Object

Representation ID: 7258

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs J M Dunkley

We have not to ignore the bad areas and carry on ruining the good areas i.e. the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 7267

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul E Smith

I am particularly concerned at the proposal to extend construction on the green belt land south of Sydenham, east of Whitnash. This area has been continually extended ruining this beautiful greenfield area. Any further development in this area will virtually end any separation at all between Whitnash and Radford - a deplorable situation. This development must stop now!

Object

Representation ID: 7277

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: R Harris

I thought that green belt land is farm land only, end of. So why are we even having this debate.
Last week on the news highlighted the imminent world shortage of food and that we should dig up our gardens and start growing vegetables. Even more reason why we should keep what farm land we have left and stop the erosion of our countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 7281

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: C M Copoon

Stop spoiling our green and pleasant land and let us retain our villages.

Object

Representation ID: 7289

Received: 25/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul Newton

I do not want any housing built on green belt land our lovely village (town) is being ruined.

Object

Representation ID: 7294

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Husson

Strongly object to use of farm land and green belt. Farm land should be used to feed our growing population. We should be encouraged to farm locally rather than depend on imports. How are we going to maintain/sustain enough food and farmland if we pay our farmers for their land.

Object

Representation ID: 7299

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: J J Humphries

I live in Whitnash. I consider that one of the most important things this country has to do is grow more of its own food. It is madness to use good quality farmland to build houses - or indeed to plant trees or construct golf courses or parkland, all of which we have plenty of in this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 7301

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: J Dobson

Serious concerns to the welfare of wildlife and have seen and heard short ear owls over the proposed site for development on Whitnash. I have also been priviledged in seeing a Hobby on Warwick Gates, Buzzards and other (not so common) garden birds which further building developments would have a devastating effect on. While appreciating the need for houses to be built, it would be inconsiderate for the over-whelming number of houses to be erected in such limited space. I hope the concerns of many will not fall on deaf ears and our concerns are heard.

Object

Representation ID: 7313

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

Comment

Representation ID: 7331

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

During a Prime Ministers question time Gordon Brown stated a Labour government has pledged not to touch the green belt'!

Object

Representation ID: 7333

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R W Sleigh

If you permit housing south of Harbury Lane, the area of land between the development and Bishops Tachbrook could well become too small to support viable agriculture. From then on the only course of action would be to develop it and Bishops Tachbrook would get swallowed up in a new town style urban sprawl.
It is an outrage that anything like this could be allowed!

Object

Representation ID: 7355

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs V C Rogers

We should be maintaining our farmland so that we have food security. We should be importing less foodstuff and growing more as we did in the past.

Object

Representation ID: 7362

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

The volume of development proposed for Warwick District as a whole, 8,000 houses, is a threat to the environment and quality of life of its residents. More so since a substantial part of it infringes Green Belt areas.

Object

Representation ID: 7364

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: G R Stephens

There is enough places in town you could build on with out taking our fields, which we need for food in the future.

Object

Representation ID: 7366

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Julie Warden

I am worried about health implications e.g. levels of asthma rising due to lack of green fields, trees etc. The M40 has given us a dramatic rise in cases with the extra pollution, car fumes etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 7368

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: J M Ward

All the empty buildings and factory sites should be used before thinking of using Green space.

Object

Representation ID: 7375

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Freeman

Wildlife: Increasing size of sprawl of Leamington/Warwick is going to have detrimental effect on local wildlife as it will push it further away having negative impact on eco-systems and peoples' enjoyment.

Object

Representation ID: 7404

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr A Dobrovin - Pennington

Object as this area is rich agricultural land providing a habitat for many species, including Wood Peckers, Buzzards, Bats, Foxes, Badgers, Newts, Hedgehogs etc

Object

Representation ID: 7505

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupiers

Huge increase in traffic arising proposed development which is situated in existing areas of serious traffic congestion, e.g. close to junctions M40 and Banbury Road. Concern about the associated increase in air pollution.
No sense in using Greenfield land for mobile population. Greenfield land should be left for agricultural.

Object

Representation ID: 7521

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David Ashbourne

Build on brown field sites: Coventry Airport, Peugeot and Flavel sites. Rejuvenate the bottom of town (old town), Althorpe Street, Regency Arcade etc.

Object

Representation ID: 7522

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: A and M Cooly

We support preserving green field sites and strongly feel that any future development must not encroach upon them.

Object

Representation ID: 7525

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: The Occupier

This area already has enough housing on it. Any addition would ruin the only green areas that are left. This would have a negative effect on the land itself and those who own property around it!

Object

Representation ID: 7602

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Object

Representation ID: 7616

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: D N Read

We would like to see the green belt kept intact as agreed to keep the village as a village as I believe Whitehall has agreed to keep Bishops Tachbrook as a village.

Object

Representation ID: 7620

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C and K Such

What about the wildlife?

Object

Representation ID: 7625

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs J O'Callaghan

Green buffer between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates under threat as unlikley to develop Bishops Tachbrook to ensure village status. Developers would prefer this as first choice.

Comment

Representation ID: 7670

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Forrester of Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe

Agent: Barlow Associates Limited

The site at Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe could provide substantial areas of open spaceand improve parts of the registered park. Some land could be opened up as parkland with areas for sports.

Object

Representation ID: 7699

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Kamalpreet Badesha

The loss of green belt land and open spaces will reduce the quality of life for all residents south of the river. The area of restraint should be retained. The plan does not meet the government target that 60% of new building should be on brownfield land. By allowing building on Greenfield land it makes it less economical for companies to regenerate urban areas. More housing should be allocated on the Ford Foundry Site.

Comment

Representation ID: 7733

Received: 15/12/2009

Respondent: Natural England

In addition to the Habitat Bio-diversity Audit, we recommend that species, geological and landscape data should be screened from existing Warwickshire Local Record Centre data to complement the habitat data. This would enable a fuller appraisal of each option as to the impact on protected species, geodiversity and landscape and enable the natural environment to be monitored to inform on the outcomes of the Core Strategy.
The 'picture' of the natural and historic environment should help then shape the options for growth. It will help identify areas of constraint, but also areas of opportunity for targeting habitat restoration at the landscape scale, using developer contributions for example.

Comment

Representation ID: 33546

Received: 15/12/2009

Respondent: Natural England

It is strongly recommended that Warwick District Council produce a screening report as soon as feasible regarding the possible requirement undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the draft core strategy. This is a requirement of regulation 85 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) (Amendment) Regulations (2007) which applies to the preparation of land use plans. The purpose of the assessment is to consider if the Core Strategy is likely to cause any significant adverse effects on the nature conservation interests of statutorily designated European-protected sites in the vicinity of the District, alone and/or in-combination. Natural England will be happy to advise on how this screening should be undertaken.