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

Support

Representation ID: 6681

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Comment

Representation ID: 6708

Received: 05/11/2009

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

Land at Kings Hill, south of Green Lane, Finham:
It is difficult to offer support at this stage since no more than a general location is indicated. There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument on the edge of this area together with a possible moated site. Detailed appraisal of archaeology and historic landscape should be undertaken once any area has been properly defined.

Comment

Representation ID: 6927

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land at King's Hill
This land is in Warwick district and therefore the Parish Council believes that this land should contribute towards Warwick District‟s allocation of employment land. The 269 ha allocated could not only provide land for 3500 homes for Coventry, but also provide a further 2700 homes for WDC. If the 3500 houses are for Coventry to support Coventry Employment requirements within the city boundary, then the mix suggested of 37.5% residential is low and could easily be 50%. Being part of the city, 60 dph would not be unreasonable for 33% of the residential with 40dph for the remainder.

Support

Representation ID: 6986

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported

Object

Representation ID: 7093

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire

Support the locations proposed but not the scale of development which is implicit.

In addition we object strongly to the allocation '...if required to meet Coventry's employment land requirements, land south of Green Lane, Kings Hill, Finham...'. This area is in the Green Belt and should not be developed.

Comment

Representation ID: 7138

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

'To maintain .... growing economy...'. believe the word 'growing' should be omitted as growth per se unnecessary and unsustainable.
'...encourage sustainable growth...' . As above. Should be amended to read '...encourage a sustainable economy...'
Policy should encourage development only to meet local need, not encourage businesses/people to move into District.
Support Preferred Option, with exception of allocation 'if required....Kings Hill, Finham..' This wording too vague and seems to be discrepancy between Coventry's statement and that of WDC. Wording in WDC consultation seems to suggest that Finham would be to serve needs of Coventry. City state land is not needed and is down to WDC whether land is allocated.
Need an agreed joint policy.

Support

Representation ID: 7401

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Agent: Holmes Antill

Endorse the Council's approach to sanction the development of land adjacent to the built-up area of Coventry, specifically at the location south of Finham bounded by the A46 and the railway.

Important features on the site would not preclude a mixed use development taking place. The land can accommodate up to 4,000 dwellings, employment land to provide up to 4000 jobs, community facilities and with about 40% of the area devoted to open space.

This would facilitate a high quality, accessible and visible employment site along the A46 which will be attractive to potential occupiers.

Object

Representation ID: 7443

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: University of Warwick

Agent: Turley

Growth at Finham could impact A46/Stoneleigh Road junction and to a lesser extent the A45/Kenilworth Road junction. Further upgrades will almost certainly be necessary to accommodate development. Consideration should be given to a new road linking an upgraded junction on the A46 at Stoneleigh with Westwood Heath Road at Kirby Corner. Any growth west of the A46 must ensure that adequate physical and visual separation is maintained between Coventry and Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 7543

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Object

Representation ID: 7634

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

5.13 in the document (Page 27) also alludes to a shortage of employment land and suitability of the employment sites identified. 5.20 has, we feel, not been researched in sufficient detail and generally the areas proposed are in direct contravention of others stated aims and objectives to reduce the burden of traffic on the already overburdened infrastructure and the need to link this employment development directly to the needs of Coventry. For all the above mentioned, we therefore strongly object to the preferred option as is defined in 5.23 of the document.

Support

Representation ID: 7659

Received: 25/09/2009

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

Agent: Barlow Associates Limited

Support

Object

Representation ID: 33576

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: 33674

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr T Steele

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

The evidence base for this site is unsound as it has not adequately evaluated reasonable alternative options for development to the south of Coventry. This is an unproven and inflexible option that relies on a single large area of land.

Support

Representation ID: 33752

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Shirley Estates

Agent: Davis Planning Partnership

Support

Object

Representation ID: 33787

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: 33861

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning

Land south of Finham should be considered for office/hi-tech employment uses as opposed to mixed uses, as the area has good access to the strategic road network and would be attractive to future employers. New jobs would provide a better balance for existing residents in the area.

This would enable land south of Baginton to be developed for residential purposes which is already in an employment growth area.

Comment

Representation ID: 33913

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

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.