Why have the plans for greenbelt development in North Leamington been halted but not for Kenilworth? Surely the case for either would be the same? Either both go ahead or both do not, or is the Greenbelt of Leamington considered more sacrosant than Kenilworth?

2) You mention that Leamington has received planning applications for 4000 homes hence high level of demand from developers. However you didn't mention Kenilworth receiving any planning applications. If there is no demand from developers what is the case or justification in ruining the southern part of the town? Developers are reluctant to build in Kenilworth due to the mix of social housing which lowers profitability and dampens buying interest.

3) As you may be aware Birches Lane and the surrounding area is one of the most attractive in Kenilworth. If Greenbelt has to be destroyed, it seems perverse to target 700 homes and a business park on such a lovely area. Surely it would be better to scatter developments around the periphery of the town. Take for example Archery Fields in the North, back of Princes Drive on the west, back of Rounds Hill in the east and Rouncil Lane in the South. That way at least there would be an opportunity of expansion if the case was there. With Thickthorn, it would be a pretty rotten area to live in backing on to the A46 and, as you outlined, no chance of growth.

4) You didn't really address the last question at the forum about traffic congestion but apart from the wilful destruction of greenbelt is the most contentious issue. For the Leamington/Whitnash development you outlined major transport infrastructure improvements but for Thickthorn only a road through the estate on the Thickthorn roundabout and signalisation of St John's Gyratory. In the early consultation period plans showed improving the gyratory with lane expansion and a slip road of Birches Lane but in the last plan these appeared to have been shelved. Simply putting lights there will not help and will make it worse (as the modelling shows). For people living in Farmer Ward Road and Ferndale Drive will find themselves unable to get out as traffic backs up at the end of Birches Lane. Could this please be looked at again and consideration given people living in these two roads?

5) In the new plan there is an admission that the impact of the Thickthorn development on traffic congestion in the rest of Kenilworth but you don't need to be a member of Mensa to see it will be awful. We have two supermarkets both accessed along the Warwick Road with an additional 1000+ cars in the town. There will be gridlock between the Sainsbury traffic lights and the St John's Gyratory. The new plan cannot be sound (as you put it) if the affects of the development on the wider town itself have not been fully considered. Far better road improvements must be looked at.

6) There is nothing in the new plan on how the impact of the development will be minimised during the construction. Will the road through the estate be build first so lorries and construction workers don't fill up Birches Lane day and night for years during the build.


As you point out greenbelt status should only be removed after demonstrating "exceptional circumstances". However this is exactly what hasn't been proven for Kenilworth. There is no demonstrable demand and the only small numbers of people supporting the Thickthorn development are mostly those not affected or who financially benefit from the plan (Wardens, the owner of the land that houses the horse fair and Rugby club). There have been no planning applications for Thickthorn whilst in Leamington there have been ,as Chris Elliot publicly stated planning request for 4000 homes. As this is greenfield not greenbelt there is no reason not to build 4000 south of Leamington instead of circa 3300, especially given the major infrastructure improvements made in that area. I would have a thought WDC could be subject to a legal challenge destroying greenbelt land when greenfield is available elsewhere in the district and the demand is empirically proven. The only case given for the Thickthorn development is to quote Chris at the forum "to share the pain". That is not an adequate reason to rip up greenbelt.

You say that there is a need to forward local opportunities for employment and more homes yet as stated in Strategic Transport Assessment Overview Report March 2012 Kenilworth is "essentially a dormitory town". The reason people pay higher than average house prices to live in Kenilworth is because of this reason not in spite of it. Kenilworth is already at its optimum size with secondary schooling, medical facilities, retail and sports and leisure. Only building a primary school will not deal with the increased demands on the remaining services and amenities The biggest constraint for growth however remains the roads, with one main thoroughfare (Warwick Road) for shopping etc. The changes to Thickthorn Island and St John's Gyratory will do nothing to cope with the extra burden on the rest of the town. The traffic modelling you mention does not cover this as confirmed in Phase 3 report "... More detailed consideration of the impacts of the allocation strategy on the Kenilworth area should be considered within any forthcomingstages of assessment as this has not been considered in detail within the current round of testing"

What is interesting on the St John's Gyratory improvement is that in the Draft Implementation Plan May 2012 mention is made of additional capacity on the Birches Lane approach or lane widening upto Thickthorn and again in the Strategy Transport Assessment Modelliing Results document "Increase flare on Birches approach and additional lane on northern circulatory". These necessary improvements have now been dropped and all we have now is signalisation.

I would like my comments added, though I suspect there are many others who share the same concerns. However there does appear to be a democratic deficit whereby our voices may be heard but cannot affect the decision making