Object

Representation ID: 3832

Received: 17/08/2009

Respondent: Philip and Barbara Lennon

Council has doubled amount of green field land needed between May 08 and 09 Why? How do current and shadow MPs react to this when contrary to govt. recommendation for brown field/green field devt. proportions?

Object

Representation ID: 3862

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jane Kearey

Object to Plan 5 and Europa Way in particular: 80% of homes will be on green land.

Object

Representation ID: 3893

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: L M D Louise, Matthew, David Drinkhall Paul Kalus Anthony Barrett

Europa Way site was designated 'area of restraint'. Developing land would mean joining Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash. Area rich agricultural land of habitats and wildlife and high quality food production - such as that core strategy seeks to protect for sport and recreation.

Object

Representation ID: 3896

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S S Khera

Object to Kings Hill Site.
Loss of part of green belt

Object

Representation ID: 3912

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

The wildlife will be badly lost.

Object

Representation ID: 3923

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

You seem very keen to continually contradict your own vision and associated strategies. You seem to forget that organisations such as CABE and PAS are providing best practice expert advice that you choose to ignore. You have tried to fit the strategy to the preferred option and not the other way around.

All the advisers suggest any LARGE placement of housing is detrimental no matter which natural environment it is built on.I suggest an independent body checks out your reasons for thinking building on some of the natural environment is appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 3999

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M Abba

how can you be protecting the area by agree to develop so much open space

Object

Representation ID: 4090

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

I do not feel the Council has looked at the loss of wildlife habitats in area of proposed development to the south of Coventry

Comment

Representation ID: 4105

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Huge housing developments are obviously going to go ahead. The natural environment should be preserved but much of it will be lost if all this is deemed necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 4129

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: A D Fryer

Object to Kings Hill site.
Natural environments, including rare orchids, bats, newts, badgers, muntjacs and many more: must be saved.

Object

Representation ID: 4135

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs A Dobson

Object to Kings Hill site.
Green belt land which should not be built on.

Object

Representation ID: 4150

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Miss C E Hattersley

Development along Harbury Lane will spoil countryside and impact on Bishops Tachbrook.

Object

Representation ID: 4165

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Elizabeth Heigl

Remaining agricultural land needed to feed future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 4169

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: A J Bryan

Use of green belt unbelievable. Whatever the use of seeking to protect from urban sprawl is swept away by artbitary bereaucratic directive from govt? Green belt between Coventry and Kenilworth particularly sensitive - already less than half a mile. University already threatening this without new housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4195

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Connie Reid

Object to Kings Hill site:
Green belt
Loss of healthy countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 4209

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

Areas of restraint should remain. The open countryside should be retained south of Warwick, Leamington & Whitnash. Land previously marked as areas of restraint should be adhered to.

Object

Representation ID: 4271

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Kulwinder Fathers

All reasonable options have not been considered

Object

Representation ID: 4278

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Johnson

Object to Kings Hill site:
Incredibly destructive. Quiet part of city with views of fields would be lost for houses that are not needed.

Object

Representation ID: 4280

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Johnson

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt in area where there are few green spaces. Loss of wildlife and view of green fields.

Object

Representation ID: 4283

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lorraine J Gowing

Object to Kings Hill site:
Destroy green belt and wipe out wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 4285

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M G Miles

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt that is continually being encroached upon at a time we are encouraged to produce our own food.
Destruction of natural habitats of local wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 4291

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Miles

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of greenbelt/farmland
Loss of wildlife
Loss of ancient historical sites
Loss of ancient hedgerows and woodland

Comment

Representation ID: 4299

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Heather Cooper

Object to Kings Hill site:
Destruction of green belt between Coventry and Kenilworth would be tragic and irreversible loss.

Object

Representation ID: 4301

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Wade

Object to Kings Hill site:
Green belt land one of the attractions to living on edge of city - walking in countryside.
Once developed, lost forever for food production, wildlife, water absorption.

Object

Representation ID: 4308

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Anne S Statham

Object to Kings Hill site:
Use of green belt land and destruction of beautiful area.

Comment

Representation ID: 4321

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor E Wood

Will not gain public support until demonstrate that all brown field areas have been examined and a robust plan in place.

Object

Representation ID: 4323

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Peter and Olive Kerr

Object to predominance of new housing in Warwick/Leamington area on greenfield sites.
Reduces agricultural land, particularly in Leamington/Warwick area and Kenilworth and potential area for Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 4331

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Janette Eslick

Object that this is first area of restraint to be developed and should be last until alternative found or potential change of govt. and policies.
Concerned area around Europa Way impact on traffic, increase in flood risk on land currently acts as soakaway and is rich habitat for wildlife.
Loss of habitat - impact on woodpeckers, buzzards, bats, foxes, deer, newts and hedgehogs

Object

Representation ID: 4352

Received: 25/08/2009

Respondent: Dominic Simpson

If lower number of houses built correspondingly lower population growth contributing to area of rich heritage, green spaces and with a strong agricultural economy that has developed and diversified, not been overdeveloped and forced into diversification through lack fo space.

Object

Representation ID: 4392

Received: 26/08/2009

Respondent: R.F. Garner

Environment - South of Warwick Gates through to Bishops Tachbrook essentially rural. Clearly this would be destroyed if development allowed, making Bishops Tachbrook a suburb of Leamington.
Green field development - iniquitous that high quality green field land should be squandered. Land needed for food production. More effort should be put into finding alternatives - brown field or lower agricultural quality.