(viii) Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth

Object

Representation ID: 2794

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

This land is an important green space and should be preserved. Apart from the need to preserve wildlife it is important to retain open land for increased rainfall to soak away, and protect sports facilities to be used. There will be more traffic chaos in Kenilworth at peak times as more people get to work.

Support

Representation ID: 2917

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Blakeman

I think it is a very positive move for the town

Support

Representation ID: 2921

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Michael Blakeman

If there is to be expansion of residential land then the land at Thickthorn represents the only viable and deliverable site within the town. The physical boundary of the A46 would prevent any further expansion into the green belt. It is a natural expansion of the town.

Support

Representation ID: 2937

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 2955

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Mat Belson

This area is ripe for housing development and the community would benefit greatly from improved sports clubs that have been trying to develop into national teams for years without the infrastructure or funds to allow.

Support

Representation ID: 2963

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Huw Duggan

I support the proposed development of the land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth

Object

Representation ID: 2998

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Bickerton

Do not want this greenbelt to disappear and concered about traffic polution and services.

Object

Representation ID: 2999

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Desmond Bickerton

My main concern is loss of greenbelt and that should the development get permission Glasshouse Lane could not cope with the added traffic. Also the Kenilworth infrastructure, i.e. schools, doctors, firestation etc. not being able to cope with the extra 800 properties and inhabitants. The lack of publicity by WDC to the residents of Kenilworth I find deceitful.

Object

Representation ID: 3002

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Graham

Kenilworth does not have the infrastructure to support the number of people living here at present, so the idea of building 800 additional houses on greenbelt is ludicrous. The town centre consists of one main road, a complete bottleneck. People use Glasshouse Lane as a shortcut, and this road is now a very busy main road. The schools, doctors surgeries etc are already oversubscribed. This is greenbelt, and I thought this classification meant it should be preserved. The main reason people live in this area is the open space, with pleasant views and natural beauty, not to mention the wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 3014

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Mary Martin

No doubt by 2016 we will need more housing requirements, so we have to sacrifice some land but council has to balance our environment and protect the normal residents from those who just want financial gain.So please consider the following.....
Traffic congestion on Leamington Road
Preserving enough green-space and allowing a flow of green area to allow wildlife to move and exist
Schooling requirements and recreational sites

Object

Representation ID: 3036

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Rhyan Barry

Besides being green belt which one would hope means it is protected there is not the infrastruture on the road network to support 800+ more cars on the road. There is enough chaos organising the traffic when the horse fair is on.

Support

Representation ID: 3037

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard James

A natural and suitable infill site with close access to the A46. It is also fair to distribute housing development around the district.

Support

Representation ID: 3047

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Katharine Whigham

Provision of housing in Kenilworth needs to be included - focus appears to be Leamington / Warwick otherwise

Support

Representation ID: 3063

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Alison Oliver

good location for commuting

Support

Representation ID: 3092

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3120

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Johnny Marsh

This is one of the least contentious of the green belt development options being considered. So long as Birches Lane / Glasshouse Lane doesn't have to carry the majority of the additional traffic that will be generated by extra housing in Thickthorn, this has my support.

Object

Representation ID: 3161

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

This area is difficult, if not impossible to access easily. Development would lead to intolerable amount of traffic on roads already overcrowded at busy periods. Football and cricket amenities would be lost.

Support

Representation ID: 3168

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 3276

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

I support it.

Object

Representation ID: 3311

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Susan Munday

Object to Thickthorn site - access, lack of school places, noise, increased traffic, loss of wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 3312

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Caroline Martin

The location is understandable and acceptable but 800 is too many for housing. 500 maximum should be built.

Object

Representation ID: 3325

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Alan Gresty

Driven by central govt. based on subjective projections, not from bottom up. Needs to take into account local economy, environment, adequacy of transport, roads, schools, social services, hospital, police etc.

Object

Representation ID: 3401

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3461

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr P Dimanbro

Population growth not accepted. Many east Europeans are returning home. Birth control strategies are expected to reduce UK population

Object

Representation ID: 3511

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Traudi Mannion

I object due to concerns regarding the following :

1) Increased traffic around Glasshouse Lane
2) Kenilworth in danger of losing its small town character
3) Have not seen any evidence that alternative brown-field sites have been considered.
4) Precious, mature woodland is in jeopardy
5) Infrastructure implications

Object

Representation ID: 3519

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Alison Wheals

I am extremely concerned about the negative impact this proposal will have on the existing, already over loaded, local infrastructure - the supply roads to this development - Glasshouse Lane / Birches Lane (both narrow)and Leamington Road are already extremely busy and congested with long queues at peak times. In addition there will be strain placed on local schools & other facilities etc. The proposed site is currently importantly green space and is surrounded by a residential area - the proposal for 'employment' also raises concerns of noise and deliveries / large vechices etc further adding to congestion fears.

Object

Representation ID: 3567

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

Please do not desecrate the beautiful green fields of Thickthorn.

Object

Representation ID: 3654

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Bob Jones

Congestion.There is already too much traffic along Glasshouse/Birches Lane often causing near gridlock at St John's junction.

New housing should be built where there are new jobs i.e. alongside Business Parks etc. This would certainly not be the case at Thickthorn. Few extra jobs and a lot more pollution as more people travel out of Kenilworth for work.

Noise Pollution. The A46 is very noisy. Housing here would be akin to living right next to a motorway; six lanes as well.

This Green Belt land should be sacrosanct.There has already been considerable new housing in eastern Kenilworth. Enough is enough.

Object

Representation ID: 3671

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Keay

object

Support

Representation ID: 3707

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

Supported