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

A large area of land, close to good road links seems a sensible proposal as a location for a level of development.

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.

I do not think so many houses are needed in the local area, however Baginton is a better choice than the alternatives on offer. better access to jobs, close and public services...the additional numbers are not such a high percentage of Coventry as a whole therefore should be better able to cope with the relatively small increase in houses.

The entire site is not appropriate for full development. However, the Joint Greenbelt Review identifies the area as one of low landscape value, owing to the airport, business parks and previous development. It appears sensible to use this site to take pressure away from King's Hill. Owing to its role in providing Coventry overflow, I would expect it to be demonstrated that no land at Coventry was available prior to development.

All of the above proposed developments sites fail on one significant criteria; the stated objective to "Be based on robust and credible evidence". Coventry/WDC research produced to date shows that only if the most optimistic projections are considered will any additional green field sites such as these be required to support development, and even then in significantly lower quantities than indicated by the core plan, as evidenced by even a cursory glance at your own research:

6.25 - [Coventry] "Our research above illustrates that there is sufficient land (i.e. an over supply) to meet forecasting requirements based on economic forecasting to 2011. There is also a sufficient supply to meet that required based on the average between the CE forecast and past take up to 2011."

7.8 "The headline finding of the report is that based on CE and PTU forecasts there is enough land available to meet needs across the sub-region to the end of the current plan periods,2011."

FROM: Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Employment Land Study 2007

Furthermore, even assuming the projections are realistic, the recent history of Coventry and the West Midlands in general (last 10 years) should show just how unpredictable 'predicted' growth can be and how quickly it can turn into very significant declines - see manufacturing in Coventry. Undertaking significant development of this nature based on a best-case-scenario is dangerous, not least because the effects of supply overtaking demand can be very damaging on any community/economy, but also because managed demand is an essential motivation for driving improvements in existing building stock and areas, particularly in the much neglected city centre.

In order for this core strategy to be taken seriously it need to PROVE the demand it seems so keen to base its plans on. Whilst I can appreciate that a certain amount of forward planning is required, it is difficult to take this strategy seriously when there is visibly higher than average unemployment in the region and so many vacant shops and offices even in the city centers [areas of supposed highest demand]. Secondly, there needs to be some consideration given to the improvements that might be bought to the existing neighborhood by developments so that there is positive demand for the development (recent redevelopment in Coventry - Liberty park is a good example of where local residents actually encouraged development rather than opposed it because of the clear positive effect the development would have on the area and because the development was at an appropriate scale for the local residents to accept). Please consider that more dissipated, smaller scale developments that are in keeping with local surrounding and needs are much easier for local residents to understand, accept and support.

Finally, I would ask the WDC to consider what it is that draws so many people from highly developed areas to more rural locations. Warwickshire has some of the most beautiful countryside in the UK; please learn to value it as much as your lucrative new developments.

I object to the development at Glebe Farm for the following reasons:

* The proposed site is an alternative to the Brown Field sites already submitted and if there are objections to those sites, there are other alternative sites which would be more suited to the application for development eg land at Baginton Airfield.

* The road infrastructure in the area already suffers from congestion at peak periods and I feed would not be able to cope with additional vehicles from 2-3000 houses. The roundabout at the top of Windmill Hill causes confusion as drivers from Leamington still act as though they have right of way (despite the signings) so everyone is hesitant and there are still frequent accidents there. Also, there has already been one death on the Rugby Road and the increase in traffic, I feel would mean that there would be another.

* The site is away from the main areas of work in South Leamington and Warwick meaning that there would be an increase in traffic thorough central Leamington which already cannot cope at peak times.

* The land is currently agricultural and is composed of heavy clay. There is a severe issue with run-off which in July 2007 resulted in nearly 50 houses being flooded as the sewerage system could not cope with the amount. At the moment no-one is willing to take responsibility to fund the improvement to reduce the impact. The effect of building 2-3000 houses on this site would be to make this problem much worse.

* The land is a Green Field site which is enjoyed by wildlife (including badgers) and walkers. There are several rights of way which run across this land which I have used which will need to be maintained if the site were to be developed.

* The village of Cubbington is a close knit rural community, highlighted by the fact that the parliamentary constituency boundaries have been moved so that it is no longer in Warwick and Leamington and is in the rural constituency of Kenilworth and Southam. This large development will have a huge impact on the village resources (there is always a queue in the post office) and take away some of the reasons why people moved here.

* This development was also mean that there would need to be an increase in facilities eg shops, schools and surgeries to cope with the increase in population or else the existing local facilities would need to expand in order to cope with the pressure.

* If this application is approved, then there will be pressure to extend the development to the boundary of Welsh Road and onto the area around Thwaites factory and eventually development could extend into Offchurch.

I support this site at Baginton as it would be a more suitable site as opposed to Glebe Farm (or any of the other 4 sites) as it is already set up with suitable road access and is of a size that suitable shops, schools, surgeries and employment sites could be set up at the same time.

Cubbington is a village and current residents have paid house prices that reflect the village status and the surrounding countryside - if this is not protected, village life will be gone forever. The environmental impact would be huge and totally unacceptable.
Such a small space cannot cope with the increases in traffic that this development will inevitably cause - there is already an accident black spot at the Windmill Hill roundabout with the current level of traffic.
Where are all the children going to go to school? Which doctors surgeries are the new residents going to attend? These services are already at full capacity; we cannot have these services stretched.
This building development will worsen the existing flooding problem.

The airport and Peugeot site are both large areas of undeveloped land, they are also brown field sites and are prime locations for easy access to the A46, M69 & M1.This land has already got sewers, drainage and water feed to both sites so the main facilities are already in place.

This is a good site for houses. It is a big piece of land with good road access and an established community.

The proposed development of 3500 houses at Finham/Kings Hill would be detrimental to the area as it does not have the infracture to support such a development. I suggest that the alternative sites could better support the proposal, if the proposed development was spread between the alternative sites.

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.

I work at the Airport for starters. Why not Ryton at the old Peugeot plant? Locals in Baginton will not tolerate the traffic increase at all plus it will stretch the Stonebridge roundabout where the A45/A46 merge.

I would fully support using the northern part only as the full space shown will run into the Baginton Village community and merge it into Coventry; But if that is not possible then I would support its use as dwellings particularly for Coventry based people..

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

Land is green belt

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.

This would make a better site than Kings Hill because it does not any rare wildlife such as can be found in Wainbody Wood.

Although the majority will be developable because it lies within Flood Zone 1, this large potential allocation drains in 2 directions to 2 main rivers, therefore there will be flood plain implications for the site.

A detailed level 2 FRA will be required to determine the precise flood plain extent as well as assessing site surface water drainage. The Environment Agency has hydraulic models of the river systems that can be used in the production of the site FRA.

If infiltration drainage is not possible and drainage scheme will have to ensure that the site development does not produce any cross catchment transfers. (i.e. moving surface water from one catchment to another.)

The site is sensitive in terms of protection requirements for 'Controlled Waters'. It is located on solid geology of the Bromsgrove Sandstone formation, consisting of permeable sandstone strata. These will contain sufficient groundwater to support drinking water abstractions and thus the whole formation is classified as a Principal Aquifer under the new Water Framework Directive typology. There are also permeable Sand & Gravel deposits overlying the solid geology locally and the soils predominantly consist of deep, well drained, coarse, loamy and sandy soils, with a high leaching potential. Furthermore, the site is located some 2.5 km south westerly and south easterly from two STW public supply boreholes and there is a stream adjacent to the northwest, with the river Sowe adjacent to the west.

As this is a very large 400 ha area, further site specific investigation will need to confirm the exact geology and soil conditions locally, as well as depth to water table, ground drainage potentials and any contamination legacy from previous developments (incl. historic landfill sites) or Made Ground accumulations. As part of any planning application for a residential development, we would require to see a site investigation and risk assessment to assess risks to controlled waters. Based on those findings, we can then also better advise on future drainage options (e.g. to ground or not). Again, the Environmental Health department at the Council has the remit to protect human health, so they will need to get involved too.

This I believe is the best option as the road infrastructure will be better able to cope.

As others have said this is a very varied site which is part of a wider and rather messy mixed use area around the airport which currently seems to lack a clear distinction between urban and rural. Development here could bring some cohesion and there is the space to provide local amenities such as shops and surgeries. Bus routes in and out of Coventry could easily be extended to serve the new residents who would have straightforward access to the A45 and A46

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.

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.

This area needs to be developed further. It has a reasonably good existing infrastructure. If the airport is not revived then it makes it an ideal area for housing development.

I do not think that the whole site is appropriate for full development. However, the Joint Greenbelt Review identifies the area as one of low landscape value, owing to the airport, business parks and previous development. It appears sensible to use this site to take pressure away from King's Hill with the provision of 1400 homes and 30ha of employment land. Development of this site would not be expected until the third phase (2021-26).

Owing to its potential role in providing Coventry overflow, the land south of the A45 to the west of the 10.4ha employment land shown could provide a further 10ha of housing, 400 homes. A shelter belt zone could be retained between this development and Baginton village, keeping it clear of Lunt Fort and the river flood plain.

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?

We are of the opinion that the site of Baginton Airport would be suitable since for the past four or five decades it has been obvious that with the proximity of Birmingham International Airport the insistence of Coventry to persist with keeping Coventry airport open has had more to do with Coventry's misplaced ideas of grandeur than any sensible business judgment. In the days that Coventry was a force in the manufacture of goods for export I was heavily involved and Coventry was simply never a viable or sensible option. Now the city makes very little by comparison and is of even less significance, if that is possible!

One site which is certainly NOT a credible or sensible option is to build on the Green Belt at Kings Hill. Warwick Parkway area or nearer the centres of population in Leamington or Warwick should be more suitable.