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

Object

Representation ID: 3570

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

object

Object

Representation ID: 3674

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

object

Object

Representation ID: 3711

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

The Core Strategy must include a minimum of 50dph for sites in general, to encourage redevelopment on brownfield land. For the site which are selected in the Core Strategy, the density of housing should be declared as part of the Core Strategy - as mentioned above, perhaps it would be appropriate to specify development of the King's Hill site at 20dph - that would still yield 5400 houses while retaining a lot of green space.

Object

Representation ID: 3801

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Judy Cobham

Proposed numbers of houses have no basis in reality. Wrong numbers in wrong places.

Object

Representation ID: 3879

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

3500 houses is not appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 3908

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

Your density figures don't work. You have not taken the advice offered by CABE with their building for life and sustainable cities recommendations. Far better to build lots of smaller communities than create another housing estate for everyone in Warwick District to hate! Give more land to each home, build no more than 200 in one place at a time and you might find you get somewhere to be proud of that produces according to your vision!

Support

Representation ID: 3961

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr John Archer

It is appropriate to incorporate density policies in order to ensure efficient use of land balanced with the protection of the particular character of areas to be teh subject of development

Support

Representation ID: 4068

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

Support development of brownfield sites and recognise need to build an estimation of the sites that may come available into plans.

Support

Representation ID: 4080

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Yes

Object

Representation ID: 4120

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Colin Sharp

Appears to be attempt to circumvent planning laws and procedures under threat of financial penalties. Population and employment growth figures unsubstantiated. Consider legal challenge to whole concept of Core Strategy. Whole strategy ill conceived and will not serve community well.

Support

Representation ID: 4261

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

need mores services see (c)

Support

Representation ID: 4375

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: A Picken

Support

Support

Representation ID: 4546

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

Explicitly remove back gardens from brown field definition.

Support

Representation ID: 4606

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

support

Object

Representation ID: 4711

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

Object to plans for " projected figures" and density.

Object

Representation ID: 4878

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

Land is scarce - densities need to be 50 dph

Support

Representation ID: 4968

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

Qualified Yes- high densities will help to secure more sustainable developments, but too much cramming to the exclusion of things such as green infrastructure lead to poorer environment. A careful balance between the two needs to be struck.

Support

Representation ID: 5056

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5149

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

Housing density should be kept low, High density housing is bad for both the owners/tenants and social structure of the areas.

Object

Representation ID: 5219

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sonia Owczarek

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 5289

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

Clauses 10.37 to 10.41 adequately address the question of housing density, properly establishing a framework for the design of any given site. Regarding clauses 10.40 and 10.41 and the re-use of brownfield sites, the Council should consider establishing a register of sites which may potentially become available. This, together with a process that would enable the Council to act quickly in respect of 'windfall' sites could greatly enhance the possibility of housing development on former commercial sites, particularly those which are inappropriate for redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 5349

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 5401

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

More spacious semi-detached houses should be built with large gardens.

Support

Representation ID: 5441

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5479

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5533

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5627

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: PG Swann

Please do not increase housing densities. The ubiquitous trend for LPAs to do so in recent years has generally resulted in far too many small housing units which provide little or no amenity/private open -air space . ( not even useable balconies or private terraces!). This is, I believe, one of the main causes of family breakdowns, social deprivation, dissatisfaction with housing quality, that are prevalent today. This is not what most people want, and it distorts the housing market.

Support

Representation ID: 5664

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5709

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Warren

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5773

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

Support.