This is an area of outstanding beauty and regularly used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and their families. Such a development would also exacerbate an already unacceptable traffic flow situation in our area particularly at peak times. In Cromwell lane it is difficult to exit my driveway and travel down Westward Heath Rd before 9:30am. Cromwell Lane is aleady a 'rat run'. The proposed development must not be approved.

It is very difficult to comment about this possible development as little or no information is available, there is however on serious problem with the road system in this area particularly in the area from Westward Heath through Kirby Corner Gibbet Hill Rd. the area around Cannon Park The Science Park Cannon Park shopping Centre all of these rely on the roundabout at Kirby Corner Rd. / Lynchgate Rd. and the Charter Ave. / Sir Henry Parkes Roundabout Then along Sir Henry Parkes Rd. which is only one lane each way to the A45. At busy times the whole area comes to a stand still already, Traffic turning right onto the A45 queue from this roundabout up to Kenilworth RD. traffic lights, this is greatly exacerbated when the A45 is used as a diversion for traffic bypassing accidents on the M6.(this happens quite frequently)
Planning applications for the doubling of the size of the Tesco store on Cannon Park are already approved, outline permission to use the Lynchgate Link for entry to the university has been approved. approx 2000 additional movements a day. The first phase of the Canley regeneration is with the the City Council (731 new houses) several thousand more to follow. There is also an increase in the number of employees at the Science park add to this increasing traffic from the A45 to the Business Park, I just wonder where the traffic generated by a development of 3000 additional houses at Hurst Farm would go.

Questionnaire Response:
My family object to this planned development strongly, as it will take away valuable countryside that we have enjoyed for many years and brought us to this area firstly.
Secondly, the road network cannot cope presently and this will inflict more pain and frustration to the residents in our ward.
There are many reasons for rejecting this site, but a major expansion at Warwick University is already planned and will create many problems for local residents.

We object to the development for our children's future and well being!

Questionnaire Response:
I object to this proposal on the grounds that it will erode important open countryside and woodland between Coventry & Kenilworth. This will damage the environment and endanger wildlife and endangered species that exist.

I also object as this is green belt land and should remain as such.

I object as the overdevelopment of Warwick University is already creating significant congestion and parking issues around the University and local roads. Traffic levels are causing major delays at peak times and the risk of accidents to cyclists, pedestrians and motorist has risen sharply. Further growth of traffic would require major improvements to access routes to and from the site.

I also wish to state my concern that local residents in Coventry are not being made aware of the ongoing consultation and therefore the responses will not include all possible feedback from local residents affected by the proposal. It is the council's duty to ensure it is properly communicated to all residents and businesses that may wish to contribute.

I would object to this propposal mainly on the grounds of [a] adverse environmental impact on what is left of the green belt buffer between Coventry & Kenilworth
[b] Inability of current infrastructure to support such a development.
[c] Traffic congestion is already bad - this can only get worse owing to restricted access to the proposed site forcing more traffic onto the already overburdened roads.
[d] Total lack of emergency support services - fire, police and ambulance and lack of other primary health care providers within the area. [Doctors, dentists etc.].

The above site does not include any Council controlled land, therefore we have no further comments to make on this site

The Cannon Park area is soon to be burdened by the approved construction of a new Tesco store. This in its self is not objectionable, however, The additional accommodation/housing that is proposed is objected to most strongly.

The area infrastructure currently classified as 'critical' - barely capable of handling existing peak hour traffic.
Substantial additional traffic which will be generated by (approved)nearby major developments (Tesco, W.U. expansion, Canley regeneration etc.,) Further, considerable increase in the volume of traffic attributable to Hurst Farm would bring to a crescendo the noise pollution and vehicle pollution and overwhelm the inadequate road network.
Congestion on Gibber Hill Road and Stoneleigh road will force traffic to use Westwood Heath Road, Kirby Corner Road and Sir Henry Parkes Road to access A45 and City Center. Gridlock is readily predictable.
The value of the existing property in this area is based upon a quiet location and this is already in question regarding the existing development awaiting construction by Tesco and Warwick University. Will there be a compensation package to the owners of property being de valued by the scheme proposed? There seems never to be any thought about the owners of existing property and the basis that they bought this housing. Where on earth is it possible to live and retire that is not about to be pounced upon to cover the green field sites and agricultural land with more concrete.

There are many adequate industrial sites in Coventry that would benefit form the relocation of this scheme and it to be done in a local and sustainable manor with micro generation at its core and the collection of water and its use to green infrastructure that could be part of such new development.

The provision of working or live work property could be done in conjunction with land owners who own industrial sites needing regeneration and not spoiling the beauty of nature that is all to unavailable in our times.

The increment of the closure of the Kenilworth/Coventry gap is also a negative move in regard to the gaining pressure of development in open spaces.
What attention has been paid to the report of Richard Rodgers outlining the pitiful state of the housing stock and infrastructure in the UK?

It appears that the urban conurbation stretching from Nuneaton in the north to Stratford in the south (Linear City concept is still being perused despite wiser counsel prevailing. Would you please identify the offset of such impacts for both the dwellers in these areas and the wildlife that drew us to settle hear.

The use of agricultural land for accommodation is highly risky with the change in the climate that is affecting the production of food and its security in the UK as a whole and no doubt in this local.

There would be great benefit in providing any further built environment to be of an in ground strategy thereby releasing the above ground to open space and green countryside, with all the increase in health and open access that this would provide. In ground building is not a new development and it would provide opportunity to utilize heat pump technology and ensure best practice in insulation needs for the coming or should it be confirmed existing severe weather in all seasons and now in a mixed season environment.

Questionnaire Response:
No Comments

Questionnaire Response:
I object not only to this proposal but also to the fact that it is even being considered at all! It is vital that we keep the Kenilworth Gap between Kenilworth and Coventry exactly that. The idea that we are even considering building on Greenfield sites before EVERY Brownfield site HAS BEEN developed is outrageous.
I object on the grounds that no consideration has been given to the traffic situation in this area. It is already dangerous to travel along Crackley lane at times and when there are another 5000+ vehicles? Then bear in mind the University's expansion plans and the problems that they are already causing with traffic in the area and then consider Coventry's own expansion plans in the Cromwell lane / Tile Hill area and all you will be creating is a car park.
I also object because no consideration has been given to the wildlife in this area, such as the frogs that cross the road near Crackley Woods? And all of the other wildlife species?
I also object because not all of the "local" residents have not been properly informed about this proposal. Not one letter, email, flyer has been sent out to the local Coventry residents therefore making this whole process a farce. Is WDC about protecting Green Belt?? I think not.

In general terms I must protest at the continued housing development being made in the county. Despite understanding the need for housing stock I feel that Warwickshire and Warwick District in particular has already shouldered its fair share. I applaud the councils continued use of brown field sites but feel that with ever increasing targets the threat to green field sites is now intolerable. I object to all the current proposals in this consulation feeling that sites such as old factories on Montague Road, the empty properties at the Potterton Site, the still uncompleted Chase Meadows and the Ford Foundry site offer potential for development without the loss of green fields.

In particular I would like to oppose the development of Loes Farm on the following grounds:

AESTHETICS: The Coventry Road approach to Warwick is one of the best approaches to the town, benefiting from rolling fields and an historic landscape that sets the tone for the town. Many other approaches are conurbated lending a feeling that Warwick is nothing more than an average built up area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Housing at Loes Farm would increase traffic on the Coventry Road and island at both ends of the road. This section is already overloaded and would require traffic measures that would have knock on effects. There would also be an increase to traffic flow on the A46 increasing pollution in North Warwick. The extra number of households would also see an increased pressure on Warwick Town Centre's already overloaded parking and road infrastructure.
There is a large question over how these extra homes and their occupants will be provided for in terms of energy, sewage, policing, emergency medical care, schooling and fire fighting in a town already on the brink of losing its fire station with a recently closed main police station.

ARCHAEOLOGY: The farmland is one of the few pieces of ancient grazed grassland left around Warwick. There is evidence to ridge and furrow usage and outlines of possible medieval buildings.

ECOLOGY: The sheep pasture is important for local Rooks, Buzzards and Green Woodpeckers. There is a badger sett close to the motorway embankment and bats frequent Woodloes Lane. It would be necessary to check the old trees in the field for roosts. The treets themselves are of intrinsic value themselves with many being over 100 years old.
There are various ponds and wet depressions across the site and in adjacent farm cottages that contain records of Great Crested Newts that could be severly impacted by development. The newts, badgers and bats are all scheduled species and mean that the welfare will eed to come up most in any construction both in the implementation phase and for the life span of the development

SOCIAL: The increased housing will increase the conurbation between Warwick and Leek Wootton and risk diluting both the cultural and social identity of both North Woodloes and Leek Wootton. The increased population as a result of the housing will place greater pressure on employment in Warwick at a time when gaining employment is difficult enough. Where are all these people going to work?

HEALTH: Increased occupation will lead to greater pollution from vehicles and waste disposal. There is the question of already overloaded medical services such as doctors and the hospital. On a more subtle note emotional well being is an important factor to consider. Many people on the Woodloes and in fact in the district enjoy walking up Woodloes Lane in the country and across to Leek Wootton such activities are proved to reduce depression and lower blood pressure.

There simply isn't the transport infrastructure in place in this area to cope with a development of this size. There is already considerable road congestion and the expansion of Warwick University is adding to this problem. At rush hour the roads become gridlocked. This development will further increase the level of noise and air pollution and will ruin one of the finest greenbelt areas, with an abundance of wildlife, on the outskirts of Coventry and nearby Kenilworth. As residents of Westwood Heath, my family and I totally object to this ridiculous proposal.

I object to the plan for the following reasons:
1. Further erosion of the Green belt, why are areas designated Green belt when at any time this is ignored by the planning departments.
2. The roads in the area are already congested, most mornings I struggle to get off my driveway onto Cromwell Lane.

I strongly object to the land around Burton Green being destroyed in order to make up the housing numbers that a have been dictated by Central Government.

Bring back local decision making for the local people.

The entire site is not appropriate for full development. The Joint Greenbelt Review identifies it as having high landscape value. However, taking into account the recent University of Warwick Masterplan, it would seem appropriate to permit a south-westerly extension of the University to increase their provision of halls of residence. This in turn might alleviate the pressure on housing wrought on our towns owing to insufficient student accommodation on campus.

I am part of a group objecting to expansion of the Coventry Core strategy into the green belt on the grounds of loss of green belt amenity and overloading of the local infrastructure. I now find that Warwick DC are developing land all around the periphery of their boundary and in particular to the south of westwood heath road ( Hurst farm).I assume that development around the town centre is not a good vote catcher.!!
It would appear that instead of living at the edge of a rural area , we are now to be surrounded by the Warwick DC proposed development, as well as the CCS's ill conceived plan to build 390 houses to the west of Cromwell lane up against the Solihull border. This not only results in further loss of green belt countryside but adds traffic to an already overloaded rural "C" class road structure. The green belt is supposed to prevent urban sprawl and the merging of adjacent towns. If you continue with this type of development at the boundaries and moving inwards, Kenilworth will soon become part of the greater urban area of Coventry with the only separation barrier being a 250 mph rail track.

I object to this proposal on the grounds that it will erode important open countryside and woodland between Coventry & Kenilworth. This will damage the environment and endanger wildlife and endangered species that exist.

I also object as this is green belt land and should remain as such.

I object as the overdevelopment of Warwick University is already creating significant congestion and parking issues around the University and local roads. Traffic levels are causing major delays at peak times and the risk of accidents to cyclists, pedestrians and motorist has risen sharply. Further growth of traffic would require major improvements to access routes to and from the site.

I also wish to state my concern that local residents in Coventry are not being made aware of the ongoing consultation and therefore the responses will not include all possible feedback from local residents affected by the proposal. It is the council's duty to ensure it is properly communicated to all residents and businesses that may wish to contribute.

I strongly object to the proposed development of Hurst Farm South for many reasons:
- This is Greenbelt land and should remain Greenbelt land. Many people, families in particular, enjoy this part of open countryside recreationally and a housing development would be hugely detrimental making the area far less attractive as a whole
- The rural travel infrastructure is already congested at various times of day and would not cope with such a development. Improvements would therefore have to be made which would again be hugely detrimental to the area
- In comparison to other sites proposed, a development of the Hurst Farm site appears to be far more damaging and it would completely change the area as it is now whereas some other proposed alternative sites are merely an expansion of existing urban areas and are therefore far less impactful.
I agree with all the other objections that have been posted for this proposed site - it simply would be awful for the area and is completely unnecessary.

This area has seen little development over the last 10 - 15 years in comparison to Whitnash.

This is a better site for Coventrys dwelling overflow rather than the Kings Hill area as it has a good road system.

I OBJECT to development of land at Hurst Farm South, Burton Green,
for the following reasons:


1 the land is in entirely in the Green Belt. Large-scale and speculative development of this nature amounts to ' inappropriate development' as defined in our Local Plan and therefore cannot be considered legitimate. [ see Rural Area Policies and Designated Area Policies].

2 the land forms part of a very significant stretch of open country between Kenilworth and Coventry. I believe we must prevent at all costs any Coalescence between Kenilworth and Coventry, or even the beginning of coalescence.
The Core Strategy's Preferred Growth Strategy states that a key aim must be ' to protect the most important areas of Green Belt that separates the town [of Kenilworth] from the urban area of Coventry to the north'.

3 the proposed development would have a destructive and swamping effect on the village of Burton Green. It would lose it's distinct character and the valued perception that it forms a separate community.
Indeed, the Core Strategy should aim to preserve and enhance the separate identity of the different towns and villages in the District.

4 the site includes two historic Ancient Woodlands, which would be threatened by such development. If building did not actually take place within the woods, they would nevertheless suffer greatly from disturbance and pollution and lose their value as habitat for wildlife.

5 development here would not give a satisfactory solution to the problems facing the District in terms of meeting Housing Needs. The occupants of new housing wish to be close to urban facilities and employment opportunities, ie the Warwick / Leamington nexus.

6 the site does not meet any of the Sustainability criteria.

In my opinion this site represents neither a sensible extension of Coventry, nor Kenilworth. Sitting between the two, its development would be a clear signal of intent to remove greenbelt and make Kenilworth merely an extension of Coventry. The extension of the University, Science Park and Westwood Heath has already had an impact on road traffic, turning Crackley Lane from a country lane into, at times, a dangerous commuter route. Significant investment would be needed to ensure appropriate infrastructures. It would cause wildlife disturbance and remove footpaths and bridleways. I cannot see the balancing benefits.

In my opinion this site represents neither a sensible extension of Coventry, nor Kenilworth. Sitting between the two, its development would be a clear signal of intent to remove greenbelt and make Kenilworth merely an extension of Coventry. The extension of the University, Science Park and Westwood Heath has already had an impact on road traffic, turning Crackley Lane from a country lane into, at times, a dangerous commuter route. Significant investment would be needed to ensure appropriate infrastructures. It would cause wildlife disturbance and remove footpaths and bridleways. I cannot see the balancing benefits.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Hurst Farm site and in particular on the points made by Messrs Savills in their submission. With regard to the alleged advantages of this site:
"It relates well to the existing urban area with a number of points of access to facilitate the effective integration of an urban extension "
It does indeed relate well to the existing area - forming a precious band of green belt between the two communities of Coventry and Kenilworth. Easily accessible by a network of footpaths (and a potential cycle path), it provides both recreational benefits and a 'green lung' for the benefit of both communities. It contributes to the sense of place and identity for each, in contrast to the urban sprawl that can exist in other cities and villages when everything runs into everything else.
Regarding the access issue, the charm of the area is partly in the small country lanes which evoke a bygone era - they are simply not suitable for heavy traffic and to destroy them would constitute an act of vandalism
"It is adjacent to and includes land owned by the University of Warwick and as such it is ideally suited to accommodate University related development in the form of further student accommodation , teaching facilities and/or high tech employment activity "
This comment conflates the question of the possible expansion of the University of Warwick and associated hi tech employment with the building of additional housing and as such is potentially misleading - it is essential to separate these two issues as they will have different pay offs.
"The land is of low agricultural value and is compromised by its location on the edge of the urban area of Coventry"
This is not relevant. The value of this bit of greenbelt is nothing to do with its agricultural value. One might just as well say that deer park at Magdalen College Oxford is not an economically viable means of farming venison!
"It is s discrete area of land enclosed in part by woodland and therefore would have less impact on the environment and wider local landscape"
This is a remarkable comment given the size of the parcel of land in relation to the size of the greenbelt and the small size of the wood - especially as the plan appears to destroy part of the woodland itself! May I suggest that if anyone seriously believes it they take the opportunity for a pleasant stroll along the Kenilworth Greenway, recently improved (presumably by Warwick Council) and now very popular with all sections of the community? It will take little imagination to see the huge impact of this development.

The area is high productive agriculture land that forms part of the greenbelt between Coventry and Kenilworth. It keeps Kenilworth as an attractive country town, steeped in history and providing a lucrative tourist attraction to the County of Warwickshire.

The potential loss of an exceptional range of wildlife would be disappointing and it is likely to be lost forever.

The size of the area and the size of potential development, the ration of dwelling/ hectare and it not being co-terminus with Kenilworth would lead to the establishment of a satellite town. In its early development, prior to the full infrastructure being in place would place a burden on resources elsewhere. Coventry councilors have indicated that their council would not provide infrastructure for the development. It would lack identity.

I wish to object most strongly to the proposed development of a huge area of Hurst Farm.

This is a considerable encroachment on greenbelt leaving the Westwood Heath area one large urbanisation. We need green spaces and woods as well as houses.

Furthermore, I do not think that the very narrow and quite dangerous road/ lane that Hurst Farm is situated on is in anyway suitable for a traffic leaving a major housing development.

If building on this site results in less of the original prefered option building at Harbury Lane and Europa Way area then I'm in favor of this development as it is a fairer distribution of future development across the district.

This proposal runs directly counter to the Core Strategy Executive Summary, p.1, paragraph 2 and its declared aim 'to protect the most important areas of green belt that separates [Kenilworth] from the urban area of Coventry'. This aim coincides with the wishes of local residents, but housing in such a sensitive area and on such a scale would defeat it at a stroke, and be the not-so-thin edge of destroying the 'Green Wedge' between Kenilworth and Coventry.

It may seem that this proposal pales into insignificance beside that to site the route of the proposed High Speed trains between Birmingham and London across this area, thus destroying it completely. But I have always understood that any planning proposal should be considered on its own merits, without reference to other considerations. In my view this proposal has none.

I urge you to reject proposals to develop the 'Crackley Gap'. This area provides a 'green lung' between Coventry and Kenilworth without which Coventry's Urban Sprawl will soon envelop Kenilworth.

As a walker and birdwatcher who frequents this area I am dismayed and saddened that encroachment in this greenbelt land is even being considered, and area rich in wildlife and varied habitats, an area enjoyed by families.

Please think again and preserve the Crackley Gap for future generations.

As local residents we both feel that added to the already huge development of the University of Warwick further building on the proposed Hurst Farm plan will be extremely detrimental to the area on several grounds. Housing here would be intruding on Coventry's borders more than Warwick's and lies too far from Kenilworth to impact on Warwickshire's own residents, which seems unfair. Why is this proposed here on Coventry's borders rather thatn in an existing urban development of Warwickshire's own? Beautiful green counrtyside will be destroyed forever and this simply contributes to urban sprawl on the edge of Coventry affecting the quality of the area. Previous building has already failed to take into account the effects of traffic congestion on country lanes, e.g.dangerous rat-runs through Crackley Lane.

I support this because it is extending an urban domestic dwelling area rather than overwhelming a small 'village' community
It provides an area for people whose living is based in Coventry.