Object

Representation ID: 5563

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: George Martin

The strategy should be predicated on taking a leadership role in the development of WDC as a low carbon community. In addition the existing green belt should be protected as being sacrosanct.
The strategy should be predicated on taking a leadership role in the development of WDC as a low carbon community. In addition the existing green belt should be protected as being sacrosanct.

Object

Representation ID: 5614

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Val Pestell

I would like to object to the overall plan for building 8100 new homes in the Warwick District and in particular the plans for the proposed development of land south of Warwick (1E, 1F, 2F, 3F and 1D)
If you follow CABE Guidance it is against building large number of houses in any one place and again advise this is not sustainable and is against all the research in global warming and the environment.
It also states quite clearly it is not advisable to build on flood plains but the councils preferred options are definitely on a flood plain.

Object

Representation ID: 5622

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: John Turner

I object to the direction of more than 40% of Warwick District's housing allocation to green field sites at land west of Europa Way (formerly Area of Restraint) and land at Lower Heathcote Farm.

The traffic generated by the half built development at south west Warwick has already led to unacceptable levels of congestion and pollution in Warwick town centre, the effect of a further 4,000 dwellings, without drastic infrastructure provision, will be to make conditions even worse, to the detriment of the historic built environment and to the well being of residents and visitors.

Object

Representation ID: 5626

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Linda Cobble

If people migrate from nearby urban areas to Warwick district , it leaves empty property in that area. The population moves around fairly fluidly and doesn't necessarily require housing close to places of work.
Adding more housing to the South of Warwick will only add to traffic problems travelling north.
Concern over the loss of habitat and farming land and water run off from buildings.

Support

Representation ID: 5641

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

Provided that new housing development is geared to real need , proper emphasis on social housing , provision of appropriate infrastructure and and strict control of development within the open countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 5687

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Warren

Especially the emphasis on protecting the 'most important areas of green belt' separating Kenilworth and Coventy.

Support

Representation ID: 5741

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: G.F Moreton & Sons

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5746

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

The vision needs to encompass the country's future needs for self-sufficiency and food production with in particular the ratio of garden land, including allotments, to house building being greater in favour of growing land.

Object

Representation ID: 5802

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Alison Cox

Public consultation has been disregarded in focussing growth on south Leamington / Warwick area.

Object

Representation ID: 5836

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Whitnash used to be a village but has had so much housing built that it is now a town, in numbers only NOT facilities. Already there are not enough school places and jobs are hard to find. The public transport is struggling and the roads are congested for roads users and pedestrians alike. Also why does Warwick District have to take some of Coventry's housing allocation!

Object

Representation ID: 5871

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C G Price

Object

Object

Representation ID: 5873

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C G Price

Object

Object

Representation ID: 5895

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

Especially in rural settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 5955

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Object

Representation ID: 5956

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Object

Representation ID: 5978

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

There should be more regeneration and use of brownfield sites. The concentration of development in the south Warwick area is too great for the infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 6018

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6060

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 6238

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

Agreed

Object

Representation ID: 6299

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Cheatle

Not if it means losing the little 'green' area we have - possibly could go further out so leaving this and proposed growth strategy with some 'green' area. Use places like the Peugeot site so not using more green area.

Object

Representation ID: 6321

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Totally Excessive.

Object

Representation ID: 6380

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Jessamine

Where will the people work? It is unlikely industries such as Ford Lockheed will ever operate again in this area.

I believe a legal challenge should be made as in other parts of the Country. This would delay the proposed developments and give time for a more considered approach to development in South Warwickshire.

Object

Representation ID: 6400

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. A. Burrows

The proposed concentration and density of development in the South Leamington and Warwick area is too great in an area alraedy struggling with severe infrastructure and traffic problems.

Employment opportunities and infrastructure must be provided first.

The Core stategy seems to be in direct contradiction to Government policy on sustainable development i.e.increased urbanisation and greatly increased use of materials.

No demonstrable account between environmental, social and economic changes and how these will evolve.

Questionable figures for housing development and should be challenged.

Object

Representation ID: 6406

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Robin Green

As the King's Hill area is anyway indicated as a last resort location I would suggest that this need is met through an appropriate density of dwellings in the areas around Leamington and Warwick, where they will be needed.

Support

Representation ID: 6411

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Andrew and Yvonne Kennedy

Number of people: 2

We support the District's Plan for increasing the housing stock.

We realise that much work is still to be done to plan for the infrastructure needed.

This area, too often, focuses on its past rather than its future. Employment and retail sectors have changed and are in competition with neighbouring settlements.

We are ideally located as aresidential area providing services to support a larger population, increasing the income and wealth of the district.

Object

Representation ID: 6413

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Sarah Wood

Concerned with the amount of building and timing that is to take place on greenfield sites.

Concerned about the congestion that will be created by adding so many houses to the South of Warwick and Leamington.

The core strategy will change the character of the area moving from a mixed town/village to one large urban sprawl.

Use of brownfield sites hould be the top priority.
Core Strategy should take account of traffic movements and focus any building to the north ro reduced congestion and pollution, since this is the area towards which a large majority of local people seem to commute.

Object

Representation ID: 6424

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Evans

A sense of balance should be used in allocaing on a more even basis on the fields surrounding Kenilworth. This would spread the load over a wider infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 6479

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: John Humphreys

This damaging and misguided plan is driven by flawed logic based on projections which must be reconsidered in the light of current economic conditions.

These actions contradict many others being taken to protect the environment and climate.

Each increase in housing will necessitate corresponding increases in facilities which are already stretched to the limit.

There are already large numbers of empty and under used housing areas which will add to the number available.

There will be less availability in the jobs market which will reduce pressure on housing.

This plan will prove unwarranted. Save our lovely countryside!

Object

Representation ID: 6481

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: David Shaddick

Part of the justification for this seems to be put houses where the jobs will be to reduce commuting across Warwick and Leamington, but there is no evidence to suggest that people want to live close their place of work.

Little consideration has been given to any other strategy, for example infilling on small sites, using land earmarked for undustrial/commerical use for housing, small scale development in existing villages or building new villages.

Object

Representation ID: 6522

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Neil Chisholm

Putting nearly all the houses in one area will put a strain on resources.
By putting all the major developments along the M40 link road into Leamington Spa it is only going to increase the traffic flow along a road which is already congested at peak times.

As the schools in the area are already oversubscribed at least on new school will have to be built. Currently the infrastructure cannot cope with additional homes in the one area.
It is better to spread the load.
It is questionable whether there is a need for as many houses as proposed.