(viii) Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth

Support

Representation ID: 1310

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

support

Comment

Representation ID: 1345

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Field

Number of people: 2

The woodland at Thickthorn, which our property backs onto, has served as a natural buffer for various activities that have taken place on the site. The established woodland is also the natural habitat of wildlife, which includes a species of bat.

A condition of any planning consent given should be total preservation of the woodland.

Comment

Representation ID: 1436

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Kris Cietak

Keep the existing mature woodland out of the plans in this area

Support

Representation ID: 1517

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

Good location

Support

Representation ID: 1640

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: William Bethell

Again, my limited support without details of supporting infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 1694

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: J.G Whetstone

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 1739

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D zacaroni

Object

Support

Representation ID: 1767

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Max Bacon

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 1831

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Val Hunnisett

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 1876

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Helen Cheatham

Don't know particular area but think it is not as congested as Warwick.

Object

Representation ID: 1943

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ferguson

L/Spa Kenilworth will be one town.

Object

Representation ID: 2100

Received: 06/09/2009

Respondent: Nick Booker

I do not support this option - it is not all clear from where the employment opportunities for the people who would live in this development would come from. Kenilworth does not have the infrastructure to support a major development of this nature

Object

Representation ID: 2187

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

Further expansion onto greenfield sites is objected to.

Object

Representation ID: 2326

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 2402

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

Yes.

Object

Representation ID: 2441

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

Totally Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2481

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: David Elbourn

Why should Kenilworth be made to expand in support of Coventry and Leamington housing requirements when the Infrastructure of roads schools and amenities cannot support additional housing, all of the additional people will work and shop outside of the town.

Object

Representation ID: 2541

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Debbie Millican

Kenilworth has alrady had more development than is fitting for a small town. If this proposed development were to go ahead it would place more strain on the already busy roads and would devalue the existing housing in the proposed development area.

Object

Representation ID: 2558

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson

Number of people: 2

The building of affordable housing/industrial units in a currently prime residential area would be detrimental to the area and destroy a significant portion of green belt. The woodland area is a habitat for wild life and current tree preservation orders are important for this.

Object

Representation ID: 2586

Received: 13/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Clarke

The land is green belt for a reason and the very nature of green belt designation is made to protect land from development, especially and particuarly something as extensive as this proposal.
The Glasshouse Lane and Birches Lane road structure cannot take the traffic loading that this development would bring,even withstanding the affect it would have on existing residents and unlashing the volume of road traffic to the A46 Thickthorn island would be overwhelming.
I would urge the Caoncil to ensure appropriate ex-industrial sites are fully utilised before any consideration to any other site.

Object

Representation ID: 2590

Received: 13/09/2009

Respondent: mr Martin Turner

Do we really need more homes in Kenilworth ?, what about the schools, what about the conservation of the environment, what about saving the little green belt that makes Kenilworth what it is. The new homes already being built in Kenilworth are not selling so why build more to stay unsold

Object

Representation ID: 2591

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Edward Penn

The volume of traffic in Glasshouse Lane is already far too high owing to its use as a "rat run". Where will the access roads be put in? Will schools, doctors etc. be able to cope with a larger population? Kenilworth is supposed to be a small country town - not a suburb of Coventry.
Cannot the old Peugeot site at Ryton be used for extra housing?

Object

Representation ID: 2600

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Storey

Stongly oppose all extensions of Kenilworth, but especially any more which shifts the distinction between Kenilworth and Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 2627

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Will have greater impact to residents than other areas.

Object

Representation ID: 2634

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr James Delaney

Kenilworth already developed to its limits. Traffic is already excessive for a historic town of this nature. Inadequate infrastructure for increased housing (roads too narrow, parking issues, etc).
Greenbelt land should be protected - risk of follow up (A46 ribbon development) to be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 2641

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Maisey

Kenilworth is such a lovely place to live at present. Development on this Greenbelt would be a travesty when there are brownfield sites to be utilised elsewhere. Traffic congestion, noise pollution, destruction of woodlands and green fields covered in concrete. For whose benefit? Not Kenilworth residents thats for sure!

Object

Representation ID: 2725

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Violation of green belt, urbanisation of a rural area requiring major infrastructural changes and increase in traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 2750

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

Good as close to A46 so no great incursion into open countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 2778

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: MS Carol Roe

Kenilworth is loosing it's character and becoming a continuous sprawl of estates.There has been to much poor development in Kenilworth with green areas disappearing. The local schools are oversubscribed with local children refused places. The roads are difficult to traverse with the bus in Moseley Rd rerouted as it is unable to get passed the parked cars. NO new estates or housing till infrastructure is improved and leave some green areas for our children.

Object

Representation ID: 2779

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Professor Mark Pollicott

This area already has too much traffic for the existing roads, partly due to its use as a route to the A46 avoiding the center of Kenilworth. Moreover, construction of housing on this green field site would significantly change the character of the area, as well as overburdening local amenities.