No

ID sylw: 108710

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kenilworth Town Council

As well as specific concerns about the sites around Kenilworth, we have serious reservations about the overall impact that further development could have on the town
and the impact on one of our most significant cultural assets – Kenilworth Castle.
The new housing will have impact on the greenbelt and the sense of place.
Lack of diversity in the housing mix of housing has led to home being too expensive for first time buyers.
There is lack of infrastructure (especially impact on the secondary school) to support the existing community and any new addition will exacerbate the issues .
The new development will have a negative impact on Kenilworth Castle and the SA assessment of site SG04 is incorrect against the SA objective relating to cultural heritage. Support the green and blue infrastructure policies in the Plan.

No

ID sylw: 108711

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kenilworth Town Council

This appears to be the second largest spatial growth area in the proposals and has large overlap with green belt. Therefore this would effectively merge Kenilworth and
Coventry, contrary to the primary aim of the Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl and towns merging.
• Significant areas of SG01 are prone to flooding, and development should avoid building on a floodplain, plan for the effects of climate change (NPPF page 48) and
put in place a habitat corridor (blue/green corridor) as part of a sustainable drainage system (Preferred Options page 133).
• In the technical evidence, development at SG01 was assessed as suitable for housing, but poor in many other aspects (climate, biodiversity, landscape, cultural
heritage, natural resources, waste) (Sustainability Appraisal page 59) and therefore is lower priority for development.
• There are plans for an “eco-park” south of Warwick University, which would provide significant amenity to Kenilworth residents, however this area would be dwarfed by the rest of the proposed development site.
• The amenity of residents should be considered when building houses close to the HS2 train line which will have frequent services. The train line is currently separate
from housing (albeit straight through Burton Green!), but much of SG01 development would be adjacent to HS2.

No

ID sylw: 108712

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kenilworth Town Council

This is almost entirely on Green Belt, and includes registered parkland, near Stoneleigh Motslow Hill, and a small area of ancient woodland at Kings Wood. These
areas should be protected from development.
• If the intention is to create employment opportunities and industrialise large areas alongside the A46, without housing. There is no urban centre or access to shops and
facilities here, therefore it wouldn’t create a sustainable development.
• It seems the intention is for employment, as opposed to energy use, i.e. solar farms.
As KTC declared a climate emergency, we would welcome renewable energy developments where appropriate.
• There could be an opportunity to extend sustainable transport here, e.g. a safe cycle route between Kenilworth and employment/leisure at Stoneleigh Agricultural
Centre.
• Dalehouse Lane and Crackley Lane are unsuitable for additional traffic, they are narrow and would require remodelling to accommodate active and leisure traffic.

No

ID sylw: 108713

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kenilworth Town Council

1) Impact on the greenbelt.
We do not believe that there are any exceptional circumstances to justify removalof green belt in accordance with NPPF as more suitable sites, not in the greenbelt, exist.

2) Sustainability Report
SG04 is the area with the 2nd lowest housing capacity yield of all spatial growth areasand wouldn’t be likely to provide the desired housing mix. It would also involve the loss of productive farmland.
3) Cultural heritage and landscape character
SG04 should be rated red in the SA in respect of Cultural Heritage, because of the significant impact on the setting of Kenilworth Castle, as explained above.
4) Spatial design (20 Minute neighbourhood)
As set out this new development would not constitute a 20-minute neighbourhood, there is no GP, bus/train or secondary school within the required radius and existing
schools are already oversubscribed.
Kenilworth is not a big employment centre. With the development of employment land at Thickthorn stalling this is unlikely to change. It makes the potential for people to work locally unlikely, leading to further traffic challenges.
5) Infrastructure
There are already concerns about how over-capacity local amenities are. This includes GPs, Dentists and the local Hospital. Rouncil Lane also experiences significant foul drainage issues, potentially due to the impact of local industry.
6) Road infrastructure & traffic
Rouncil Lane is a country lane with poor road surface which already experiences significant traffic volumes including heavy good vehicles including livestock transport to and from the abbatoir. Rounds Hill is a quiet residential street. An increase in traffic already predicted with the development of the Rouncil Lane Sixth Form site. The road infrastructure is unsuited to significant further development.
7) Wellbeing
This area of Kenilworth is popular as a leisure destination for walkers and cyclists. As such it is an important asset for the town in promoting physical and mental wellbeing.
Rouncil Lane and Rounds Hill are part of NCN52 and we are concerned that the inevitable increase of traffic from new housing would have a detrimental impact to
safety and participation. The footpaths across SG04 are well used by walkers, runnersand Scout groups.
8) Biodiversity
Developing this area would inevitably mean a significant loss of valuable biodiversity assets including ancient trees, hedgerows and the impact on wildlife including many
important bird and animal species, as listed by local residents in their Issues & Options consultation response.