Broadly support this, as it does add to an existing thriving town.

Lifetime accessible homes, heat pumps, south facing windows, outside space for all.

Object:
Would ruin character of the town and increase traffic congestion
There has already been considerable building in the East of Kenilworth with a large loss of open space. This will again add to the encroachment of Coventry.
There is a lack of local infrastructure; and there are insufficient local existing amenities including schools doctors and dentists.
Huge impact upon environment.
Noise from A46 would be like living next to a motorway for the residents.
Availability of other, more appropriate brownfield sites in Warwickshire

I would support new housing here, providing the infrastructure as regards new access roads, shops and schools locally could support this. There would be problems if the housing was expected to enter and exit via Glasshouse Lane as this would not support extra traffic easily.

The development of any site in Kenilworth will add to the problems that occur on an already over used Glasshouse Lane route and congestion at the roundabouts. Concern also about the provision of schools, doctors, dentists etc. Also the destruction of countryside and land that is used for recreation is not required - brown field sites should be the focus of the council for housing not greenfield

To include the Thickthorn / Rugby Club/ Wardens & Woodside sites into the Core Strategy threatens development that ignores the unsuitable 'ribbon' development along the A46 which could join up with the proposed Coventry Finham plans. the land has good existing community use .. The sports clubs involved would have to move further outside the town making them less accessible and the existing use provides a good barrier to the A46 noise & pollution. Birches lane is at times already congested and access to the A452 can already be very congested. Equally routs to Warwick University are very congested. Kenilworth is a small town and there is no way of accommodating further increases in traffic .. most days the main street is almost stationary for long periods and the intensification of traffic that extra housing and industry/commerce brings cannot be accommodated. The A46 appears to 'draw' planners to what is already a very intensively used road. If Kenilworth is to support further development then land at the north of Beehive hill is the best option as it will tend to create traffic towards Balsall Common/ Coleshill direction and away from already very congested roads.

Broadly support the use of smaller parcels of land with good road systems nearby as long as the infrastructure is put in place.

This looks an appropriate area to redevelop

There is already housing allocated for this area the council plans to build 800 houses east of this area as part of the preferred option, this will massively increase traffic in an already congested area.

In September 2009, Kenilworth Golf Club made comments to WDC on the Core strategy, reference ID 2957. In that representation we expressed concern at the absence of infrastructure plans to meet the needs of the new houses proposed at Thickthorn, particularly with regard to traffic and services. This concern arises for two primary reasons. Firstly, Crewe Lane, on which the golf club is located, is a road with no footpaths and is substandard in width and alignment over at least part of its length. Of concern to the Club is the potential for increased usage of Crewe Lane. As a consequence of that, what action will be taken to either prevent such increase usage or, alternatively, cope with the increased usage. Our second concern is to seek assurance that any requirement for additional roads, traffic junctions or the provision of services do not encroach on the land of the golf club, which is already very constrained for space.
These concerns, expressed with regard to the proposed new houses at Thickthorn, are greatly increased by possible building on the land occupied by Kenilworth Wardens and Woodside.

My Son and family are regular users of the cricket ground which is currently located within walking distance. If it was to move then it would mean a car journey affecting the environment and making it more expensive. The Cricket club has already been moved. What a shame it would be to lose this facility.

The published map suggests that this development would involve the removal of woodland adjacent to Glasshouse Lane and also extending down to the by-pass.The importance of this woodland is recognised by the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust who manage the adjacent section,'Glasshouse Spinney' as a nature reserve. The WWT state in their guide book that 'although this strip of mature woodland resembles a planted shelterbelt, its origins are significantly older and account for its pleasing diversity'. Clearly the woodland is a significant habitat for a variety of wildlife. Glasshouse Lane is also a recommended site in the Butterfly Conservation booklet on Warwickshire's Butterflies which cite the 'many mature trees' as one of the reasons for the number and variety of butterflies found there.
At least in part due to its natural beauty many local residents make good use of the footpaths that traverse the woodland and clearly it acts as a 'green lung' between the present housing and the by-pass.The same is true of the sports field which is much used by young and older players alike for the exercise which we are continually being told is vital for our well-being.
Assuming the large estate is built there are obvious concerns about its infrastructure. Although the by-pass runs in a shallow cutting the noise pollution experienced in the development would be considerable. Even in the vicinity of the cricket pavilion the noise can be intrusive particularly when the wind is in the east or north-east. If Coventry Airport ever reopens one of its inward flight paths will be almost over the roofs of the houses nearest the by-pass. I presume there will have to be access from the estate onto Glasshouse Lane. The present access to Woodside is on a dangerous bend which was the site of a fatal accident a few years ago. The current access to the Wardens is not far from the bend either. The increased traffic flows will only exacerbate the situation.
One suspects most of the movement off the estate will be by car which will only add to the congestion being experienced in Birches Lane, Knowle Hill etc particularly during the rush hour.

As a resident of Kenilworth, my main interests are in how the latest phase of consultation relates to Kenilworth and its immediate environs. Kenilworth's main attraction is its 'small town feel', an attribute likely to be diminished in any extension of housing. I would be more sympathetic to business/light industrial development in view of the need to offer young residents increased employment opportunities.
Of the various options relating to Kenilworth, I feel the least desirable are any that fill space between Coventry and Kenilworth as this would lead to loss of identity of the town.
I remain unconvinced that development in the Glasshouse Lane area will not impose severe traffic problems in the links between Glasshouse Lane and the A46.

I object to the development proposal because
-it is an important area for wild life which is greatly valued by Kenilworth residents. It should be protected and cherised.
-the warden's plays an important role in offering recreational facilities for kenilworth residents
-Kenilworth will be over developed especially given proposals to build a further 800 residences
-The town has insuffient infrastucture for it's current population the development is unsustainable in terms of schooling, health, transport,utilities
-there will be no buffer between residences and the A46
-congestion in the morning and evening rush hour will be even worse

Can we really consider moving or even losing a well supported local cricket / rugby club, my son will be gutted. It was already moved from Leyes Lane and surely Meadow Estate is big enough. I bought our house in good faith with a rural outlook and healthier lifestyle for family. I am a strong supporter of local wildlife and this development would destroy everything i believe in. in fact several family & friends local have said they would leave kenilworth if it was to go ahead.
Please surely Kenilworth can't have any more developments, there's hardly and rural area surrounding it now and lose any more services. My son will be gutted as an avid supported / player of the Cricket Club, which has already been moved before.
I have an elderly dog and this is part of albeit our shorter daily walks now. If a development is made here I will have to take my car out and drive my dog to his walk which impacts on the environment. If the cricket club is moved I can't see where else it can be located in Kenilworth and again I would have to use the car to take my son to and from the new location which may indeed be out of Kenilworth resulting in a loss of trade which we cannot afford to lose anymore.

Completed Questionnaire.

Leave the area alone. It is a bit of greenbelt and pleasant to see. There are plenty of less attractive areas to develop housing etc.
Some of us like our proximity to open country and being able to walk along Glasshouse Lane, looking at the views.

Questionnaire completed.

The proposed development would have only harmful effects on the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of Kenilworth. It would add to traffic congestion on Birches Lane and the Leamington Road; it would rob the town of much needed green and open space; it would destroy the peace of Rocky Lane; and the houses would be too close to the A46. In fact, the proposal is incompatible with section 12 of the Core Strategy document with regard to open space. No further development should be permitted on the eastern side of Kenilworth.

If the district is to have more inhabitants, more recreational facilities will be needed and existing ones should be retained.
A buffer zone is desirable between any housing and the A46.

This site has good transport access and is adjacent to a built-up area.

Greenfield sites should not be considered an option for development until all viable brownfield sites have been fully utilised.

This land is greenfield/green belt, therefore, should be preserved.

Should building consent be given by WDC it will set a precedent and it will be extremely difficult for WDC to object to any similar applications to build on greenfield/geen belt in the future.

This is already a built up are and the infrastructure cannot support further development.

This is the last remaining corridor of greenfield/green belt on this side of Kenilworth.

Perfect position for new homes - close to the main A46 for commuters.
May need to look at the safety of the Windy Arbour/Glasshouse Lane junction with additional traffic.

Until there is a robust up to date playing field strategy adopted it would be presumptuous to allocate this site for development.

Also should it be found to be that the existing cricket club is looking to be relocated and the site is declared 'surplus' through a playing pitch strategy, then the site should not be redeveloped until the cricket club is relocated on another site. This is in line with policy SC6 of the adopted Local Plan.

This would be a suitable site for new housing, given the better transport infrastructure here already and reduced impact on greenbelt and wildlife

1a. Do you support or object to the development of Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

My support is on the basis that:
* There is sufficient allocation 25 acres + of employment land allocated in the Thickthorn area to include this site.
* Kenilworth TC / Warwick DC should be gifted by owners or under S106 / CIL a strip of land to define the boundary of the developed area and to limit further expansion pressure.
* A detailed development brief to be prepared in advance to clearly define what the site owner / a developer needs to provide in terms of infrastructure / planning uses / off site works / development densities etc.[Pedestrian links to town centre / railway station].
* A replacement facility for the Wardens of similar or greater size / facilities is a pre-requisite and this should be within Town limits


1b. Do you support or object to the development of Woodside Training Centre, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

See 1a above and in addition the Conference facility should be retained on site so only surplus undeveloped land can come forward for development as Woodside is an asset for the Town and should be protected.

There has been enough development in and around Kenilworth.
No extra schools or medical facilities eg doctors surgeries have appeared over the last few years yet residential development is continuous.
Traffic in kenilworth is already very heavy and even more residents will make a bad situation worse.

Thank you for asking B.L.A.S.T. to comment on the latest Core Strategy Options Consultation dated 3rd February 2010.
B.L.A.S.T. (Bringing Leamington Allotment Societies Together) represents several allotment societies in and around Leamington who decided to join forces and oppose any plans to build on allotment land and to seek new land for future allotment use. The group have over 700 members producing fresh and wholesome food for nearly 3000 people, we also have a combined waiting list of over 200 people, enough to fill a good size allotment today if one were available in the near future. B.L.A.S.T. has already presented to the Council a document entitled 'Time to Grow More', a proposal for possible new allotment sites around Leamington Spa. We expect to discuss this further in April 2010 when Cultural Services have carried out their 'Greenspace Review'. This would, of course, be in light of any findings or decisions concluded during this Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation.
The B.L.A.S.T. view of Leamington 'green spaces' is to see them as potential sites for allotments and growing fruit and vegetables, whether it's on Warwick District land unsuitable for building or allocated for any other specific use or in this case land where potential housing development could take place.
B.L.A.S.T. believe and made this point to the full WDC meeting last year that all future 'new' housing development over a minimum size should make provision for people to grow fruit and vegetables by making sure the plans approved allow for gardens or an area suitable for collective growing that is part of the development. If the site is large enough, eg 100 houses, then an area for 25 allotment plots should be considered (an NSALG plot size is 30 x 10 yards).
This view would certainly be relevant regarding Glebe Farm, Loes Farm, Hurst Farm, and land at Campion School. Regarding the financing of this, it would come from the developer and be seen as an integral part of the development to the benefit of the future home owners health and self sufficiency. This new allotment area could link with its nearest existing allotment society to act as a guide and support until well established. This land could come under the control of the Council like many other allotment societies around Leamington.
Along with future allotment provision B.L.A.S.T. strongly support protection of existing allotment land and where relevant neighbouring Green Belt land. We notice most of these sites in this consultation are on Green Belt land as illustrated on your map page 10 in the Option for Growth leaflet dated May 2008. Green Belt land that can and is being used for growing should be the last place for building. Britain needs to use its food producing land as effectively as possible to provide for our present and future needs. As imports from overseas with carbon miles become more expensive in the changing climate and with Third World food demand increasing, self sufficiency and building on food producing land do not go together.
Growing land on Green Belt around Leamington and Warwick with its well established trees and hedges is part of the lungs of Leamington that give the town breathing space while also giving a home to local wildlife, flora and fauna, including the protected Crested Newt. Green Belt land also allows local people to exercise, socialise and grow their own food, lead a healthy lifestyle and help reduce Leamington's carbon footprint. 'Green Belt NOT Red Brick' 'Cabbage Patches NOT Semi-Detaches' as we said on our last campaign march

Questionnaire Response:
I object to the above development because we live in wonderful location, with beautiful views of the fields and wildlife on our doorstep. The children can play safely in our lovely quiet cul-de-sac. The perfect situation you would agree.

How horrified are we at the plans to ruin our perfect surroundings, by building thousands of houses on our doorstep and turning our cul-de-sac in to a main road in to the new houses.

The poor wildlife, roads and environment would suffer immensely putting strain on the local schools and Doctors surgery. My poor children would no longer be safe to play outside in the street - how sad for them to grow up on a building site.

We bought our house because of its location and views over the fields how awful to then look out over row upon row of houses.

There is already good access to this site from two directions. This is an appropriate use of a relatively narrow plot of land between the existing residential area and the A46.