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

Object

Representation ID: 2080

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: mrs pat watson

Agent: mrs pat watson

Lack of infrastructure is the main problem, and any more traffic would cause hugh problems. Lack of schools and health provision.

Object

Representation ID: 2101

Received: 06/09/2009

Respondent: Nick Booker

I do not support this option. It's the thin end of the wedge for the creep of Coventry towards Kenilworth

Support

Representation ID: 2188

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Barrie and Margaret Hayles

Subject to local residents' standing on this. This should then be part of WDC's calculation not Coventry C.C.

Object

Representation ID: 2212

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Mr TERRY ARNETT

Loss of Green belt land
Loss of Farm land loss of habitat for wildlife
increase of tra,ffic
number of vehicles to at least 7,000 more cars to immediate area ,average home now having two cars, safety of children locally who are encouraged to walk to school protect their environment and be green.
Schools
current numbers allocated to both the primary school and Finham Comp will be effected as it What will people do for schooling who accommodate the estate in its earlier years ?

Roads are already in a poor state of repair

Support

Representation ID: 2282

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

By far the best site for consideration is the land within the WDC area South of Coventry at Finham. Being close to that city where the existing infrastructure is well able to accommodate the influx. i.e. with respect to shops, transport, schools etc should be the preferred option.

Object

Representation ID: 2376

Received: 07/09/2009

Respondent: Lauren Burgoine

The beautiful countryside and wildlife provides an escape for people near Coventry.
The deep hedgerows and fields provide a home to nature you are lucky to find in Coventry, and the green belt land is very precious to this wildlife.

I would be horrified to think that this beautiful landscape could be replaced by rows of identical soulless houses with no back gardens, and the area bulldozed to make way for roads and concrete.

The currently good local schools, nursery and other infrastructure would not be able to cope with the amount of new residents and homes.

Object

Representation ID: 2377

Received: 30/07/2009

Respondent: Anonymous 12

High density house building will only bring unrest with people being cramped together.

Finham residents would be more sympathetic and look more kindly at King's hill if the right type of development is built i.e. bungalows.

Support

Representation ID: 2403

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: Roy Standley

Yes.

Object

Representation ID: 2601

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.

Support

Representation ID: 2628

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 2751

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

Good as extending the urban areas south of Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 2795

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

This too should be preserved. Ancient trees and hedgerows support a variety of wild life. It should not be sacrificed for housing and factories which Coventry can accommodate elsewhere. The green belt should be sacrosanct.

Object

Representation ID: 2821

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Tony Hyndman

Finham cannot support this plan due to lack of amenties.

Object

Representation ID: 2892

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: ALISON ELFWOOD

CURRENTLY WE HAVE A CLOSE KNIT COMMUNITY IN GREEN LANE. THE CURRENT SERVICES, ROADS, SCHOOLS, DOCTORS ETC ARE JUST ENOUGH FOR US, ANY ADDITIONS WOULD WREAK HAVOC WITH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. GREEN BELT LAND SHOULD NOT BE BUILT ON, THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER OPTIONS. REGENERATE THE CITY CENTRE, REFURBISH HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, USE BROWNFILL SITES. ONCE THE GREEN BELT HAS GONE THEN YOU'LL START ENCROACHING ON COUNTRYSIDE. WHEN WILL YOU STOP? I KNOW THE GOV HAS GIVEN YOU TARGETS, THEY GIVE YOU MONEY BUT YOU WORK FOR US, WE PAY YOUR WAGES, YOU LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

Comment

Representation ID: 2938

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

Support for accomodating WDC allocation, Object if proposed to support Coventry allocation/overspill.

Object

Representation ID: 2989

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Strongly object to this land being used other than the high yield arable land that it is - also the Alvis Sports Ground is beneficial to the junior, youth and senior houses - also Leasowes Garden Nursery employs only handicapped and disabled young people.

Object

Representation ID: 3017

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Bill McCutchon

This is far too high a number of dwellings to place in this particular locality because of the huge increase it will generate of vehicular traffic and the affect this will have on the main thoroughfares in the locality and to and from Coventry and adjoining towns.

Support

Representation ID: 3048

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Katharine Whigham

Similar to my comment on Kenilworth - need to consider provision of housing at all locations

Object

Representation ID: 3053

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Linda Gregory

1. Environmental effect on green belt/ open farm land
2. Capacity of local schools to accommodate pupils
3. Increased congestion on local roads, access and transport issues.
4. Greatly increased risk of flooding in area with implications for existing properties and roads.
5. Ability of all existing infrastructures to accommodate proposals

Support

Representation ID: 3064

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Alison Oliver

good location for motorway connections

Comment

Representation ID: 3066

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard James

I do NOT support allocating this land to Coventry for development but would give support for it to be part of the Warwick District allocation and thereby minimise the size of any development in the already over-developed area of south Leamington in particular around the Harbury Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 3093

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3162

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

This is a further infringement of the Green Belt. It is important to preserve the separate identities of both Kenilworth and Coventry.

Comment

Representation ID: 3170

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

Support for accomodating WDC allocation, STRONGLY Object if proposed to support Coventry allocation/overspill.

Object

Representation ID: 3213

Received: 19/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Ingledew

It is unnecessary to meet the real demand for housing in Coventry. There are already a large number of opportunities for improving the housing stock within Coventry's existing boundaries and most of those already underway are stalled because of a lack of demand (for example Whitley urban village). The location has very few local job opportunities for the increased population should it materialise. It is highly likely that most of these new residents will have to commute to find work, which is an increasingly unsustainable model.

Support

Representation ID: 3277

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

I support it.

Object

Representation ID: 3326

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Object to creeping urbanisation of land currently defining separate identities of Coventry and Kenilworth

Support

Representation ID: 3390

Received: 02/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

Finham site well located for roads and hospital - should be developed for Warwick District not Coventry

Object

Representation ID: 3402

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Object

Support

Representation ID: 3422

Received: 29/08/2009

Respondent: Miss Stephanie Hawkins

Site at Finham is better located for services of Coventry and near to A45 for access. Was preferred location of local people in previous consultation