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

Object

Representation ID: 2059

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

no - more research and consultation needed

Support

Representation ID: 2077

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Kerr

The conclusion seems sensible and allows for adaptation in the light of changing circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 2294

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

It is quite clear that without a new schools building programme in the proposed development area, getting children to and from school would add a further great increase in traffic congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 2409

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

No.

Object

Representation ID: 2447

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 2497

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: British Waterways

Support

Object

Representation ID: 2564

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson

Number of people: 2

KENILWORTH - Warwick Road through Kenilworth town centre is a very busy road (A452). Birches Lane/Glasshouse Lane is already a bottleneck during peak times. The addition of 800 houses (c.1200 additional cars) would be totally unsupportable and environmentally damaging.

Support

Representation ID: 2642

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 2692

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

Keeping to 60% brownfield highly desirable.

Support

Representation ID: 2757

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

As long as developers contribute to the costs of providing more facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 2801

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2845

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2884

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2944

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

Infrastructure information was needed to make a properly informed decision on options.

Comment

Representation ID: 2957

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Golf Club

Concern is for increased traffic use of Crewe lane, that is sub satandard in width and alignment. In absence of infrastructure plans to cope with the proposed Thickthorn development it is not possible to assess the implications of the prposed option. An infrastructure plan will therefore be needed that is exposed to public scrutiny.

Object

Representation ID: 2958

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Chris Andrews

1) Kenilworth's current Secondary School is large.
2) A further large development in Kenilworth without a clearly defined plan for Secondary Schooling in the area is not acceptable.
3) An enlargement of the current school would result a single school of such size as to be out of charachter with a town of its size.

Any development in Kenilworth should be conditional on suitable and appropriate growth in the provision of secondary education which reflects the towns character. This would ideally be achieved by having 2 Secondary Schools in Kenilworth of similar rather than the provision of 1 monster-sized secondary school.

Object

Representation ID: 2995

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Cannot/ will not maintain existing highways let alone develop a new ones - someone needs to view existing traffic problems in Green Lane plus its tributaries - absolute chaos at (schools ) (2) start and finish

Object

Representation ID: 3099

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3178

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3179

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

Infrastructure information was needed to make a properly informed decision on options.

Support

Representation ID: 3283

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

I support it.

Support

Representation ID: 3332

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

upport

Object

Representation ID: 3374

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

You need to consider the 2500 dwellings around a new railway station like somewhere Kenilworth, Milverton or Harbury, but with enough new train capacity to cope with demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 3406

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Would developers pass the CIL to the cost of the building/house?

Object

Representation ID: 3485

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

Kings Hill Lane should not be considered by Warwick as part of the Coventry allocation which is too large.
The roads area congested at present and to create new roads would destroy the environment.

Support

Representation ID: 3607

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Sport England

subject to having robust evidence

Object

Representation ID: 3677

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

King's Hill/Green Lane/A45 -roads inadequate.

Developments should be around railway stations/ links.

Object

Representation ID: 3714

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

I can hardly support a plan for infrastructure that hasn't been published!

Comment

Representation ID: 3751

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3910

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

"will prepare an infrastructure delivery plan alongside the draft Core Strategy to show what is required and how and when it will be delivered."

The above is your preferred option - why?
This is saying 'we will define the infrastructure after the core strategy' Yet you CANNOT define your core strategy WITHOUT the infrastructure plan being there first.

How were you able to confidently produce a 'preferred option' without knowing in detail the infrastructure plan?
This is completely unworkable - this must be reviewed and must follow best practice guidelines from PAS and CABE.