Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6630

Derbyniwyd: 05/11/2009

Ymatebydd: Lesley Pritchard

Object to Kings Hill site.
It is questionable whether Coventry requires additional housing. The allocation of 33,500 homes in Coventry is way in excess of other areas in the sub-region.
King's Hill provides an essential green space between Coventry and Kenilworth. Development will :
Destroy an area rich in historical, ecological and bio-diversity.
Remove a vital amenity for walkers riders, cyclists joggers etc.
Destroy rich, productive agricultural land.
Compromise the facilities currently enjoyed in the south of the City - transport, education leisure facilities etc.
Be putting a quick profit before long term quality of living an making an undemocratic decision that is in direct conflict with the expressed will of local people.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6634

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr Owen Fitzpatrick

Object to site west of Europa Way and others south of Leamington:
Area gradually being swamped by development. Warwick and Leamington have separate, distinctive and attractive faces and varying facilities that would be lost if merged. Land provides healthy respite from urban sprawl and is area of restraint. A farce allowing area of 'restraint' if status can be shifted at a whim without regard for public opinion.
Land has flooding issues.
There is a wealth of flora and fauna and is fertile farming land.
Infrastructure:
Traffic question alone would make it a non-starter - Myton Road and junctions around Europa Way and Banbury Road virtually at a standstill in morning and evening rush hours. Schools are at capacity, hospitals and fire services on the other side of the river with access at four points, all heavily used. Putting forward development plan before considering these seems ludicrous. Investigation needed as to how infrastructure would cope should be performed prior to site consideration.
Questionable figures for housing. Has real inquiry taken place or are figures snatched from the air? Pre-supposes migrant movement from outside the area as opposed to probable conclusion that movement would be from within Leamington area itself, freeing up accommodation in immediate area.
More suitable sites:
Land around Warwick Parkway - close to M40, A46 and has rail connections, all without passing through Warwick and Leamington towns.
Villages could take their share preserving services and providing affordable housing.
University provides employment so north of Leamington most suitable and commuters to Coventry and Leamington would not have to cross river.
Finham and Kings Hill would have excellent connections.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6641

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mrs Pat Fitzpatrick

Object to site west of Europa Way and others south of Leamington:
Area gradually being swamped by development. Warwick and Leamington have separate, distinctive and attractive faces and varying facilities that would be lost if merged. Land provides healthy respite from urban sprawl and is area of restraint. A farce allowing area of 'restraint' if status can be shifted at a whim without regard for public opinion.
Land has flooding issues.
There is a wealth of flora and fauna and is fertile farming land.
Infrastructure:
Traffic question alone would make it a non-starter - Myton Road and junctions around Europa Way and Banbury Road virtually at a standstill in morning and evening rush hours. Schools are at capacity, hospitals and fire services on the other side of the river with access at four points, all heavily used. Putting forward development plan before considering these seems ludicrous. Investigation needed as to how infrastructure would cope should be performed prior to site consideration.
Questionable figures for housing. Has real inquiry taken place or are figures snatched from the air? Pre-supposes migrant movement from outside the area as opposed to probable conclusion that movement would be from within Leamington area itself, freeing up accommodation in immediate area.
More suitable sites:
Land around Warwick Parkway - close to M40, A46 and has rail connections, all without passing through Warwick and Leamington towns.
Villages could take their share preserving services and providing affordable housing.
University provides employment so north of Leamington most suitable and commuters to Coventry and Leamington would not have to cross river.
Finham and Kings Hill would have excellent connections.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 6700

Derbyniwyd: 22/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Sylw

ID sylw: 6719

Derbyniwyd: 05/11/2009

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire County Council - Heritage & Culture (Museums)

It is difficult to offer support at this stage since no more than a general location is indicated. There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument on the edge of this area together with a possible moated site. Detailed appraisal of archaeology and historic landscape should be undertaken once any area has been properly defined.

Sylw

ID sylw: 6762

Derbyniwyd: 06/11/2009

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire County Council [Commissioning, Planning & Partnerships Service, Children, Young People & Families]

The nearest school provision in Warwickshire for primary and secondary school places is in Kenilworth. As you will see from the comments above, it is forecast that there will be no significant surplus primary or secondary school capacity in the town. It is also understood that there is no surplus school capacity across the border in Coventry.

This development would generate a demand for some 644 primary school places and the LA would require sites for two new primary schools (including a 2 FE 420 place school and a 1 FE 210 place school. It is likely that one primary school would be required to be in place as soon as the first house was occupied. A contribution toward land acquisition costs on the Kings Hill site will therefore be required as well as toward the cost of building.

Early Years provision will also be required, totalling 92 fte places.

At the secondary school phase, Kenilworth School is the nearest secondary school serving the town and could not accommodate the further 460 secondary school places, plus 110 sixth form places generated by this development. The provision of a secondary school site with a capacity of 750 pupils will also be required. A contribution toward land acquisition costs on the Kings Hill site will therefore be required as well as toward the cost of building.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6772

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: ed boyle

Question the findings in the Joint Green Belt Study.

The North South Corridor is too rigid and contradictory.

Significant noise air and odour pollution, from roads, rail, airport and sewage works which in some cases are already above EU and Government thresholds.

Within the last six months Warwick has identified

Traffic and roads are already busy around Kings Hill site. Extra roads to build capacity will be costly.

Significantly deterioate the environment and amenity for the local community, landscape and wildlife.


Eastern side of site is designated as a zone 3 flood area. Water and river conservation and preventing surface fooding significant barriers to development.

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.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 6822

Derbyniwyd: 14/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr Stuart Boyle

Subject to satisfactory resolution of the traffic, education, health and employment issues attached I do support the proposals to develop the following areas:

8) Thickthorn, between Kenilworth and the A46
9) South of Finham, west of the A46

Other developments in the west of the district close to the M40 corridor should also be considered.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6848

Derbyniwyd: 22/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Lindsay Green

Access is currently difficult this would be exacerbated.
Productive farmland.
Character of the area will be changed and at risk.
Greenbelt should be preserved.
Quality of land is high.
Worsen flooding.
Smells from seage works.
close to airport flightpath
Infrastructure already oversubscribed and overflowing.
No-one in Finham is in favour of the proposals.
Set a precedent for other greenbelt sites.
Environmental factors
Ancient hedgerows and wildlife in the site.Archeological factors
Density would be unreasonable.

Coventry City has many unused homes and brownfield sites as have Warwick District.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 6877

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Binswood Allotment Society

support

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6905

Derbyniwyd: 22/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Stoneleigh & Ashow Parish Council

The Parish Council does not want any of the extra housing that is being imposed on the country by government edict. However, recognising that our voice is of minimal consequence, we are relieved that the only area in the parish that is under threat is the proposed Coventry "overspill" area at Finham and to this we have strong objections. The proposal for housing here would swamp the infrastructure of the area. The house number proposed would be several times those that exist in Stoneleigh. This is not a sustainable proposal without extensive infrastructure investment. transport, principally roads, employment, but shopping, medical support, play areas and drainage would all be required.

Sylw

ID sylw: 6916

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr Steve Williams

Kings Hill site:
Concerned with the increased traffic associated with any development in the King's Hill Lane area of Finham. The roads around the area are already over capacity at peak time. In the morning peak there is queuing traffic from the bridge over the A46 junction onto Gibbets Hill Road, whilst in both morning and evening peaks there is queuing up St Martins Road to the roundabout by the BP garage (and subsequently on the A45). We believe any development in the Kings Hill Road will exacerbate these issues and increase the use of Baginton as a rat run from the Tollbar / Ryton direction. The Core Strategy document indicates that the infrastructure will be progressively developed in due course but our acceptance of it will depend on how you plan to cope with the increased traffic flows to Coventry, Kenilworth and the A46. At this stage of the consultation we must therefore object to the Finham proposals.

2. If this new Kings Hill estate is proposed to help out Coventry City, who argue that they do not have the space to build their housing allocation to 2026, then we would object to the whole development in Kings Hill Finham. Coventry should be made to use all their Green Belt before pressurising neighbouring authorities to bale them out by sacrificing theirs.

3.We are opposed to building on green belt when there are brownfield sites available but not utilised.

Sylw

ID sylw: 6948

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land at King's Hill
This finger of land is almost surrounded by development. It could, as a last resort, be used for development but if selected must be used either to meet Warwick District‟s allocation rather than Coventry‟s or be sufficient for both .
This land is in Warwick district and therefore the Parish Council believes that this land should only contribute towards Warwick District‟s allocation of employment land. The 269 ha allocated could not only provide land for 3500 homes for Coventry, but also provide a further 2700 homes for WDC. If the 3500 houses are for Coventry to support Coventry Employment requirements within the city boundary, then the mix suggested of 37.5% residential is low and could easily be 50%. Being part of the city, 60 dph would not be unreasonable for 33% of the residential with 40dph for the remainder.

Sylw

ID sylw: 7004

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported but concerned that it is possibly necessary because Coventry are not using their Brownfield sites

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7061

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Finham Residents Association

The overspill policy will result in the loss of much valued Green Belt land and agricultural land in a time when we should be concentrating on more home produced food.
The land has significant environmental role preventing the spread of urban sprawl. It cannot be reinstated.
King's Hill looks to be an easy development opportunity to the onlooker. The area has physical limitations to development.
King's Hill plays a significant role in local environment. A source of drinking water and home to sewage works which serves an increasing area, consuming oxygen and emitting carbon dioxide.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7072

Derbyniwyd: 30/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Kenilworth Society

Regard the expansion and incursion of Coventry of land adjoining Finham to represent serious threat to future balanced development and identity of Kenilworth:
Given proximity of Finham and excellence of Kenilworth services (e.g. schools) is inevitable that this development will impact on infrastructure, transport and health provision in the town.
Dangers of coalescence with Coventry threatens the distinctive identity of Kenilworth
Capacity of connecting road systems , the A46 and A429, may well be overwhelmed to detriment of both locations.

Hence we strongly oppose such development. For similar reasons we do not support the development of the area between Kenilworth and Leamington.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7086

Derbyniwyd: 27/09/2009

Ymatebydd: The Leamington Society

Development here would:
* benefit from existing infrastructure close to Coventry, including the re-opening of Kenilworth railway station;
* support the regeneration of Coventry and focus development on the core north-south corridor in the sub region (also close to the A46 and A45 transport corridors);
* allow separate identities of the four towns to be maintained by removing pressure to 'join them up' with continuous housing.
Refusal of planning permission for Coventry airport expansion and subsequent decision by the owners to put it up for sale provides an ideal opportunity to meet the housing needs of both Warwickshire and Coventry without using Greenfield land.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7402

Derbyniwyd: 23/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Asiant : Holmes Antill

Endorse the Council's approach to sanction the development of land adjacent to the built-up area of Coventry, specifically at the location south of Finham bounded by the A46 and the railway.

Important features on the site would not preclude a mixed use development taking place. The land can accommodate up to 4,000 dwellings, employment land to provide up to 4000 jobs, community facilities and with about 40% of the area devoted to open space.

Development will represent a significant investment, including a railway station, rail upgrades, bus routes, park and ride, road improvements, schools, shops, community facilities, dwellings and employment buildings.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7444

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: University of Warwick

Asiant : Turley

Growth at Finham could impact A46/Stoneleigh Road junction and to a lesser extent the A45/Kenilworth Road junction. Further upgrades will almost certainly be necessary to accommodate development. Consideration should be given to a new road linking an upgraded junction on the A46 at Stoneleigh with Westwood Heath Road at Kirby Corner. Any growth west of the A46 must ensure that adequate physical and visual separation is maintained between Coventry and Kenilworth.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7574

Derbyniwyd: 17/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr George Jones

Object

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7646

Derbyniwyd: 14/12/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr Boyle

Asiant : Brown and Co

In terms of land allocations, we do feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the wider regional picture and that too much details is provided on the strategic sites. We feel that there are other more suitable sites available and that at this stage the plan should be more general in terms of its direction for growth without site specific details being put forward. If these are not deliverable, as we understand has yet to be proved, then the plan may generally not be deliverable and sustainable.

Sylw

ID sylw: 7679

Derbyniwyd: 23/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Ray Bullen

Land is in Warwick district and therefore should contribute towards Warwick District's allocation of employment land. The 269 ha allocated could not only provide land for 3500 homes for Coventry, but also provide a further 2700 homes for WDC. If the 3500 houses are for Coventry to support Coventry Employment requirements within the city boundary, then the mix suggested of 37.5% residential is low and could easily be 50%. Being part of the city, 60 dph would not be unreasonable for 33% of the residential with 40dph for the remainder.

Sylw

ID sylw: 7711

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire County Council - Environment & Economy Directorate

This allocation, adjacent to the built-up area of Coventry, will maximise trips to be made into the city centre by bus. Shorter trips both within the site and to nearby services and facilities can be made on foot or by bike.
Transport mitigation measures could include:
- upgrade of the A46 Stoneleigh Interchange; improvements to the C32 Stoneleigh Road between the A46 and the A429 Kenilworth Road; and to the A429 Kenilworth Road/C32 Stoneleigh Road/Gibbet Hill junction;
- measures to minimise the impact of traffic through Stoneleigh village;
- improvements to public transport, including
links to the existing network in Coventry;
possible extension of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit network in Coventry ; and possible provision of a railway station at Gibbet Hill; and
- a comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle routes to/from and within the site; and
- a Green Travel Plan for the overall development.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7720

Derbyniwyd: 23/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Ray Bullen

Almost surrounded by development. Should be used for development as last resort and must be used either to meet Warwick District's allocation rather than Coventry's or be sufficient for both.
Land is in Warwick district and should only contribute towards Warwick District's allocation of employment land. The 269 ha allocated could provide land for 3500 homes for Coventry, but also provide 2700 homes for WDC. If 3500 houses are for Coventry to support Coventry Employment requirements within city boundary, then mix of 37.5% residential is low and could be 50%. 60 dph would not be unreasonable for 33% of residential with 40dph for remainder.

Sylw

ID sylw: 33523

Derbyniwyd: 03/08/2009

Ymatebydd: Mrs I Brown

Asiant : Stansgate Planning

We support the proposal to allocate land to meet the outstanding needs of Coventry in the adjoining Districts of Nuneaton & Bedworth and Warwick.

We accept that Coventry is unlikely to have sufficient land to meet its full housing requirement, but do not accept the approach currently being adopted.

We consider that the most appropriate way forward would be for Coventry, Nuneaton & Bedworth and Warwick Districts to prepare a joint Development Plan Document.

We would support the proposal for the development of land to the south west of Finham, provided that other smaller sites are allocated and developed first.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 33553

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Crackley Residents' Association

CRA objects to the significant proportion of the Kings Hill site for new housing. CRA does not support significant development of this area. In addition to the scale of the residential development, the requisite infrastructural improvements (transport, power, gas sewage,etc) will evitably have a detrimental effect on the entire area..

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 33586

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Revelan Group

Asiant : Harris Lamb

It is premature to allocate land for development until a comparative site assessment is undertaken based on a robust evidence base.

Sylw

ID sylw: 33616

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Asiant : Savills (L&P) Ltd

The potential use of Green Belt to meet housing needs from outside the District.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 33677

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr T Steele

Asiant : Savills (L&P) Ltd

The evidence base for this site is unsound as it has not adequately evaluated reasonable alternative options for development to the south of Coventry. This is an unproven and inflexible option that relies on a single large area of land.