Do you support or object to the preferred option for the Natural Environment, particularly in respect of amendments to the Area of Restraint designation?

Comment

Representation ID: 98

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mr W C H Morris

The past attempt to vandalise Priory Park (stopped by a popular outcry and habitat destruction policies apparent on the Racecourse/common say more about the insesitivity of council policies than fine words in this declaration.

Object

Representation ID: 243

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

The 'Area of Restraint' should include the Green Belt land around Coventry, and this should be protected, and not have its environment destroyed by housing.

Object

Representation ID: 286

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Absolutely not as this would allow development West of Europa Way and South of Sydenham.

Object

Representation ID: 383

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 459

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 511

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 582

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 645

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 687

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Smith

Weasel words again. The preferred option is to disregard the council's own strategic objective when it suits them. How can green belt development fit with the startegic objective here?

Object

Representation ID: 734

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 805

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

I think further brownfield sites could be identified in order to protect greenbelt areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 875

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

Stop the building on green fields

Object

Representation ID: 936

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Too many new developments will ruin the rural feel of Warwick/Whitnash.

Support

Representation ID: 1018

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

In complete contradiction as regards proposals for Kings Hill!!

Object

Representation ID: 1040

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Believe Kings Hill should be preserved/

Support

Representation ID: 1144

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1206

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Object

Object

Representation ID: 1254

Received: 30/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.C. Allman

The proposed development will merely add to this problem and help destroy the last remaining green space in the area and any remaining rural appeal, quickly consuming the l village of Bishops Tachbrook into the ever-growing Warwick-Leamington conurbation. The plans refer to an "area of restraint" designed to avoid this. However, there is simply not enough distance between Bishops Tachbrook and Harbury Lane for this to be effective and it is merely a fudge to obtain planning permission rather than a significant effort to reduce the impact of the development.

Object

Representation ID: 1271

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

Woodside Farm was maintained as an Area of Restraint following an inquiry. This preferred option flies in the face of the findings from that inquiry. NB. Valuable agricultural land; steep elevation; poor access; adjoining recent dense development of Warwick Gates; ancient hedgerows and wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 1330

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

Nothing has changed with regards to Woodside Farm so it should stay as an area of restraint. Just because Bates wants to sell for development should not mean it should be allowed . Leave us alone! We have had ENOUGH building ruining our area. Warwick Gates is more than enough.

Object

Representation ID: 1411

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Kevin and Sylvia Burke

Number of people: 2

We treasure the green fields between the boundary of homes and the edge of Warwick Gates. So many new houses will destroy the rural life of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 1496

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kundi

Number of people: 2

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 1530

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

Protect areas of restraint, especially St Mary Lands in Warwick, which is 750 year old meadow grassland.

Support

Representation ID: 1581

Received: 31/08/2009

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

17b We believe that the concept of keeping a green gap between towns and villages is vital and must be maintained and in fact guaranteed against future development plans

Object

Representation ID: 1606

Received: 04/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Jim and Jennifer Lord

Even with a green buffer Bishops Tachbrook will become a suburb of Leamington. This green buffer in turn may be eroded as it may be seen as too great a temptation and BT will lose it's identity.

Object

Representation ID: 1618

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Cowden

The Area of Restraint designation is not long enough (until 2026) and no houses should be build within this gap.

Object

Representation ID: 1663

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: William Bethell

Strongly object. What will be left to use in terms of fresh aire, fields between areas of communities, etc.

Object

Representation ID: 1716

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: J.G Whetstone

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 1863

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Val Hunnisett

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 1899

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Helen Cheatham

Not enough information.