Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new housing?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 2127

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 123

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

No.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 484

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 532

Received: 02/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Stratton

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 617

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Representation Summary:

Object.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 676

Received: 07/08/2009

Respondent: Anna Sampson

Representation Summary:

Do not agree

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 681

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Smith

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Needs investigation.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 749

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Green Belt is not reasonable.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 999

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Representation Summary:

But - the RSS figures are excessive and probably unachievable.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1076

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1105

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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.