(i) Land at Former Ford Foundry, Leamington

Support

Representation ID: 5811

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Alison Cox

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5845

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5890

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C G Price

Extra housing would again lead to more traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 5916

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5994

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 6070

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 6125

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard and Judy Swallow

Number of people: 2

Subject in all cases to a planning application in some form being presented and considered, out 'reactive' reponse to this and option it: this one OK

Object

Representation ID: 6186

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Support

Representation ID: 6314

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Cheatle

The site is an eyesore and can only improve either by housing or preferably 'green' area.

Support

Representation ID: 6342

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 6387

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ed & Zoe Rycroft

Number of people: 2

The site would be much better if it was re- developed.

Support

Representation ID: 6440

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

But should provide more than 225 homes.

Object

Representation ID: 6523

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Neil Chisholm

Why only 75 dwellings? Site could take a greater level of housing.

Support

Representation ID: 6567

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs J C Honnoraty

1A and 1B would create traffic problems but preferable to area 1E, 1F, 2F and 3F, all of which would have the problem of accessing the north of Warwick and Leamington Spa by one of only two bridges across the Avon.

Support

Representation ID: 6692

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Comment

Representation ID: 6713

Received: 05/11/2009

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

Land at Former Ford Foundry, Leamington:
We have no objection in principle to this allocation, provided that the foundry site is assessed in respect of its significance in terms of industrial archaeology, and appropriate recording undertaken in advance of site clearance.

Comment

Representation ID: 6765

Received: 06/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Commissioning, Planning & Partnerships Service, Children, Young People & Families]

The nearest primary school is Kingsway Primary School which is forecast to have no surplus reception places beyond 2010 when this site is developed. The development would require 15 primary school places, and could be provided through the expansion of an existing school.

Early Years provision will also be required, totalling 2 fte places.

The development is forecast to generate 11 secondary school places. A further, 3 post 16 places will also be required.

Support

Representation ID: 6866

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Binswood Allotment Society

support

Comment

Representation ID: 6937

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land at Former Ford Foundry & Land at Station Approach
The Parish Council‟s independent analysis shows that this site L08 should be linked with L28 & L35 to give a comprehensive development site. By amending the ratio of housing to other uses from 20%:80% to a mixed use of 65% residential, 20% office based employment & 15% recreational, with an average dph of 50, the number of homes could increase from 225 to 350.

Support

Representation ID: 6996

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported

Support

Representation ID: 7453

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Trilogy

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Support as part of mixed use development, but question the appropriateness of identifying non strategic sites in the Core Strategy.

Support

Representation ID: 7555

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

support

Object

Representation ID: 7637

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

In terms of land allocations, we do feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the wider regional picture and that too much details is provided on the strategic sites. We feel that there are other more suitable sites available and that at this stage the plan should be more general in terms of its direction for growth without site specific details being put forward. If these are not deliverable, as we understand has yet to be proved, then the plan may generally not be deliverable and sustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 7707

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

This site, L08, should be linked with L28 & L35 to give a comprehensive development site. By amending the ratio of housing to other uses from 20%:80% to a mixed use of 65% residential, 20% office based employment & 15% recreational, with an average dph of 50, the number of homes could increase from 225 to 350.

Object

Representation ID: 33578

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Revelan Group

Agent: Harris Lamb

It is premature to allocate land for development until a comparative site assessment is undertaken based on a robust evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 33649

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: A C Lloyd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Do not consider this site will come forward for development before 2016 due to little developer interest and given the number of constraints on site.

Object

Representation ID: 33665

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Do not consider this site will be delivered before 2016 due to little developer interest and the number of constraints to this brownfield site.

Comment

Representation ID: 33871

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Environment Agency

The site lies adjacent to Flood Zones 2 & 3. The proposed redevelopment of the site must not encroach into the flood zones.

Support

Representation ID: 33923

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Supports location