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

Object

Representation ID: 5818

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Alison Cox

Almost 50 % of new homes needed concentrated in on area will place intolerable burdens on infrastructure and will directly contravene the vision of WDC to preserve the identities and characteristics of Warwick/Whitnash and Leamington.

Support

Representation ID: 5856

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5921

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C G Price

Object

Object

Representation ID: 5930

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

Because at the end commercial factors will be the controlling element as oppose to what is right for a particular environment.

Object

Representation ID: 6005

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 6032

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6082

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Far too many on one area!

Object

Representation ID: 6163

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Barry & Valerie Sankey

Number of people: 2

The size of the site and scale of development at King's Hill would necessitate high densities which would allow no margin for quality architecture and design resulting in poor built environment.

Object

Representation ID: 6203

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Support

Representation ID: 6269

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

Must ensure schools, shops, post offices to support the developments.

Object

Representation ID: 6353

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6396

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ed & Zoe Rycroft

Number of people: 2

Modern developments squeeze too much in to a given area, giving little in terms of gardens or outside space. Cramming more properties into the area means more traffic what would otherwise be dispersed, putting less pressure on the local infrastructure. The urban creep of areas such as Warwick Gates has also already meant a stretching of the current utilities away from traditional urban centres.

Residents of Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook already suffer from reduced water pressure and slow internet speeds.

further extending existing supply networks to the proposed development areas, will cause greater pressure on already extended services.

Support

Representation ID: 6450

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

Land is scarce - densities have to be 50 dph

Comment

Representation ID: 6720

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Heritage & Culture (Museums)

We welcome the recognition (10.38) that existing densities of housing contribute to the character of an area and that this character should be protected.

However, potential adverse impacts of higher housing numbers upon landscape is only defined in terms of impact upon designated landscapes (10.47, third bullet point); non-designated landscapes may also have significance in terms of historic landscape character and reference should be made to the Historic Landscape Characterisation programme recently concluded by Warwickshire CC.

Support

Representation ID: 6734

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

Provided the density allows for recreation: e.g. gardening which could be on shared land, i.e. allotments.

Object

Representation ID: 6853

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Green

* density of houses would be totally unreasonable if the numbers being proposed for the area are built

Comment

Representation ID: 6951

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Housing Density
The Parish Council‟s independent appraisal indicates that the densities under consideration are fairly low. By increasing the density of new housing within normal limits, the allocation of housing will be more easily achieved.

Support

Representation ID: 7007

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Unfortunately yes but careful design will be needed, to enable amenities and green areas for recreation to be incorporated.

Comment

Representation ID: 7050

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick and Leamington Green Party

In the previous consultation the Council indicated that there were brownfield sites for 8,100 homes. "From the Council's own figures, if a housing density of just 40 is assumed, then there is no need for any houses to be built on green fields." Housing densities of over 100 homes per hectare can be appropriate in town centres. Disappointed to see it is only increased it to 40. Even more disappointed the core strategy now claims that 5000 homes should be built on greenfield sites, double the number given a year ago. Advocate increases in housing density within towns.

Support

Representation ID: 7141

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Strongly support higher densities across all sites.
Recommend minimum acceptable density levels should be included in policy document.
There are many recent residential schemes where 100 to 150 dwellings per hectare are quite
common. Possible to achieve such densities with the benefit of good design without
compromising the character of our towns and the quality of public open spaces, as is confirmed in PPS3. Paragraph 10.2 in the consultation document confirms that '...household size is getting smaller with more people living alone...'. This in turn allows higher densities, and means that there is considerably less need for green field sites to be used.

Support

Representation ID: 7392

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Europa Way Consortium

Agent: Entec UK Ltd

In line with PPS3, the Consortium would wish to see housing densities of between 30-50 dph. Factoring in the high housing targets Warwick District are likely to be required to meet, the Consortium believe that a minimum of 40 dph would be appropriate for greenfield urban extension sites such as Europa Way. We note that 40dph was used to calculate housing figures for proposed strategic housing sites, the Consortium supports this approach.

Support

Representation ID: 7413

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Agent: Holmes Antill

Support

Support

Representation ID: 7457

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Trilogy

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Support the preferred option of adopting a policy with a range of densities across the plan area. High quality high density development should be supported in sustainable locations in the built-up areas of the District.

Object

Representation ID: 7577

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Object

Representation ID: 7664

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Forrester of Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe

Agent: Barlow Associates Limited

Increased density can deprive people of gardens and open space. Smaller properties should actually have larger garden areas plus access to green areas.

Object

Representation ID: 7724

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

The densities under consideration are fairly low. As land is in short supply as demonstrated by the difficulties being encountered as to what to sacrifice, land should be used and efficiently and intensively as is reasonable. By increasing the density of new housing to within normally accepted limits, the allocation of housing will be more easily achieved

Object

Representation ID: 33538

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Rail Property Ltd & Network Rail Infrastructure

Agent: G R Planning Consultancy Ltd

Density for housing on the 'Land at Station Area' is far too low and unjustified and should therefore be revised.

Object

Representation ID: 33554

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Crackley Residents' Association

Supports mix of housing proposed and density.

Support

Representation ID: 33555

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Crackley Residents' Association

Supports mix of housing proposed and density.

Support

Representation ID: 33565

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Thomas Bates & Son LTD

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

Support