(viii) Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth

Object

Representation ID: 105

Received: 04/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Martin Harban

Intensification of traffic in Birches Lane and the A452 and the roads towards the traffic access points towards Warwick University are a major objection, together with the water and drainage issues. There are much better options when considering land to the Warwick Road towards Leek Wooton.
Traffic options and drains would be a major point to make this the preferred option.

Support

Representation ID: 130

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

support

Object

Representation ID: 150

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R Clipson

I strongly object to the use of this land for housing. Kenilworth MUST keep the green land around it or it will lose its character and become just another urban sprawl.

Support

Representation ID: 194

Received: 11/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Alexander Holmes

I support all the suggested options as they focus housing on areas best able to accommodate new development, without encroaching on the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 198

Received: 12/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Field

My objections to this preferred housing location are: that it will disturb an established and natural wildlife habitat
: that it will lead to increased traffic congestion and hazard on Thickthorn island
: that infrastructure does not exist to support such development
: that it will impact adversely on the character of the town, and
: it will adversely impact on the visual approach to the town

Object

Representation ID: 230

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

I do not believe expansion of Kenilworth to be in the best interests of the town, as it will lose its character, and become virtually a district of Coventry.

Support

Representation ID: 270

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Proximity to existing urban areas.

Support

Representation ID: 335

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

An area able to accomodate additional housing.

Support

Representation ID: 363

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 414

Received: 26/07/2009

Respondent: mrs linda allen

I neither support nor object to the use of Thickthorn land, but am surprised that a piece of Green Belt land is being sacrificed for 800 houses. I would question whether other "brownfield" sites have been identified which could replace this piece of land.
If houses are to built on this land, it's important that the woodland at the Spinney separating the Thickthorn land from the houses is retained as this provides a natural buffer from the sound of the A46. There is a blanket Tree Preservation Order on this woodland, and this should be respected.

Support

Representation ID: 441

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 492

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Housing should be protected from road noise.

Object

Representation ID: 533

Received: 02/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Stratton

Greenbelt land should not be built on.
The traffic on Birches Lane/Glasshouse Lane would be horribly congested. Speeding drivers already make this a dangerous road.
The woodland is such a great resource for Kenilworth and must be maintained.
The recreation areas must be preserved for the welfare of the community.

Support

Representation ID: 563

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 626

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 654

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Greasby

Considerable loss of Green Belt land would erode feel of natural border between Kenilworth, Thickthorn side, and A46
Infrastructure works would have detrimental effects to the character of Kenilworth and its town feeling
Rush hour traffic from Birches lane trying to get onto Leamington / Warwick Road already heavy would not work with extra cars
Leamington road is very busy in rush hour with people coming from A46 and using Kenilworth as short cut
Building of 800 houses would also erode the community feel of Kenilworth
What effect would 800 new houses have on schooling is there provision for this

Object

Representation ID: 674

Received: 07/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Roger Greasby

More homes will inevitably lead to more traffic and the road systems may not handle the extra traffic causing unwanted queues on an already busy through route which in turn is detrimental on the character of Kenilworth.

Support

Representation ID: 715

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 786

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Despite this being a greenfield site, I do support it as it is kept well within the boundaries for Kenilworth.

Support

Representation ID: 816

Received: 13/07/2009

Respondent: Sidney R Jackson

Subject to sympathetic plans being considered, I do not foresee that I will have any objection to this development, provided that the area of woodland to the rear of the properties in Jordan Close (and others) remains untouched and I would request that the Council makes this a condition of any planning application granted.

This area provides a long established habitat for wildlife and birds as well as mature trees, some of which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders and should be maintained.

Comment

Representation ID: 820

Received: 20/07/2009

Respondent: Graham Alcock

It is essential that if the development of Thickthorn goes ahead the wooded area (to the rear of Jordan Close) remains intact, and that planning permission is only given the green light conditional upon this.

Support

Representation ID: 821

Received: 12/08/2009

Respondent: James Heatley

I have no issues with the planning subject to architectural schemes that are in keeping with the local area.

However, I expect the woodland to the rear of my property (Marked area 8 on Map 31 of the Habitat Biodiversity Audit) is protected in full as well as a large buffer zone. The trees support an active bat community and provide a habitat for other wildlife including birds and small animals. The area has a blanket TPO to soften the visual impact when entering Kenilworth. The removal of trees may affect the foundations of my property and there is a footpath that has been regularly used over the last 30 years.

Support

Representation ID: 822

Received: 03/08/2009

Respondent: Mike Shippam

I accept the need and can see the justification for the above site. However, any consent made is subject to the retention of the entire woodland as a vital lung for those of us with asthma and in some way mitigating the otherwise adverse consequences.

Object

Representation ID: 854

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

Not neccessary

Support

Representation ID: 918

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 1000

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1085

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Lovely countryside. Severe congestion on local roads. Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1123

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1186

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Should be kept for agriculture.

Support

Representation ID: 1243

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

Support