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

Object

Representation ID: 6855

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Green

The decision on how many new houses would be needed for the area was based on the Nathaniel Lichfield & Partnerships Report which itself has come under considerable criticism from numerous councils and from the Campaign to Protect Rural England for being based on unsafe statistics and for coming up with seriously controversial conclusions

Object

Representation ID: 6878

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Noel Butler

* The projected population growth of 40,000 is unrealistic and the Core Strategy states this fact but, unbelievingly, it is still used for planning.

* There is no justification for the assumption that there will be continued inward migration from adjoining urban areas at the levels we have seen in the past.

Object

Representation ID: 6885

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Higgin

We 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: 6894

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Mr J P Garrett

* 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
* 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: 6952

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Higher Housing Growth
The Parish Council Strongly objects to the levels of growth already being catered for in the Draft Core Strategy - Preferred Options Paper as there is not a demonstrable local demand for the housing numbers being proposed. We therefore also object to any increase in this number.
Because the estimated population of the District will only be proven in the course of time, and at 10year intervals by the census, no action should be taken or decisions made that compromise the matters of value such as agricultural land by including Greenfield sites in early phases of the programme when brown field sites should be used first.
The effect of adding 10800 homes to the stock of 55,033 households, in WDC as registered in the 2001 census - a 19.62% increase - is to require towns to expand beyond their design capacity for traffic, medical, social and educational facilities in the vain hope that by developer deals or planning requirements in giving permissions that these missing bits will magically appear. Some will happen, but development is a business and it must turn a profit to survive. That means that such costs would need to be passed on to the housing customer that buys the house. Add to the equation the affordable housing requirement of whatever percentage then it will be normal house purchasers that will get higher than necessary prices meaning that house prices become less affordable. As new house prices rise, prices for old houses rise with them and the market gets out of control. Properly, if the government has asked authorities to build additional houses it should make infrastructure monies available to the local authority. This then comes from tax revenues so everyone pays. Not everyone would like that!

Object

Representation ID: 7008

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Past experience has shown that so called experts do not taken account of the financial, human, amenity, and social issues of accelerated development. The recent developments in the District have not yet shaken down nor has the amenities and infrastructure caught up. Strongly against.

Comment

Representation ID: 7048

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick and Leamington Green Party

Provision of affordable housing must be the main thrust of housing development. Desire for people to live in larger homes and have second or even third houses means that only the price of houses can reduce this 'demand'. Rejects notion that there is massive requirement for new housing. Demand for housing is dependent on the state of the economy and immigration which has significantly reduced.
It is disappointing that central government is seeking to allow 'demand' to dictate supply which obliges our District to provide significant increases in housing.

Object

Representation ID: 7080

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: The Leamington Society

Not convinced that District should be required to find land for 10,800 (or more) new homes. Previously argued for a reduction in the level of outmigration from the major urban areas. The projected population growth is unrealistic because it assumes continuing in-migration at the rate prevailing between 2001 and 2006 when house building was allowed greatly to exceed local needs. The towns in Warwick District will become merely part of an increasingly sprawling West Midlands Conurbation, based on growing and unsustainable car use, and destroying the qualities of the towns.

Object

Representation ID: 7089

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire

Do not accept population projections as statement of fact or rational allocation. Do not accept assumption that growth in District should continue at previous levels.
Deplore acceptance of the "...continued movement of people into the District from the major cities of the region to the District." One of main aims of RSS is to discourage people from moving from major urban areas out into rest of Region. Primary aim for region is to regenerate major conurbations not allow expansion of leafy suburbs. Proposed provision would undermine the RSS.

Object

Representation ID: 7108

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: The Warwick Society

Population 'projections' which lead to development proposals are not forecasts with realistic basis. Projected population growth unrealistic because it assumes continuing in-migration at rate when house-building was allowed to exceed local needs. This demonstrates a false and circular argument: population growth driven by house-building, not other way round. In line with focus of RSS on regeneration of major cities of West Midlands, house-building should be planned only to meet properly-based forecast of local needs. Otherwise, Warwick and the other towns will become part of an increasingly sprawling West Midlands Conurbation, based on growing and unsustainable car use, and destroying qualities of County's towns.

Comment

Representation ID: 7126

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire Police

Warwickshire Police is working closely with the other police forces in the region (Staffordshire, West Mercia and West Midlands) to develop a consistent and constructive approach to the challenges of significant population growth. This work also involves other police force areas that border Warwickshire and is informing the national policing approach through the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Object

Representation ID: 7135

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

We believe the Consultation is premature, as the Regional Spatial Strategy Inspection in Public has
only just finished, and it will be many months before the inspector's report is published. The
Consultation should follow on and respond to these findings.
We realise that the Council is under pressure from government policies to allocate more new
development within the district than perhaps it would ideally prefer. We would encourage the
authority to resist such pressure especially as excessive development in the District will undermine
the main objective of the Regional Spatial Strategy to regenerate the major urban centres in the
region.

Comment

Representation ID: 7137

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

It is stated here that the population projections are "based on the...continued movement of people
into the district from the major cities of the region to the District." Please note that one of the main
aims of the Regional Spatial Strategy is to discourage people from moving from the major urban
areas out into the rest of the Region. It is also likely that in the future as fuel prices rise, it will
become less desirable for people to commute long distances.

Object

Representation ID: 7158

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Moir-Harris

The necessity for 'new builds' is mainly due to the influx of imigrants into the UK. We are a small island - there is not enough land to build more houses to accommodate these people. This is not racist it is simple practicality and maths!!!

Object

Representation ID: 7180

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Margaret and Mike Rackham

You should not be bullied by central government into destroying our neighbourhood.

Object

Representation ID: 7195

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs D and M Woolley

Should like to know who will benefit financially from the building of such houses. Does local council benefit? Why can you not say 'no' to Westminster. In democracy surely people should be listened to - it seems we have very little understanding and very little interest in what anybody else wants these days.

Comment

Representation ID: 7196

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: W S Baker

Of course people need housing but whilst the government continue the policy of paying the population for having children are they not responsible for the over-population of these islands?

Object

Representation ID: 7204

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs B Thorne

WDC needs to go back to the government and say 'no' to building more houses. It has to stop now.

Object

Representation ID: 7218

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: N E Brison

Council should tell government 'enough is enough' and ask who houses are for.

Object

Representation ID: 7222

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Alan Stacey

See how many houses are empty for rent. we do not need more houses in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 7226

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Stacey

We need to make a legal challenge and reject the Nathaniel Lichfield report as we have taken it into consideration and rejected it.

Object

Representation ID: 7248

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: M Silk

Who are these houses for?

Object

Representation ID: 7268

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: T Moreton

Who are these houses for?

Object

Representation ID: 7270

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Tim Davies

I do not understand why we need this huge number of houses built in this area. I would support opposition to the government proposing this ridiculous development that will ruin this lovely area forever. This is not needed.

Object

Representation ID: 7274

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: R Harris

As there are no jobs who are the houses for?

Object

Representation ID: 7280

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: C M Copoon

This housing project is not necessary, just have the courage to tell the government.

Object

Representation ID: 7287

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Turner

It's a disgrace that further destruction of our countryside and community is being considered especially as there is absolutely no need for further housing.

Object

Representation ID: 7329

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

I would like you to ask the government why they are spoiling our green and pleasant land when there are lots of disused buildings and waste land to build on first.

Comment

Representation ID: 7330

Received: 19/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jenifer Lord

Why is there a need for this massive amount of house building in our area, when residents have indicated a need for only a few houses to satisfy local people.

Object

Representation ID: 7499

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: P A and S M Leary

The declared policy of the Labour Government is to transfer decision-making for the planned social needs of regions and local communities to citizens and to the local authorities concerned. On this basis alone, Central Government must be challenged that such a diktat that 10,800 homes must be built regardless of the local needs or wishes in an enfringement of our collective human rights.