Scanned Letter

Re: greenbelt between kenilworth & leamington

We would like to object to the use of greenbelt land between Leamington and Kenilworth for both housing and industrial development and also for the proposed HS2 development.

The greenbelt currently separates Kenilworth and Leamington, and urban sprawl in this area would effectively mean that the towns would merge together.

We think that an increase in the size of Kenilworth in this area would destroy an attractive approach to the town. If more shops and industrial facilities are built then this would only exacerbate the problem of the current empty units available in the town. Road access for this area would create dreadful problems for the existing busy traffic flows.

Kenilworth and Warwick are both historic towns and should be protected for future generations.

Scanned Response Form.

See attachment

I live in Old Milverton with my 12 yr old son.

My son and I wish to add our strongest protests against the proposal to build on Green Belt Land in Old Milverton, Blackdown and Kenilworth.

We have yet to see any justification for the need to build so many houses in the area. Many flats and houses have been built opposite Leamington Station and on the site of the old Potterton factory off Emscote Rd in Warwick that have yet to be filled. The huge amount of houses proposed just creates another suburb of leamington/kenilworth and dominates the area. I feel greed is playing a part here.

Despite assurances from the council District council that a road will be built to the A46 it is inevitable that there will be a huge increase in traffic through our village. We live alongside the Old Milverton Rd and already find it is treated as a rat run several times a day, I would be appalled to have that increased, especially with my young son starting to cycle to school. The speed bumps further up the rd are a complete pain and just encourage drivers to speed up when they reach Old Milverton, or damage cars.

We are also deeply concerned that if we start filling the green belt land that there are no guarantees from the council about filling the in the remaining small gap that will remain between us and leamington or kenilworth.

We love Old Milverton and its unique tranquility, this needs protecting not overwhelming with unnecessary buildings.

I have today read your "Local Plan" for the Warwick District area and I have to say that your ideas for development in Kenilworth are a complete load of rubbish.

"Development Site 7 - Thickthorn, Kenilworth - 770 houses, plus employment, open space and community facilities."

Have you been to this area lately? Do you know how narrow and bending the roads are? Do you know how much traffic already goes via this area? Do you know that the schools, doctors, dentists and other local facilities are already over subscribed? Have you for one moment done any real work on this area or did you just look at a map and pull out this rubbish from your head?

Are the 770 houses going to be more 5 or 6 bedroom houses like you've allowed to be built for the past decade that no local 2nd or 3rd generation resident can afford, just to appease commuters, Waitrose shoppers and relocated government workers? Or are you going to build a ghetto of the like in Rugby or like on Common Lane/Dalehouse Lane with no where for people to park? What are your projections for what employers would move into this area as that data is nowhere to be found. As for open spaces, you want to concrete over that, what about the Warden Cricket club (I played there as a kid) I have friends who play for Kenilworth Rugby Club and your plans just wash over those places like they don't exist. More community facilities, it would be nice if the ones we had were up to scratch in the first place!
On a more serious and troubling matter, I noticed that one options is to create a site for "Gypsies & Travellers", I work in a local business on Warwick Road and for years we've had to put up with violence, loss of trade, theft and all manner of horrors when the gypsies come to town for the horse fair (that you do nothing stop may I add) and I will not see that area turned into a travellers camp! I will do whatever it takes to stop it! I will not let my town be overrun by travellers just to alleviate the conscious of some overpaid councillor

Thank you for the preferred Option summary and the work that has gone into a detailed plan of this complexity. The fact that it is so far reaching covering the areas of Kenilworth,Warwick, Leamington, Whitnash and surrounding areas makes it more difficult to respond to. For what its worth I give a few general and specific points.
In general it is difficult to see how the vision can be achieved by such a large increase in the number of dwellings to be built in some green belt areas. If we do need to provide for this expansion in our population which the current census indicates then it would be more honest to simply say that the vision is to do the best we can in an overcrowded town with all that implies to transport,services,safety,green areas and quality of life. It is difficult to believe things will be better when the plan is completed. The second general point is that new homes are required in a growing local and nationwide economy. We therefore need a much more detailed economic and financial plan to stimulate business development before we have a plan to build the houses. We might have a growing population but do we have a growing local economy to provide the wealth to buy those houses. This economic plan is touched on in the report but requires more infrastructure spending to attract business first. We will then know where to build the houses. It may be that a new town is required rather than filling in the empty spaces in towns with no jobs.
Clearly this report has been prepared with a lot of study and thought and therefore assuming you are correct in your prediction of a big increase in demand for houses in the area I can only contribute a few specific points in relation to the development at Thickthorn,Kenilworth which is were I live. This is the request to maintain the wooded copse or buffer on the land .Also to provide a new direct access to the A46 for the new estate.This will go some way to achieve in one area of the plan your objective to "make Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit " It is at the moment it would be a tragedy if this plan achieved the opposite.

This is my response to the New Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation

Number of homes
I have read the relevant material on how you calculate that 10,800 new homes will be required in Warwick District over the next 15 years, at a rate of 550 per year. I note that in your consultation questionnaire of 2011 the majority of respondents preferred the option of a lower number of houses per year, fearing overdevelopment and coalescence among other concerns, but it seems these views are being ignored. I would also question the figures predicting a growth in 'high level' and managerial jobs and wonder what and where these jobs are going to be. What jobs are those occupying affordable or low cost housing going to be doing?
Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework requires that development on Green Belt land should only be allowed in 'very special circumstances' which Warwick District Council maintains exist here. I would question this and note that you propose to 'alter Green Belt boundaries in line with development sites described'. You acknowledge that 'The Green Belt ... seeks to stop urban sprawl that would harm the open nature and rural character of the open countryside around the towns and the urban areas of the West Midlands', and yet 43% of preferred option sites are on Green Belt land.
In 2009 after substantial investigation and public consultation WDC adopted a development plan, for slightly more homes than the present proposals, which did not require release of Green Belt land. What has changed between 2009 and now? Most noticeably the land to the east of Radford Semele and Grove Farm that was in the 2009 plan has now been removed, in the case of Radford, because of gas pipelines and at Grove Farm because of coalescence with Bishops Tatchbrook. Why is coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook, which is outside the Green Belt, more important than coalescence with Leek Wootton and Kenilworth or the fact that Blackdown will be joined to Leamington? Why has the land at Radford been rejected when the gas pipelines did not pose a barrier to the previous plan?

The results of WDC's Green Belt study which scored Old Milverton and Blackdown highly have been ignored. If Green Belt development is necessary lower scoring land should be used.

Preferred Options and size of developments
According to WDC the Preferred Options have to be, and are apparently, supported by strong evidence. I would like to know what this evidence is.
WDC has presented a preferred plan rather than consulting on options. No options have been presented to the public for consultation. Who has suggested the proposed sites? Has WD carried out its own survey of possible sites, or have all the sites been proposed by developers? Apparently, these sites have become available because landowners wish to sell. Developers are very persistent with their offers to buy land and I'm sure some land owners could easily be persuaded to sell if they stood to make a substantial sum of money.

Some of the proposed developments are huge. 1600 on preferred site 3 would constitute a large village on its own and will merge with site 2, making a total of 2700 houses. This is an enormous development and would require a huge amount of infrastructure. It would not be part of either Warwick or Leamington, but would be a separate community therefore not integrated into either town. Sites 4 and 5 also represent a huge development, much of it on Green Belt.

The Thickthorn development in Kenilworth is also very large at 770 homes for the size of the town. Kenilworth underwent considerable expansion in the 1950s - 1980s; should it be further expanded to such an extent? Also, how was this site decided upon? Much of it is on Green Belt and farmland and includes a nature reserve which would be swallowed up by surrounding houses. It too would not be an integral part of the town. I do not live immediately near it but it does concern me that such a development would be so near the A46, the noise from which we can hear quite clearly from our garden. I don't think building business premises alongside the A46 would lessen the noise much for those living there. A new primary school and other facilities are proposed for this development. Why not build extra houses in some of the villages which could afford to expand and already have schools etc. Leek Wootton is a case in point where the school was once under threat of closure could take an increase in pupils.

Transport
It is estimated that £50,000,000 will be needed to improve roads. Where is this to come from? Regarding the road links between Kenilworth and Leamington, does this mean making the A452 a dual carriageway? This scheme was rejected a few years ago after a successful campaign and the realisation that it was not really needed to alleviate a minor problem of congestion twice a day. It provides a very pleasant green corridor between the two towns and should not be spoilt. Access to and from the Thickthorn development at one end of the A452 and to and from the Blackdown and Lillington developments at the other end would result in a massive increase in traffic. However, a dual carriageway would still lead to congestion at the entrance to either town as it funnelled into a single lane. A dual carriageway linking the A452 with the A46 would cut across a swathe of countryside and spoil the village of Old Milverton.
Communication
I am concerned that many people in Kenilworth are unaware that there has been this consultation period even if they are aware of the Local Plan. It is not enough to assume that everyone reads the local press as many do not, and most people would not be looking at your website unless they were aware of this plan and therefore there was something to look at. There has been some limited information in the library but for most of the time this was tucked away round a corner and I had to ask where it was. I know there have been various meetings but these were not well publicised. The exhibition in Kenilworth Library was staged only a week before the end of the consultation period and again there was little publicity. In the interests of transparency, surely every household should have been leafleted about this very important plan, not just people who had already responded to the questionnaire or registered on your website? I hope the next consultation will be better publicised.
I have other concerns but these are the main ones. Please listen to the views and concerns of the people and don't force this plan on us without giving us alternative options to consider.

I wish to register my objection to the proposed building of 770 new homes in the Thickthorn area of Kenilworth and nearly 3,000 houses north of Leamington Spa.
I fully understand that new building is required - though not as much as proposed in your plan since there are always a large number of empty houses unaccounted for - but my main concern is the huge amount of extra traffic which this building would generate, as well as the loss of valuable Green Belt and agricultural land.
I certainly don't wish to appear to be passing on unwanted building to another area, but it does seem that the south of Leamington Spa would be a better location for large amounts of building, as there is already an existing road network which could be upgraded far more easily and cheaply than a new "Northern Relief Road". If the A452 were to be turned into a dual carriageway, this would still not help the traffic flow through Kenilworth and rush hour conditions would be far worse than they are even now.
Please consider altering the proposal as I do not believe that Kenilworth and the northern side of Leamington can cope with the huge amount of extra congestion which would be incurred.

See attachment

I note with horror at the development planned for the North Leamington relief road and the green belt developments which are servicing it, specifically the developments at Milverton Gardens, Blackdown and Kenilworth.

I regularly use this area for walks with my family and I have done so for many years, as it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Surely there are plenty of other local locations to develop that would not encroach on our beautiful greenbelt areas.

I assume you are already aware this area floods in extreme weather.

I would be grateful if you would take my views into consideration.

I am writing to ask you to protect our greenbelt land and not build on any land that includes Old Milverton, Blackdown and Kenilworth.

I live in Leamington, near to the fields and allotments in Old Milverton and often walk amongst the fields, up to St. James's Church and down to the river and weir. It is a beautiful part of Leamington and should not be spoilt in any way.

Please do not let this go ahead.

Document scanned.

* How will the new Thickthorn development be accessed by road?
* Surely the houses built at Thickthorn will be subject to noise nuisance from the A46?
* There is a fear that development will encroach into the greenbelt. This will open the door to further development in the future, placing a greater risk on the greenbelt.
* The proposals include the cricket and rugby club grounds. Where would they be moved to?
* Will all of the housing developments have a Kenilworth postcode? Any new-builds with a Coventry postcode will not attract the same high value, and thus decrease the value of Kenilworth-postcode homes.
* Is there a possibility of setting a percentage of affordable homes?
* People are keen to be involved in the local plan consultation
* Acknowledge that more houses need to be built, but loss of green belt is a big issue
* Concern about the impact on the utilities infrastructure, of a growing population - how much is too much?
* Housing growth is not sustainable without local business growth to provide jobs
* Kenilworth desperately needs affordable housing to encourage young people to locate there, or stay there
* Question about the progress of the Wilton House development
* Local schools are already full. New schools will need land that might be earmarked for housing.
* Many houses are now buy to let, which has a negative impact on social investment in the community
* New developments in the town should not be of the top end of the market type, building expensive housing
* Can extensions be restricted so that a 2-bedroom house does not grow into a 4-bedroom house, no longer marketable as a starter home
* The town is a rental market for the University
* No businesses or offices in the town - all retail
* Town needs business enterprise as part of future development, including modern office space
* It is positive that there are so few empty shops in the town
* Town must attract non-retail business - high-end industry
* Need for environmentally friendly transport for those who commute
* Few people live AND work in Kenilworth. Those who work there often can't afford to live there
* Very few cycle lanes

I wish to register my views regarding the WDC Local Plan - helping shape the district - Preferred Options in relation to Kenilworth.
PO1 - I feel Kenilworth is unsuitable for an increase in housing without a considerable amount of extra funds being found. Both medical centres are stretched and schools full.
PO3 - The preferred site for new housing and commercial development would be I believe on unsuitable green belt land. Acient woodland, trees with preservation orders, the noise from the nearby A46 and local road congestion.
PO4 - I fail to see the point of including commercial premises within the Thickthorn plan when the town was unable to get any interest in the empty site on the junction of Common Lane and Dalehouse Lane and it was made into housing.
PO7 - Kenilworth suffers from gypsies and travellers meetings and horse fairs at lease three times a year. The event is held on part of the proposed Thickthorn site. Chaos reins. The nearest pub to the gathering quite often has to close. I understand there is petty crime. The most police you will see in a year in the town appear. Normally there is a lack of police presence and there is no longer a police station in the town. I feel it would be hard to attract anything/one to come to Kenilworth if such a realatively small town had to accommodate such a site.
PO8 - See PO4.
PO10 - Let us hope that the proposed Thickthorn site does not consist of a large number of three story dwelling which would be totally out of keeping with the rest of the houses in the vicinity.
PO11 - Has the Grade II listed house and nearby ancient woodland and roman site been taken into account with the Thickthorn site? Other proposed sites seem to have been given more credence than they deserve. (Can you really see Kenilworth Castle from the proposed Rouncil Lane site?).
PO14 - I would suggest that building houses and commercial buildings on the Thickthorn site will greatly increase congestion in Kenilworth and on to Leamington. I would be interested in what plans could possibly improve situation which developes even before the traffic lights on the Warwick Road at Sainsburys. You can alter the island at the Jet filling station, widen the top of Birches Lane and alter the A46 island but whether you put a road out of the new development into Birches Lane or out on to the A452 Leamington Road it still doesn't alter the fact that there will be 770 new homes a good percentage of which will have cars who will be joining these roads.
PO16 - I feel strongly that it is wrong for WDC to alter greenbelt boundaries.

Housing Location - Kenilworth

57% of land identified for possible development is within the Green Belt. This is in stark contrast to Coventry where Green Belt is unaffected. The areas selected in this plan tend to be large and would facilitate easier management, the imaginative planning of larger integrated schemes and, I imagine, be attractive to developers. However, I am concerned that the focus on effective delivery of a significant number of houses will too easily override the need to maintain our Green Belt.

Regarding Thickthorn, development here will not reduce the need to travel. Being adjacent to the A46, it would appear to be a good location for commuters and other trunk road users. It is not handy for the town centre and, so , driving in would further stretch car park capacity. Kenilworth is basically residential. How will the need to travel be reduced for these new Thickthorn residents. ?

I am not convinced of the need to build any houses at Thickthorn. However, if there is and for reasons of Green Belt protection, the preservation of a local amenity (the cricket ground, which I understand members do not want to sell) and the lack of work opportunities within Kenilworth, I would prefer a smaller development halting at Rocky Lane, which should be preserved in such a way as to give the impression that it is truly the beginning of a country walk.

Whilst it may not be so cost effective or convenient, more sites outside the Green Belt should be considered, examining the possibility of transfer of usage to improve effectiveness of facilities and the quality of life in our towns.

Scanned Response Form

RESPONSE TO WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN PREFERRED OPTIONS

PO1: Preferred level of growth
I support the preferred option based on an average 600 new homes per annum, as being realistic against current demographic trends and economic growth projections. However, should economic growth trends change in future years the council should seek to respond flexibly as required.

PO2: Community Infrastructure Levy
This new system of raising funding from new developments to support infrastructure developments offers important new opportunities but also presents major challenges. It requires a new set of relationships between district council, county council and other local partners, to not only draw up and agree CIL-funded infrastructure development plans for the district but to create a long-term stable framework for them to be implemented over many years.

PO3: Broad location of growth
I support the preferred option, and in particular that Kenilworth should have its fair share of new housing development (770 homes per Table 7.2) within the total district target. I disagree with the stated view of Kenilworth Town Council that there should be no further development in the town. A vibrant, sustainable community requires some headroom to expand and develop. There is a clear need for a better housing mix in Kenilworth, especially for more starter homes for young people and opportunities for older residents wanting to downsize to smaller properties.

PO4: Distribution of sites for housing
I support the preferred option that Kenilworth new housing development should be concentrated on the Thickthorn site. Kenilworth Town Council has stated a preference for 700/800 houses to be distributed across the town, but has admitted that this cannot be done while meeting their own criteria. These mixed messages only serve to confuse local residents.
Concentrating new housing development in one Kenilworth location provides the opportunity for the right level of infrastructure development to support this - roads, walking and cycling routes, school and other community facilities. Piecemeal small-scale developments across the town, even if there were suitable sites, would be difficult to support through improved infrastructure, so putting further pressure on existing facilities and resources.
I support strongly the proposed designation of the Thickthorn site for employment use as well as for housing. There has been a long-standing shortage of suitable employment land in Kenilworth. I would not support just an office park however. What is needed is a good mix of employment opportunities, to include for example research and development organisations and light industrial units.
I support the proposed designation of Burton Green as a 'Category 2' village, provided that the Parish Council is fully consulted and involved in decisions about target numbers, types and locations of new housing.

PO5: Affordable housing
I support the proposed option. The proposed policies seem to be soundly based.
It is interesting to note that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) estimates the requirement for 115 affordable houses per annum for Kenilworth alone. This reinforces my earlier statement under PO3 that there is a clear need for a better housing mix in the town. The SHMA estimated need is greater than the total new housing allocation for Kenilworth over the 15 year period of the plan. Consideration should therefore be given to achieving a much higher figure than the minimum 40% affordable housing on the Thickthorn site, and also seeking every opportunity for more affordable housing in any 'windfall' sites that come forward for development within the town.

PO6: Mixed communities and wide choice of housing
I support the proposed option.
Regarding the Thickthorn site, for the reasons stated previously I see the priority within the housing mix being for starter homes for young people, and smaller units for older residents wanting to downsize but to stay living within the town. There could also be an opportunity to cement further the links between Kenilworth and the University of Warwick by the building of new student accommodation - something completely missing at the moment.

PO9: Retailing and town centres
I support the proposed option, in particular promoting the vitality and viability of town centres, and strongly resisting further out-of-centre retail developments.

PO12: Climate change
I support the proposed option, in particular ensuring flood resistance and resilience in all new developments through sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS). Well-designed SUDS are not only functional, but can enhance the natural environment of open space areas associated with new developments.

PO13: Inclusive, safe and healthy communities
I support the proposed option, in particular the importance of access to high quality open spaces and sport/recreation facilities for all residents.
In para 13.10 (2nd bullet point), I would like to see the words "pedestrian and cycling" substituted for "pedestrian". Policies should do everything possible to encourage the greater use of bicycles by all sections of the local community, both for healthy exercise and as a sustainable/zero carbon means of transport within our district.

PO14: Transport
I support the proposed option, in particular the strong emphasis on promoting sustainable forms of transport.
The importance of the K2L cycling route between Kenilworth and Leamington cannot be overemphasised, together with provision for bus lanes and bus priority schemes on this important route. I see these as the priorities for highway improvements on this route rather than increased provision for private vehicles.
Within the town of Kenilworth, there is a massive task to be done to improve routes and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and this should be the priority for infrastructure investment to support new housing development. I disagree fundamentally with the view of the Town Council that a multi-storey car park is required in the town centre. Policies should be seeking to encourage residents to leave their cars behind for short-distance local trips whenever possible.
Map 5 shows a proposed cycle route through Abbey Fields to link up two elements of the National Cycle Network. This has been the subject of considerable negative comment by some residents, community organisations and the Town Council, which has been reflected in other responses to this consultation I understand.
The council has a duty to balance these strongly-expressed views, i.e. that no cycles should be permitted in or through the Abbey Fields, with the needs of the local community as a whole. I would highlight some of the comments in the Draft Green Space Strategy document, in particular section 4.1.7 on page 19 of that document:
"The value of green spaces can be greatly enhanced by linking them together into corridors and networks giving safe, attractive access for pedestrians and, in some cases, cyclists.
"... enable people living in urban areas to reach the countryside .... provide a green alternative for journeys to work or school."
"By-laws prohibiting cycling and horse-riding in some green spaces may need to be reviewed to achieve this."
Through the development of the Connect2 Kenilworth (C2K) route, the town has gained a valuable green corridor linking it to the countryside, and providing an important new travel alternative for people working at the university, Policies should be focussed on making it more accessible from all points of the town, and there is no doubt that a cycle route through Abbey Fields would become an important link between the west side of the town and C2K. Currently no other options have been proposed which would achieve the same result.
There is also the fact that the Abbey Fields are an important destination in themselves for many local residents, including families with young children wanting to access the playground area, and yet at the moment there is zero provision for any residents wishing to travel there by bicycle. Residents lucky enough to live nearby are able to walk, but others have no alternative but to drive there. With the Abbey Fields car park already at saturation point and due to reduce its capacity shortly, the council must consider how it can encourage more residents to access the Fields by bicycle.
In terms of transport infrastructure to support a new Thickthorn housing and employment development, for the reasons stated earlier a high priority should be given to sustainable transport options - i.e. walking, cycling and public transport. However, this site also offers the opportunity to create an important new link road between the traffic island over the A46 by-pass and the eastern side of Kenilworth (joining Glasshouse Lane at a point near Rocky Lane). As well as serving the new development and ensuring it is fully linked into the rest of the town, it would help to alleviate current traffic congestion around the St John's gyratory - something which piecemeal development of eastern Kenilworth over many years has failed to address.

PO15: Green infrastructure
I support strongly the proposal for the development of a peri-urban park north of Kenilworth. This would build on the success of the C2K Greenway route in opening up this important piece of our local countryside to all sections of the local community.
I do not support the arguments so far put forward for the restoration of the Kenilworth Mere. The outline feasibility study conducted by Warwick Business School MBA students showed that any viable scheme could have a massive impact on a large area of precious countryside adjacent to Kenilworth Castle, almost certainly involving commercial developments such as hotels, apartments etc.

PO16: Green belt
I support the re-drawing of green belt boundaries to the east of Kenilworth and around the village of Burton Green in order to permit the developments proposed in this Local Plan, and for no other reason.

PO18: Flooding and water
As stated previously, I support the requirement for SUDS schemes as part of all new developments.

See attached

GREEN BELT - National Planning Policy Framework requires "very special circumstances"
The Green Belt covers only 13% of the area of England. This preferred plan is for 10,800 dwellings and 43% of land used will be green belt. How can this be justified when there is still plenty of white field land available south of Leamington? Presumably the "very special circumstances" come into effect when the 57% development on white fields has been used. This growth is scheduled to take 15 years at a constant annual rate of 555 houses per year. 57% of 15 is 8.55. So it will be eight and a half years before these "very special circumstances" (ie. white field sites are filled and green belt is needed) comes into effect. By then another plan will have been made!
I disagree strongly with any relaxation of the green belt which is there to stop conurbations merging. This plan will leave less than 1 1/2 miles between Kenilworth and Leamington.
Why does Kenilworth need to expand? It has always been in the past a much smaller town than Leamington and Warwick and mushroomed massively in the 1960s, and also in the 1980s when Knights Meadow estate was built. Why should we let this happen again to keep pace with the other towns? Councillors tell me that the Green Belt is strangling Kenilworth. This is precisely its purpose. We should be grateful that our town has these safeguards in place to protect it.
770 dwellings equates to about 1770 people which is almost a 10% increase in Kenilworth's population in an area which is quite detached from Kenilworth and is not likely to make its inhabitants feel a part of the community. The town centre should be in the middle of the town. Far too much development is on the east side and it should now be the turn of the west, if the Green Belt has to be sacrificed, where there is no risk of it merging with other towns and which would be a short walk to the centre of town without cars needing to be used.
THICKTHORN.
How was the Thickthorn site chosen?
Surely not because it abuts the A46 which is noisy both day and night. Was a site visit made to see just how noisy it will be for all the inhabitants? Were decibel readings taken at various points up the hill to ascertain the suitability of this site? The noise is particularly bad on a hot sunny day with the prevailing south-west wind. What about HS2? The boom will be heard at Thickthorn as it passes 18 times per hour in both directions on the EAST side? This estate will be on the flight path of Coventry International Airport where there is no restriction on night flights and jets scream over the proposed development land and at a very low level on their way to Baginton as they have to avoid the Birmingham flight path, (which is also noisy) as this is the crossover point of the two flight paths.
It would be a very selfish decision to commit people to a life of misery with all this noise even through double glazing. This is not the same scenario as the Woodloes where houses abut the road, which at that point is 4 lanes instead of 6, where there the A46 is the other side of the natural sound barrier of Primrose Hill. At Thickthorn noise is impossible to stop owing to the contours of the land which is a basin causing the noise to be trapped and sweep up the hill towards dwellings. The noise is incessant both day and night. It is an ideal location for the sports fields which are already there, where people can go away at the end and not have to endure it 24 hours a day. Office buildings along it will not dissipate the sound.
TRAFFIC
Having 1200 cars discharging from the estate each morning will be a nightmare and cause even longer queues up Birches Lane and into Glasshouse Lane. It will be a worse effect than the horse fair there every day of the year. Updating St Johns gyratory presumably means traffic lights which will cause long tailbacks into the town centre as they have priority under the give-way scheme.
I cannot understand how a dual carriageway between Kenilworth and Leamington will help as all the traffic will have to funnel in at either end and will just result in 4 lanes of slow moving traffic instead of 2. Creation of bus lanes will in any case limit traffic flow to one lane in each direction to speed up a bus every 10 minutes if you're lucky, and nothing will be gained in terms of traffic build up.
There are no points wide enough along Glasshouse Lane for the junction of a spine road, as the corner with Rocky Lane is on a dangerous bend. In any case, Glasshouse Lane is a unique and attractive feature of 1930s period landscaping, a Kenilworth gem, which should be preserved and which junctions along its length will destroy.
NUMBERS
Where do these figures come from for 10,800 houses?
It is in the interest of the District Council to have as many new houses as possible, as they receive 6 times the Council Tax from the New Homes Bonus Scheme for every new dwelling completed and more than that if they are affordable housing.
This plan is not led by suitability but the interest of landowners to sell off their land for housing.
These are not sufficient grounds for this massive increase in population concentrated in a small area as the plans make little use of rural area development. Lots of villages need regenerating. Radford Semele has had no growth since the 1960s and has a school in place already. It has good transport links to the M40, Fosse Way and Leamington Station and IT IS IN A WHITE FIELD ZONE. If such a large number are needed, they should be put in the South Leamington area on white field sites as Leamington already has all the amenities (parks, department stores, nightclubs, cinemas) jobs to support it. This is a Warwick District Council plan not a Kenilworth plan and there are plenty of other places where housing could be built.

CONCLUSION
Population figures should be challenged.
Green belt should be protected.
Consideration of the effect on the HEALTH of people living alongside a motorway with NOISE and POOR AIR QUALITY owing to constant fumes and directly under a flight path with NOISE due to very low flying aircraft should be made.
DISTRICT COUNCIL
Having looked extensively at your website, I note that according to feedback from the public there is low satisfaction with the way you communicate with people.
I note that you are consulting the people of Kenilworth on Friday 20th July in Kenilworth Library. As the consultation is of 2 months duration, why do you choose to liaise with the people of this town just 7 days before the cut off date for written responses?
Every household in the town should have been notified by post (why not with the Electoral Role info) and notices should have been placed in relevant places about the town as happens for a single house alteration. Instead, the local press is left to do the job for you. You are reaching a small minority. Ask the KWN for circulation figures.
In order to improve this during the further consultation in March / April, I hope you that you will consult everyone by means of a written communication to every household.

Our objections relate to Locations 4 & 5 and 7.

The New Local Plan suggests concreting over the rapidly disappearing green belt between Leamington and Kenilworth. Once that step is taken, it is irreversible.

Our objections are as follows:

1. The land is very valuable for exercise and recreation. It is the closest green land available to us which allows users to get away from the town as it is walkable.
2. There is far more suitable land for development particuarly around Europa Way.
3. There are no exceptional circumstances to build on this green belt.
4. There are alternative non green belt sites elsewhere.
5. On page 4 of the Preferred Options booklet, you state "we want to make sure we avoid growth which could lead to existing settlements merging' but that is exactly what will happen if locations 4, 5 and 7 are developed.
6. It will drastically change the nature of the environment.

Leamington merged into Warwick many years ago. We are sure that was not what was planned. And yet your current plan ensures it will merge go on into Kenilworth. The green belt is too important for future generations to be lost forever. Please, please do not allow this to happen.

I live in Old Milverton with my 12 yr old son.

My son and I wish to add our strongest protests against the proposal to build on Green Belt Land in Old Milverton, Blackdown and Kenilworth.

We have yet to see any justification for the need to build so many houses in the area. Many flats and houses have been built opposite Leamington Station and on the site of the old Potterton factory off Emscote Rd in Warwick that have yet to be filled. The huge amount of houses proposed just creates another suburb of leamington/kenilworth and dominates the area. I feel greed is playing a part here.

Despite assurances from the council District council that a road will be built to the A46 it is inevitable that there will be a huge increase in traffic through our village. We live alongside the Old Milverton Rd and already find it is treated as a rat run several times a day, I would be appalled to have that increased, especially with my young son starting to cycle to school. The speed bumps further up the rd are a complete pain and just encourage drivers to speed up when they reach Old Milverton, or damage cars.

We are also deeply concerned that if we start filling the green belt land that there are no guarantees from the council about filling the in the remaining small gap that will remain between us and leamington or kenilworth.

We love Old Milverton and its unique tranquility, this needs protecting not overwhelming with unnecessary buildings.

Attached letter

Scanned form.

Attached letter

As scanned.

As scanned.

As scanned.

As scanned

As scanned.