Do you support or object to the preferred option for securing a mix of new housing?

Object

Representation ID: 132

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Object - this is unpopular with residents

Comment

Representation ID: 196

Received: 11/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Alexander Holmes

I support the concept of achieving a better mix of smaller and medium size homes, but this policy needs to be carefully applied. It is not feasible or desirable in all locations. This requires a case by case approach.

Object

Representation ID: 216

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Baxter

No.

Support

Representation ID: 232

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

It seems very sensible.

Object

Representation ID: 272

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

No - cannot see the justification for this. Most people in Warwick/Leamington already commute to work elsewhere. Need higher proportion of larger houses less social housing/affordable - builders are very greedy!

Support

Representation ID: 337

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

A sensible approach.

Object

Representation ID: 365

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 397

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Canon David Tilley

Mixed communities desirable for social health, e.g. elderly vitalised by living among young families, young families need baby sitters.

Support

Representation ID: 416

Received: 26/07/2009

Respondent: mrs linda allen

Yes, and I would encourage the Council to stick to having a broad variety of housing and not allow the developers to simply build 3/4 bedroom houses, where in particular bungalows should be being built for the needs of older people.

Support

Representation ID: 494

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

The mix should not be built in such a way as to create an obvious "social housing" section of a development.

Support

Representation ID: 565

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 628

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 717

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Yes.

Support

Representation ID: 746

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

We support the Preferred Options for the Mix of New Housing as this recognises the need to actively plan for a range of housing needs and to adopt a flexible approach to this. We consider it appropriate for the Core Strategy to assess and negotiate housing mix, type and tenure on a site-by-site basis in relation to identified housing needs except on strategic sites where it may be possible to more rigidly define such provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 754

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

A local definition of affordable housing should be set encompassing intermediate and social rented housing and taking full account of local relationships between house prices and incomes.

Support

Representation ID: 788

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 856

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

Keep all development off green fields. Build the most needed housing types only and on brown field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 920

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

50% affordable housing in new developments is too high. Social engineering to this degree will drive residents out of current homes.

Support

Representation ID: 1025

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1088

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Streetscene looks better if smaller houses are in a group. People buying larger homes would probably prefer to have similar houses nearby and not be overlooked by flats.

Support

Representation ID: 1125

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1126

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

40% is massive when compared to Warwick District as a whole. With such a high proportion of affordable housing, it is even more important that development is spread around the region. Concentrated in place, it is likley to become a 'no-go' area, drug manor, crime hot spot.

Comment

Representation ID: 1188

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

No

Comment

Representation ID: 1245

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

Not if anti social people are brought into an area prevoiusly law abiding.

Comment

Representation ID: 1246

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

Not if anti social people are brought into an area previously law abiding.

Support

Representation ID: 1312

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

As long as Whitnash stays free from crime. Keep social/housing association for local people who cannot afford to buy.

Support

Representation ID: 1380

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

Yes, this approach is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 1483

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kundi

Number of people: 2

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 1519

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

The "Parker Morris" standards on room size MUST be used as a planning requirement, if the new occupiers are to have quality homes of all types which can sustain communities over time.

Pokey flats should be rejected and room dimensions added to the "WDC Design Guide",

Support

Representation ID: 1644

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: William Bethell

But only if adequate infrastructure is provided, but again the density and mix at Whitnash?Sydenham etc have always suffered by comparison with other areas.