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

Support

Representation ID: 3965

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr John Archer

I think the Council has to keep a very close eye on how the CIL approach is developing. I think an option that watches how the approach develops and feeds in needs to whatever structure evolves as they are identified is the best way forward

Object

Representation ID: 3991

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M Abba

The infrastructure plan needs to be developed hand in hand with the core strategy. not as an after thought.

Support

Representation ID: 4087

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Yes

Object

Representation ID: 4141

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Andy Robb

Your preferred option is to develop an infrastructure plan. How can this be. You should have already developed a plan to provide the evidence for your preferred option. How can you dump 4000 houses onto land when you haven't properly considered its viability or how you will service it?

Object

Representation ID: 4152

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Woodland Trust

We would like to see this section of the Core Strategy include proper emphasis on green infrastructure as well as the 'grey' infrastructure usually considered.

Object

Representation ID: 4201

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

The existing infrastructure should be used throughout the district evenly, by developing throughout the district. The current proposal for development is ill-thought out as it does not consider the current state of schools, roads etc.

Object

Representation ID: 4269

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Kulwinder Fathers

Infrastructure i.e. water, roads and schools etc. are already overstretched in Whitnash, South Leamington, South Warwick, Heathcote & Bishops Tachbrook. This has not been considered in the proposed development within the core strategy.

Support

Representation ID: 4443

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

Support

Support

Representation ID: 4616

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

support

Support

Representation ID: 4714

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

Support

Object

Representation ID: 4836

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 4881

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

No IDF has been provided

Object

Representation ID: 4972

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

NO - The options are not confined to how contributions will be sought. There are also options (or should be) about what infrastructure will be needed especially in relation to the new development areas. Without the infrastructure Delivery Plan, it is impossible to reach a reasoned response to any of the proposed development areas and THIS IS A MAJOR WEAKNESS OF THE PREFERRED OPTION CONSULTATION.

Support

Representation ID: 5059

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5155

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 5254

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

object

Support

Representation ID: 5292

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

As noted in clause 11.13, there will need to be an on-going process to identify the necessary
improvements of infrastructure in line with the actual site developments in the district.

Object

Representation ID: 5352

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 5404

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

Infrastructure should be the priority, e.g. schools, playing fields, parks, children's areas etc. A road is also necessary to join the A46 with the expanded Warwick University.

Object

Representation ID: 5444

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

It is not practical to put off the infrastructure considerations and treat it as a parallel exercise. Each new Core Strategy Development must have the relevant associated infrastructure identified at the time. It may be necessary to defer the issue of funding it.

Comment

Representation ID: 5482

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Don't know. Preferred Option document is too vague

Support

Representation ID: 5536

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5581

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: George Martin

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5667

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5713

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Warren

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5776

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

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: 5859

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Gathering evidence is a bit late for Whitnash where roads, public transport and schools are already struggling.

Support

Representation ID: 5933

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6008

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

There is no information. How can the Council be proposing sites for development withou first determining that new infrastructure can be built or existing on can cope.

Support

Representation ID: 6035

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Support.