Object

Representation ID: 3215

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: mrs stella moore

Do not agree that it is at all desirable to develop in the greenbelt adjoining kenilworth. It needs to be kept apart and distinct from coventry and leam.

Object

Representation ID: 3249

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Julian Humphreys

Fails to put housing where intended by the government white paper in rural areas where it is needed. WDC needs to take A much larger proportion of the sub region's target and distribute it around its vast County, not dump it all between Leamington and Coventry, which currently doesn't have the capacity to accommodate it's own target anyway, and can only mean building on Warwickshire's green belt land. The result would be the one thing Warwickshire residents want least to happen, which is that all the towns and villages around Leamington and Kenilworth will become suburbs of Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 3252

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

Warwick District is large enough.

Object

Representation ID: 3253

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

As above (3a and b)

Object

Representation ID: 3305

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Bernard Hollis

I do not agree it is necessary to build so many houses and I do not want more houses built south of the river. WARWICK Parkway and Kenilworth should be the first choice

Support

Representation ID: 3306

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Caroline Martin

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3337

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3378

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3436

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr P Dimanbro

Population growth not accepted. Many east Europeans are returning home. Birth control strategies are expected to reduce UK population.

Object

Representation ID: 3469

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

The 'agreed' allocation for Coventry is way beyond the needs of the city.

Object

Representation ID: 3498

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor E Wood

The strategy and vision has been ill conceived without adequate information available for anyone to make informed decisions.

Object

Representation ID: 3508

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3512

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Simon Harris

The proposals note:
"However, any population growth must be matched by growth in jobs and infrastructure in order to maintain the careful balance between jobs and workers, and thus avoid encouraging out-commuting for work. "
But there has been no work undertaken to ensure the preferred option can cope with the strain such developments will put on the already strained infrastructure. Surely it makes more sense to spread the developments more evenly throughout the region, rather than concentrate them in such a small area.

Object

Representation ID: 3514

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: David Wood

In summary.
The vision / strategy for continued economic growth has no democratic mandate - the reponses to the initial consultations did not ask for it.
I believe economic growth is not in the long term best interests of the residents of Warwick District.
Urban growth. If it has to happen, then it should not be planned on a more of the same basis. High density housing, employment development on brownfield sites and no development on green field sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 3601

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Sport England

Sport has proven to be a major factor in regeneration and economic growth. The use of the natural features within the district, including green belt should be encouraged where appropriate

Object

Representation ID: 3627

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Donald Gregson

Consider:
Postponement of consultation deadline by 6 months to allow review. New consultation period to be advised.
Legal challenge to govt's housing figures on grounds of superior local knowledge.
Provide rationale for each option considered at 'options' stage.
Allocate Finham for Warwick's need.

Object

Representation ID: 3636

Received: 15/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Growth strategy should be strictly limited and wholly dependent on the ability of our towns to deal with the resultant traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 3656

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

Unless there are increased employment opportunities within Coventry the proposed expansion in housing will fail to meet the aspirations of the strategy. There is sufficient brownfeld sites that could be developed.

Object

Representation ID: 3685

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

The growth strategy does not conform to the results of the Options stage Public Consultation. The southern fringe of Coventry should be top of the list owing to its proximity for the university and the facilities of a city.

Object

Representation ID: 3827

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

You are actively going against ALL advice about sustainability including your own. You admit this option is not as sustainable as balancing the growth between the four towns. The key word here is BALANCING.

If you add another 4000 homes alongside Warwick Gates you ARE creating a new town (over 5000 homes). However you would not be obliged to provide new shops, services, community facilities, infrastructure, health services, schooling.

You have no clear reasons for fixating on this location. How can this minimise journeys through the historic town centres when you state that is where the majority of OFFICES will be!

Object

Representation ID: 3843

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

I object strongly

Object

Representation ID: 3900

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Kim Matthews

Focussing development on the larger towns is clearly desirable, provided there are more than enough jobs located in the towns for those living there already. Expansion of Kenilworth, as identified in paragraph 3.10, is illogical and undesirable. It will undermine environmental and community sustainability because it will inevitably locate people away from their employment. The areas of Kenilworth identified for development are not logical from an access/transport perspective. Development on the urban fringe of Coventry woudl be far more sustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 3940

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr John Archer

I support the preferred growth stategy as it is important that we meet the housing and employment needs of the District over the next 20 years

Object

Representation ID: 3975

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: MR ROBERT DONNELLY

LOSS OF FIELDS
DO WE NEED THOUSANDS OF NEW HOUSES?. NO
WHERE WILL THE WORK COME FROM?
MEDEIVAL HISTORY WOULD BE LOST
TRAFFIC WOULD TRIPLE
CLOGGED ROADS.
CO POLLUTON

Support

Representation ID: 4005

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

With hope that controls on development of open spaces will be rigorous and demand only met.

Comment

Representation ID: 4010

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Separation of Coventry/Kenilworth vital; recent attempts to attract commercial developmentto Kenilworth failed.

Support

Representation ID: 4011

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Figures for actual needed growth hard to verify - demographics almost certain to change.

Support

Representation ID: 4012

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

If figures or required growth prove accurate

Object

Representation ID: 4014

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

I am commenting specifically on the areas to the south and east of Kenilworth and to the south of Coventry. The growth to the south and east of Kenilworth I feel is to be supported. It is close to good road links for employment etc. and will still leave 'space' between Kenilworth and Coventry.
I object to building of 5000 houses to the south of Coventry. This level of growth is too great and contradicts a core principal of 'avoiding incursion into West Midlands GB.Building to the south of Coventry has the same result as buildingto the north of Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 4060

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Jerry Woodhouse

There are very few jobs in Kenilworth and road links to Leamington are very busy. It makes no sense to develop at the A46 roundabout and along Glasshouse Lane. This is already a congested area particularly at peak times. It also means reducing land between coventry and kenilworth and making 1 urban sprawl, undesirable and in conflict with the councils vision.