a number of new homes contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

Object

Representation ID: 6671

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Hardeep Lider

I am writing this letter in order to express my strong objection to the following Core Strategy Preferred Options document:
Land at Woodside Farm north of Harbury Lane,Whtinash
Land south of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Land at Lower Heathcote Farm south of Harbury Lane
Land west of Europa Way Warwick

My objections are based on the following reasons:
* The council should legally challenge the amount of houses the government has demanded we build in the area. We live in a democracy and should not be dictated to in such a fashion.

Object

Representation ID: 6729

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

Object, unless needs become evident in the future that are not known now.

Object

Representation ID: 6774

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: ed boyle

PROPOSED KINGS HILL DEVELOPMENT SITE
Warwick has satisfied its need for its housing and employment land without including Kings Hill. They are primarily based near the major employment and retail areas on the south of Warwick and Leamington.
Coventry requires land outside its boundary to satisfy its housing and employment target. Kings Hill has been put forward by Coventry for this purpose.

Object

Representation ID: 6786

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Linda Bromley

2. In the South West, South East and East there have been successful legal challenges. Are you planning such an action to the West Midlands strategy? Please keep me informed when you decide on this.

4. In the earlier consultation in 2008 we were told only 2,700 houses were to be built on greenfield sites. Why has this suddenly erupted into 5,000? Who made this decision?

12. Why have you not allocated more housing to villages?

13. Why have you not spread the housing around the District? Housing development should be proportional across the District and not to have any impact on any particular area. Why have you put all this housing in Warwick and not around Leamington or Kenilworth or along the A46 corridor where there is employment and infrastructure in nearby Coventry?

14. Why have you ignored the Government's Cave Report which stated that 4,000 houses should not be built in one area?

15. Why have you not challenged the projected growth rate figure of 40,000? Why have you simply accepted this? Have you examined the population figures and assessed the 40,000 growth? Did you not argue that Warwick has had its fair share of housing and there has been an unusually large amount of major development over the last few years, i.e. Hatton, Pottertons, Chase Meadow, Warwick Gates, apart from in-filling in many brown field sites? Are the West Midlands Regional Office aware of this? Warwick's percentage of housing development is far higher than that in Leamington and Kenilworth.

16. How have you identified who wants these houses? Aren't you just encouraging people to migrate from other areas into Warwick? Isn't the real reason for city migration and not natural population growth? Why are you ignoring GOWN's advice to reduce migration? Are you challenging these figures?
18. Why, when Kenilworth have a new rail station planned, no traffic congestion and none of the problems that Warwick has and can support the infrastructure, are they not allocated some of the housing development?

19. Why is no new housing allocated for Cllr. Doody's ward of Radford Semele?

24. Are you going to carry out a full and proper appraisal of Warwick District's Housing and Employment Land Requirements, for the period up to 2026?

Comment

Representation ID: 6795

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Simon Ericson

Take legal action to challenge the Regional Government figures to allow a properly informed Consultation..

Object

Representation ID: 6798

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Ray Steele

I see no reason whatsoever for plans that project so far into the future when those who concocted this plan cannot see what is going to happen even next week, and that does not only apply to housing development. This is government interference on a high level. District Councils should be left to plan and organise future requirements as they arise. They are better equipped but should in turn be controlled by the people they serve. (Note 'serve' and not 'control.')