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

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 137

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 114

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

An area with the capacity and need to meet employment issues.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 346

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 402

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Warden

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Support.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 545

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Representation Summary:

Support.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 597

Received: 03/08/2009

Respondent: B A Alston

Representation Summary:

Support location

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 607

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Representation Summary:

Object.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 668

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Susan Edkins

Representation Summary:

near to coventry where expansion is needed

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 698

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 769

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Best of the options but still not necessary

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 892

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Sullivan

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 954

Received: 22/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Ed Rycroft

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Support

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1153

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Alice Jarrett

Representation Summary:

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

Representation Summary:

Object