Alternative Sites Consultation
Search representations
Results for CPRE Warwickshire search
New searchComment
Alternative Sites Consultation
Do you support or object to the development of Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?
Representation ID: 44322
Received: 08/04/2010
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire
These are sites which fill the gap between the A46 and the built up area of the town. This is a useful buffer zone between the road and homes.
These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.
CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.
We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on
CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.
* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport
In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.
Comment
Alternative Sites Consultation
Do you support or object to the development of Woodside Training Centre, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?
Representation ID: 44323
Received: 08/04/2010
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire
These are sites which fill the gap between the A46 and the built up area of the town. This is a useful buffer zone between the road and homes.
These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.
CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.
We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on
CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.
* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport
In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.
Comment
Alternative Sites Consultation
Do you support or object to the development of Land at Campion School/south of Sydenham?
Representation ID: 44324
Received: 08/04/2010
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire
Apart from the area occupied by the school this an interesting area of countryside, part of the open landscape setting of Leamington and Whitnash. It is especially important as the rural approach to the town from London by rail. The railway acts as a clear boundary with Whitnash contained by it to the west. Without new bridges over the railway it would be difficult to access except through Campion School. Whitnash Ocean and the Holy Well have a long history and many local residents have a deep attachment to them and do not wish to see development encroaching on them.
These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.
CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.
We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on
CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.
* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport
In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.
Comment
Alternative Sites Consultation
Do you support or object to the development of Glebe Farm, Cubbington?
Representation ID: 44325
Received: 08/04/2010
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire
This is farming land criss-crossed by public footpaths. It provides a valuable buffer between Lillington and Cubbington. The rural setting of Cubbington (a separate parish with a historic village centre) would be harmed.
These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.
CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.
We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on
CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.
* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport
In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.
Comment
Alternative Sites Consultation
Do you support or object to the development of Loes Farm, Guy's Cliffe, Warwick?
Representation ID: 44326
Received: 08/04/2010
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire
This is important Green Belt and forms part of the seperation between Warwick and Kenilworth. The Warwick Bypass (A46) is landscaped into the Green belty here and is not an urban boundary as it is further south at Woodloes. Any development here would be a long way from the town centre, schools, employment and services; it could only be a car-based and unsustainable housing estate.
These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.
CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.
We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on
CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.
* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport
In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.
Comment
Alternative Sites Consultation
Do you support or object to the development of Hurst Farm South, Burton Green?
Representation ID: 44327
Received: 08/04/2010
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire
This is the heart of the Green Belt separating the Westwood Heath areas of Coventry, and the expanded area of Warwick University, from Kenilworth. It could not be developed wirthout under mining the principles of Green Belt policy - separation of towns, preventing sprawl, and preserving bthe countryside between them.
These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.
CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.
We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on
CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.
* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport
In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.
Comment
Alternative Sites Consultation
Do you support or object to the development of Land at Baginton?
Representation ID: 44328
Received: 08/04/2010
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire
This a large area of land to the west and south of the airfield. It is crossed by public footpaths and by the river. It is an area with a number of different characters and would be a sad loss of countryside. It would extend the industrial and warehousing of Middlemarch Industrial Estate southwestwards into the Green Belt. Dedvelopment of this land would encircle Baginton village with development and remove its retained rural character as a surviving village on the edge of the city of Coventry.
These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.
CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.
We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on
CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.
* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport
In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.
