(iii) Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth

Object

Representation ID: 5429

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

I object to these as generalised and unspecific with regard to noise, emissions, pollution, traffic, density of use and access to/from/by visitors and deliveries. Specific use may be acceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 5467

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Thickthorn is close to the A46 and therefore has access to the major roads network

Object

Representation ID: 5512

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

Only if used for office based employment, not warehousing, manufacturing etc, where trucks and excess noise is generated. This type of employment should be placed further away from housing.

Object

Representation ID: 5567

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: George Martin

This is green belt and it should remain so.

Object

Representation ID: 5739

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs W.P. Reilly

We strongly object to a large development on this GREEN BELT area. It will cause traffic congestion into and from Birches Lane and even more delays on entering and leaving the town via the A46. This will be added to by more deliveries and at least an extra 800 people travelling to and from work.

Object

Representation ID: 5751

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

Green corridors need to be retained.

Object

Representation ID: 5889

Received: 26/09/2009

Respondent: Keith Francis

Object to the use of green belt for development. traffic on Birches Lane is already too high. Further volume will be a disaster. Placing high density housing and industry next to high value homes. Will affect all house values in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 5902

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 5975

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Fred Farrell

1. The roads in this area are already heavily congested at peak times
2. the area enjoys rich biodiversity and wooded areas - small and larger - should receive total protection
3. this development, or any other of this size in Kenilworth, would almost certainly involve the establishment of a second Secondary school, since Kenilworth Schoolm with some 1000 pupils on roll is full and oversubscribed.

Support

Representation ID: 5983

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6244

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

Better locations at Lower Heathcote Farm and West of Europa Way.

Object

Representation ID: 6326

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Sufficient current land bank to meet needs in the timescale.

Support

Representation ID: 6429

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

Support

Support

Representation ID: 6680

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Comment

Representation ID: 6705

Received: 05/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Heritage & Culture (Museums)

Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth
The Warwickshire Historic Environment Record indicates the presence of archaeological sites, and a Romano-British settlement site, Scheduled as an Ancient Monument under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, lies on the opposite side of the A46. Historic Landscape Characterisation indicates an area of planned enclosure and playing fields.

Support

Representation ID: 6841

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

Kenilworth needs to be allowed to develop a broad range of retail offers so that residents need to travel less to larger centres such as Solihull, Leamington and Coventry.

Comment

Representation ID: 6924

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land at Thickthorn
All communities should provide sufficient local employment land. The Parish Council would only support the reclassification of this site once the other employment land in Kenilworth has been developed and has a high occupancy.
K01, K05, K06 & K09 cover the site from Leamington Road to Rocky Lane with the A46 to the SE and suggest 50% housing and 50% other. Apart from access at the south by the gatehouse, access to the majority of the site is from Glasshouse Lane which serves the residential area of Windy Arbour. This is not acceptable for any employment requiring other than light vehicle access and would naturally lead to a higher % of residential to say 65% with the remainder split between employment and recreational. If employment demand does not materialize, then a greater proportion of residential would be acceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 6969

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

Thickthorn provides the opportunity to create a high quality business park with a new access off the A46 Bypass island.

See the opportunity for hotel but would not support additional licenced premises/bars/restaurants outside of a hotel.

Retail and retail warehousing would not be supported nor would large distribution buildings over 2,500 sqm but limited Trade Counter uses would be acceptable. A detailed planning/development brief including infrastructure would be a prerequisite to any development.
Kenilworth Town Council under S106/CIL should be gifted a strip of legacy land at the end of any development zone to protect Green Belt beyond.

Support

Representation ID: 6985

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported

Comment

Representation ID: 7068

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

If Kenilworth is to evolve as a sustainable community minimizing its carbon footprint it is vital that new local employment opportunities are found.

Comment

Representation ID: 7071

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

While the Princes Drive Estate is well served by public transport, access for deliveries by large lorries is difficult particularly as the Common Lane railway bridge is not easy to negotiate. An industrial area in Thickthorn will provide a more accessible and coherent venue for modern industrial use. Such relocation would mean that the Princes Drive site would be available for redevelopment for housing and reduce the proposed incursion into the greenbelt in the Thickthorn area.

Object

Representation ID: 7435

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & William Davies Ltd

Agent: Stoneleigh Planning

The scale of growth at Kenilworth should be much lower than suggested for the following reasons;

a.Any development on Green Belt land should be minimised and should be as a last resort where there are other non-Green Belt sites available for development.

b.The Phase Two Revision to RSS does not identify Kenilworth as a node for employment growth within the Coventry Solihull Warwickshire High Technology Corridor. It is therefore an inappropriate location in those terms for strategic employment growth as proposed.

c.Strategic scale development as proposed will detract from the efforts to regenerate the economy of the Coventry MUA

Object

Representation ID: 7541

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Object

Representation ID: 7633

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

In terms of land allocations, we do feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the wider regional picture and that too much details is provided on the strategic sites. We feel that there are other more suitable sites available and that at this stage the plan should be more general in terms of its direction for growth without site specific details being put forward. If these are not deliverable, as we understand has yet to be proved, then the plan may generally not be deliverable and sustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 7658

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Forrester of Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe

Agent: Barlow Associates Limited

Support

Object

Representation ID: 33575

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Revelan Group

Agent: Harris Lamb

Do not believe the Council has sufficient information to allocate land for development at this stage. The evidence base is not robust enough to establish the most appropriate locations for growth.

Object

Representation ID: 33673

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr T Steele

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

The capacity of the site cannot be determined due to a range of potential constraints that have not been adequately assessed, including noise, impact on habitats, and increased risk of crime and delivery.

The multiple ownership of the site is a risk to delivery. The sports pitches cannot be counted unless provision for their relocation has been agreed with Sport England.

The site is not consistent with PPS1 in achieving more sustainable patterns of development.

Support

Representation ID: 33751

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Shirley Estates

Agent: Davis Planning Partnership

Support

Object

Representation ID: 33786

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Hancock Town Planning

The land at Old Budbrooke Road offers the following potential advantages which are not offered by this site:

- Much of the site is previously developed land;
- The site has little agricultural value;
- The site is not part of the wider landscape;
- Highly sustainable location within easy walking distance of Warwick Parkway;
- Easy pedestrian access to Warwick/Leamington via the canal;
- Well screened from Old Budbrooke Road by existing vegetation;
- Access can be gained from the site frontage.

Support

Representation ID: 33854

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Tripartite Consortium (McDaide, Hibberd, KRFC)

Agent: Framptons

Support the identification of land to the south east of Kenilworth. This is a highly sustainable location for new employment as part of a mixed use development.

Sustainability and deliverability should be the key factors and not the Green Belt designation.