On the grounds that this development will simply bring profits to developers and do nothing to provide rented homes for those in need of affordable homes, as identified by successive Council surveys

I am at a complete loss to know what goes on in the minds of civil servants - people employed by us the taxpayer to look after our best interests much less the local council. If it was not so serious an issue, then that point in itself would be a laugh.

Here are a few points as to why I am against the housing proposal for Hurst Farm. If 5 are not sufficient then I can let you have more.

1. We are a small island and have limited farming land upon which to grow food. Specifically, Our green area in Burton Green is being condensed with Coventry/Kenilworth/Solihull. Proof of this has been a marked decrease in the wild life, in the air quality etc in Burton Green over the last 20 years.
2. Environmentally, we need more green spaces not less in order to reduce the impact on global warming. More houses produce greater emissions. Or does the Council not believe in global warming? The Environmental impact would be too great to consider this proposal.
3. There is no market for the purchase of 3,000 homes in the current and future financial climate. People are struggling to keep up, loans are tight and will continue in this way for the next 5 possibly 10 years. These proposed houses are not for first time buyers nor will they be a mixed estate, bungalows for the elderly, young families and so on. Why, because builders do not have the profit margin in that sort of estate.
4. We do not wish any further dormitory villages springing up in and around Burton Green we have already had 3 along Westwood Heath Road in the last 12 years. Burton Green is a small and close knit community and there is proof that these dormitory housing estates lead to social breakdown in the areas where they have been introduced.
and 5. The current infrastructure on roads alone could not support 3,000 more homes (potentially 6,000 additional cars on our small lanes)much less looking at schooling, medical care and so on. Where is the money to come from to build new and wider roads?

Any one of these points should have been sufficient to stop thhis proposal in its tracks. As a local taxpayer I am appalled that this waste of money is being entertained by the Council when commonsense should have dictated that this project not be considered? Who is to blame for allowing this to be put out?
Marlene Hills

Land is all green belt, and is now blighted by proposed HS2 route.

This site is totally unsuitable for the development proposed. It is part of the precious, thin strip of green belt separating Kenilworth from the city of Coventry, which must be preserved at all costs. The local road infrastructure is already overloaded with 'rat-running' traffic up Crackley Lane in peak periods.

The University of Warwick objects to the development of Hurst Green Farm South, Burton Green on traffic impact grounds.
The University's previous responses to the Core Strategy consultation (September 2008 and June 2009) confirmed its position regarding possible directions of growth and potential sites which could impact on the University.
The September 2008 submission highlights impacts related to development options 2 and 5 (growth options 13, 14 and 15). This raised the issue that focused growth to the south of Coventry and along the A46 corridor in particular would lead to greater commuting along the A46, having a potentially significant impact on the University by placing pressure on key junctions.

The University's June 2009 response supports the exclusion of growth options 13 and 15 from the Core Strategy but re-emphasises that the remaining growth option 14 would impact on the A46/Stoneleigh Road junction and A45/Kenilworth Road Junction.
Development at Hurst Farm South, Burton Green would be located within the area of growth option 13 where the University has previously objected to new development on traffic impact grounds.
The University therefore objects to the development proposal at Hurst Farm South. This is on the basis that the highway network will be at capacity when the University's approved masterplan and RASE's Stoneleigh Park proposals are implemented, including the planned improvements to the highway network at Kenilworth Road/ Gibbet Hill Road and at the Stoneleigh Road/ A46 junction. There is very little prospect of further capacity improvements at these junction without major works. Failure to deal with the congestion and safety issues that would arise from housing development at Hurst Farm South would have a negative impact on the operation of the University.

Close to the Coventry border but separate from an established WDC community. Physically close for Warwick University and is close to a recently enhanced road system. It is thought to be in the Green Belt and part of a buffer zone around Coventry. The views of the local residents should be considered.
However, it would seem ideal for accommodation requirements for Warwick University students in that the university has its own infra structure and would not need to have to introduce the wider range needs expected of a mixed community

The site is occupied by a large area of flood zone 1. However there will be flood plain associated with the watercourses on the site. Currently there is no indicative flood plain information available because the catchments are less than 3.0km2. Flood plain and easements will have to be determined as part of a level 2 Flood Risk Assesment. We will need to agree green field rates of run off via substantial control of surface water run off.

I object strongly to this proposed development. This is green belt and should remain as such. All brown field sites should be developed. The infrastructure would not be sufficient. Crackley Lane is already a rat run for people working at Westwood Heath Business Park. If this green belt is developed then that will open the flood gates to all other landowners for development in this beautiful part of Warwickshire. Kenilworth will end up as a suburb of Coventry.

L Hobbs

Support.

The University is due for a major expansion in its building programme and some development here would dovetail with it. The potential is there for new bus routes and cycle ways which would be generated both by the increase in student numbers and the increase in new residents. Complementary amenities such as local shops and surgeries would support both. There are no distinct communities in this area which would be destroyed by such development.

However if ALL the area was allocated to development this would have a serious impact on the open space between Kenilworth and the University. Some development in the northern quarter nearer the University would not impact on this to a significant degree particularly if new buildings are built on the campus.

Sites 1a; 1b; 2: Support.
Site 3: I do not support the development of purely greenfield land if re-development is available elsewhere.
Site 4: If a greenfield site is to be used, this would appear preferable to others due to it location near a major route.
Site 5: I do not support the development of purely greenfield land if re-development is available elsewhere. In particular, this site does not appear to possess an adequate road network to support the level of development proposed. Any improvements to the road network would further disrupt greenfield land.
Site 6: I would support this location for development, so long as guarantees can be made to residents of Baginton village that investment will be made in local amenities to support an influx of new residents.

Questionnaitr Response:

Sites 1a; 1b; 3; 4; 5; 6:
I have No Objection.

Site 2:
If this land were to be developed it would have an extremely damaging effect on the area.
1.It is a flood plain and there is a reason for it being so.
2. Sewers around Whitnash already have problems they do not need to be exacerbated.
3. Roads around the area are already extremely busy at key times in the day and any Bank holiday. It is not a viable proposition to support an extra 1000 houses with probably two cars per house and more children to ferry to primary schools out of the area as there are not enough suitable places locally.
4. Golf Lane has reach capacity for traffic coming and going at busy times a new school in the position suggested would mean far more traffic coming down Golf Lane and Fieldgate Lane which could not cope.
5. Because of a lack of places for children to play in this area, Fieldgate Lane at the moment attracts children playing as it is reasonably safe being a no through road. Climbing trees and being kids!! We do need places not continually full of traffic we seem to be creating one big housing development without much relief.

Having attended various meetings on the core strategy last year, I wanted to thank you for coming up with the alternative sites. These proposals go a long way towards addressing the very real concerns that so many of us raised about the prime arable land South of Harbury Lane.

The alternative sites distribute the housing around the Warwick-Kenilworth-Leamington area, integrating it into already established communities, with consequently less infrastructure impact. Nor are any of the proposed alternatives (so far as I am aware) prone to flooding in the way that the Harbury Lane South site is.

My final request would be that wherever possible you look to develop brownfield land first. I realise that this requires more effort in terms of ground clearance and decontamination prior to use, but the social benefits are correspondingly greater. Derelict eyesore sites are improved and brought back into productive use and agricultural land can continue in its prime purpose of feeding people with trusted locally-sourced products.

The Parish Council wishes to object to this alternative site for development for the following reasons:
It would erode the Green Belt which separates Coventry and Kenilworth.
It is an area of historical interest with ancient woodland and hedgerows.
There is no reference to any additional infrastructure and the roads do not easily cope with the current level of traffic.
There is no mention of any community support services such as doctors surgeries, schools etc.

I am writing with regard to the Housing Proposal for Hurst Farm, Burton Green and I would like it known that I am totally against the proposal.

I can't really believe that the proposal would even be considered by yourselves. The local roads would quite simply not be able to cope with such a development, we already have nose to tail traffic at commuter times and quite regularly it can be at a standstill. There are not enough Medical Centres/Doctors Surgerys in the area as it is and the local schools are already 'bursting at the seams'.

I feel it is very important to protect the Green Belt between Coventry and Kenilworth. The University of Warwick is already encroaching into the local Green Belt and it is time to STOP!

I raise objection to the inclusion of alternative sites in the core strategy:
1a, 1b Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club & Training Centre Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth
5 Hurst Farm Burton Green
6 Land at Baginton

My reasons, based on planning principles, are as follows:

1a, 1b Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club & Training Centre Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth

Development of this area would result in the loss of a valuable green space buffer for between the A46 and the main development of Kenilworth bounded by Glasshouse Lane. The proposal would place dwellings very close to this busy trunk road with consequential possibilities of noise and other environmental nuisance for the occupiers of dwellings. The proposed development would create an incremental ribbon of an urbanising nature along the line the A46 adding to the scale of existing and proposed housing development. Incremental pressures on infrastructure, particularly road access would be entirely unsatisfactory. An additional point is the loss of recreational playing fields.

5 Hurst Farm Burton Green

I was under the impression that the proposal area was greenbelt designed to segregate and separate developed land in Coventry and Kenilworth. Inclusion of this site in the core strategy would appear to be in direct conflict with a general thrust of the 1947 planning acts. Specifically, this area of agricultural land is valuable in delineating communities, and has a rural feel even close to the principal conurbation of Coventry. It would result in the loss of important green fields and associated ecological benefit, especially noting the wooded areas and habitats which would be lost. The highways infrastructure would be completely inadequate to service such a development and major highway works would be required, which in themselves would be unacceptable by creating an urbanising effect in this area (In fact the roads are currently strained to accommodate rat running at commuting times.)

6 Land at Baginton

The proposal would irreparably harm the character of Baginton which currently retains a distinctive village environment. The sheer scale of the development is entirely inappropriate to this location and loses recreational space for the public. I believe the land is in various ownerships, including Coventry City Council who have indicated their intention not to permit development, and it is therefore difficult to understand how this might be a realistic proposal. As for other alternative sites this is intensive development in the open countryside in direct conflict with national planning policies. Somewhat bizarrely, the area includes the ancient monument of the Roman Lunt fort and there is no doubt also considerable archaeological value in the surrounding areas which might be adversely affected. At the present time the future of Coventry airport is uncertain and it would be particularly unwise to consider developments in this area.

On behalf of the Burton Green Residents' Association we wish to object to the proposed housing development at Hurst Farm South for the following reasons:

* This proposed development on 247 acres is for a substantial number of houses, potentially up to 3000 units which would deeply erode the Green Belt separation between Coventry and Kenilworth
* The existing road infrastructure is barely coping with current commuter traffic
* There is inadequate provision for community support services such as doctors surgeries and schooling
* This area is one of historical interest with ancient woodland and hedgerows

Development of this site would result in a major extension of the urban fringe of Coventry that would fill in much of the gap between University of Warwick and Burton Green, contrary to green belt policy. This is recognised in the Coventry Joint Green Belt Study, Appendix 11 which says "This is a strategically important section of the Green Belt located between Coventry and Kenilworth. It is understood that the University have planning permission to greatly increase their campus facilities within their landholding and whereas this is expected to be well considered development, it will in effect substantially close the gap between the main settlements. It is recommended the areas of C13 that lie outside of the University grounds are retained as Green Belt."
There are ancient woodlands - Roughknowles Wood and Whitefield Coppice - on the site. They are identified as "Primary Restraints on development in Coventry Joint Green Belt Study Appendix 5 Site 13.
Development of this large site would overload existing road network leading to more pressure to build the "Westwood Relief Road" in the open land between Coventry and Kenilworth.
Allowing large scale house building in this area would have an adverse impact on the programme for the regeneration of the Coventry.

Most of the 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 would release family homes in adjacent towns currently rented by students due to insufficient student accommodation on campus. This would also reduce traveling by students and consequent CO2 emissions, and therefore better for global sustainability. It is understood that the university currently has about 6000 residential places and over 16000 full time students and planned to grow. Provision of 10,000 places may require more land than dotted on the plan below and would clearly need to be defined in detail in due course. Financial provision could be partly made available from S106 agreements with the developers of the 11,000 homes, representing less than 1 student bed sit place for each home built.

I remain of the opinion that the need for such large housing development in this area as imposed by Government remains unproven but feel that the following considerations should be imposed on all proposals.
1. No green belt land should be considered until all Brownfield sites have been fully developed. Look at the history of Developers in Coventry where a Brownfield site is started with a large number of homes proposed but once the developer has planning permission the numbers of dwellings are reduced and they move to the next site.
2. Numbers of houses on a site should be restricted to 100 homes to ensure that no single area is 'swamped' by a development and loses its existing identity.
3. Any of these additional proposals are more acceptable than the initial plan to build in excess of 3,500 houses on Kings Hill. Congratulations to a Council that can admit when a proposal is seriously flawed.
4. The main objective for any housing plans should be to encourage local employment and minimise the need to commute. Therefore WDC should consider small developments that are close to existing developments within its own area to meet this need. Sites that are close to Warwick, Leamington and Stratford should take priority for these reasons. Development closer to Coventry would only result in permanently 'joining' the two areas and resulting in the long term of a new Coventry and Warwickshire District Council?
5. The area around Warwick Parkway has never appeared as a consideration yet this has excellent access to a rail and road network. I understand that a reason given was the presence of Great Crested Newts? If this is the reason then King's Hill with its large number of ponds, Badger sets and ancient woodlands should not be under consideration?

I support this development (providing it is not green belt) as it would mean Warwickshire homes for Warwickshire people and not use already inadequate Coventry services. It would maintain the clear boundary between the two distinctly different communities.

I believe that the current plans for any large scale housing development is miss judged. An
alternative would be the development of several sites of smaller numbers with a mix of properties.
The proposal to develop properties of all (mixed) types on a single site is a mistake. Rather it should be possible to develop smaller numbers with a more coherent spread of property types.

We would have no objections to the use of this land for building more homes if the plans included the provision of additional educational facilities (namely primary schools to accommodate the additional children in the 1000 homes). The apparent absence of any such plans is alarming and incredibly short-sighted. As many parents of young children in the Warwick Gates/Whitnash/Heathcote area have recently experienced difficulties in primary school admissions, it would be ludicrous to even contemplate adding a further 1000 new homes into the mix. Any new housing development will inevitably attract young people, newly-married couples, and people wanting to start a family. This has been the story of Warwick Gates over the past ten plus years, and now many of the residents have primary school-aged children, who are expected to somehow be squashed into a few spare places within the existing local schools. This is bad enough, but to potentially increase this problem further would be disastrous to the community.

These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.

CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.

We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on

CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.

* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport

In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.

This looks like a potential huge development - how many houses are proposed? There is no surplus capacity here at Primary School or secondary school phases.

The Highways Agency (HA) together with Warwickshire County Council (WCC) is currently undertaking an assessment of the implications of the strategic housing and employment allocations proposed in the Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options paper for both the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and the local road network. This work is expected to be completed by June 2010 and will help determing what, if any, measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed development options on the SRN will be requred. This work should also help to inform the development of the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which will underping the Core Stretegy.

Given the uncertainty about which, if any, of the alternative sites are suitable for development, the HA has been unable to undertake any such detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of these sites at this time but would wish to do so when there is greater clarity. For the purposes of responding to this consultation, we have, therefore, undertaken a qualitative assesment of each of the sites focussing on the potential impacts of each site on the SRN and their suitabilty in terms of sustainability.

Site 5 compromises approximately 100ha of land in the Burton Green area of the district. It lies to the south of Westwood Business Park and to the east of Warwick University. It is relatively close to the A46 Stoneleigh Road junction and there is also the potential for traffic from the site to impact upon the Stivichall Interchange.

Both of these junctions and their links currently suffer from congestion which is expected to be excavated by any traffic generated by this site. Improvements to public transport services and other sustainable transport infrastructure will, therefore, be necessary to minimise the traffic impact of the site if this site is brought forward for development.

All six of the proposed alternative sites are considered to have some impact upon the SRN. It is expected that Site 2 would have the least impact, due to the relative distance from the M40, and the number of local services, amenities, and employment sites within the neighbouring areas. The remaining sites would have a more noticeable impact upon the SRN. Site 6 in particular has the potential to severely impact upon some sensitive locations along the A46. As set out above, we would, of course, wish to undertake further detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of the sites on the SRN when there is greater clarity about which, if any, sites are considered to be suitable for development.

We wish to register our objection to this proposed site. It would use 100% 'greenfield' site for house building and erode the carefully preserved 'Green Belt' between Kenilworth and Coventry. The roads as they are would prove inadequate to cope with the additional traffic-e.g. Crackley Lane, Bockendon Road. There are already queues of traffic on Gibbet Hill Road and Stoneleigh Road at peak times-these queues would be made much, much worse if this site was developed for housing. In addition what plans are there for schooling, medical centres and public transport? It seems extremely unlikely there would be sufficient capacity without significant expansion of existing Kenilworth schools for example. Where would the resources required come from? Travel to Kenilworth/Coventry for schools and medical facilities would exacerbate the traffic problems created. PLEASE DO NOT CONSIDER THIS SITE.

Thank you for consulting English Heritage on the suggested additional six strategic sites.
Before any commitment to any strategic site is made there is an expectation that a thorough strategic environmental assessment/sustainability appraisal will have been undertaken and that evidence would have been gathered and applied to demonstrate the relative suitability, capacity, deliverability and consistency with matters such as regional (RSS QE 1, 5 and 6) and national planning policy has been determined. At present whether or not this has occurred is unclear. In this respect we refer you to our previous correspondence of 25 September 2009, our specific comments relating to the evidence base and also to the recently published PPS5 and its associated good practice guide.

Please note that English Heritage considers that this apparent shortcoming is fundamental to the soundness of the Core Strategy.

In addition to this generic maxim please find an initial observation on each site based, unfortunately, on a rather crude desk top consideration.

Site 2, 3 and 5 - Land at Campion School, Glebe Farm and Hurst Farm South
The Historic Environment Record and County Council's Historic Landscape Characterisation project may prove to be of particular use in establishing the historic significance of these sites. Certainly due to the limited specific designations the broader historic value and the wider landscape setting should be investigated.

Support - if building on this 'alternative site' option results in less housing development in the land to lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane, Land at Europa Way, Land at Woodside Farm then we are in favour of this development.

Our priorities relate to the canal corridor and land and development within and immediately adjacent to the corridor. With any type of development British Waterways would require development to not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment, detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways, prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. The waterways can be used as tools in place making and place shaping, and contribute to the creation of sustainable communities. British Waterways would seek for any development to relate appropriately to the waterway and optimise the benefits such a location can generate for all parts of the community.