Do you support or object to the preferred option for the density of new housing?

Support

Representation ID: 133

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Support - land must be used efficiently

Object

Representation ID: 234

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

The housing market is not currently strong, and more Brownfield sites could be found. Housing should always include green areas between streets, not all landscaped lawns. For this to happen the density has to be lowered, and fewer houses built.

Object

Representation ID: 274

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Far too dense. Warwick gates is far too dense. Need higher proportion of green space. No housing more than 2 storeys high.

Object

Representation ID: 367

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

No.

Object

Representation ID: 368

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 399

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Canon David Tilley

A range of densities accross the area, after maximising density on brown-field sites, likely to add to attractiveness of area.

Object

Representation ID: 401

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Warden

Increasing the density of housing from 10,000 to 20,800 in the Warwickshire area is totally unrealistic and should be rejected at all costs. Cramming more people into smaller areas is a recipy for trouble. Has nothing been learnt from past problems associated with overcrowded housing?

Question: Where do most riots generally begin? Answer: In over crowded housing estates.

The very reason most people choose to live at the edge of a city by the countryside is to afford a better quality and standard of living. Building more houses and effectively sucking people further into a city will undermine this benefit.

Support

Representation ID: 444

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 496

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Britain has the least dense housing of anywhere else in North Europe. We need to look closely at housing densities and how they work in other European countries.

Object

Representation ID: 534

Received: 02/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Stratton

Object - cramming more housing in is not suitable for a healthy community

Support

Representation ID: 567

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 630

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 719

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

No.

Comment

Representation ID: 748

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Should the Council see fit to adopt a policy on residential development densities (as suggested in paragraph 10.40) it is important that this is flexible and allows for site specific negotiation with applicants.

Object

Representation ID: 790

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

New housing is far too cramped together. Less gardens leads to poor drainage and flooding. The long term effects of which remain to be seen.

Support

Representation ID: 858

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

Yes, Use the brown field sites

Object

Representation ID: 922

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1027

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Too many properties, parking etc

Support

Representation ID: 1090

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Object to the number of new dwellings - not sure they are needed in present economic climate. New homes in the area have not sold to private buyers.

Support

Representation ID: 1128

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Support

Comment

Representation ID: 1190

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

No

Object

Representation ID: 1248

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

No
10.40 - This is the way forward. Not mutilation of green field sites/ areas of restraint.

Object

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

Do this. Do not spoil our area ANY MORE!! We have had more than our fair share already. Keep area of restraint.

Support

Representation ID: 1382

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

The approach to density of housing is generally supported, however, at this time it is not entirely clear what is being proposed. The approach is slightly vague and simply states that the preferred option would allow some flexibility by adopting a policy with a range of densities across the plan area. At this time it is unclear what this means or what this will materialize as.

Object

Representation ID: 1485

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kundi

Number of people: 2

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1486

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kundi

Number of people: 2

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 1521

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

Gardens need to be protected and not classed as "brownfield" sites.

The current distance Separation and Amenity value criteria should not be diluted to achieve density.

High quality design to be encouraged i,e, CABE guidelines, Low quality bland developments of houses/ flats which look like they fulfil a 5 year old vision of housing should be rejected

Object

Representation ID: 1540

Received: 29/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Roberts

Crowded housing, whilst making use if space, normally leads to social issues and unsightly overcrowding, parking issues etc. Brown field sites must be looked at in detail such as the old Peugeot plant area outside coventry which has excellent transport links.

Object

Representation ID: 1647

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: William Bethell

Same comment as above

Object

Representation ID: 1699

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: J.G Whetstone

Object.