Publication Draft

Search representations

Results for Kenilworth Town Council search

New search New search

Support

Publication Draft

Do you agree with the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026?

Representation ID: 33908

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

We agree with the Preferred Version but do not feel that the Preferred Options implement that vision as far as Kenilworth is concerned.

Object

Publication Draft

Do you agree with the Preferred Growth Strategy for Warwick District to 2026?

Representation ID: 33909

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

We agree with the Preferred Growth Strategy but feel that again the Preferred Options do not carry out these sentiments in relation particularly to the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Kings Hill.

Object

Publication Draft

Do you agree with the Strategic Objectives for Warwick District?

Representation ID: 33910

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

Again the Strategy Objectives are a proper aim, but as far as set out in our general response we have grave doubts regarding the effects on Kenilworth.

Comment

Publication Draft

Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new employment land?

Representation ID: 33911

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

As far as Kenilworth is concerned we do not feel that Thickthorn is appropriate as it is Green Belt.

Object

Publication Draft

(iii) Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth

Representation ID: 33912

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

We would not wish to see development of this site which is in the Green Belt. If it was to proceed a very careful and balanced planning brief would be required for the whole area before any development is allowed. Further, it should be in the THIRD stage.

Comment

Publication Draft

(iv) Land at Kings Hill, south of Green Lane, Finham

Representation ID: 33913

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

We understood that this area was for housing and would not feel that it should be in any way industrial. It is essential in any event that no development should take place thereon until such time as the developments in Coventry are complete.

Object

Publication Draft

Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Rural Communities?

Representation ID: 33914

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

Kings Hill is a grave incursion into the Green Belt and should not be included until development is complete. We are, however, supportive of the decision not to develop in the area between the Town and Coventry and would support the Districts decision not to develop in the area of Burton Green.

Object

Publication Draft

Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new housing?

Representation ID: 33915

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

We are concerned that development is proposed in the Green Belt prior to the use of all other available land.

Support

Publication Draft

(i) Land at Former Ford Foundry, Leamington

Representation ID: 33923

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

Supports location

Comment

Publication Draft

(ii) Land at Station Approach, Leamington

Representation ID: 33924

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation Summary:

Supports location

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.