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

Support

Representation ID: 131

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

Strongly support

Object

Representation ID: 170

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Tony Lucas

The entire area surrounding Green Lane, Kings Hill Lane, Stoneleigh Road, Kenpas Highway and Warwick University already suffers terribly from traffic congestion and lack of services - to build an entirely new housing development in this area would have a serious negative impact on all current and future residents.

Support

Representation ID: 195

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.

Support

Representation ID: 218

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Baxter

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 231

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

I absolutely object to the building on Green Belt land at this place. It will ruin the green-belt around Coventry, be appalling for local infrastructure, especially transport, and set a terrible precedent for building on Green Belt land. Coventry does not need this development in any way whatsoever.

Support

Representation ID: 271

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Coventry needs regeneration and some decent houisng.

Support

Representation ID: 336

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

An area suitable for new housing.

Support

Representation ID: 364

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 396

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Canon David Tilley

Roads likely to be overloaded - road to Gibbett Hill traffic light already massively congested with univerisyt traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 400

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Warden

Kings Hill would present many problems to the local road infrastructure that is already regularly clogged by heavy traffic to Warwick University. The abuse of Green Belt land for Housing and Employment should be resisted. We are increasingly told that Coventry needs more employment and I agree that it does, but what is being done with all the unused Brownfield sites from previous 'now redundant' industry? I do not accept that Coventry 'needs' to expand in line with instructions from central government. We need to be more efficient and effective, using existing sites and not use Green Belt land.

Support

Representation ID: 411

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Appropriate location

Support

Representation ID: 412

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

This site has very good transport links

Object

Representation ID: 415

Received: 26/07/2009

Respondent: mrs linda allen

The use of this land appears to bring Kenilworth into the Coventry area, particularly when one sees where Coventry might build, and therefore I do not believe this land should be used.

Support

Representation ID: 442

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 493

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 523

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Ms Lesley Beck

Site should not be developed to prevent Kenilworth and Coventry merging and to preserve nature sites in the area, bio-diversity and ancient landscape features.

Object

Representation ID: 537

Received: 03/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Abbie Rae

Why here? such a wonderful greenspace and your planning on building houses? - Where are these people coming from to live in them? where are they going to work? as there isn't any new industrys within the area. It is wonderful to live so close to the countryside and you want to change that. What about the road system and the flooding risks? The whole plan is just plain wrong you should look for other options redevelop what you currently have, look at alternative building project, new houses in this area will look out of place,

Support

Representation ID: 564

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 627

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 677

Received: 07/08/2009

Respondent: Anna Sampson

This is a massive amount of housing which is not needed.

Support

Representation ID: 716

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 787

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

I think this development conflicts with your growth strategy - this is the greenbelt division between Kenilworth and Coventry. It also conflicts with your rural strategy as it will take out several rural properties. This development would have a further impact on local ecosystems, infrastructe etc.

Object

Representation ID: 824

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: Bill Crossland

I feel that I must add my voice to the large number of people obkecting to the proposed area of development at the above, I feel that the development is both unnecessary and ill conceived and morally wrong.

It would appear that all of the parties proposing this are intent on imposing there jack booting policieis on the local population with neither thought nor care as the long term effects this may have on the many peole living in the area.

I think we would all be greatful if you refused this application in the first instance.

Object

Representation ID: 825

Received: 12/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs R S Petrak

Wildlife is a vital part of this area and once we start building on it, where will all the creatures go? We will have destroued centuries of safe habitat.

Our house is at the bottom of the steep slope of Green Lane, opposite the pond, and it is a worry that if the water table is altered or the drainage is upset then we will be subject to flooding at teh worst or rising damp at best.

Object

Representation ID: 829

Received: 14/08/2009

Respondent: Robert James Bannister

Coventry's population has declined from 338,000 to 308,000 in the last generation. Therefore expansion of housing should be within its own boundaries. Coventry has requested more housing as a percentage that any other authority in the West Midlands. This is quite unfair to residents of Warwick District. Also, support cannot be given to project without detailed plans.

Comment

Representation ID: 855

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

Not necessary

Object

Representation ID: 893

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Mr Jon Freeman

I am defintely NOT in favour of building houses around Kings Hill. Its a beautiful area that is used by runners, walkers, cyclers etc to escape into the nearby countryside. Why would you want to destroy green belt land when there are plenty of industrial units in Coventry that are empty and could be used to build homes? Its so short sighted to destroy green belt whilst the centres are empty??? You will never get this land back.

Very disapointed to hear of this suggestion....its not right at all !!!

Support

Representation ID: 919

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 959

Received: 23/08/2009

Respondent: ms julia shepherd

I strongly object to this propsal. The infrastructure will not support such a development; the roads in this area are severely congested on a regular basis. To add to this it will destroy the habititats of countless numbers of differing wildlife in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 1001

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

This is Green Belt and should remain so. It is not appropriate for employment or housing without substantial infrastructure changes which would destroy the 'gap' between Coventry and Kenilworth.