Object

Representation ID: 7179

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: C L Davis

Empty properties and places above shops could be used for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 7183

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: M R Jones

All empty buildings must be used before greenfield area is used.

Object

Representation ID: 7186

Received: 16/07/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs A Andrews

Why are the proposed developments always on the Whitnash side of Leamington. Have the authorities not heard of Cubbington side or Radford Semele etc, everything always seems to be over our side. I am sure there is plenty of land in other areas.

Object

Representation ID: 7203

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs B Thorne

WDC must use re-use developed land like Coventry airport. It makes sense to keep undeveloped land, undeveloped.

Object

Representation ID: 7215

Received: 28/10/2009

Respondent: D Willoughby

Don't give builders the easy option of building on green field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7225

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Stacey

Houses should be built where the public wants them and where proper facilities are in place or surveys carried out before any consultations or plans are drawn up.
Whitnash has already been 'sold' down the river with Warwick Gates, we do not want to be crushed further as well as crushing Bishops Tachbrook. Some serious re-thinking and planning needs to be done by all concerned.
I say no to any more housing.

Object

Representation ID: 7230

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: M Terry

Why was the land at Woodside Farm not on the option to build to start with but now it is? The Inspector did not think it should be built on. It should stay as an area of restraint.
Why is it down to be built on in Phase 1? The landowner said he would/may release it for Phase 2. We abide by the Inspector's decision.

Object

Representation ID: 7231

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: J Lloyd

Too much building going on in this area and farm land being taken.

Object

Representation ID: 7232

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Ms Pam Smart

Area in and around Leamington, Warwick, Whitnash major health problems especially chest i.e. asthma - increased traffic would/will make situation a lot worse.

Object

Representation ID: 7235

Received: 23/08/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

Feel that WDC/WCC could look at developing land near Cubbington, Stareton, Baginton to take in areas nearer to Coventry/Ryton etc. Why should we have to accommodate housing for Coventry! We will have no green field sites left here - it's already developed to 'over-kill'.

Object

Representation ID: 7236

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J E White

Want to point out that Whitnash and Warwick have taken full brunt of new housing and business sites. It is time for the north of Leamington, Cubbington, Lillington to have their fair share. I notice from the plans that nothing is planned for those areas. Rather unfair I think.

Object

Representation ID: 7242

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

The only people who will benefit will be developers and landowners who will line their pockets at the expense of the good people of Whitnash.

Object

Representation ID: 7244

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: K Smith

The only people who will benefit will be developers and landowners who will line their pockets at the expense of the good people of Whitnash.

Object

Representation ID: 7245

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: Ms Rose Harvey

Make good use of Fords site. A good many houses could be built on that area of land.

Object

Representation ID: 7247

Received: 18/11/2009

Respondent: Susan and Demi Lawrence

There are enough vacant empty houses that can be repaired and repossessed houses that will remain vacant for years so why spoil more countryside making more of a concrete jungle than we have already.
Our areas are full of derelict houses, re-use them or build somewhere else. If these areas become more full it won't be a nice place to live any more.

Object

Representation ID: 7251

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs U Conlon

Our green belt will never be able to be replaced so build on sites standing empty not take away natures beauty.

Object

Representation ID: 7253

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

Why always South Leamington to add housing to. There is plenty of land adjacent to Leicester Lane and Kenilworth Road, Lillington that has not been considered. Also the Northumberland Road and Milverton areas seem to have been too readily dismissed in favour of Whitnash.

Object

Representation ID: 7254

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: R W Jefkins

Whitnash and the surrounding areas have had more than their fair share of development over the last 20 years. Enough is enough! Our limits have already been reached.

Object

Representation ID: 7257

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs J M Dunkley

Developments should be earmarked for areas that are crying out for regeneration i.e. Station Approach etc. to overall improve the town. We have not to ignore the bad areas and carry on ruining the good areas i.e. the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 7261

Received: 22/08/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

Leamington/Warwick just look up at the empty flats above shops. why can't these be used. This would help the problem and also bring in money for the owners.

Object

Representation ID: 7265

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Lynne and Michael Gougeon

It would be far more beneficial to develop run down and brown field sites - enhancing this special town without causing any damage to the surrounding land.
We cannot afford to keep on building on green field sites, we need to maximise the potential of the land that has already been used.

Object

Representation ID: 7269

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: T Moreton

Proper utilisation of existing housing stock makes more sense. Isn't it about time our 'planners' realised you can't keep building out in our little land. the time has come to build up, but this time with quality.

Object

Representation ID: 7282

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: C M Copoon

House students on a university complex thus releasing thousands of homes on to the market for sale or to let.

Object

Representation ID: 7286

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: M Cullinane

There are many more places that could be utilised rather than leave them derelict and eyesores.

Object

Representation ID: 7288

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Turner

Please consider the rejuvenation of the old town in Leamington as that is surely in need of sensible re-development.

Comment

Representation ID: 7295

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Tim and Julie Freail

Why, when there are so many brownfield sites around, are these not being considered as a first point for placing new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 7305

Received: 30/11/2009

Respondent: Steven Davison

I can see no benefits whatsoever with this scheme. Why are you not considering brownfield sites, places like Coventry Airport, Fords disused factory or limit development to a small number of additional homes in several village/town locations. Cubbington, Radford Semele, Harbury, Lillington, Kenilworth, Southam etc. Its far too much for one area and the residents like myself who moved for an opportunity to live in a semi-rural setting have been lied to if this development is allowed to take place in its current form.

Object

Representation ID: 7308

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Tony Prescott

Refocus your energy on brownfield development and work to put a heart back into your communities.

Object

Representation ID: 7312

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: B Beauchamp

Upon looking in the local paper there are pages of houses already built for sale. I think we should use these instead of building more, so leaving our farm land for what it is supposed to be for, growing crops

Object

Representation ID: 7321

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: Mr G A Cox

A few new starter homes for people who have lived in the village all their lives is all that is needed in Bishops Tachbrook. Smaller developments spread around the county must be a better solution.