(viii) Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth

Object

Representation ID: 6425

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Evans

The concept of putting the vast majority of the proposed new houses to be built in Kenilworth down one side of the town is crass.

Object

Representation ID: 6514

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Rosier

Number of people: 2

My wife and I wish to record our objection to the proposed building of 800 houses at the rear of houses in Birches Land and Glasshouse Lane.

We understand this beautiful countryside is "Green Belt" and cannot be used for housing etc.

Object

Representation ID: 6516

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Saward

Object to number of houses proposed at Thickthorn site and loss of green belt.
Pleased that council didn't accept findings of Nathaniel Lichfield which would have been disasterous.
Identify more derelict and empty properties which could be brought back into use and offer incentives for house sharing before precious countryside and green belt developed.

Object

Representation ID: 6558

Received: 03/11/2009

Respondent: Mrs Anita Coldman

Shocked and saddened at the proposed building of 800 high density houses.
It would mean the loss of an area of great natural beauty and history which is enjoyed by a residents for dogwalking, hikers, community groups and families. Loss of this peaceful green environment would drastically change the friendly neighbourhood which enjoys a low crime rate.

Support

Representation ID: 6699

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Comment

Representation ID: 6718

Received: 05/11/2009

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

Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth
The Warwickshire Historic Environment Record indicates the presence of archaeological sites, and a Romano-British settlement site, Scheduled as an Ancient Monument under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, lies on the opposite side of the A46. Historic Landscape Characterisation indicates an area of planned enclosure and playing fields.
Whilst not objecting to the principle of some development, this should be subject, given the existence of archaeological interest and the possibility of further, previously unknown, remains existing here, to a programme of archaeological assessment and, where appropriate, mitigation; this may require preservation in situ across parts of the sites should significant remains be found.

Comment

Representation ID: 6761

Received: 06/11/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Commissioning, Planning & Partnerships Service, Children, Young People & Families]

While there are currently some limited surplus places in Kenilworth primary schools, and would not be able to accommodate the likely product from the proposed development at Thickthorn. Also, these few surplus places are concentrated on the west side of the town, whereas this development is on the eastern side of the town.

An estimated 159 additional primary school places will be generated. In addition, 23 fte nursery age places would also be required.

The east side of Kenilworth is currently served by a two-form entry infant school and a two form entry junior school. However, a site would be sought for a 420 place (2FE) primary school, with early years provision on the new development to allow a more flexible pattern of school provision to be considered. A contribution toward land acquisition costs on the Thickthorn site will therefore be required as well as toward the cost of building.

At the secondary school phase, Kenilworth School is the only secondary school serving the town and the provision of 113 secondary school places plus 27 sixth form places will also be required.

Object

Representation ID: 6821

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Boyle

Subject to satisfactory resolution of the traffic, education, health and employment issues attached I do support the proposals to develop the following areas:

8) Thickthorn, between Kenilworth and the A46
9) South of Finham, west of the A46

Other developments in the west of the district close to the M40 corridor should also be considered.

Support

Representation ID: 6876

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Binswood Allotment Society

support

Object

Representation ID: 6906

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Stoneleigh & Ashow Parish Council

The proposal to build 800 houses in Eastern Kenilworth on the area of land adjacent to the A46 from Thickthorn Island towards Coventry is of great concern to the village of Ashow. Water draining from the A46 and the built up area of Eastern Kenilworth all comes down the watercourse through Ashow.
U ntil a bypass culvert was constructed there was severe flooding in the village. The water discharge from the built up area in Eastern Kenilworth and the A46 being responsible for the flooding. The "holding ponds" that were to be part of the flooding solution along with the bypass culvert have not been constructed.
There is severe ground erosion in some house gardens downstream of the new culvert's junction with the original. This erosion is due to the increase in the speed and volume of flood water flow.
Any further house build in Eastern Kenilworth is likely to add to the flood water flow. If development does take place it would be essential to survey the whole of the drainage basin. The drainage calculation data should be published. It should be noted that the drainage data from the A46 development has been lost.

Support

Representation ID: 6947

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Land at Thickthorn
The Parish Council firmly believes that the housing allocations should be distributed across the district and supports the inclusion of this site in the Core Strategy.

Support

Representation ID: 7003

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported but concerned at the loss of a 'Green lung' to this area

Support

Representation ID: 7063

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

Prevailing local and national conditions mean that a no change option cannot be realistically argued. For this reason we accept that there may be a case for future development of the Thickthorn site providing, and only providing, that priority is given to an economic strategy based on Kenilworth's unique proximity to the University of Warwick. It is anticipated that this economic strategy will help define the optimal balance of employment and housing land on the Thickthorn site. Any attempt to ignore or devalue this provision can only endanger the distinct identity and the sustainable evolution of Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 7098

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire

Thickthorn. This Green Belt land and we will be reluctant to see it released for development. Building on it will reduce the green buffer zone between Kenilworth and Leamington Spa.

Object

Representation ID: 7438

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & William Davies Ltd

Agent: Stoneleigh Planning

Strategic scale development for housing and employment uses at Kenilworth, as suggested to the south and east of the town, would, in our view, impact on the programme for the regeneration of the Coventry.

The land is within the Green Belt. As such it is a site to which the Council should only have recourse if sites within the built up area of the District and urban extension sites to Warwick and Leamington Spa prove insufficient to meet requirement to 2026 for both housing and employment.

Support

Representation ID: 7477

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club

Agent: Framptons

The Club considers its future is best served by being included within the Preferred Options allocation at Thickthorn thereby enabling the club to secure an alternative ground which is of appropriate size to accommodate its requirements for the playing of cricket and football. Also, safeguarding the setting of the club in the context of the form and character of surrounding land uses. The club is willing to participate with the Consortium in promoting the development of the Preferred Option together with their landholding.

Object

Representation ID: 7573

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Object

Representation ID: 7645

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

In terms of land allocations, we do feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the wider regional picture and that too much details is provided on the strategic sites. We feel that there are other more suitable sites available and that at this stage the plan should be more general in terms of its direction for growth without site specific details being put forward. If these are not deliverable, as we understand has yet to be proved, then the plan may generally not be deliverable and sustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 7678

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

Communities should provide sufficient local employment land. Only support reclassification of site once other employment land in Kenilworth has been developed and has high occupancy.
K01, K05, K06 & K09 cover the site from Leamington Road to Rocky Lane with A46 to SE and suggest 50% housing and 50% other. Apart from access at south by gatehouse, access to majority of site is from Glasshouse Lane which serves residential area of Windy Arbour. Not acceptable for any employment requiring other than light vehicle access leading to higher % residential . If employment demand does not materialize, greater proportion residential acceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 7701

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council - Environment & Economy Directorate

By allocating some housing and employment development in south east Kenilworth, the amount of out-commuting from the town (much of which is undertaken by car) will be potentially reduced. By locating it in this part of Kenilworth, the development will be able to make use of the strategic bus connections between Coventry and Leamington Spa/Warwick, as well as the proposed new rail station.
Transport mitigation measures could include:
- new railway station at Kenilworth and improved rail & bus links in north/south corridor;
- dedicated cycle link between Kenilworth & Coventry;
- improved traffic management; bus service & urban cycle network

Support

Representation ID: 7719

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

Housing allocations should be distributed across the district. This site on land between the A46 and the edge of Kenilworth that is partly used for nonagricultural use would seem to be a reasonable location that could enhance Kenilworth as an attractive housing location.

Object

Representation ID: 33585

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Revelan Group

Agent: Harris Lamb

It is premature to allocate land for development until a comparative site assessment is undertaken based on a robust evidence base.

Comment

Representation ID: 33617

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

The proposed use of Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 33676

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr T Steele

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

The land at Glasshouse Lane provides for a greater flexibility in the housing numbers and is a more deliverable land source with less constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 33792

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: 33853

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Tripartite Consortium (McDaide, Hibberd, KRFC)

Agent: Framptons

Support the identification of land to the south east of Kenilworth. This is a highly sustainable location for a mixed use development.

The annual yield rates for housing provision on each of the identified sites are ambitous and there is a heavy reliance on windfalls. The longer phasing of development, over more sites across the District, will enable development to be spread, reducing the pressure on Warwick/Leamington in the early stages of the plan.

Sustainability and deliverability should be the key factors and not the Green Belt designation.

There is a need for this site to contribute to housing supply.

Object

Representation ID: 33926

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Objects to location

Object

Representation ID: 33963

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Louis Balestrini

Too many houses .This is green belt land and should remain so.
The old Ryton car plant and Coventry airport should be considered for housing

Object

Representation ID: 33981

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: R C Sunter

Development not necessary or desirable.
1. Town unable to accommodate sufficient new businesses and buildings due to size/layout.
2. Road infrastructure totally inadequate to justify any extra housing as only main thoroughfare clogged most of day, with traffic passing through town.
3. Main point overlooked - town is split in two by railway. Building of station will be of no consequence and would not be used.
4. Leamington, Warwick, Coventry and Birmingham fulfill requirements for work purposes.
5. Why spoil attractive, historical tourist area.
6. If area spoilt by development Kenilworth people will move away. Many people have desire to come and live here so don't spoil it with sizeable developments.
If the Kenilworth environment is spoilt by reducing standards, young and old will not be suited into future.

Object

Representation ID: 33986

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Everitt

Objects to housing at Thickthorn, Kenilworth. It is green belt land and includes areas of woodland which are important for wildlife and leisure. Has major concerns over the increase in traffic which will result from the development and that employment uses will mean more heavy goods traffic. Is concerned over the suitability of access onto the site via Glasshouse and Birches Lane. Widening the road would be impossible and increased traffic would be dangerous and create a race track.
The proposed employment on this site contradicts the Governments committment to green issues as it is likely to increase the number of commuters.