Object

Representation ID: 4126

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Andy Robb

It is naive to suggest that to place additional employment premises and housing in the same small area would mean the employees for the new work would mainly or exclusively come from the new housing. If current housing and employment in Leamington and Warwick is balanced, to use that premise would mean we would have no mass commute either into or out of the area currently. This is not the case and there is no reason to believe it would be the case in the future.

4000 new homes is potentially 10,000 more cars on the already congested roads every day

Support

Representation ID: 4172

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire Rural Community Council

WRCC would support the commitment to enabling development "within & adjoining villages and hamlets" as vital to the maintenance of thriving and sustainable communities in rural areas and being necessary for the delivery of organic growth. WRCC also would support the proposals for the development within Kenilworth to create a better balance to the community there.

Object

Representation ID: 4188

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

I believe a new eco town should be re-considered. More growth should be considered for Kenilworth, due to the pending railway station.
Given that there is an employment imbalance, the additional land for required for employment opportunities both technical & industrial should be earmarked for Kenilworth rather than Whitnash, Bishops Tachbrook, Leamingon spa or south Warwick.
House building needs to be shared more evenly within the district and the urban fringe south of Coventry or in Baginton should be used to provide additional housing or employment opportunities, prior to building to the south of Wawrwick District

Object

Representation ID: 4223

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Aldi Stores Ltd

Agent: WYG Planning & Design

In the light of the findings of the Council's Retail and Leisure Study the aim of focussing all of the identified need for major retail development within and adjoining Leamington Town Centre is not likely to be possible. Subject to complance with PPS6, scope should be provided for appropriate retail development in locations outside existing centres in order to meet identified needs.

Object

Representation ID: 4226

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

I believe a new eco town should be re-considered
More of the additional growth should be in Kenilworth (pending railway station).
Given that there is an employment imbalance, the additional land for required for employment opportunities both technical & industrial should be earmarked for Kenilworth rather than Whitnash, Bishops Tachbrook, Leamingon spa or south Warwick.
The urban fringe south of Coventry or in Baginton could be used to provide additional housing or employment opportunities

Object

Representation ID: 4230

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Kulwinder Fathers

More growth should be in Kenilworth, as a new railway station is being built.
More land for employment opportunities should be in Kenilworth, North Leamington and North Warwick.
Land to the south of Coventry in Finham or at Baginton airport could be used for housing or employment development

Object

Representation ID: 4233

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ashley Ball

I object to the "new development within the urban fringe adjacent to the built-up area of Coventry". This appears to contradict previous statements relating to protection of the Green Belt and maintaining the open countryside between Kenilworth and Coventry. With the proposed expansion of the University of Warwick to the north west and the potential development of Kings Hill to the north east of Crackley, the developments themselves and associated infrastructure will inevitably impact adversely upon the area.

Beyond this, I am in general agreement with the Preferred Growth Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 4315

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor E Wood

Object to:
Vision, strategy and strategic objectives are all poorly conceived and do not stand up to scrutiny.

Object

Representation ID: 4348

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: A Picken

A better growth strategy would be either build a completely new community for the total building requirement( including appropriate facilities) or redeveloped an area with inherent facilities such as Hatton.

Object

Representation ID: 4370

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Kirby

Radical rethink inevitable and prudent.

Object

Representation ID: 4507

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

Area to East of Kenilworth is Green Belt - otherwise largely agree.

Support

Representation ID: 4577

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

But would prefer any growth to come community demand rather than central government instruction.

Comment

Representation ID: 4649

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

Growth strategy sounds ok, but concerns are that it is part of West Midlands Spatial Strategy 'mutually supportive' Warwick District to grow but also West Midlands (Coventry Solihull etc will have plans also).

Object

Representation ID: 4692

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Prof Maurice Shutler

Opposed to Strategy:
Being imposed on us by govt. instead of being designed by local people to meet local needs.

Object

Representation ID: 4783

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: richard keylock

At some stage, sooner rather than later, I would suggest growth needs to be curtailed or even halted to ensure our current infrastructure and energy supplies can sustain the existing needs. We cannot keep expanding with new developments if we are serious about sustainable energy consumption and tackling climate change

Object

Representation ID: 4801

Received: 18/10/2009

Respondent: Ian Frost

No The Council should stick to its aims particularly those stated in para 9.11 and para 9.13 of the District Local Plan 1996 - 2011. It should follow the Govt policy acknowledged in para 9.12.
This means protecring areas of restraint 'which 'preserve open wedges that separate particular elements of the urban form' eg the Europa way land which uniquely provides an open corridor between the south Leamington urban mass and south Warwick.

Support

Representation ID: 4820

Received: 07/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

Qualified Yes - It is impossilbe to give a reasoned response without knowing the robustness of the strategy in the future. eg beyond 2026 or before if Govt imposes another 10,000 homes etc What are energy implications etc?

Object

Representation ID: 4824

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

Once again there is no case we have huge amounts of unused industrial land for development for both homes and industry in Warwickshire

Object

Representation ID: 4850

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

Consultation on the options resulted in top preference being for growth on the southern flank of Coventry - infrastructure, university, rail links etc already in place. Second priority should be developing brown field sites in urban area - only 16 indicated. Major push to develop at airport, former Ryton car works, Stoneleigh centre.

Support

Representation ID: 5021

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

I find the figures used as the basis of this strategy unconvincing.

Object

Representation ID: 5070

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Keylock

At some stage, sooner rather than later, I would suggest growth needs to be curtailed or even halted to ensure our current infrastructure and energy supplies can sustain the existing needs. We cannot keep expanding with new developments if we are serious about sustainable energy consumption and tackling climate change

Object

Representation ID: 5096

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

Complete loss of identity. Major traffic problems. Green Belt should never be built on.

Object

Representation ID: 5112

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

Development should not be allowed in green spaces. The areas around Warwick have already very poor roads, schools and services. Adding the infrastructure required and maintaining it would (undoubtedly) be an incremental burden to existing residents. The infrastructure levy is only a short term contribution and the proposed housing mix would be a net drain on Council budgets. There are already too many houses in the proposed areas and brown field /deprived areas requiring rejuvenation to justify new development.

Object

Representation ID: 5186

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sonia Owczarek

NO DO NOT AGREE - Due to Inappropriate use of and building/development on GREEN BELT LAND!

Support

Representation ID: 5260

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

The second bullet point in Clause 3.14 appears to agree with my assertion above that emphasis on
development in Kenilworth should be on employment opportunities rather than housing and is to be
applauded

Object

Representation ID: 5323

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

The PGS does not fulfill the emerging S&SRS as there is little development focus on the Coventry / Leamington & Warwick corridor. Insufficient focus has been placed on utilizing small brownfield sites. Valuable and rich arable land and rural identities will be permanently lost.

Object

Representation ID: 5374

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 5426

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

I find §3.3-3.13 impossible to read - see end of document. I would also add clauses about infrastructure, education (general inclusive sense), recreation/sports to what is there.

Support

Representation ID: 5464

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Disagree with the statement in para. 1 of the Preferred Options "If required to meet Coventry's employment land requirements, land south of Green Lane, Kings Hill, Finham."

Object

Representation ID: 5561

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

I do not agree that building is needed at all in Kenilworth as there is a current imbalance of workers to jobs in the town, which will not improve dramatically. I do not see what additional work locations can be created. Manufacturing is declining fast, we have many existing service industries in the region and it is hard to think how jobs can be significantly increased. Any new employment locations are likely to be south of Warwick district with good connections to the M40. If in Kenilworth why not expand Princes Drive to keep together.