BASE HEADER

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6801

Derbyniwyd: 10/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Barry Stelfox

I object to the plans to build a housing estate of 3250 home at Kings Hill, Finham as shown on the above document.

These properties have been shown as "Coventry's" although Coventry claim to be unable to provide within their own boundary yet admit to having 4500 empty properties within the City. They are also unprepared to advise on certain aspects of their long term plans.

I read your report as a contradiction of wanting to build yet stating a case for the protection of Green Belt and also not wanting to merge communities.

Location.

Kings Hill is in Warwickshire and is land betwixt A46, Stoneleigh Road, Kenilworth Road and Green Lane.

It is already in Green Belt and protected until 2010. It was advised this protection is to continue at a recent meeting held at Finham Primary School.

This area does contain the remains of a medieval village.

As stated, this land is in Warwickshire and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the Warwickshire Emergency Services and not Coventry/West Midlands. The media have recently advised that the Warwickshire Fire Service are considering reducing their manpower.

This area has previously been considered for development and the plan was declined due to access. Using Kings Hill, Stoneleigh Road and Green Lane for access was deemed not viable by the Government Inspector.

Green Belt.

Page 1-1. You state you wish the Green Belt to maintain separation between towns, yet your plan shows the commencement of disregarding this point.

Page 1-2. You state you want to protect the Green Belt that separates the town (Kenilworth) from the urban area (Coventry) to the north, yet your plan shows the commencement of disregarding this point.

Page 1-5. Allow for new development... where it is demonstrated as necessary to meet its aspirations. No demonstration has been given. I believe this implies a political decision and not a practical one.

Page5-8. You want to protect and improve the quality of existing open spaces and sports facilities, yet you want to build on a Green Belt open space.

Page 6-13. You state need to protect Bishops Tachbrook from merging with its nearby urban area, but no mention of protecting Kenilworth from its urban area which is approximately only one mile away.

Page 20-3:14. Para 2 "to protect the most important areas of Green Belt that separates the town from the urban area of Coventry to the north"... yet you would allow Coventry's overspill to be built upon it.

Page 29-5:21. The Council would need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to remove this land from the Green Belt. Exceptional circumstances have not been given. However, I interpret this statement to be that this build at Kings Hill is being imposed upon you.

Page 53-10:25. The phasing of this site (Kings Hill) should not prejudice the redevelopment of brownfield land within Coventry, and will therefore be dependent upon the rate of housing development coming forward within the city. I believe that Coventry is "muscling" in, and by being vague about its needs and also taking the easy option.

Page 57-10:47. This paragraph I interpret as leading to the eroding of gaps betwixt several communities if this plan is approved.

Page 63-12:1&2. Open spaces can underpin the quality of people's lives yet you want to build upon the Green Belt. A contradiction.

Page 64-12:6. Adequate protection should be given to parks, green corridors and open spaces; yet you want to build upon Green Belt.

Page 77-12:13 You state must prevent Bishops Tachbrook from merging with the urban area, but no mention is made of preventing Coventry eventually merging with Kenilworth.

Other points.

Page 3-5. You state there are many reasons to enable rural communities to become stronger and more sustainable, yet Kings Hill does not come into this category.

Page4-6. Whilst you have indicated where land could be developed, you do admit to being subject to testing issues of viability... yet these testing issues are not defined.

Page 5-8. Your preferred option is to protect and improve the quality of existing open spaces, yet you want to allow building on Green Belt viz: Kings Hill.

Page 19-3:10. This implies that employees of Warwick University and those working nearby, for example Westwood Business Park, could move nearer to their place of work by developing Kings Hill and Burton Green.
There is no guarantee people would move.
For an average house of £300,000 the basic ancillary costs would be £13,000. ( Estate Agents fee [paid on old property say £200,000], removal, and Stamp Duty).

It was implied at one meeting a railway station could be built next to Wainbody Wood, yet this could be up to 5 miles away from parts of Warwick University.

Page 27-5-13. This implies that Coventry is not revealing its needs and Warwick District Council should be prepared to provide any shortfall. If I have interpreted this correctly, how can Warwick District Council constructively prepare for the future?

Page 53-10:26. You advise consultations will take place. This is good to learn as Warwick District Council have proved it can be done, yet Coventry demonstrated the opposite.
The only correspondence we got from them was about prevention of dogs fouling the public highways!

Conclusion.

As I understand it Central Government have imposed the remit of building new homes and not modernise existing empty homes. An easier option than modernising older vacant properties.

Coventry has stated that there are already approximately 4500 vacant homes in Coventry.

Whilst appreciating that your objective is to plan up to the period of 2026, no mention has been made relating to Kings Hill concerning:-

a) whether schools are to be built, type and when
b) whether shops are to be built, type and when
c) access to site
d) whether the site will come under Coventry or Warwick Councils' jurisdiction.
e) whether drainage will be into Coventry's or direct to Finham Sewage.
f) the impact upon the existing wildlife habitat (no study appears to have been carried out)
g) the removal of agricultural land
h) potential unemployment of agricultural workers (see g)
i) whether the Emergency Services could accommodate the extra homes, never mind under which Authority would provide cover.
j) provision of Public Transport and which Authority would provide cover.
k) amount of land needed for Industrial use, type of Industry envisaged.
l) what access needed to service the Industrial area.
m) medical cover for such a large area, such as Doctor and Dentist, and when surgeries are to be built.

However, I must commend Warwick District Council's awareness of communicating with those people who live next to Kings Hill, yet not living within the County boundary.

Coventry claim to have statutory consulted, but have not provided proof with whom, and morally have not with residents of Green Lane and Stoneleigh Road areas.

Again, I reiterate my opposition to the development of Kings Hill.

Finally the more I accumulate knowledge of the potential destroying of Kings Hill, I am convinced of a Machiavellian plot for Coventry to acquire a larger fiefdom.