Do you support or object to the preferred option for Infrastructure?

Support

Representation ID: 136

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Support

Support

Representation ID: 236

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

I would certainly support something that increased the number of railways stations in Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 277

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Inadequate detail.

Object

Representation ID: 371

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 372

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 447

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 499

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

What happened to the planned new primary school for the Warwick Gates estate? Did the developers renege on their agreement?

Support

Representation ID: 570

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 633

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 682

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Smith

Meaningless gobbledegook. Where are the options?

Object

Representation ID: 722

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 760

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Recognition should be given to the advantages of working with RSLs and a suitably flexible approach should be adopted towards S106 agreements.

Support

Representation ID: 793

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 861

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

How can there be an option when no one knows what it is based on?

Comment

Representation ID: 1006

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Not clear what it is!

Object

Representation ID: 1030

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Do't believe there is sufficient infrastructure to support growth. Roads are already busy.

Support

Representation ID: 1094

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 1133

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Developer money should be used on infrastructure directly related to the development concerned. This should be traceable and accountable. All too often the money goes into a black hole, and spend on infrastructure is neglected.

Support

Representation ID: 1193

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1251

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

How can a preferred option be put in place with insufficient consultation (WCC)? Infrastructure problems will have adverse impact on community.

Support

Representation ID: 1384

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

General support for this preferred option

Object

Representation ID: 1456

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Hugh Furber

Number of people: 2

We understand that the Government's policy is to allocate the dwelling numbers first, and then impose the infrastructure responsibilities on the
developers.This strategy is patently unsound. Unless the studies are carried out first, how is it possible to ascertain what numbers are appropriate for a
sustainable community? The consultation period should be extended, without penalty, for at least six months to allow these studies to be carried out.

Object

Representation ID: 1488

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kundi

Number of people: 2

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 1567

Received: 31/08/2009

Respondent: B.L.A.S.T.

11b Yes, yes, yes - developers must contribute to providing green spaces/allotments and, at ratios suggested by Cllr Goode, from the beginning, not at the end - five years later. If this is not the case developers must not be given permission to build.

Object

Representation ID: 1650

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: William Bethell

What options? Hospital availability. Presumably, Wallsgrove, Coventry etc when the WArwick District expands as proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 1702

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: J.G Whetstone

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1789

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Max Bacon

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 1845

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Val Hunnisett

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1884

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Helen Cheatham

Object

Object

Representation ID: 1950

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ferguson

There is no plan!