Alternative Sites Consultation

Search representations

Results for Norton Lindsey Parish Council search

New search New search

Comment

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

Representation ID: 44386

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation

Full text:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation.

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Site 3 No comments

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Site 6 This site though partially developped, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

Comment

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Woodside Training Centre, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

Representation ID: 44387

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation

Full text:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation.

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Site 3 No comments

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Site 6 This site though partially developped, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

Comment

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Land at Campion School/south of Sydenham?

Representation ID: 44388

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Full text:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation.

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Site 3 No comments

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Site 6 This site though partially developped, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

Comment

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Loes Farm, Guy's Cliffe, Warwick?

Representation ID: 44389

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Full text:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation.

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Site 3 No comments

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Site 6 This site though partially developped, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

Comment

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Hurst Farm South, Burton Green?

Representation ID: 44390

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Full text:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation.

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Site 3 No comments

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Site 6 This site though partially developped, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

Comment

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Land at Baginton?

Representation ID: 44391

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Site 6 This site though partially developed, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

Full text:

Site 1A&1B. This site extends the envelope of development of Kenilworth and removes a green lung and recreational area close to the conurbation.

Site 2. This site appears to provide many advantages being close to an area of employment, transportation, schools and Play areas while not significantly increasing the town envelope.

Site 3 No comments

Site 4 This site would significantly effect the remaining pleasant approach to Warwick town from the north, while the proposal to extend beyond the A45 Bye Pass should not be entertained..

Site 5 We can see no advantages to the development of this site since it requires full infrastructure developments to avoid another commutor area.

Site 6 This site though partially developped, provides some open areas to the neighbouring conerbation and would encroach on the flood plains .

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.