Object

Representation ID: 7326

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: L Burnell

Build on brown field sites and use empty houses in Leamington and district.

Object

Representation ID: 7337

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Jenny and Adrian Beran

Surely the Ford site close to the town centre would be better utilised as a site for the majority of the housing plus other brown field sites rather than building on green fields.

Object

Representation ID: 7342

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

Some additional housing in the district would be welcome though, around Bishops Tachbrook the 15 or so houses would be OK.
If things were left to go without the mass protests from the local people 'leafy Warwickshire' would become an asphalt jungle.

Object

Representation ID: 7343

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: B J Payne

Perhaps consider providing additional housing by building small scale developments onto each of the many villages in the county. The existing infrastructure might more readily cope with the increase in population this way.

Object

Representation ID: 7346

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: B W Sims

I have been a resident of Bishops Tachbrook for 40 years and strongly oppose any plan which will ruin our village community.
I doubt if HRH Prince Charles would welcome the fact that another English village would be ruined by this vast development.
We have had our fair share of extra housing development in recent years. No more green fiields need be covered over by concrete and tarmac!!

Object

Representation ID: 7348

Received: 06/09/2009

Respondent: A Gough

I personally would be devastated if this development went ahead, especially as I truly believe that the majority of true housing needs could be met by property that already stands empty! I strongly ask you to reconsider what would surely be the demise of a happy and successful village community.

Object

Representation ID: 7349

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: P A Lewis

As there is land available near to Finham, that should be considered before our village and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 7353

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: K Robertson

We came to Bishops Tachbrook 44 years ago to live a village life. We have seen it develop over those years into a composite and active community and we see the present proposals as a threat to living conditions and to the villages identity.
I disapprove of large developments, particularly in a rural environment and would sooner see smaller estates spread around the area with minimum impact on existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 7356

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs V C Rogers

Why aren't we looking at developing and converting empty sites eg.office blocks which have closed down, together with disused factories and turning them into accommodation if this is needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 7359

Received: 07/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Philip Batt

May I add that warwickshire County Council promised when the Saumur development was built that the new cycle track would be the permanent end of housebuilding in this area - specifically to preserve the green fields between Warwick and Leamington to give the two towns separate identities. That land is of course of very high quality for agricultural purposes - there must be other sites which will cause less damage to agriculture.

Object

Representation ID: 7365

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Julie Warden

We were not first on the preference list so why are we being targetted as a village?

Comment

Representation ID: 7367

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S and J Haigh

Why not add a few houses in each different area rather than all on one site?
Why not consider the site on Coventry Airport for building further houses?

Object

Representation ID: 7374

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Chris Green

7 original proposals but only one presented. Why not the most favoured option?

Object

Representation ID: 7380

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Freeman

Commercial Buildings land: Vast amounts of land designated for commercial property lying fallow. Any proposals must address waste of land by redesignating it for residential. Where necessary. compulsory purchase orders should be made.

Object

Representation ID: 7383

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Nicola Beasley

Only one proposal presented from 7 original plans including the favoured plan - why is this?

Support

Representation ID: 7409

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Agent: Holmes Antill

Support

Object

Representation ID: 7415

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr A Dobrovin - Pennington

Objection to the lack of dispersal of planned growth - growth is focussed entirely in the area south of Leamington. This area has already been developed significantly in recent years - options would result in over development of this area

Object

Representation ID: 7420

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust

Agent: Stansgate Planning

A suitable site is available at Glebe Farm, Cubbington which provides an opportunity to meet the housing needs in a sustinable manner without causing harm to the locality or its setting, or to the purposes of the Green Belt.

There are no known constraints to development and undesignated, other than the Green Belt designation. The site is sustainable, with schools, shops, employment opportunities and public transport links close by.

The site is one of the least constrained and would only have medium landscape impact.

The Core Strategy needs flexibility and no reason has been given for an allowance for windfalls.

Object

Representation ID: 7425

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: N Bliss

I wish to object to the overall plan to build 8,100 new homes in Warwick and specifically on the area of restraint, phase 1E on the 'Core Strategy Preferred Options' document Plan 5. There are many reasons why this should not go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 7429

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Delaney

Shocked and dismayed to the proposed development because of the existing traffic congestion on Myton Road at peak hours and the traffic congestion in Warwick town centre, where it is already difficult to park. The additional housing would exacerbate this problem. The area cannot accommodate without detrimenting from the attractive environment of both Warwick and Leamington Spa

Support

Representation ID: 7452

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Trilogy

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Focus must be on bringing forward higher density residential development on previously developed sites before greenfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7470

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hatton Estate

Agent: RPS Planning

Whilst we understand the Council's reasoning for only including housing sites that are urban or edge of urban, leaving housing development in the rural areas to be limited to meeting local needs, we are concerned with the somewhat sweeping approach to the issue of supporting local village services, suggesting that the scale of housing that may be needed to ensure viable village services may be significant and would probably conflict with wider transport and sustainability objectives in relation to reducing the need to travel. It is not the case that all rural locations are unsustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 7476

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club

Agent: Framptons

Support

Object

Representation ID: 7482

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J C Evans

They should be dispersed equitably throughout the district.

Object

Representation ID: 7485

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

If you are looking for areas to build on, Lillington is a good place to start. There are 3 blocks of nasty looking flats there that need knocking down. I'm sure you will easily get your quota there.

Object

Representation ID: 7492

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

Towns of Warwick and Leamington Spa have lots of brown field sites. Use these not green field. Advise the Councillors to tell the Government to look elsewhere and use brown field sites only.

Object

Representation ID: 7498

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupiers

Recent Bishops Tachbrook Housing Needs Survey indicated only 15 houses required. Do not need the proposed 4200 houses.
The additional 4200 houses located between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates would threaten the identity of Bishops Tachbrook as a village and if it became another suburb of Leamington, it would reduce the quality of life for the community of Warwick Gates.
Proposed large housing development would lack social cohesion resulting in anti social behaviour - there are poor public transport links to meet the needs of proposed 40% affordable homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 7512

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Government Office for the West Midlands

Reference should be made to a housing trajectory to illustrate the expected rate of delivery over this period.
A considerable proportion of supply is relying on windfalls. PPS3 makes clear that windfalls cannot be included within the first 10 years of supply unless evidence of local circumstances which prevent specific site being identified is provided. The approach to managing the release of land over the longer term and how land will be brought forward into the deliverable 5-year supply should also be set out.
Although there is an element of uncertainty about the provision of land to meet the needs of Coventry, by publication stage the Core Strategy must allow for the situation where it can meet the needs of Coventry if required.

Object

Representation ID: 7515

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Ashbourne

We do not understand the reason further homes are required in this area, when over recent years there have already been 2 major developments of housing in the area of South Farm and Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 7518

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Ashbourne

Woodside Farm was the subject of a Government Review some 2/3 years ago and the outcome was not to develop this land.