(iv) Land at Kings Hill, south of Green Lane, Finham
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 114
Received: 06/07/2009
Respondent: R A Chapleo
Yes - this will allow development in an area of gretest need without the constriction of the Green Belt.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 183
Received: 11/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Alexander Holmes
This option enables development to focus on an area with capacity to meet employment needs, without encroaching on the Green Belt.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 206
Received: 03/07/2009
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Baxter
This land would be far better, there are larger resources at Kenilworth, bigger schools etc. Larger shops and employment
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 227
Received: 09/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood
I work at a new technology Park in Coventry (Ansty Park, in the north of Coventry), and of the many people who have moved to the area for employment NOT ONE is buying a house in Coventry. They are all buying houses in Warwickshire, and the expansion of employment in Coventry will not lead to a greater requirement of housing in the city. I do not believe that studies for future housing need in Coventry take into account what people are actually going to want to do.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 253
Received: 10/07/2009
Respondent: Patricia Robinson
Close to West Midlands where new jobs are needed. Unemployment lower in Warwick/Leamington.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 311
Received: 21/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Nigel Warden
Green Belt land must be kept for now and future generations. Once it is gone, it is gone forever!
Coventry has suffered massive decline in industrial output over the past decades and is fast turning into a distribution centre. The quality and type of future jobs need to be improved and there are more than enough 'redundant' sites in Coventry capable of sustaining development without the need to build on precious Green Belt land. Save our Green Belt land!!!
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 320
Received: 21/07/2009
Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam
An area with the capacity and need to meet employment issues.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 346
Received: 22/07/2009
Respondent: Peter Pounds
Support.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 402
Received: 24/07/2009
Respondent: Mr Nigel Warden
After reading many of the responses in support of this option, I can't help asking the question: Have these people fully understood the implications of their support? I personally believe that they are simply trying to move the problem away from 'their back yard' nimbyism, if you like. The problem of destruction of Green Belt land STILL exists and needs to be addressed and if at all possible STOPPED NOW, where ever that may be!
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 424
Received: 27/07/2009
Respondent: Peter Clarke
I do not know this area but again not saturated and room to breathe looking at the map.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 475
Received: 24/07/2009
Respondent: Georgina Wilson
Support.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 545
Received: 27/07/2009
Respondent: Mr A M Webley
Support.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 597
Received: 03/08/2009
Respondent: B A Alston
Support location
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 607
Received: 23/07/2009
Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers
Object.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 668
Received: 06/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Susan Edkins
near to coventry where expansion is needed
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 698
Received: 10/08/2009
Respondent: P.A. Yarwood
Support.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 769
Received: 05/08/2009
Respondent: Faye Davis
I object as this is a green field site and I think there are other more suitable areas that are already brownfield sites that have already been developed e.g. Baginton airport and Peugeot site, Ryton and this also minimises any divide between Coventry and Warwickshire.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 826
Received: 14/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Sheila Bannister
There are large unemployment problems in Coventry because of the Credit Crunch, closing the Peugeot factory and many shops in the city centre as well as other firms closing down. If employment cannot be produced in Coventry how is empolyment going to be found in an area like Kings Hill.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 828
Received: 14/08/2009
Respondent: Robert James Bannister
The credit crunch will continue to cause huge employment problems within the timescale mentioned. The Coventry of full employment of the 1950s, 60s and 70s is long since dead. To believe employment opportunities can be provided on another local authority's land without being first able to sustain employment within its boundaries is at best naive.
Comment
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 837
Received: 18/08/2009
Respondent: Adrian Farmer
Best of the options but still not necessary
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 892
Received: 19/08/2009
Respondent: Mr Stuart Sullivan
Object to development due to:
1. Use of greenbelt land.
2. Lack of local infrastructure, and impact upon local infrastructure.
3. Highway safety and traffic generation.
4. Improper consultation identifying site as a 'standby site'.
5. Loss of visual amenity and impact upon local quality of life.
6. Impact upon environment.
7. Availability of several other, more appropriate brownfield sites in Warwickshire.
8. Significant local opposition.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 901
Received: 19/08/2009
Respondent: Christine Betts
Support.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 954
Received: 22/08/2009
Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft
This is only an overflow from Coventry...
Why are we proposing our "core strategy" whilst Coventry's is emerging? It is certainly hard for us to assess the practical needs for this area.
If Coventry don't know what brownfield land is available for use either as housing or industrial how can we allocate land for them to develop?
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 957
Received: 22/08/2009
Respondent: E Keogh
Object to development due to:
1. Over estimating demand for land type, numerous existing empty or undeveloped existing sites
2. Use of greenbelt land.
3. Lack of local infrastructure, and impact upon local infrastructure.
4. Highway safety and traffic generation.
5. No consultation with Coventry residents identifying site as a 'standby site'.
5. Loss of visual amenity and impact upon local quality of life.
6. Impact upon environment.
7. Availability of several other, more appropriate brownfield sites in Warwickshire.
8. Significant local opposition.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 967
Received: 21/08/2009
Respondent: Kirit Marvania
This is a large development on Green Belt. Don't believe there is a requirement for such a large scale development.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 984
Received: 24/08/2009
Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon
This is Green Belt and should remain so. It is not appropriate for employment or housing without substantial infrastructure changes which would destroy the 'gap' between Coventry and Kenilworth.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1064
Received: 21/08/2009
Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham
Because surrounding roads are already very congested and so many would need widening. So very limited use - prevent inclusion into Green Belt also.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1065
Received: 24/08/2009
Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson
Support
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1153
Received: 18/08/2009
Respondent: Alice Jarrett
Green Belt should not be industrialized. Housing would be bad enough but 'employment' land would be criminal as Coventry already has sufficient.
This is the first example of "Warwick CC" doing their "Pontius Pilate" act of suggesting Kings Hill development "only to meet Coventry's needs". Who is therefore responsible. Warwick should be protecting that land.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 1169
Received: 21/08/2009
Respondent: Barry Elliman
Object