Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
00004Bishops Waltham Parish 00004/00001/009 Council Bishops Waltham and Wickham should not be in the PUSH area.
00013Denmead Parish Council 00013/00001/010 The middle division could be more accurately renamed "Alresford and the northern parishes"
00015Durley Parish Council 00015/00001/002 Winchester town; market towns and larger villages; rural areas and smaller villages.
00015Durley Parish Council 00015/00002/010 Winchester Town; market towns and larger villages; rural areas and smaller villages.
00016Hambledon Parish 00016/00001/011 Council - Winchester Town, Market Towns and the rural area. - 'PUSH' Partnership of Urban South Hampshire. - South Downs National Park (to be designated) and AONB areas. The Southern Parishes are not naturally part of the PUSH area except perhaps Whiteley. The others, including Denmead, form the rural hinterland, and should not be considered urban for planning purposes. They should be excluded from the PUSH area. Any development in these villages would have a negative impact on the Designated South Downs National Park immediately to the North.
00043Wonston Parish Council 00043/00001/010 The rural areas should be treated as a separate entity. There is, without doubt, a more significant difference between life in a market town and life in a village or farming community than there is between life in Winchester City and life in a market town. This is particularly so with the respect to the first three "broad considerations" on pg22 of the document.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
1 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
00089Hampshire County 00089/00001/006 Council HCC would like to see reference to a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) undertaken/ commissioned by the Council. It is considered that the provision of this information will assist in demonstrating the deliverability of the Core Strategy and the level of reliance the Council will be placing on Brownfield Land, and in turn, the Council's likely future requirement for Greenfield development over the plan period.
00113Alresford Society 00113/00001/011 This division ignores a number of significant factors: The proposed National Park that isolates some of the District. Also the equilvalent "PUSH" area centred on Basingstoke and Deane that will create pressures in the North-East of the District unfortunately split between East Hants, Basingstoke and Winchester.
00270Ms Meriel Walton 00270/00001/012 Limited development of all settlements. Results in over focus of expansion of towns and under focus on villages.
00270Ms Meriel Walton 00270/00002/012 Limited development of all settlements.
00276Mr R I L Howland 00276/00002/011 The South East Plan's emphasis on existing urban areas is misguided and undemocratic. A flexible approach is needed. The old Barton Stacey camp is a good site. The fact that it straddles a boundary of two authorities is irrelevant,.
00280Mrs Cheryl Berry 00280/00002/011 1. Winchester Town and market towns and rural areas (grouped together) 2. PUSH area 3. South Downs national park
00320Ms R Wetherill 00320/00002/012 I'd like to know why a majpr sustainable market town based on Micheldever is not on the agenda This will allow consideration of how the objective to protect Winchester is best served.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
2 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
00415Ms Laura Clarke 00415/00002/008 Whether or not this is an appropriate will be measured by the effectiveness of the decisions made in respect of them. If the process is reduced to a decision about numbers then the division doesn't matter - it's about the most appropriate developments in the most appropriate place, not how that place has been labelled.
00556Mr A Gossling 00556/00002/010 The 3 areas should be: 1. Winchester town and market towns and rural areas 2. PUSH area 3. South Downs and AONB National park
00783Mr And Mrs CW And JR 00783/00003/005 Eames More specific to Winchester City, Alresford, Bishops Waltham, Wickham and surrounding villages for which overwhelming generalisations will not necessarily be appropriate.
00784Mr D J Barfield 00784/00002/008 It is ridiculous to plan to build on Greenfield when an unknown quantity of Brownfield sites such as barracks, prisons will become available over the next decade or so.
00852Ms Norma C Goodwin 00852/00002/008 I agree this is an appropriate way to sub-divide the district.
01024Mrs S Dix 01024/00001/018 Fewer houses to be built in the next 20 years. Which would lead to more green land being left as it is instead of cramming houses on every possible bit of land.
01083Ms Elizabeth Robinson 01083/00002/011 I live in Waltham Chase and do not want this area to be included in PUSH. How many people in this area want to be more urban If we wanted to live in a town we would do. I think its fine to split between Winchester town and the market towns/ rural area. I object most strongly to being dumped into 'urban south Hampshire' as no doubt we will end up with even more houses and accompanying problems but none of the amenities that should benefit urban areas.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
3 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
01125Mr Denise Caws 01125/00001/011 The division means that there a few settlements, such as Wickham, that are categorised as both 'Key Hubs' within 'market towns and the rural area' AND 'southern fringe within PUSH boundary'. Development for these places can be considered under both classifications. They are therefore doubly vulnerable. How can settlement be both within the 'market town and rural area' and the urban area of the 'PUSH'?
01243Ms Serita Campbell 01243/00002/003 It is not appropriate to convert the green areas surrounding small villages such as Wickham, Soberton, Swanmore, Shirrell heath, as will be detrimental to the areas and will lose the village identities. It is more appropriate to build on areas that are already built on, such as industrial sites.
01265Ms N A Holladay 01265/00002/011 Winchester Town Rural areas and villages Business enterprise zones Retail centres Urban centres
01297Ms Ann Sadler Forster 01297/00002/009 There are many differences within e.g.: market towns to make keeping them together artificial also the way they are labelled. i.e. Denmead should be included as a market town, surely it depends on population and existing services and whether the population see themselves as town and village.
01316Mr And Mrs Paul And 01316/00002/010 Valerie Shuttleworth The historic centres of Bishops Waltham and Wickham should be part of the second group (market towns and rural area) and Whiteley and Knowle, as new developments, should belong to the third group.
01460Mr Michael John Bennett 01460/00002/009 I cannot see an Option 1 or 2 in the question above. There is a serious question about the status of Wickham versus Denmead.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
4 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
01501Revd David Simpson 01501/00005/011 It is the invidious extension of urban areas that I object to. It seems that the interests of local residents on the southern perimeter of the district are on Winchester's peripheral vision. It seems that since the North Fareham SDA relates to land that falls within the area of Fareham Borough Council the residents of Knowle Village are disenfranchised - we have no democratic rights in the Borough and the boundary is an arbitrary one. In view of this, Winchester owes it to residents in the southern part of the district to argue a robust case for the protection of our rural environment.
01923Captain John Ellis 01923/00001/009 Division is inappropriate and misleading as a total solution needs to be found. Solutions for one area/sub-division may cause increased problems for another. A total and balanced solution is needed - this may well involve all of Hampshire (And adjacent counties)
01926Mrs Fiona Turner 01926/00001/009 PUSH is an inappropriate name for the southern part A the district it conjures up memories of "Silent City"
01931Mr Micheal Cunliffe 01931/00002/009 Market Towns (key hubs and local hubs) should be separated from 'Rural Area'. This will enable separate policies to be applied to different needs.
01937Mrs Lesley Hallett 01937/00001/009 North/ South split. Otherwise confusion as to a parish in 2 or 3 or both.
01941Dr Richard Hallett 01941/00001/009 Should be Northern and Southern sectors. As above several planes fit into 2 sectors.
01946Mrs Margaret Raffle 01946/00001/010 Denmead should be within the Meon Valley - Rural Area
01948Mr Neil Lander-Brinkley 01948/00001/009 But the middle market towns is more accurately named - Alresford and the northern parishes
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
5 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
01956Mrs Barbara Holyome 01956/00002/011 But with the caveat that the PUSH area will impact on rural southern parishes/towns that are adjacent to this area and possibly beyond towards "middle" Hants including Winchester itself
01958Commander Robin 01958/00001/009 Whiteside The "Partnership for Urban South Hampshire" should not extend into Winchester District which is basically rural. Urbanisation of the south will not create "great places to live" or allow it to remain "an attractive and sustainable place".
01960Mr Ian Merritt 01960/00001/009 Winchester town Market towns and larger villages Rural areas and small villages Do not "sell out" the southern parishes within the push area, they should be included and treated equally under the Winchester city boundary.
01961Mr Daniel Wilden 01961/00001/011 Can you not call it Winchester city or even Winchester urban area?
01962Mr John Harrison 01962/00001/009 Cannot read writing.
01964Mr John Beveridge 01964/00001/002 A further subdivision could be made of the market towns and the rural area as their needs and characteristics are significantly different.
01965Mrs Joyce Simmons 01965/00001/006 PUSH should only apply to existing urban areas, allowing for improvement and regeneration as needed, seeking to improve civic pride by removal of graffiti and litter, planting of trees and providing access to countryside/ green space for recreation.
01968Mr Barry Collins 01968/00001/010 Consideration should be given to the impact of the proposed National park and the AONB in order to retain the rural characteristics of the area.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
6 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
01969Mr David Owen 01969/00001/011 This implies that the whole of the PUSH area can be regarded as urban and that development in the other two areas can be safeguared by reference to their rural nature. This dangerous strategy will mean that the southern area loses any safeguards against overdevelopment. Each area should have a vision of an apppropriate mix of urban development any safeguards.
01981Mr Julian English 01981/00001/005 Should be as revised above. (Shown on 'form')
01983Mr John Blake 01983/00001/009 This pre-supposes that the present District is the correct one. Winchester town and the immediately surrounding area could be better served if the more remote parts of the District ( push parts) were lived off.
01984Mr Peter Gardner 01984/00001/010 Concentrate building in south Hampshire, not Winchester, which has been over-developed already.
01992Mr David Brown 01992/00001/010 The division stated is appropriate but the addition of possible new eco towns should be added to the suggestions.
01997Mrs Chris Slattery 01997/00001/011 Winchester town and Market towns and the rural area. South Downs National Park (to be designated) PUSH area, excluding Wickham, Bishops Waltham and Colden Common. Unsure of the implications for keeping the District asa whole. How are the numbers allocated for designated sites late in being developed West of Waterlloville·?
01999Mrs Barbara Garfath 01999/00001/011 The market towns should be one category and the rural area should be another category (4 areas total)
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
7 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02000Mr Henry Garfath 02000/00001/011 The District is so homogenous that any attempt to divide it into the artificial compartments suggested prevents proper strategic planning. In particular creating a "Winchester Town" also allows the District's own variation on the Midlothian Question, ie it creates a subdivision which is disenfranchised since its own elected members are always in a minority. Question 4 (that follows) appears to identify the rationale for doing just this. However in reality such a NIMBY policy is short- sighted, since destroying the existing character of Winchester City would also have a negative impact on the rest of the District.
02002Mrs Sarah Marsh 02002/00001/010 Because Winchester Town Councillors are out-voted more than a fair share falls on the City.
02003Mr Ptol Slattery 02003/00001/011 South Downs national park and aonb and heritage areas are irreplaceable assests, and seperate areas we need to preserve and enhance.
02006Mr Raymond Marsh 02006/00001/011 Because Winchester town councillors are out-voted, the housing development falls unfairly on the town rather than outlying areas.
02008Mr Caesar Slattery 02008/00001/011 1. Winchester and market towns and rural. 2. PUSH area 3. South downs national park and AONB's Include key hubs and local hubs in Winchester not PUSH. Leave only Whiteley, Waterlooville, Southampton and Portsmouth in PUSH as their residents want growth but rest do not.
02009Mr Ian Embrey 02009/00001/011 Divide as follows: - Winchester toen, market towns and rural areas. - "PUSH" area of major conurbations, excluding market towns. - South Downs Park and Areas of Natural Beauty (AONB) Or: - Retain numbers as a whole for entire district as in WDLPR 2001-2011. This would give greater flexibility.
02010Mrs Sylvia Moss 02010/00001/011 Divide the districts: 1. Winchester Town, Market towns, rural areas 2. PUSH area but excluding market towns, 3. Areas of Natural Beauty.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
8 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02015Mr Derek Rutherford 01927/00001/008 The implication that the whole of the so-called PUSH area is to be urbanised in due time goes against everything that those of us living in rural parts of that region believe in.
02019Mrs Jennifer Hollis 02019/00001/010 Areas should be divided into: - Urban (cities and towns) - Villages - Rural
02021Mr Andrew Rogerson 02021/00001/009 The "PUSH" area should be limited to include the highly urbanised areas (Southampton, Portsmouth, Fareham) where infrastructure, access and transport links to employment centres have been developed.
02022Mr Michael Carter 02022/00001/011 The district is rural right to its southern boundary and therefore consists only two categories: Winchester Town. The market towns and the rural areas. The core strategy issues and options paper stresses the rural nature of Winchester District in many places. It is rural right to its southern edge. No part of the district is urban, apart from the city. Urban South Hampshire is a paper concept and should be rejected by Winchester District councelleors and officers.
02023Mr Micheal Sadler- 02023/00001/010 Forster Suggest two categories only: - Winchester town - Market towns
02039Mr Adrian Baskerville 02039/00001/010 But all due account should be taken of the protection and presentation of villages and towns worthy of conservation, given tradition and character.
02047Dr Nigel Atherton 02047/00001/011 Needs should be assessed and addressed fairly across the District. The "PUSH" initiative is not supported as it is imbalanced.
02049Mrs Wendy Thorpe 02049/00001/010 Every area should be included. Past development should be taken into account.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
9 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02050Mr Martin Tiller 02050/00002/009 Remove the area delineated by PUSH and place it into the market towns and rural area sector.
02069Mrs Pamela Timms 02069/00001/009 But we need to keep our smaller communities as this is why people move there in the first place (if they had wanted to live in big cities that is where they would have gone.
02070Mr And Mrs Roger Hockin 02070/00001/010 Bishops Waltham should not be a Key Hub and also be in the "PUSH" area. Development here is not sustainable due to in/out transport needs. The same applies to a lesser extent to Wickham.
02084Mrs Melanie Walker 02084/00001/003 Too much emphasis based on Wickham/ Waltham Chase/ Bishops Waltham. Too much growth in too small an area, especially with 10,000 in Fareham and 10,000 in Hedge End.
02092Mr Fergus Christie 02092/00001/011 Winchester, market towns and rural areas. South down national park
02093Mrs Jane Graham 02093/00001/009 Does the District need districting
02112On Behalf Of 02112/00001/007 Southern Plannin Commercial Clients The economic interdependence of the whole area must be recognised. This proposed division of the District is one based on living, rather than working, and on residents rather than firms and public bodies (i.e., not the employers and economic drivers). The economic strategy needs to be integrated with those of Southern Hampshire and treated as a whole, separately from the housing strategy.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
10 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02115Mapledean 02115/00002/002 Southern Plannin Developments Ltd The way in which the District has been subdivided, particularly in separating out the PUSH area from the rest of the District largely reflects the South East Plan. As the housing numbers for the PUSH area are separately addressed in the South East Plan, it is logical to follow this sub- division in this Plan. However, the consideration of twice of some of the settlements first under The Market Towns and Rural Areas and then again under the PUSH area, but with different issues arising each time, is considered potentially misleading and confusing. It would be better to deal with all the PUSH area in one section and exclude this area from consideration under The Market Towns and Rural Areas.
02117Persimmon Homes 02117/00001/002 Southern Plannin The way in which the district has been sub-divided, particularly in separating out the PUSH area from the rest of the district largely reflects the South East plan. As the housing numbers for the PUSH area are separately addressed in the South East plan, it is logical to follow this same sub division in this plan. However, the consideration twice of some of the settlements, first under the market towns and the rural area and then again under the PUSH area, but with different issues arising each time, is considered potentially misleading and confusing. It would be preferable to deal with all of the PUSH area in one section and exclude this area from consideration under the market towns and rural areas.
02127Bewley Homes Plc 02127/00001/009 Charles Planning The sub-division of the district in the Core Strategy is suitable given the different development targets which the South East Plan Panel report has recommended for the area of the District with PUSH and the rest of District Area. However, it is important that the Core Strategy acknowledges the clear inter-linkages between these areas.
02168Mr And Mrs John And 02168/00004/011 Elena Goodwin I'm aware of the complications of this issue, but surely killing the rural areas is not going to benefit many.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
11 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02170Mrs Caroline Jezeph 02170/00001/009 1. The division lacks clarity in terms of identifying the rural area and market towns inside the PUSH area. 2. The division fails to identify smaller settlements
02171Miss Charlotte O'Neill 02171/00001/009 1: The division lacks clarity in terms of identifying the rural area and market towns inside the PUSH area. 2: The division fails to identify smaller settlements.
02174Tichbourne Estate 02174/00001/010 Dreweatt Neate 1. Winchester City and its accessible hinterland. 2. The southern part of the district falls within the partnership for urban south Hampshire. 3. The remainder of the district, Winchesters accessible rural hinterland should include the satellite settlements of New Alresford, Colden Common, Otterbourne, Sutton Scotney, Kings Worthy, South Wonston and Littleton.
02181Mr Keith Williams 02181/00001/009 Subdivision results in the daft anomaly that parts of the District end up in two areas- to with Bishops Waltham being also in the wholly inappropriate PUSH area as well as the "market towns and the rural area" BW is in no way any part of an urban area nor should it ever be so
02193Mrs Dagmar Slater 02193/00001/011 M27 or M3 corridor, Winchester town, other major conurbations in south Hampshire (e.g. Southampton, Fareham etc.) The market towns and rural area (as a last option)
02195Eagle Star Estates Ltd 02195/00001/002 Barton Wilmore The core strategy is premature pending publication of the South East Plan and Eco town processes and should be withdrawn until the SEP is adopted and its location strategy and housing requirements are finalised. The Core Strategy is inflexible, fails to identify and consider all the available issues, options and alternatives and take into account latest government guidance on housing delivery and eco-towns. Over reliance on Barton farm. Other options should not be dismissed at this stage on the basis that they are not in conformity with the RSS. Also object to the options for market towns and rural area- consider a new settlement at Micheldever offers the most appropriate solution to delivering sustainable communities within Winchester District, including the delivery of affordable housing, community and physical infrastructure.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
12 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02229Gleeson Homes 02229/00001/010 Turley Associates In Spatial planning terms, there should be a clear distinction between "market towns" and the "rural area". Spatial planning objectives for the rural area will differ greatly from those aimed at the market towns. The merging of the two is confusing and will create uncertainty for those planning on developments and those commenting and making decisions on them. The rural area should appear in its own right for clarity and transparency and should be below market towns.
02237Martineau Trustees 02237/00001/009 Dreweatt Neate Winchester's accessible rural hinterland should include the satellite settlements of New Alresford, Colden Common, Otterbourne, Sutton Scotney, Kings Worthy, South Wonston and Littleton.
02238Holmes And Sons 02238/00001/010 Dreweatt Neate 1. Winchester City and its accessible hinterland. 2. The southern part of the District falls within the partnership for urban South Hampshire. 3. The remainder of the district - Winchester's accessible rural hinterland should include the satellite settlements of New Alresford, Colden Common, Otterbourne, Sutton Scotney, Kings Worthy, South Wonston, Littleton and Sparsholt.
02239Trustees Of E M 02239/00001/010 Dreweatt Neate Toogood Settlement 1. Winchester City and its accessible hinterland. 2. The Southern part of the district falls within the partnership for urban South Hampshire. 3. The remainder of the district - Winchester's accessible rural hinterland should include the satellite settlements of New Alresford, Colden Common, Otterbourne, Sutton Scotney, Kings Worthy, South Wonston and Littleton.
02240White Young Green 02240/00001/003 Planning Allowing housing development within rural villages and towns is crucial to facilitating the provision of additional housing for all size of settlements. Many employment uses in the countryside have become unviable/ unsustainable. The development of brownfield sites in towns and villages offers an available source of land for housing.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
13 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02243Mr Stuart Jones 02243/00001/010 The overlap of the market towns and rural area with the southern part of the district within PUSH is confusing. Is Bishops Waltham in both areas It's now defined as a market town and also in the southern area. Which policies affect BW Those of both areas or only one What about rural areas in the PUSH area These overlaps need to be clarified. If the market towns and the rural area relates only to the area outside PUSH and Winchester town, why not rename it: 'The northern part of the district.'
02245Mr Marcus Heys 02245/00001/009 PUSH should not exist. Onus should be put on those councils where housing is required i.e. Southampton, Eastleigh, Portsmouth, Winchester etc. Housing destined for the PUSH area that is also covers parts of the Winchester district is excluded from any of Winchester's Housing requirements e.g. Durley (N/NE Hedge End SDA)
02270Mr James Cameron 02270/00002/005 Winchester Town, areas integrated with the Southern Urban Area, rural townships, remaining rural areas.
02274Mr Peter McManus 02274/00001/011 Areas should be divided as follows: 1. Winchester Town, market towns and rural areas. 2. 'PUSH' area. 3. South Downs National Park and AONB areas. OR: Retain numbers as a whole for the entire District as in WDLPR 2001-2011.
02374Campaign To Protect 02374/00001/010 Rural England (CPRE) Winchester town, Market towns and the rural area. "PUSH" South Downs National Park and AONB areas. Southern Parishes residents in Market Towns to the north of Hedge End SDA e.g. Bishops Waltham, Wickham and Colden Common, would logically be part of the 'rest of Winchester' District. Except Whiteley who may logically prefer to remain within the "PUSH" area.
02376Ms Janet Mckenzie 02376/00001/009 This question asks us tom choose between option 1 and 2 but does not outline those options
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
14 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02377Mr Colin Penfold 02377/00001/009 Assuming that option 2 is no (ever considered proofreading the questionaire): PUSH should not go as far as Bishops Waltham, Swanmore or even Wickham. These are rural areas, not town areas. A town must have a railway line.
02379Mrs Jennifer Williams 02379/00001/009 I think these 3 should be taken as one whole
02380Mr Ian Berry 02380/00001/011 1. Winchester town, other market towns and rural areas (all grouped together) 2. PUSH area 3. South Downs national park
02385Mrs Elisabeth Hopson 02385/00001/011 Why would you divide the district anyway What controls have you in place that insures that no one "area" takes the brunt of new building How is equality and fairness to be demonstrated in this exercise
02387Mrs Angela Harding 02387/00001/008 How can you tick Yes or No when you are only given the option of ticking option 1 or 2
02392Mr Brian Denton 02392/00001/008 We need a new town at Micheldever.
02395Mrs Carol Bradshaw 02395/00001/008 uinclear what option 1 and 2 are
02399Mr Chris Southgate 02399/00001/010 Winchester City Northern district South East district around Fareham Southern district around Eastleigh etc
02410Mr Joseph Meider 02410/00001/010 The reason I answered no being as explained in my answer to the previous question where I stated that we are already over populated. The roads here are constantly over subscribed and thus difficult to travel on. My particular street is becoming more and more difficult to negoiate onto the main road, we need traffic lights. As said we are becoming a large town rather than a village. Why should we be forced into this situation, do we have to move after living here for 30 years
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
15 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02414Mr David Simmons 02414/00001/009 By including WCC Southern parishes under PUSH you are supporting the partnership for urbanising South Hampshire. Durley is part of the rural area.
02415Ms Kelsie Learney 02415/00001/010 Need to consider the town as being a much wider area- a sphere of influence rather than having fixed boundaries and give some flexibility over the boundaries between urban/ rural/ PUSH/ not PUSH.
02416Mr David Thompson 02416/00001/011 You have not made it clear what options 1 and 2 refer to. I have assumed that option 2 means yes to the suggested way of sub- dividing the district.
02419Mr Loic Lomine 02419/00001/009 I do not understand: Question 3a asks me to choose between "option 1 and 2" but they are not outlined.
02420Mrs Susan Hall 02420/00001/009 I am firmly against the plan to build 12,240 dwellings in the next 20 years. How could the Council have agreed to such a proposal
02427Mr Michael Emett 02427/00001/004 The district should be divided into the PUSH area and 'Rest of District', consisent with the SEP. The latter could then be sub-divided into Winchester town and the rural area in order to highlight and emphasise the clear settlement hierarchy. As currently proposed the market towns and rural areas straddles both SEP sub-regions and overlaps with the PUSH area, giving rise to potential confusion.
02434Mr Alan Dunk 02434/00001/009 Based on existing parishes, the above just condemns the Southern parishes into a massive build. The load must be shared across the county. If not local people will be forced to move out to the more rapidly expanding areas breaking down the community.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
16 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02435Mr William Stroud 02435/00001/011 Let Winchester be treated the same as the other large conurbations in the area. Why should it have special treatment Why are market towns grouped with the rural area I live in an attractive market town and can say that market towns are much more likely to be dormitory urban areas inhabited by the well- off than part of the agricultural community.
02440Mr Gerard Hawkes 02440/00001/011 Disagree with (push)
02454Mr David Phillips 02454/00001/011 I am disturbed that Denmead has been included in the PUSH designated zone. Denmead is definately rural and should be included as such.
02456Mr Stuart Hopkins 02456/00001/009 There should be the creation of a completely new town which can be carefully placed so that the current environment is safeguarded. Messing about with placing add ons to existing villages and a town such as Winchester will damage our environment, the creation of a new town will enable modern futyristic business to flourish and at the same time create community.
02461Mr Steve Robinson 02461/00001/005 I am not sufficiently familiar with PUSH (nor, I'm sure, are many respondants) to be able to agree that the division is appropriate - I suspect from a resident's point of view we in the rural parts of the South of the district do not feel out areas should be treated differently from any other rural part of Winchester.
02464Ms Jennifer Bennett 02464/00001/009 It would help if you could define your own terms better so that people outside the council can understand what it is you are proposing.
02465Ms Denise Corlett 02465/00001/010 No development should be taking place in rural areas, develop brown sites.
02466Mr Harry Booth 02466/00001/010 Keep to built up areas.
02468Mr Stephen Webb 02468/00001/011 Build economic housing in the north of England - the work will follow.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
17 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02470Mr Edward Du Boulay 02470/00001/011 The proposed divisions target currently underdeveloped areas. The obvious consequence of this approach is that in 20 years time there will be little rural land left undeveloped. The division between the city and countryside will be blurred in a mess of urban sprawl. An alternative proposition would be that large areas of open countryside (such as south Hampshire) need to be preserved, with focus playing on the existing city suburbs. South Hampshire plays a crucial role as the buffer between Winchester and Portsmouth, and developing it will just create a homogenised metropolis.
02480Mr Michael Westwell 02480/00001/010 Question 3a is not clear - what are the two options
02482Mr Milton Jolin 02482/00001/010 Fully identify brownfiels sites that can be initially used for development before considering expanding small rural communities and using open countryside to build large volumes of housing. This is nothing stating in this document about the large amount of privately owned properties lying empty or derelict which could be utilised.
02487Mrs Jane Turner 02487/00001/009 I do not agree that Wickham should be included in both PUSH which relates to urban South Hampshire and is also classified as a market town and rural area. Wickham should be excluded from PUSH.
02488Ms Gillian Dean 02488/00001/009 Am not happy about becoming part of an Urban District.
02493Mr Rupert Johnson 02493/00001/009 The district should be treated as a single entity with additional housing spread equally across the whole district. This will help us to ensure that there is a better housing/ resource balance as opposed to focusing development in the PUSH area, where it is unlikely the extra resources required will be supplied.
02495Mr John Dixie 02495/00001/011 I don't think the District should be divided but planning should be done for an unified District.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
18 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02502Mr Geoffrey Johnson 02502/00001/010 Divide into industrial and rural areas and keep the industrial expansion out of rural towns.
02504Mr Peter Stevens 02504/00001/011 There seems to be no consideration of the possibilities of new towns (such as Micheldever) but only to further intensive development of existing settlements.
02505Ms Janette Lloyd 02505/00001/003 Need to consider Micheldever New Town proposals as means of delivering new development . Reduce the amount of commuting into the city by relocating HCC to the PUSH area served by the M27.
02511Cllr Malcolm Wright 02511/00001/010 Winchester City, market towns and the rural areas within the district make up the character of the whole area.
02511Cllr Malcolm Wright 02511/00002/009 Winchester city, market towns and the rural areas within the district make up the character of the whole area.
02515Mr Chris Gillham 02515/00001/010 Need to reflect more 'extra' District influences.
02515Mr Chris Gillham 02515/00002/010 Need to reflect more 'extra' District influences.
02526Mr David Jenkins 02526/00001/011 I guess this is appropriate although I can't help the feeling that you are leading me into a 'fait accomplis' later in the questionnaire because of the way these questions are phrased.
02529Mr David Carr 02529/00001/010 Brownfield areas across the district.
02538Mr Joshua Layish 02538/00001/011 The District should be divided into seperate areas based on the relative importance of their architectural heritage and landscape quality.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
19 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02550Mrs Alison Matthews 02550/00001/011 Villages are a major feature of the "rural area" and should not be lumped together with market towns, suggest a seperate category.
02557Mr Geoff Olden 02557/00001/010 Keep any development close to the M27 and M3 corridors
02558Mr Kevin Andreoli 02558/00001/009 Winchester City. Northern Area. Southern Area.
02567Mrs Sandy O'Leary 02567/00001/011 The market towns and rural areas should be two separate categories.
02568Mr Michael Chaplin 02568/00001/007 Winchester Town. Northern part of the District. Southern Part.
02573Mr John Crew 02573/00001/009 Not exactly sure about this, but to build up and around the existing market towns is totally foll-hardy; there are far too many people and vehicles in these heavily congested areas as it is
02576Mr Anthony Thorpe 02576/00001/010 It depends on where the lines are drawn - there is an overlap between these areas, which produces inconsistencies in the approaches to them.
02581Mr Nicholas Lalor 02581/00001/009 The Northern boundary of the PUSH region should be sent further South so that it doesn't conflict with market towns such as Wickham and Bishops Waltham.
02583Mrs Nicola Kelly 02583/00001/009 Feel this description is vague and unclear. The link of market towns and rural area, and the third area make the divisions confusing. What happens if your market town is in the PUSH?
02584Mr Paul Howden 02584/00001/009 More emphasis on existing villages/towns and their existing facilities including employment. Winchester as a separate entity appears appropriate.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
20 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02588Mrs Jean Dorey 02588/00001/010 I don't understand what the 3rd bullet point consists of.
02589Mr Andrew Boarder 02589/00001/009 Some towns lie within two of these categories.
02595Mr Brian Eyley 02595/00001/009 The southern part of the district should be excluded from the PUSH boundaries. It is entirely inappropriate to allow major development in the Wickham area whether under PUSH or the WCC LDF. Wickham and the adjacent area is a rural area, not an urban area and should remain so.
02599Mr Ian Wolverson 02599/00001/009 Why divide and make block plans, why not allow small scale natural development!
02606Mrs Claire Chapman 02606/00001/009 It does not seem right to include some market town/rural areas (e.g. Wickham, Bisops Waltham) within the partnership for URBAN South Hampshire:these are not urban areas Although their needs will be affected by their proximity to the PUSH area, they should be treated as completely different from other market towns and rural areas.
02611Mr James Robins 02611/00001/010 The treatment of rural areas is inappropriate. The division into these three areas means that rural areas in the southern part of the district are likely to be treated differently from rural areas in the north. The southern rural areas will fall into the PUSH region and are, as a result, unlikely to be given adequate consideration for protection from development. It would be preferable to divide the District into: - Winchester Town - Market Towns - Other developed areas of land - Rural areas. This will allow a more consistent treatment of rural areas, wherever they are situated in the district.
02614Mr Rob Houston 02614/00001/010 If the aim is to reduce the carbon footprint and provide facilities and amenities without having to use a car, surely large towns and cities should be earmarked as key areas of consideration for the dense urban dwellings that the council and govern seemed determined to foist upon us.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
21 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02623Mr Jon Taylor 02623/00001/011 Other developments are not considered in the division. Wickham should not be a key hub: it is vunerable from development at the southern boundary and needs protection of its green borders.
02627Mr David Page 02627/00001/010 Whilst in principle I agree with the concept of dividing the district, I would question the rationale behind the determination of the area that constitutes PUSH; this boundary extends too far north into many rural areas, which are not urban by any reasonable definition of the word. The risk here is yet further encroachment upon already pressurised countryside and farmland.
02630Mr Robert Shepherd 02630/00001/010 Identify Brownfield areas, and improve already developed sites before allowing any green area developments.
02633Mr Richard Hill 02633/00001/009 Placing the burden on existing urban districts is acceptable provided that the loval services are adequately enhanced; such as, schools, doctors, public transport, sewage, water supply, police forces, fire brigade cover etc.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
22 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02635Mr Chris Benham 02635/00001/002 The Issues and Options Core Strategy (IOCS) acknowledges that the Panel Report into the draft South East Plan (August 2007) requires land to be provided within the district for some 12, 240 dwellings over the period 2006- 2026. To help guide decision- making on where this housing should be located the IOCS proposes to divide the district into three areas: Winchester; The Market Towns and the rural area; The southern part of the district that lies within the area Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) This approach fails to recognise the difference in the level of statutory landscape designation that exists within the district. A significant area to the east of Winchester Town and comprises part of the East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and/or the proposed South Downs National Park. Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states that 'Nationally designated areas comprising National Parks... and Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty, have been confirmed by Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and the development control decisions in these areas.' (para 21) Given the existing and proposed level of protection that applies to this area, it is considered necessary and appropriate to differentiate land within the AONB/ National Park from the remainder of 'the market towns and rural area'. The Core Strategy should therefore subdivide this 'spatial area' into two, following the boundary of the AONB/National Park. Furthermore, the Core Strategy should conclude that as a result of the limited development potential in the AONB/ proposed National Park that part of the 'Market towns and rural area' beyond these designations will need to accept a greater proportion of new housing growth to meet the requirements of the South East Plans.
02637Mr Ewan Withers 02637/00001/011 Market towns and the rural area needs sub-division based on population and population density. It's really important to differentiate between a town of several thousand inhabitants and a village of a couple of hundred.
02641Mr Ralph Bolton 02641/00001/009 I live in Bishops Waltham, a rural market town. I don't want to be in a urban environment, and certainly not in a partnership for creating one. Who's daft idea was it anyway We live in the hinterland of Winchester with equal influence of Southampton and Portsmouth. I really don't want to be a commuting settlement for London which, effectively, is being proposed.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
23 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02646Mrs Samantha Baldwin 02646/00001/011 Option 1 is too generalised. You need to sub divide the "market towns and rural areas" as they all differ considerably.
02647Mr Victor Hatch 02647/00001/010 Some identified Market Towns are also in the PUSH area, and it should not be forgotten that a significant amount of Winchester CC's provision for additional housing is centred areas, away from the historic city.
02649Mr Chris Owen 02649/00001/010 North of the city to be a valid division.
02653Mr Chris Hutchings 02653/00001/007 Treat as one region - don't micro manage.
02656Mr Andrew Mclay 02656/00001/010 Build where the housing is wanted and there is employment.
02665Mr Martin Burton 02665/00001/011 The premise is wrong. The requirement to build 12,240 houses has been imposed by central government and we (the population of Hampshire) have not been consulted on whether we agree or disagree with these imposed figures. We have not been allowed to build up our own vision, Winchester District is merely trying to impose central government doctrine, and pretend that it is having a "democratic" consultation on the process. You cannot have a democratic consultation when you refuse to allow debate on the imposition of 12,240 houses by central government.
02668Mrs Wendy Pace 02668/00001/008 Maximise the development of Brownfield sites to reduce the requirement to develop new areas.
02669Mrs Joanna Wedeman 02669/00001/009 As far as I understand it, under the current plans Borley Green and Durley come under the PUSH category (as does Bishops Waltham) and yet although they may be within this area they are either a market town or rural area and should be considered such in any planning. It would be devastating to the area to spoil yet more of our villages and towns, turning them into yet more sprawling masses.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
24 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02677Mr Martin Orford 02677/00001/011 Bishops Waltham and Wickham should not be included in the PUSH as they are historically separate from the conurbations of Southampton and Portsmouth. Transport links with these conurbations are poor as is the condition of the roads, and the market towns have more in common with rural mid- Hampshire. The South Downs National Park boundary should also be re- drawn to preserve the green gap between Wickham and Bishops Waltham and the PUSH area.
02678Mrs Victoria Watson 02678/00001/009 Use areas that are not already populated so reducing the stress on existing roads and services.
02680Mr William Hoskins 02680/00001/012 Bishops Waltham is within two of these areas. It is a rural market town of great charm that will be completely destroyed if a large number of houses are built here. Secondly, it just comes into the area covered by PUSH. We should be either one or the other - not both.
02685Mr Malcolm Thornton 02685/00001/004 Your guidance for the division here is poorly described. How can anyone agree or disagree without sufficient information. where the hell is this PUSH district? Where precisely are the Market Towns?
02686Mr Donald Taylor 02686/00001/009 New housing should be built, together with all new infrastructure, in open areas away from market towns, who are already struggling to meet with the existing numbers of both people and traffic.
02690Mr Colin Thorne 02690/00001/009 The District should not include any part of the PUSH. The southern part of the District should be included in the list of Market towns and rural areas only.
02695Mrs Amanda Hutchings 02695/00001/010 Any division is somewhat arbitary. Why not treat the District as a whole
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
25 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02702Mr Paul Quarrington 02702/00001/010 Areas such as Wickham must not be put into both categories of "Key Hub" within "market towns and the rural area" and "Southern Fringe within the Push Boundary". It should be one or the other, not both. Making Wickham a small village with a strong identity in a rural area, doubly vunerable to being ruined by over-development.
02704Mr Richard Carpenter 02704/00001/011 It is clear that with 12,240 dwellings to produce the only way that this can be done without destroying the nature and character if numerous existing towns and villages is to construct a new town. This may well require the sacrifice of some existing Green Belt land and by choosing a location that would have reasonable access to a rail network 1st and a motorway network 2nd and providing one infrastructure to service the new town all the benefits of a modern town can be designed into the plan. This will avoid the need to reinforce the roads and infrastructure of the many towns and villages that the current plan requires which as you know will not happen (despite promises) till many years after the houses are constructed.
02710Mrs Magaret Hounsham 02710/00001/011 The PUSH area encroaches close to the south side of Bishops Waltham on rural, not urban land and is inappropriate for a town soon to become gateway to a national park.
02714Mr James Fulton 02714/00001/005 Over stretching resources in the PUSH area. Specifically BW.
02716Mr Adrian Wood 02716/00001/010 Do not consider the southern part of the district to be urban.
02729Mrs Maggie Smith 02729/00001/003 Wickham falls into two categories: market town and rural area as well as PUSH. More consideration should be given to the consequences especially as Wickham will have a large SDA on its doorstep.
02761Mr John Lambert 02761/00001/011 Bishops Waltham is a rural town with limited provisions for local employment. Over many years industrial brown field sites have been to housing developments and as a result workers have had to commute for employment. What about our carbon footprint
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
26 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02764Mr Graham Mulholland 02764/00001/009 The idea that a sustainable development plan can be provided by way of a partnership, i.e. PUSH is a complete madness. The specific needs and structure of each area should be considered upon their relevant merits and requirements. Fareham, Eastleigh and Winchester have nothing in common.
02779Ms Linda Yeodal 02779/00001/010 New housing provision must reflect the needs and wishes of local inhabitants. We currently need a small number of sheltered homes for the elderly, not a massive, profiteering housing development that will completely overwhelm the current community and destroy our way of life.
02783Mrs Dorothy Quiney 02783/00001/010 Rural market towns should be removed from the PUSH area.
02784Mrs Victoria Louise Ruth 02784/00001/002 Moore It should be divided to show derilict industrial estates (Brownfield sites) for development first.
02786Mr Anthony Cailes 02786/00001/010 It would be acceptable if the PUSH area was based on the urban areas of south Hampshire, but at present it also includes some of the southern market towns (e.g. Wickham, Bishops Waltham and rural areas). The PUSH boundary needs to be redefined.
02800Mr Malcolm Rowland 02800/00001/011 Limit building to 150 affordable dwellings and concerntrate larger builds to areas that have the infrastructure to cope with this amount of dwellings.
02833Mrs Gillian Mulley 02833/00001/011 I do not think that Durley should be in the PUSH area. It looks towards Bishops Waltham (not Southampton) and belongs within the 'market towns and the rural area' category.
02872Mr Peter Henley 02872/00001/005 Spread the load more evenly over the county involved areas, rather than the small country towns like Bishops Waltham and Wickham which will otherwise lose their character entirely.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
27 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02874Mr Michael Hollis 02874/00002/011 Designation of Wickham as a "market town" is incorrect. Wickham is a village.
02887Mrs Judy Marsh 02887/00001/006 Reluctantly I agree.
02895Mrs Wendy Ingamells 02895/00002/010 Yes. It would be better to have an evenly spread growth in every village and town so that no community is destroyed by being swamped with huge increases in housing / population which will only lead to increased traffic jams, pollution, crime and health / education waiting lists getting longer.
02904Mrs Ruth Croger 02904/00001/010 It is unreasonable for a town like Bishops Waltham to be a Key Hub and included in the PUSH for possible major development. Its area boundaries should not overlap.
02908Mr Frank Harrison 02908/00001/004 Bishops Waltham cannot accept having an extra 1000 houses. The village can hardly cope with the various needs at present - hardly any car parking available on the streets and car parks - one has to wander around until a park is available. The pressure of the 1000 houses would make the car traffic impossible - it may be possible to cope with an extra 200 houses.
02912Winchester Friends Of 02912/00002/006 The Earth Need to develop a development strategy that looks at corridors to maximise public transport opportunities to reduce car usage rather than urban concentration that encourages commuting on M3/A34. Redevelop car park sites has a number of benefits in placing people near activities, raising revenue, and removing the car park as a traffic generator. Provision of park and ride is misguided as it increases traffic and carbon emissions, and compromises conventional bus services.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
28 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02923North Whiteley 02923/00001/009 Terence O'Rourk Consortium Although it is an appropriate way to divide the District, given the approach set out in the RSS Panel Report, the Issues and Options papers presumes that the reader has a degree of knowledge of PUSH and its area of influence. Further, the scale of Map 1 is too high and diagramatic, preventing understanding of the detailed extent of the PUSH area. There is a need to rectify this. If this can not be achieved it may be that simply dividing the area into Winchester, the towns and rural areas would be easier for the general public to understand.
02926The Whiteley Co- 02926/00001/010 Terence O'Rourk ownership The scale used on Map 1 is too high and the information too diagrammatic, preventing understanding of the detailed extent of the PUSH area. There is a need to rectify this.
02929Mrs Yvonne Case 02929/00001/009 1. Winchester 2. The market towns and rural area.
02932Mr Jonathan Simmons 02932/00001/011 The southern part of Winchester District should not lie in PUSH region, since it is a rural area and the residents wish it to remain so. "Urban South Hampshire" is not something that we want to be part of.
02934Mrs Eloise Appleby 02934/00001/011 It is not true that the character of the whole of the PUSH area is unified or looks exclusively south for its services etc - given that PUSH reaches up to Colden Common, and that Winchester has the bulk of cultural amenities, the cathedral, events such as the ice rink etc, it may just be that people in the PUSH area head different directions for different activities. Definitely need to be flexible when making judgements about the parts of PUSH that are not subject to major development.
02936Mr Randolph Mulley 02936/00001/010 I suggest these three: - Winchester town - Market towns - The rural areas
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
29 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
02942Mr Graham Campbell 02942/00001/010 I live in the village of Durley and do not like the creeping description that includes me in an urban area this is the creeping talk that is allowing talk of the NNE development here.
02944Mr Andrew Bennett 02944/00001/011 You really have surpassed yourself with the meaningless jargon spouted above: you say you wish to consult the public and yet design a form that most members of the public will be unable to decipher. My reading of your proposal is to protect Winchester by inflicting huge numbers of flats into the 'so called' PUSH district. How dare you waste our council tax money on this rubbish
02968Miss Joy Spiler 02968/00001/011 Rarely visit Winchester Use public transport.
02985Mr Charles Pearson 02985/00001/002 Oppose inclusion of BW and other rural parts of southern district within the urbanised PUSH area. BW and Wickham should be allowed to develop naturally and become more self sufficient, particukarky in regard to employment and travel.
02991Redrow Homes 02991/00001/009 Woolf Bond Plan (Southern) Limited Accept, in principle, the spatial strategy set out on page 23 of the consultation document, provided it embraces the need to focus development on those sustainable locations identified in earlier (including LPR) work, together with ensuring the provision of deliverable housing allocations, in accordance with PPS 3 (para. 54).
02993Tesco Stores Limited 02993/00001/002 DPP However the borough is divided, the local development framework should acknowledge that sufficient services should be available to meet the needs of this growing community.
03016Mrs Danielle F Giles 03016/00001/010 Feel "PUSH" area is to big and surely comes largely within second sub- division (Market Towns and rural area).
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
30 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
03029Mr Robert Toleman 03029/00001/004 Words, words, "special" strategy. I do not believe the rate payers up whom the planners depend for their livelihood, wish for 12,240 additional dwellings- which can not be accommodated, if the quality of life for existing residents is to be improved.
03054Mr Peter Motchman 03054/00001/002 The core strategy needs to explore more fully the strengths and weaknesses of these areas to be able to absorb more growth - given the focus of the SEP on urban areas the core strategy should conclude that the majority of the 5500 requirement should be in an around Winchester town.
03057Community Action 03057/00001/009 Hampshire Separate the rural areas from the market towns.
03071Mr John Hayter 03071/00001/011 The Spatial Areas should be consistent with the sustainability hierarchy and the South East Plan's definition of 'market towns'.
03082City Of Winchester Trust 03082/00001/011 Agree subject to assessment of impact of policies in one are on other parts for the district.
03102N R Trickett 03102/00001/001 Mr Peter Motchm (Developments) Ltd As the most sustainable settlement in the District, the majority of the 5,500 dwelling needed outside PUSH should be in and around Winchester Town, leaving only limited additional development requirements in the market towns and rural areas.
03105Save Barton Farm Group 03105/00001/011 Either: Three areas to divide Winchester District: 1. Winchester Town, market towns and rural areas. 2. 'PUSH' area. 3. South Downs National Park and AONB areas Or: Retain numbers as a whole for the entire District as in WDLPR 2001-2011.
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
31 Question 3b. If you ticked no; are there any other ways in which the District could be divided which would help plan the District for the next 20 years?
Customer Comment Reference NameReference Agent
03136The Dever Society 03136/00001/009 The rural areas should be treated as a seperate subdivision, as the planning issues they face are very different to those facing market towns. It is not possible to have common policies appropriate to both types of area.
03199Sport England (South 03199/00001/007 East Region) Support the spatial split for the district and request that the following are included in the preferred options: Protection and promotion of open space, sport an recreational facilities. Promotion of population participation rates in sport and recreation. Built environment to include opportunities for sport and recreation- need to build in area action plans and master plans for larger sites.
03202Mr M Charrett 03202/00001/004 The District does not need to be divided. The only solution to meet housing requirements over the next 20 years is to distribute development to all towns and villages throughout the District. A better solution would be to re- examine regional targets, taking full account of development land likely to become available near to, but beyond, the District boundary e.g. MoD land at Bullington [Test Valley] and Bordon [East Hants]. Sustainable housing targets should be allocated to all small towns and villages throughout the District. This approach would revitalise villages, boost local services and lead to public transport improvements and reductions in out-commuting.
03225Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd 03225/00001/009 Woolf Bond Plan Support the principle of providing for growth, within the 'South Hampshire' part of the District, at Bishops Waltham, Wickham, Whiteley and Denmead - clearly established as four of the seven 'most sustainable' locations in the district. Accept, in principle, the spatial strategy set out on P23 of the consultation document, provided it embraces the need to focus development on those sustainable locations identified in earlier work, together with ensuring the provision of deliverable housing allocations, in accordance with PPS3 (para 54)
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
32 Q3b The following list made this comment:
'Development for Wickham could be considered under 'market towns the rural area' and the PUSH category. It is therefore doubly vulnerable'
Each response has been counted as an individual comment.
Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 00949Mr And Mrs Debbie Holley And 00949/00002/002 Family 00951Mr And Mrs Philip And Wendy 00951/00002/002 Greenish 00954Mr And Mrs P D And L Spake 00954/00003/002 00956Mrs M Wheeler 00956/00002/002 00978Mr G J Wilkins 00978/00002/002 00990Mr And Mrs E Jakob 00990/00002/002 00994Mrs Evelyn Warwick 00994/00002/002 00995Mr N R Turner 00995/00003/002 00999Mrs B Davis 00999/00002/002 01003Mr And Mrs B P And E S Winter 01003/00002/002 01004Mr And Mrs Leslie And Rita 01004/00002/002 Coker 01008Mr And Mrs Anthony And Helen 01008/00002/002 Drury 01009Dr Robert C Sexton 01009/00002/002 01014Mr And Mrs M D Henderson 01014/00002/002 01015Mr Keith F Barnard 01015/00002/002 01017Mr Richard Y C Sharp 01017/00002/002 01020Mr Anthony Clark 01020/00002/002 01023Mr C S Hodge 01023/00002/002 01026Ms Lisa Morey 01026/00002/002 01027Mrs M Whiffin 01027/00001/002 01028Ms Fiona Allen 01028/00002/002 01031Mr And Mrs John And Patricia 01031/00002/002 Hartley 01032Mrs D Brown 01032/00001/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
33 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01036Mr And Mrs Brian And Sheila 01036/00002/002 Harfield 01037Mr D Gamblin 01037/00002/002 01042Ms Linda Mary Tomlin 01042/00002/002 01043Mr And Mrs Charles And 01043/00002/002 Deborah Smith 01045Mrs J Hirst 01045/00002/002 01046Mr And Mrs Andrew And Tamsin 01046/00002/002 Goodman 01050Mr And Mrs K Melsome 01050/00002/002 01054Mr Brian Oswald 01054/00002/002 01055Ms Heather Oswald 01055/00002/002 01056Ms Patricia Fray 01056/00002/002 01064Mr And Mrs Colin And Jennifer 01064/00002/002 York 01067Mr And Mrs Simon And Lisa 01067/00002/002 Rustell 01068Mr And Mrs Ian And Rosemary 01068/00002/002 Riches 01070Mrs Joan Botten 01070/00002/002 01081Mr Michael Green 01081/00002/002 01082Mr And Mrs S H And P M Cooper 01082/00002/002 01084Mr Modesty Hunter 01084/00002/002 01085Mr Kevin Tappin 01085/00001/002 01085Mr Kevin Tappin 01085/00002/002 01086Ms Ruth Edwards 01086/00002/002 01091Mr James Haywood 01091/00002/002 01092Mr Graham Haywood 01092/00002/002 01094Ms Rosemary Crane 01094/00002/002 01096Ms Melanie Boylett 01096/00002/002 01099Ms Lauren Burton 01099/00002/002 01101Mr Basil Bultitude 01101/00002/002 01104Mrs Rosemary Hilton 01104/00002/002 01106Mr E M Smith 01106/00002/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
34 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01110Mrs C Bond 01110/00002/002 01111Mr And Mrs Neil And Lorraine 01111/00002/002 Masson 01113Mrs D E Hammond 01113/00002/002 01114Ms Margaret Van Den Broek 01114/00002/002 01115Mr E Barringer 01115/00002/002 01119Mr And Mrs C B And J L Estell 01119/00002/002 01126Mrs C Blackman 01126/00002/002 01128Mr And Mrs J Crick 01128/00002/002 01130Mrs Elizabeth Hardinge 01130/00002/002 01136Mr And Mrs Vollentine 01136/00001/002 01138Mrs R Chambers 01138/00002/002 01139Mr A Chambers 01139/00002/002 01142Mrs E Pack 01142/00002/002 01143Mrs Christine Beardshaw 01143/00002/002 01144Mr And Mrs S And I P Tasker 01144/00001/002 01152Mr And Mrs Russell And 01152/00002/002 Catherine Chisnall 01154Mr And Mrs Edmund Charles 01154/00002/002 And Shirley Waring 01158Mr And Mrs Thorne 01158/00002/002 01159Mrs And Mrs M Toole 01159/00001/002 01165Mr And Mrs Ross 01165/00002/002 01173Mrs L H G Bonnor 01173/00002/002 01174Ms Sandra Foulkes 01174/00002/002 01176Mr And Mrs Laws 01176/00001/002 01179Mr M J Willers 01179/00002/002 01180Ms Carole Unser 01180/00002/002 01183Mr And Mrs Michael And Judith 01183/00002/002 Oakes 01184Mrs Jean E McKay 01184/00002/002 01185Mr M J Coombs 01185/00002/002 01188Mr And Mrs R Harwood 01188/00002/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
35 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01191Mr Matthew Bailey 01191/00002/002 01193Mr And Mrs Tollerfield 01193/00002/002 01196Mr B Wingate 01196/00002/002 01198Mr P Locke 01198/00002/002 01202Ms Dorothy Johnson 01202/00002/002 01204Mr And Mrs G J Aiken 01204/00002/002 01206Mrs M R Dear 01206/00002/002 01208Mr And Mrs Knight 01208/00002/002 01209Mr And Mrs Mike And Anne 01209/00002/002 Gosney 01210Mrs B Benson 01210/00002/002 01212Mr And Mrs Gulliford 01212/00001/002 01217Mrs G Butters 01217/00002/002 01223Mr And Mrs Kevin Coker 01223/00002/002 01228Mr And Mrs D J Gray 01228/00002/002 01230Mr Anthony Richard Johnson 01230/00002/002 01235Mr And Mrs H K White 01235/00002/002 01239Mr Andrew Burton 01239/00002/002 01240Mr Dennis Pilcher 01240/00002/002 01242Mr And Mrs Laing 01242/00002/002 01245Mr William Hobbs 01245/00002/002 01247Mr Kenneth Edwards 01247/00002/002 01248Mr P J Noble 01248/00002/002 01249Mr D M Vear 01249/00002/002 01250Mrs S Gillanders 01250/00002/002 01253Ms Wendy Burton 01253/00002/002 01257Mr And Mrs P J Duddridge 01257/00002/002 01261Ms Sheila Elizabeth Campbell 01261/00002/002 01264Ms P McIntosh 01264/00002/002 01268Mr William Bryn Foulkes 01268/00002/002 01272Mr H W Lockey 01272/00002/002 01274Dr Mark Du Boulay 01274/00002/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
36 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01278Mr And Mrs Colin And Janet 01278/00002/002 McIntosh 01279Ms Alana Burton 01279/00002/002 01285Mrs Barbara McCallion 01285/00002/002 01290Mr And Mrs Roy And Susan 01290/00002/002 Perry 01294Mr Terry Caister 01294/00002/002 01295Mr And Mrs Coker 01295/00002/002 01299Mr And Mrs Kemp 01299/00002/002 01301Mr And Mrs George And Sylvia 01301/00002/002 Mercer 01303Mr And Mrs Theuma 01303/00002/002 01304Mr And Mrs O'Neill 01304/00002/002 01305Mr And Mrs Ray And Bez 01305/00002/002 Richards 01308Mrs M E Manuel 01308/00002/002 01309Mr Keith Robinson 01309/00002/002 01311Mrs Toni Smith 01311/00002/002 01313Mr And Mrs Bert And Joan 01313/00002/002 Parkins 01314Mr And Mrs L S Towlson 01314/00002/002 01315Mr Richard Warwick 01315/00002/002 01317Mr Paul Healy 01317/00002/002 01320Mrs Rosalind McAllister 01320/00002/002 01321Mr G Barrett 01321/00002/002 01322Mr And Mrs Raymond And Joyce 01322/00002/002 Offen 01323Mr Duncan Phelps 01323/00002/002 01329Mr John Bain 01329/00002/002 01330Ms Jennifer Bradley 01330/00002/002 01332Ms Carol Batterson 01332/00002/002 01333Mrs Angela Avonda 01333/00002/002 01335Ms C Chapman 01335/00002/002 01336Mrs P June Harper 01336/00002/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
37 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01337Mr And Mrs George And Ann 01337/00002/002 Condie 01338Mrs Vivien Harper 01338/00002/002 01339Ms Mary J Burgess 01339/00002/002 01340Mr Robert Goble 01340/00002/002 01341Mr V B Hunter 01341/00002/002 01349Mr And Mrs D Burgess 01349/00002/002 01351Mr And Mrs R Powell 01351/00002/002 01353Dr J Goodey 01353/00002/002 01355Mrs E S Goodey 01355/00002/002 01358Mrs A T Cobb 01358/00002/002 01359Mr P G Taylor 01359/00002/002 01360Mrs J Brackenbury 01360/00002/002 01366Mr Michael Kerley 01366/00002/002 01368Mr B J Turvey 01368/00002/002 01371Mr And Mrs Arthur And Diana 01371/00001/002 Shadwell 01372Mrs Peggy L Anderson 01372/00002/002 01373Ms Judith Masterson 01373/00002/002 01374Mrs S Byles 01374/00001/002 01375Mr And Mrs Ray And Susan 01375/00002/002 Austin 01376Mr And Mrs Bentley 01376/00002/002 01377Mrs Joyce V Johnston 01377/00002/002 01378Mr And Mrs Anthony And Gillian 01378/00002/002 Balcombe 01379Mr Beryl Olwen Alexander 01379/00002/002 01382Mrs Betty Bellis 01382/00002/002 01383Ms Pat Matthews 01383/00002/002 01387Mr P F Donohue 01387/00002/002 01391Mr Matt Browning 01391/00002/002 01393Mrs G Tuffs 01393/00002/002 01395Mr And Mrs P Bennett 01395/00002/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
38 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01396Mr And Mrs Keith And Gillian 01396/00002/002 Towlson 01401Mr J Marshall 01401/00002/002 01402Mr And Mrs Robert And 01402/00002/002 Margaret Goodrich 01405Mr And Mrs J Leach 01405/00002/002 01406Mrs T J Beale 01406/00002/002 01408Mr And Mrs G G And J R 01408/00002/002 Sessions 01410Mr And Mrs Michael And Victoria 01410/00002/002 Betts 01416Mr Patrick Hole 01416/00002/002 01419Ms Iris Bartlett 01419/00002/002 01420Ms Jennifer Steeples 01420/00002/002 01425 Mrs B E Quantrill 01425/00002/002 01427Mr And Mrs Malcolm And Karen 01427/00002/002 Lipscombe 01431Mr And Mrs B Hearn 01431/00002/002 01433Mr And Mrs Brian And Margaret 01433/00002/002 Edgworth 01436Mr And Mrs C K Couch 01436/00002/002 01438Mr And Mrs S Wood 01438/00002/002 01441Mr R C Smith 01441/00002/002 01443Mr Anthony White 01443/00002/002 01444Mr Reg Betts 01444/00002/002 01449Mr A Clark 01449/00002/002 01450Mrs Doris Goodall 01450/00002/002 01453Mrs Joan D Smith 01453/00002/002 01455Mr Joyce M Tuffill 01455/00002/002 01456Ms Dorothy Lilian Kendrick 01456/00002/002 01457Mr F R Edwards 01457/00002/002 01458Mr D Copeland 01458/00002/002 01459Mr Robert Brown 01459/00002/002 01464Mr Mark Ashton 01464/00002/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
39 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01466Ms Sue North 01466/00002/002 01468Mr And Mrs David And Greta 01468/00002/002 Weston 01474Mr David E Blake 01474/00002/002 01475Mr Stephen P Drake 01475/00002/002 01476Mr Brian Davies 01476/00002/002 01477Ms Denise Davies 01477/00002/002 01478Mr Oliver Davies 01478/00002/002 01479Ms Helen Manuel 01479/00002/002 01482Mrs Jennifer Bass 01482/00001/002 01483Mr Gerald Banks 01483/00001/002 01484Mr Ian Goddard 01484/00001/002 01486Mr Graham Smith 01486/00001/002 01487Mrs Janet Langford 01487/00001/002 01489Mr And Mrs Norman And 01489/00001/002 Christine Beckett 01492Mrs Angela Fay Wilson 01492/00001/002 01494Mrs Tania Hall 01494/00002/002 01501Revd David Simpson 01501/00002/002 01502Mr And Mrs Angus And Margaret 01502/00001/002 McGilp 01508Mr Douglas Aylward 01508/00002/002 01509Mr Peter Frankpitt 01509/00001/002 01511Ms J A Restall 01511/00002/002 01514Mr Robert Goulson 01514/00002/002 01516Mrs Jane Goulson 01516/00002/002 01517Mr And Mrs Derek And Barbara 01517/00002/002 Watson 01518Mr And Mrs Maurice And Myrtle 01518/00002/002 Cooper 01521Mr J Comerford 01521/00001/002 01524Mr Godfrey Harper 01524/00002/002 01525Mr And Mrs Pierre And Tina 01525/00001/002 Allison
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
40 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01528Mr Brian Hall 01528/00002/002 01529Mr Derek Charles Someruille 01529/00001/002 01531Mrs Janet Bingham 01531/00001/002 01532Mrs Lisa Foster 01532/00002/002 01533Dr Morgan O'Connell 01533/00002/002 01536Mrs Carrie Mandley 01536/00002/002 01537Mrs Barbara Webb 01537/00002/002 01538Mr Jack Stickland 01538/00002/002 01545Mr And Mrs Louis And Susan 01545/00001/002 Nash 01547Mrs Olive Trotman 01547/00001/002 01548Mrs Daksha Mistry 01548/00001/002 01549Mr And Mrs Barry And Christine 01549/00001/002 Samways 01551Mrs Daphne Kingsland 01551/00001/002 01552Mr Sean McCallion 01552/00002/002 01555Mr And Mrs John And Margaret 01555/00001/002 Wheeler 01556Miss Maxine Wheeler 01556/00001/002 01559Mr Iain McAllister 01559/00002/002 01563Mrs Susan Hemsworth 01563/00001/002 01564Mrs R Cane 01564/00001/002 01565Mr And Mrs Maclean 01565/00002/002 01566Mr William John Baldwin 01566/00002/002 01569Mr Frank Knight 01569/00001/002 01570Captain Rn. Gerrard Andrewes 01570/00002/002 01571Mrs June Gibbons 01571/00001/002 01572Mr Damon Daysh 01572/00001/002 01573Miss Jane England 01573/00002/002 01575Mr Edward Piercy-Jones 01575/00001/002 01576Mrs Jean Ockenden 01576/00001/002 01578Mr Henry Butters 01578/00001/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
41 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01582Lt Cdr And Mrs Michael And 01582/00001/002 Barbara Berry 01584Mr Keith Davies 01584/00001/002 01586Ms Lisa Hymers 01586/00001/002 01590Mrs Melba Boultwood 01590/00001/002 01593Mrs Karen Percival 01593/00001/002 01595Mr Neale V Fray 01595/00001/002 01597Mrs Betty Mitchell 01597/00002/002 01598Mr And Mrs Wayne And Sally 01598/00001/002 Beck 01600Mr And Mrs Peter And Joy Curry 01600/00001/002 01602Mrs Anne Mitchell 01602/00001/002 01603Mrs Constance Gordon 01603/00001/002 01606Mr Barry Evers 01606/00001/002 01615Mrs Susan Hoare 01615/00001/002 01624Mr Roger Partridge 01624/00001/002 01628Mrs Doreen Ettling 01628/00001/002 01630Mrs Eleanor Watts 01630/00001/002 01633Mrs Christine Wilkins 01633/00001/002 01635Mrs Dorothy Usher 01635/00001/002 01636Mr Phillip Perry 01636/00001/002 01637Mr Arthur Cleeve 01637/00001/002 01643Mr Robert John Wheeler 01643/00001/002 01644Mrs Pamela Ray 01644/00001/002 01648Mr Gerald Andrew Day 01648/00001/002 01650Mr And Mrs Barry And Beverley 01650/00001/002 Jones 01651Mr Winnie Metcalf 01651/00001/002 01653Mr Adam Weald 01653/00001/002 01655Mr And Mrs Michael And 01655/00001/002 Miranda Hughes 01660Mrs June Astridge 01660/00001/002 01662Mr And Mrs Frank And Jean Cox 01662/00001/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
42 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01664Mr And Mrs Malcolm And Norma 01664/00001/002 Short 01666Mrs Lindsay Glasspool 01666/00001/002 01667Mr Steven Shott 01667/00001/002 01675Mrs Susan Doherty 01675/00001/002 01676Mrs Marjorie Butterfield 01676/00001/002 01682Mr And Mrs Anton And Susan 01682/00001/002 Hanney 01685Mr Ian Wright 01685/00002/002 01687Mr And Mrs William And 01687/00001/002 Penelope Agnew 01692Mrs Anne Driver 01692/00001/002 01693Mrs Pauline Betts 01693/00002/002 01694Mrs Isabel Short 01694/00001/002 01695Mrs Margaret White 01695/00002/002 01697Mr Stanley Quantrill 01697/00002/002 01698Mr Graham Russell 01698/00002/002 01703Mr And Mrs Michael And Claire 01703/00001/002 Barnes 01705Mrs Lucy Marson 01705/00001/002 01706Mr Cedric Hunt 01706/00001/002 01707Mr Anthony Driver 01707/00001/002 01710Mr R W Merritt 01710/00001/002 01714Mr Graham Pike 01714/00001/002 01719Mrs Susan Roger-Jones 01719/00001/002 01720Mr Robin Dudley 01720/00002/002 01725Ms Claire Steeples 01725/00001/002 01730Mr And Mrs Graham Knight 01730/00001/002 01731Mr Graham Laut 01731/00001/002 01734Lady Dorothy Tidbury 01734/00001/002 01735Miss Katherine Richards 01735/00001/002 01737Mr Peter Fooks 01737/00001/002 01738Mr Derek Hunt 01738/00001/002
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
43 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01739Mrs Lisa Ashley 01739/00001/002 01740Mrs Christine White 01740/00001/002 01744Mr And Mrs Michael And 01744/00001/002 Rosemary O'Leary 01748Mr And Mrs Charles And Daphne 01748/00001/002 Gale 01749Mr Eugene O'Connor 01749/00001/002 01751Ms Jane Shearsmith 01751/00001/002 01754Mr David Pitt 01754/00001/002 01755Mr Brian Dell 01755/00001/002 01756Mr Brian Morgan 01756/00001/002 01757Mr Stanley Money 01757/00001/002 01758Mr And Mrs William And Mary 01758/00001/002 Puttock 01759Mr Brian Orvis 01759/00001/002 01761Dr Charlotte Groves 01761/00001/002 01770Miss Elizabeth Austin 01770/00001/002 01772Mr James Freemantle 01772/00001/002 01775Mr Neil Botten 01775/00001/002 01777Mr And Mrs Jack And Joan 01777/00001/002 Eddles 01778Mrs Angela Clear 01778/00001/002 01780Mr Martin Rogers 01780/00001/002 01781Mr And Mrs Roy And Karen 01781/00001/002 Jeffrey 01783Mr Bruce Howard Crook 01783/00001/002 01785Mr David Buckle 01785/00001/002 01787Mrs Dorothy Pope 01787/00001/002 01789Ms Lynda Cussons 01789/00001/002 01790Mr And Mrs John And Gloria 01790/00001/002 Roux 01792Mr And Mrs Ian And Diane 01792/00001/002 McKay 01795Mr And Mrs Paul And Joan 01795/00001/002 Hymers
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
44 Customer Customer Comment Reference Name Reference 01796Mr And Mrs Robert And Marlene 01796/00001/002 Randell 01798Mrs Joyce Daysh 01798/00001/002 01801Mr Werner Zacker 01801/00001/002 01802Mr Christopher May 01802/00001/002 01803Mr Stephen Kay 01803/00001/002 01805Mrs Bev Wetherill 01805/00001/002 01806Mr Colin Pratt 01806/00001/002 01807Mrs Hazel Fleming 01807/00001/002 01808Mrs Fran Hall 01808/00001/002 01809Mrs Alberta Simmons 01809/00001/002 01812Mr And Mrs Paul And Ann De 01812/00001/002 Ste-Croix 01822Mrs J Cleife 01822/00002/002 01912Dr And Mrs Steven And Fiona 01912/00001/002 Reeves 01913Sir John Forbes 01913/00001/002 01914Mrs Joan Stubbington 01914/00001/002 01917Mrs Dawn Toomey 01917/00001/002 01919Dr Mark Hunter 01919/00002/002 02281Mr And Miss Steve And Rachel 02281/00001/008 Hodgkinson And Christopher 02282Miss Annette Blackman 02282/00001/008 02284Mr Barry Hirst 02284/00001/008 02286Mrs Sandra Hallt 02286/00001/008 02287Mr Brian Brotherton 02287/00001/008
Summaries of responses to Core Strategy Issues and Options (October 2008)
45