I object to the proposed development. It would tend to 'merge' Coventry with Kenilworth, and the green space between them is highly valued by many.

I am totally opposed to anymore building on what little green belt is left between Coventry and kenilworth.

There are plenty of brownbelt sites in and around Coventry that could be utilised. Also where are all the people that are supposedly buying these homes going to work?

Are they all going to drive to Birmingham as there is very little work in Coventry and surrounding area

Given the proximity of the University, this site affords significant benefits for the development of student accommodation and other related residential provision, as well as business parks and employment land.

The existing area between Kenilworth and Coventry should be kept as Green Belt. Is this option still viable, in view of the Government's preferred route of the proposed high speed rail link?

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

I am totally opposed to any more building on what little green belt is left between Coventry and Kenilworth. It would 'merge' Coventry with Kenilworth, and the green space between them is highly valued by many.

It would also add another unacceptable burden on what are already over congested roads in the area.

Suitable contributions/land should be set a side within the development or off site for meeting the sporting infrastructure which will be needed by the new residents. This is in line with the principles of PPS 1.

Dear Sirs
As a Coventry resident in Westwood Heath I wish to express my objection to this proposed development.
I have experienced in another part of the country a large housing development by one local authority on its borders where residents of its neighbour had to bear many of the disadvantages of additional pressures on its infrastructure, especially roads, without having the council tax revenue to achieve the necessary improvements.
The roads around the University are already under severe strain from the University (which continures to grow) and the Westwood Business Park, and are totally inadequate for increased usage which would be generated by your proposal.

Sustainable future development should ensure the protection of Greenbelt land that provides a refuge between urban areas. The open countryside between Coventry and Kenilworth has historically been rightfully protected and attempts to impinge on it have been avidly fought. The long term view with respect to infrastructure requirements, quality of life, transport and effects on the "feel" of the area would serve to make the development of this site untenable. The land is agricultural in nature and should remain so.

Crackley Residents Association has fought for over 20 years to prevent inappropraite development in the Crackley area. With over 100 members, drawn from right across the area, we are well-placed to represent the interests of a large number of local people. The development of Hurst Farm and the requisite effects on local infrastructure (roads, utilities, local services etc) would have a massively detrimental impact on the area and establish an unwelcome precedent for future development of the remaining Greenbelt between Kenilworth and Coventry. Leave this countryside for future generations to enjoy.

I am totally opposed to the plan to build houses on the green belt between Coventry and Kenilworth.

This area does not only provide a separation between the towns, it is also a beautiful nature haven, popular with people from Kenilworth, Burton Green and Tile Hill. Developing the area for housing would utterly destroy that beauty. It would cause congestion and make the rest of the nature in the area untenable. The proposed high-speed rail track through the area is already a blow.

If this development goes ahead, you may as well call Kenilworth a district of South Coventry.

Thanks for giving us the possibility to give our views, but frankly, what a foolish plan! This is the breathing place of local residents, which makes a good separation between West Midlands and Warwickshire, where cycling paths are welcome, where green and open spaces should be protected, where noise and traffic levels should be avoided. The cycling options provided by this green area help to secure a more sustainable environment. Building there will be against the protection of key assets to the Warwick District, including the protection of wildlife, etc. We do not want the high speed train there either! I have seen houses for sale in this area, which do not get sold, so I don't believe in housing needs at this location.

In reply to comments by Mr Andrew Day (ID: 43760) and Mr Robert Johnson (ID 43582): If the reason behind this scheme is to attract students or staff from the University of Warwick, or residents from Coventry, rather than actual housing needs from Warwick District Council then this so-called housing need is no longer credible and viable. Furthermore,
(1) Students' numbers are in decline and their accomodation arrangements are provided for within the campus and Coventry districts.
(2) It would make the University less attractive to staff and students at large and the Council would have no moral authority to stop Warwick University from developing southwards.

I object strongly to the use of this non-replaceable farmland and woodland for the purposes of building. To add insult this would be in an area where the greenbelt is already thin and the traffic is already congested. I'm sure someone would make a lot of money, but everyone else will be the poorer.

Alternatives to greenfield must always be considered first. This site, by comparison to the alternatives, is the least suitable for development. The road infrastructure is already overstretched around the University site and the greenbelt between Coventry and Kenilworth should be preserved at all costs. Consideration will now also have to be given to where the high speed rail link goes through this site. The plan also entails destruction of a coppice and a wood with its attendant wildlife.

The green belt land between Coventry and Birmingham will eventually disappear if planning is approved in this area. We already have the Airport and the NEC, plus an ever growing town of Balsall Common.
Since Westwood Business park has been built we have continual road congestion and speeding through our residential area of Burton Green. It is very difficult to cross the road when taking my grandson to and from the village school.
No new roads have been built or planned to care for this existing increase let alone another huge development such as Hurst Farm.
The area around Crackley and Bockendon is beatiful and rural and should be retained as this.
We have already seen sufficient development in Westwood Heath Road and also on the sight of the old Sports Centre in Cromwell Lane plus of course Warwick University.
I strongly object to the proposal to build on Hurst Farm.

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

As a resident in Westwood Heath I strongly object to this proposed development for the following reasons:-
1.Building on this greenbelt land is totally unacceptable and will :-
a. Result in the merger of Coventry & Kenilworth.
b. Destroy the small areas of natural open space left which is vital to the local residents and is the reason most people live in the area.
c. Impact & destroy local wildlife in the area.
2. Building on greenbelt land should be considered as a last resort once all Brownfield sites in Coventry have been exhausted
3. The local road infrastructure will be unable to support the development as traffic congestion is already under strain and this will only increase and lead to complete gridlock in the area
4. Cannon Park would not be able to support additional homes in the area along with current residential developments and Warwick University expansion.
5. With the proposed high speed rail link passing next to this proposed development, is it still viable and will people want to move there?

Questionnaire Response: I object strongly. This is designated green belt land and provides a valuable home to wildlife and area of natural beauty for local residents.

A. At present the local roads cannot support the current levels of traffic in this area. Westwood Heath Road, Gibbett Hill and the University campus, Business Park and Science Park already create major problems for local residents and Crackley Lane is extremely dangerous at various times throughout the day, depending on the flow of traffic. The recent parking issues thanks to the University's charging structure have already created problems for residents around the University. The last snow also showed what a nonsense the current system is.
B. Coventry will bear the brunt of any extra housing/transport issues, and therefore local residents who are not necessarily being made aware of this situation by Warwick District Council.
C. This is green belt land if there were to be further development on green belt it should be to improve access to and parking facilities at and into Warwick University and NOT residential development.
D. There will no longer be any distinction between Coventry and Kenilworth if this area is developed - they will merge together seamlessly.

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.

Questionnaire Response:
I object to the development at Hurst Farm South, Burton Green due to the important need to maintain the Green Belt area between Coventry and Kenilworth. The local roads are highly unsuitable for a further increase in traffic, also the lack of infrastructure in terms of schooling, medical care and Council services. Additionally, due to the beautiful woodland, walking area and wildlife in this region, please do not build on this area.

Questionnaire Response:
I object to the development of Hurst Farm South, Burton Green for the following reasons:

1) It is imperative that Warwick District Council acts to maintain and protect in it's entirety the existing Green Belt between Coventry and Kenilworth to prevent the otherwise inevitable spread of Coventry until it eventually consumes the whole of Kenilworth and Burton Green into its boundary and control.

2) Developing Hurst Farm would effectively isolate Warwick University within an expanding urban sprawl and curtail its existing semi rural location and easy student access to neighbouring countryside to walk and observe nature, arable farming and animal husbandry.

3) The proposed High Speed 2 Rail Link would further exasperate the threats outlined in 1 and 2 in the event that the Hurst Farm housing development was approved.

This proposal would result in the infilling of almost all the area between Crackley Lane, Cryfield Grange Road and the University, It would also virtually eliminate any real distinction between Burton Green and Coventry.
As one of the most sensitive parts of the Green Belt, this proposal is totally unacceptable and should not be proceeded with under any circumstances.

This site offers the opportunity to provide some on-site university accommodation freeing up student-occupied homes in the main towns for other housing needs.

We believe there are strong environmental arguments why no development should be permitted in the Crackley Gap.

If any consideration is to be given to permitting any future development on Hurst Farm land, then we take it that the authorities will ensure the fullest EIA is undertaken in conformity with all legal requirements, and that the general public will be consulted at all stages in the process.

We look forward to being kept fully informed by the authorities on the devepments relating to proposals and any future changes in the status of land in the Crackley Gap.

Of the 6 sites WDC have offered to Public Consultation this is the most unfeasible Development because of many reasons including the following;
(i)The local road infrastructure will not support a development of this size - you will create utter mayhem and complete congestion at peak times within the Westwood Heath area, which is already under strain from traffic volumes at peak periods.
(ii)The 'Greenbelt Gap' between Kenilworth and Coventry will be heavily and wrongly eroded to a level which neither conurbation would want to witness and have to live with.
(iii)The construction alone could take a decade from start to finish, severely affecting the quality of life for local residents within Westwood Heath - a prime executive housing area within Coventry.
(iv)WDC would be guilty of pushing their new housing builds to the extremities of the county and would (rightly) be accused of protecting the towns within the county from add on development and forcing the growth in available housing onto the Coventry boundary line.
(v)Combine this plan with the already sanctioned plans for expansion by Warwick University and there exists a potential disaster for the area in general and huge loss of greenbelt land.

Since being established more than 70 years ago, green-belts around major British urban centres proved to be essential for people, wildlife and agriculture. In recent years, the importance of keeping continuous "green" strips, rather than "patches" enclosed by build up areas, become more evident.
In this respect, I could not believe that Warwick District council consider housing development in Crackley Gap. This development will remove a considerable part of green belt around Coventry, effectively cutting green-belt corridor between Coventry and Kenilworth.
While I agree that building new homes is absolutely essential to address current house shortages, I see no point in using precious green-belt land (which also have agricultural value) for housing developments at the same time when plentiful "brown" sites in Coventry remain unused.

I oppose any planning due to the following reasons

The public road network in this area is already over stretched and any increase in levels of traffic will be unsustainable.
I believe that the land under consideration is primarily green belt.
The area of land is adjacent to ancient woodland that may on investigation be the habitat of protected species (This will require confirmation).

I am opposed to any further development in this area and immediate vicinity since I feel that it would (i) encroach onto greenbelt land when this is not required, and (ii) the infra-structure is wholly unsuitable to sustain any further development. The infra-structure is barely coping with current demands. Road links and facilities are poor. A car is essential to live in this area and traffic struggles. I'm not sure how the existing developments were permitted given the lack of facilities.

Infrastructure in this area is insufficient to accommodate additional traffic loads which would follow from further building. Traffic from Canley Business Park, Torrington Avenue, Westwood Business Park, University of Warwick, Powergen and Network Rail all contribute to congestion in the area eg Gibbet Hill and Stoneleigh Road leading to A46, and Kirby Corner and Sir Henry Parkes Road leading to A45.

Some of the land is currently used for recreational activities such as football and allotments, both very important at a time when we are encouringing people to take more exercise and self sufficiency.

Several new housing estates containing hundreds of houses have been built in the area in the last 10 years many of which remain unsold. These have added to congestion and further building would increase the problem.

Loss of countryside is a significant loss of amenity for permanent residents and students who enjoy open spaces for relaxation.

As a residents of Westwood Heath we wish to register our opposition to proposals to build on greenbelt land known as Crackley Gap. We are very worried about the impact of such a huge development in the area with the significant additional traffic congestion and loss of vital local amenities. This area will be destroyed.

Infrastructure in this area is insufficient to accommodate additional traffic loads which would follow from further building. Traffic from Canley Business Park, Torrington Avenue, Westwood Business Park, University of Warwick, Powergen and Network Rail all contribute to congestion in the area eg Gibbet Hill and Stoneleigh Road leading to A46, and Kirby Corner and Sir Henry Parkes Road leading to A45. Cars are already parked in most of the local roads for the university and this road has become a major commuter route.

Not only is this beautiful area, the land is currently well used by local and city residents for recreational activities such as football, horse riding and allotments which are already over subscribed. The local Kenilworth Show is also held on this land. These are all very important at a time when people are being encouraged to become fitter and less obese, take more exercise and be self sufficient.

Several new housing estates containing hundreds of houses have been built in the area in the last 10 years many of which remain unsold. These have added to significantly to local congestion and further building will significantly increase the problem.

Loss of countryside is a significant loss of amenity for permanent residents and students who enjoy the beautiful countryside and open spaces for relaxation.