Other

Representation ID: 94711

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

we have insufficient knowledge of this location from which to make an informed comment

No

Representation ID: 94848

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Barleggs

I do not believe the existing local infrastructure is sufficiently capable of supporting the needs of additional development in this area, nor should green belt land be designated for the purposes of building when plenty of existing properties and brownfield sites are available. Nor are there any existing public transport links to help mitigate the inevitable additional emissions arising from the new private vehicles that will be required.

Other

Representation ID: 94866

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council

The current exclusive focus on a gigafactory covering this whole site is extremely disappointing and lacking in imagination, particularly when the whole EV sector is in an uncertain position.
As an example, this is potentially a very useful airport for advanced air mobility (AAM) technology, which is developing rapidly around the world. Allocation of some of the site for AAM could create interest in such developments for both battery powered and hydrogen-powered aircraft.
AAM development would not need the whole airport and it would be good to see it considered.

Yes

Representation ID: 95329

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Holliday

This area is already a commercial site and has the infrastructure to cope with further development.

Yes

Representation ID: 95412

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

Close to industrial area and Coventry.

No

Representation ID: 95421

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs R Douce

The green belt is required to prevent urban sprawl and loss of character.

Yes

Representation ID: 95505

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dave Maxted

Better than building on designated green belt areas

Yes

Representation ID: 95986

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

Although technically green belt it has significant industrial/commercial development already. Employment contribution for housing development in South and East Coventry would be welcome. Excellent connectivity to A45/A46/M40/M1/M69/M6.

Yes

Representation ID: 96279

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Near employment at airport

Other

Representation ID: 96742

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) has no comment.

Yes

Representation ID: 96957

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 96994

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Roger Horsfall

Retention of airport green belt status was to protect Baginton & Bubbenhall from large scale development yet outline permissions were granted for what was to be the UKs largest gigafactory. This emerging plan proposes that the airport site be retained specifically for a gigafactory of scale. Despite various project name changes and press releases of imminent deals there is no guaranteed occupier and amendments and variations already propose significant reduction in gigafactory size. The very special circumstance for building on this greenbelt site no longer exist and the site should not be considered for any other purpose.

Other

Representation ID: 97518

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Jill Andrews

SG01 SG02 And SG03 should combine to be a new settlement as there is potential for jobs and link to motorway and train stations, but need the additional infrastructure to go with this eg schools, doctors etc. Use of other 'infill' areas is just fudging the issue and detrimental to roads and facilities already at breaking point and beyond capacity - eg poor Clopton Bridge.

No

Representation ID: 97627

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Elkington

This area is in Green Belt and so should be protected

Yes

Representation ID: 97744

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 98253

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Teed

Green belt land. Trees, hedgerows and farmland destroyed.

No

Representation ID: 98256

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barry Elkington

No. In particular plots 140 and 183 should not be included:
-The land is Green Belt and retains all the historical and biodiversity characteristics of the “Forest of Arden Special Landscape Area”.
-The area north of Rouncil Lane is on top of the hill and clearly visible from Kenilworth Castle. Housing would destroy the view from, and significantly impact the setting of, the Castle.
-The land once formed part of the Castle deer park. Housing would destroy the remaining earthworks and any other historical remains.
-The public right of way that connects southwest Kenilworth to the countryside would largely disappear.

Yes

Representation ID: 98280

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

Area is currently a disused airfield surrounded by industry and is af very little value as green belt. If there was ever a case to re-designate green belt, this is probably it. There are excellent existing road links and employment opportunities, although other infrastructure improvements would be needed (schools, doctors, etc

Yes

Representation ID: 98324

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

The site has very good transport links. Is near to centres of population giving access to a workforce. Area is already an established commercial area. Relatively removed from residential areas.

No

Representation ID: 98471

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katie Walker

There has been enough development around the airport in recent years. Why threaten the continued use as an airport?

Yes

Representation ID: 98729

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 98737

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 99127

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Phelps

brownfield site

No

Representation ID: 99177

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

There should not be any development on the Green Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 99214

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Coventry City Council and Coventry Airport Ltd

Agent: Mr Robert Barnes

Coventry City Council and Coventry Airport Ltd as owners and operators of the Airport support the inclusion within the Plan of location SG03 as a place to accommodate growth. This should be understood in the context of further comments made in relation to Draft Policy Direction 7 (indicating that it should be taken out of the Green Belt) and Draft Policy Directions 14 and 16 (considering the nature of any allocation there).

Yes

Representation ID: 99252

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Hasnaoui

Despite being designated greenbelt this is a disused airfield close to road, employment and infrastructure links making it an obvious potential development area.

Yes

Representation ID: 99368

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alison Hawkes

Yes as it has excellent transport links via road, rail and potentially air.

No

Representation ID: 99401

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See previous comments

Yes

Representation ID: 99405

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

Appears to be well serviced by existing Road Network, Transportation hubs, Healthcare facilities and Education establishments

Yes

Representation ID: 99505

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Sears

area heavily built up and plentiful road network