Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new housing?
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 123
Received: 06/07/2009
Respondent: R A Chapleo
No - The Council must double its efforts to release empty dwellings to the market.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 158
Received: 07/07/2009
Respondent: G Ralph
The land north of Milverton is prime agricultural land and at Saxon Mill includes historical buildings. This is all prime greenfield land and should not be considered for building upon.
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 168
Received: 07/07/2009
Respondent: mr John Wheatcroft
How about new housing in and around Whitnash and Radforsd Semele area - just a thought
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 197
Received: 12/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Field
I wish to comment on the perceived housing need of an additional 6,000 units to meet the RDA target of 10,800 units. Does any WDC research or evidence exist which supports this level of housing need?
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 229
Received: 09/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood
I do not agree with the identification of ANY new housing on green-field sites.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 259
Received: 10/07/2009
Respondent: Patricia Robinson
The WDC appears only to be interested in new housing developments regardless of impact. Local landowners/trusts have too much influence e.g. Oken trust, Henry VIII trust. They do not appear to be acting in the interests of the local community.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 268
Received: 13/07/2009
Respondent: Mr David Jordan
I don't see evidence for building on such a large scale. Building of new industrial units has come to a standstill, schools already at capacity. Where are the jobs in the area to support this influx of people?
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 294
Received: 14/07/2009
Respondent: Leamington and County Golf Club
Land towards the western end of Harbury Lane at its junction with Heathcote Lane.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 328
Received: 21/07/2009
Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam
Disagree there is a need to protect existing suitable employment land. There are many vacant sites in the District at present. Housing should be the priority.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 355
Received: 22/07/2009
Respondent: Peter Pounds
Finham
Baginton
Land South of Kenilworth
Thickthorn
Land North East of Kenilworth
West and North West of Warwick A46 corridor.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 433
Received: 27/07/2009
Respondent: Peter Clarke
No.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 484
Received: 24/07/2009
Respondent: Georgina Wilson
Support.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 532
Received: 02/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs J Stratton
Building on greenfield sites must not be allowed. There are multiple new builds already in existence which have not been sold surely this provides some indication that the level of housing requirements need to be reviewed for every area. Huge concerns about existing infrastructure and services ability to cope with increased demand.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 554
Received: 27/07/2009
Respondent: Mr A M Webley
Support.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 617
Received: 23/07/2009
Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers
Object.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 676
Received: 07/08/2009
Respondent: Anna Sampson
Do not agree
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 681
Received: 10/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Sheila Smith
Use existing housing stock more sensibly and put Warwick District houses on Warwick District land close to Coventry before looking elsewhere to ruin green belt land.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 707
Received: 10/08/2009
Respondent: P.A. Yarwood
Needs investigation.
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 749
Received: 06/08/2009
Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium
Agent: Tetlow King Planning
PPS3 clearly states that allowance should not be made for windfall within the first 10 years of housing land supply "unless Local Planning Authorities can provide robust evidence of genuine local circumstances that prevent specific sites being identified." (paragraph 59). We therefore strongly recommend that the Council actively seek to identify greenfield sites where development should be located to meet housing requirements, as already demonstrated in the Preferred Growth Strategy.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 778
Received: 05/08/2009
Respondent: Faye Davis
Firstly, I am concerned that the amount of new housing required is too high and unrealistic.
Secondly, I do not believe that enough work has been carried out to establish current brownfield sites that are empty that could be developed for housing instead of using greenfield sites.
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 819
Received: 30/06/2009
Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Dinsdale
I would object bery strongly if any more housing was planned for the Milverton Allotment/Milverton green belt lad in north Leamington. Also the infrastructure just isn't there. We cannot go on building at an unsustainable rate and maintain any kind of life/wildlife balance. We need the wildlife otherwise we will become a sterile land in which nothing will survive.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 827
Received: 14/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Sheila Bannister
I cannot support the building of houses on Kings Hill. Extra houses on a Green Belt on the edge of Coventry is not necessary. Coventry's population has decreased by 30,000 in the last generation. As there are no jobs how can people afford houses especially in an area where there are no jobs. Coventry council must not be allowed to use land in Warwickshire just because they requested a larger percentage of housing than any other authority in the West Midlands.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 846
Received: 18/08/2009
Respondent: Adrian Farmer
The council should fight any impossed expansion in this district and only meet the requirements of the local community
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 910
Received: 19/08/2009
Respondent: Christine Betts
I think Coventry / Nuneaton / Bedworth have much more land availability and better infrastructure to support more houses than rural areas of Warwick.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 977
Received: 21/08/2009
Respondent: Kirit Marvania
Green Belt is not reasonable.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 999
Received: 24/08/2009
Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon
But - the RSS figures are excessive and probably unachievable.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1076
Received: 21/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham
Support.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1105
Received: 24/08/2009
Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson
Some development/growth should be spread around the many surrounding villages. Many villages to the south and east would benefit, e.g.Radford Semele, Bishops Itchington, Lighthorne Heath & area towards and into Southam.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1156
Received: 18/08/2009
Respondent: Alice Jarrett
Green Belt should not be industrialized. Housing would be bad enough but 'employment' land would be criminal as Coventry already has sufficient.
This is the first example of "Warwick CC" doing their "Pontius Pilate" act of suggesting Kings Hill development "only to meet Coventry's needs". Who is therefore responsible. Warwick should be protecting that land.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1178
Received: 21/08/2009
Respondent: Barry Elliman
More use should be made of empty houses. Empty office blocks could be made inot apartments for low rent single or double persons - derelict industrial sites used first.