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

Support

Representation ID: 6085

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6137

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard and Judy Swallow

Number of people: 2

Object

Object

Representation ID: 6212

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Support

Representation ID: 6273

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

support

Support

Representation ID: 6275

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

support

Object

Representation ID: 6356

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 6453

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

But no IDF has been provided!

Object

Representation ID: 6482

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: David Shaddick

Another argument is that infrastructure can be provided more efficiently on one massive development. This ignores the overloading of exisiting facilities such as road access and river crossing and Warwick Hospital.

No traffic study has been done, and no proposals yet exist as to the provision of facilities for healthcare, education or recreation.


As Warwick Gates has shown, a large scale development gives rise to increased traffic, exacerbated by the lack of school and other facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 6560

Received: 03/11/2009

Respondent: Mrs Anita Coldman

There is alreay traffic congestion along Glasshouse/Birches Lane. Access to new development should not be located off Glasshouse /Birches Lane as it would cause accidents and be dangerous for children and cyclists.

Object

Representation ID: 6573

Received: 03/11/2009

Respondent: Simon Wood

Concerned about existing water supply will cope with new housing to the south of Leamington Spa.
Concerned that brownfield sites should be used first and that if greenfield sites are required, the development should be small scale so that it does place undue pressure on existing infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 6737

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Object

Representation ID: 6954

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

There is insufficient detail in this Preferred Options Paper for us to consider it as a „Preferred Option‟ so we object.

Support

Representation ID: 7010

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported providing the money is ring fenced and not as in other cases, leaked off by Government or Local/regional authorities, either directly or by reducing grants. A tax by any other name?

Object

Representation ID: 7153

Received: 11/11/2009

Respondent: Don Anderson

Concern that the rate of growth will have a detrimental impact on infrastructure particularly schools.

Support

Representation ID: 7393

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Europa Way Consortium

Agent: Entec UK Ltd

The Consortium supports the development of an infrastructure delivery plan but would not want to see the delivery of Phase 1 strategic sites inhibited whilst this is being prepared.

Comment

Representation ID: 7436

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & William Davies Ltd

Agent: Stoneleigh Planning

It would have been helpful at this stage in the consultations on the strategy if the broad infrastructure requirements for the development of the strategic sites (and the alternatives to them) were outlined to enable comparisons to be made and assessments about delivery and developability.

The Draft Core Strategy must embrace these principles and show how the choices relate to the specific infrastructure requirements (and costs) for sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7583

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Support

Representation ID: 7649

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

Provided it adequately supports, reflects need, the correct sites and economic viability.

Object

Representation ID: 7727

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

There is insufficient detail in the Preferred Options Paper for consideration. However, it is poor planning policy to expand residential of the district by 20% without simultaneously including the infrastructure needs, properly thought through as to level of requirements and integrating it with the residential development so that it happens and is available when occupation begins.

Comment

Representation ID: 33625

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

Reserve the right to comment when further details/proposals are made available.

Support

Representation ID: 33681

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr T Steele

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

Support

Support

Representation ID: 33767

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Shirley Estates

Agent: Davis Planning Partnership

Support