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

Support

Representation ID: 1962

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ferguson

support

Support

Representation ID: 2090

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Kerr

The existing concept of having 'Areas of Restraint' does ensure that through cocsideration is given before allowing any development to take place. In addition, if any area currently within an 'Area of Restraint' have any historical and ammenity value they should also be considered for becoming a 'Conservation Area'.

Object

Representation ID: 2197

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

The urban housing spread over recent years has already reduced significantly the open countryside between the towns of Warwick and Leamington and surrounding villages.

Object

Representation ID: 2347

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2459

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2475

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr D J Bradshaw

1D 1 E and 1C are Areas if Restraint these should not be lost as they provide a green brake between developments.

Support

Representation ID: 2505

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: British Waterways

BW would support the development of a SPD for the canal corridor in Warwick, which reconciles the multifunctional uses of the waterway.

Support

Representation ID: 2576

Received: 10/09/2009

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

Number of people: 2

Would support any proposals which protect the natural environment.

Support

Representation ID: 2654

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 2704

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

The areas of restraint are vital, especially along the river and between Leamington Spa and Radford Semele.

Object

Representation ID: 2769

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

As long as areas between Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash and 2 miles outside these towns are kept 'greenfield' where they currently are. I do not accept building on some greenfield areas on the edge of towns.

Object

Representation ID: 2812

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

If you over-develop this area you will spoli the natural environment. This is where your objectives are in conflict.

Object

Representation ID: 2856

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2895

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2949

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

More emphasis should be placed on maintaining, or even increasing, the areas of restraint.

This council particularly objects to the invasion of the established area of restraint south of Harbury Lane and furthermore believes that the wording in 17.13 is blatantly misleading in that it suggests that proposal is to provide an "additional area to prevent BT merging with the urban area" when in fact the area of restraint has in fact been significantly reduced

Object

Representation ID: 3007

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Leave nature alone before this planet is destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 3019

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Bill McCutchon

The loss of such a substantial amount of Green Belt and the closing of the gap between Coventry and Kenilworth, thus destroying the environment both for people living in Finham and Green Lane as well as people living in Kenilworth. The loss of wildlife habitat and fertile farmland.

Object

Representation ID: 3110

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

The present area of restraint between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook should be retained without any further encroachment.

Object

Representation ID: 3185

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

More emphasis should be placed on maintaining, or even increasing, the areas of restraint.

We STRONGLY and particularly object to the invasion of the established area of restraint south of Harbury Lane and furthermore believes that the wording in 17.13 is blatantly misleading in that it suggests that proposal is to provide an "additional area to prevent BT merging with the urban area" when in fact the area of restraint has in fact been significantly reduced

Object

Representation ID: 3296

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

As above 17a.

Object

Representation ID: 3351

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Object

Support

Representation ID: 3417

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Sounds a bit contradictory if building/housing is planned for the Thickthorn and Finham areas.

Object

Representation ID: 3466

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr P Dimanbro

It is essential to retain all green belt which has good agricultural soil for farming. We need to be more self sufficient.

Object

Representation ID: 3589

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

object

Object

Representation ID: 3682

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

object

Object

Representation ID: 3724

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

The Area of Restraint designation on Woodside Farm should remain. A new Area of Restraint should exist from Bishop's Tachbrook ALL the way to Harbury Lane. The Tach Brook should be considered as a Strategic River Corridor owing to both its bio-diversity and its historic role as a boundary (dating back pre-Norman time). Looking north across the Tach Brook from public footpath W105 shows how important this landscape is and the Council's Landscape Character Assessment has demonstrated this.

Support

Representation ID: 3766

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Support

Object

Representation ID: 4000

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M Abba

The councils current areas of restraint mean nothing, as they are being ignored to build more houses. Why do we need to change the current areas of retraint they seem quite adequate, if only the council would accept them as areas of 'restraint'

Comment

Representation ID: 4093

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

I agree there should be areas of restraint - and this should include the area to the south of coventry/north of Kenilworth to avoid the 2 merging into each other. Kenilworth is a unique historic town and should be a separate entity to Coventry.

Support

Representation ID: 4106

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

As much protection as can be provided must be provided.