Do you support or object to the development of Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

Questionnaire Response:
Site 1a. Yes. This area of land has little in the way of environmental impact. It has obvious access from Leamington Road and off the A46 if required.
There are no public rights of way which would be affected by development.
Site 3: I would object strongly to this. The proposed development would link Lillington to Cubbington village, eroding natural boundaries and green belt land.
The affected area is extremely popular with dog walkers, walkers and families with a number of public footpaths, including the millennium way, a national, long distance path. There are also other paths which although not currently shown on the definite map and statement have seen continual and interrupted use by the public for over twenty years. Definitive map modification orders could be made for these routes.

There will be other environmental issues. There are a number of badger setts and I understand that there are greater crested newts at a site close to Hill Farm.

Cubbington itself has seen enormous strain put on it's foul water systems and over the last few years flooding has occurred. The proposed development will only add to any further incidents.

Questionnaire Response:
No Comments

In general terms I must protest at the continued housing development being made in the county. Despite understanding the need for housing stock I feel that Warwickshire and Warwick District in particular has already shouldered its fair share. I applaud the councils continued use of brown field sites but feel that with ever increasing targets the threat to green field sites is now intolerable. I object to all the current proposals in this consulation feeling that sites such as old factories on Montague Road, the empty properties at the Potterton Site, the still uncompleted Chase Meadows and the Ford Foundry site offer potential for development without the loss of green fields.

In particular I would like to oppose the development of Loes Farm on the following grounds:

AESTHETICS: The Coventry Road approach to Warwick is one of the best approaches to the town, benefiting from rolling fields and an historic landscape that sets the tone for the town. Many other approaches are conurbated lending a feeling that Warwick is nothing more than an average built up area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Housing at Loes Farm would increase traffic on the Coventry Road and island at both ends of the road. This section is already overloaded and would require traffic measures that would have knock on effects. There would also be an increase to traffic flow on the A46 increasing pollution in North Warwick. The extra number of households would also see an increased pressure on Warwick Town Centre's already overloaded parking and road infrastructure.
There is a large question over how these extra homes and their occupants will be provided for in terms of energy, sewage, policing, emergency medical care, schooling and fire fighting in a town already on the brink of losing its fire station with a recently closed main police station.

ARCHAEOLOGY: The farmland is one of the few pieces of ancient grazed grassland left around Warwick. There is evidence to ridge and furrow usage and outlines of possible medieval buildings.

ECOLOGY: The sheep pasture is important for local Rooks, Buzzards and Green Woodpeckers. There is a badger sett close to the motorway embankment and bats frequent Woodloes Lane. It would be necessary to check the old trees in the field for roosts. The treets themselves are of intrinsic value themselves with many being over 100 years old.
There are various ponds and wet depressions across the site and in adjacent farm cottages that contain records of Great Crested Newts that could be severly impacted by development. The newts, badgers and bats are all scheduled species and mean that the welfare will eed to come up most in any construction both in the implementation phase and for the life span of the development

SOCIAL: The increased housing will increase the conurbation between Warwick and Leek Wootton and risk diluting both the cultural and social identity of both North Woodloes and Leek Wootton. The increased population as a result of the housing will place greater pressure on employment in Warwick at a time when gaining employment is difficult enough. Where are all these people going to work?

HEALTH: Increased occupation will lead to greater pollution from vehicles and waste disposal. There is the question of already overloaded medical services such as doctors and the hospital. On a more subtle note emotional well being is an important factor to consider. Many people on the Woodloes and in fact in the district enjoy walking up Woodloes Lane in the country and across to Leek Wootton such activities are proved to reduce depression and lower blood pressure.

I object to the land around Kenilworth being destroyed in order to make up the housing numbers that a have been dictated by Central Government. Local housing need must be determined by the local people not central Government. Then once numbers have been identified, small organic growth within each borough can be accommodated. The total numbers just do not stand up.

I support the development of these sites , in their entirety. They bridge between sites K01 at Thickthorn and K17 at Southcrest Farm. Although in the green belt, the joint review describes them as being of low landscape value owing to previous development usage.

Any land which is used for sports and recreation and the good of the community must be kept clear of development. The Government are encouraging all of us to get fitter and by building on this land you will be taking away a vital facility.

If building on this site results in less of the original prefered option building at Harbury Lane and Europa Way area then I'm in favor of this development as it is a fairer distribution of future development across the district.

I support this because it is extending an urban domestic dwelling area rather than overwhelming a small 'village' community

On the grounds that this development will simply bring profits to developers and do nothing to provide rented homes for those in need of affordable homes, as identified by successive Council surveys

Permanent loss of amenity with destruction of part of Glasshouse Spinney, popular with local walkers, Sports Ground and loss of Green Belt land. No local amenities within 10 mins walking distance, no local bus service. Developing such a location is inappropriate without additional traffic management measures on Birches Lane / Glasshouse Lane. Normal working days Birches Lane / St Johns gyratory is difficult to traverse in the morning rush hour, even without the presence of road works the roundabout regularly 'gridlocks'. An exit road parallel to the Kenilworth Bypass to Crewe Lane would be very useful consequently. Close proximity to HS2 preferred rail route, which given the high elevation, will add to extant substantial vehicle traffic noise from Kenilworth Bypass. Not entirely sure anyone would wish to live next to a well established mobile phone radio mast

While I have supported the developments proposed at Thickthorn in the Preferred Options document, I do not support any further development alongside the A46 towards Coventry. With the possible development of the Finham site there is a real danger of us ending up with a continuous 'ribbon' of development along the A46 linking Kenilworth and Coventry.

Also, access to and from this site from Glasshouse Lane could be difficult and dangerous, with blind corners in both directions which would be difficult to mitigate against.

This site is a better alternative than kings hill because it has neccessary infrastructure where as kings hill does not.

This site has a watercourse along the northern boundary. The catchment area is too small for the watercourse to have the flood plain automatically mapped. Therefore should this site come forward it will require a flood risk assessment (FRA) to level 2 standard to clarify the flood plain extent and easement width required for this watercourse.

The site is sensitive in terms of protection requirements for 'Controlled Waters'. It is located on solid geology of the Pennine Upper Coal Measures formation, consisting of bands of alternating mudstone, siltstone and sandstone. The more permeable strata will contain sufficient groundwater to support drinking water abstractions and thus the whole formation is now classified as Principal Aquifer under the new Water Framework Directive typology. There are no drift deposits overlying the solid geology locally and the soils predominantly consist of fine to coarse loamy silts, with intermediate leaching potential. Furthermore, the site is located 1.5 km south westerly from a STW public supply borehole and as said above there is a watercourse bordering the site to the north, with the river Avon some 500 m to the east.

Should this site come forward further site specific investigation will need to confirm the exact geology and soil conditions locally, as well as depth to watertable, ground drainage potentials and any contamination legacy from previous developments. There could be Made Ground across the site or indeed impacts from the adjacent railway line. As part of any planning application for a residential development, we would like to see a site investigation and risk assessment condition to assess risks to controlled waters. Based on those findings, we can then also better advise on future drainage options (e.g. to ground or not). The Environmental Health department at the Council has the remit to protect human health, so they will need to get involved too.

Development should be shared and this area has seen little development.

Sites 1a; 1b; 2: Support.
Site 3: I do not support the development of purely greenfield land if re-development is available elsewhere.
Site 4: If a greenfield site is to be used, this would appear preferable to others due to it location near a major route.
Site 5: I do not support the development of purely greenfield land if re-development is available elsewhere. In particular, this site does not appear to possess an adequate road network to support the level of development proposed. Any improvements to the road network would further disrupt greenfield land.
Site 6: I would support this location for development, so long as guarantees can be made to residents of Baginton village that investment will be made in local amenities to support an influx of new residents.

Questionnaitr Response:

Sites 1a; 1b; 3; 4; 5; 6:
I have No Objection.

Site 2:
If this land were to be developed it would have an extremely damaging effect on the area.
1.It is a flood plain and there is a reason for it being so.
2. Sewers around Whitnash already have problems they do not need to be exacerbated.
3. Roads around the area are already extremely busy at key times in the day and any Bank holiday. It is not a viable proposition to support an extra 1000 houses with probably two cars per house and more children to ferry to primary schools out of the area as there are not enough suitable places locally.
4. Golf Lane has reach capacity for traffic coming and going at busy times a new school in the position suggested would mean far more traffic coming down Golf Lane and Fieldgate Lane which could not cope.
5. Because of a lack of places for children to play in this area, Fieldgate Lane at the moment attracts children playing as it is reasonably safe being a no through road. Climbing trees and being kids!! We do need places not continually full of traffic we seem to be creating one big housing development without much relief.

Having attended various meetings on the core strategy last year, I wanted to thank you for coming up with the alternative sites. These proposals go a long way towards addressing the very real concerns that so many of us raised about the prime arable land South of Harbury Lane.

The alternative sites distribute the housing around the Warwick-Kenilworth-Leamington area, integrating it into already established communities, with consequently less infrastructure impact. Nor are any of the proposed alternatives (so far as I am aware) prone to flooding in the way that the Harbury Lane South site is.

My final request would be that wherever possible you look to develop brownfield land first. I realise that this requires more effort in terms of ground clearance and decontamination prior to use, but the social benefits are correspondingly greater. Derelict eyesore sites are improved and brought back into productive use and agricultural land can continue in its prime purpose of feeding people with trusted locally-sourced products.

I raise objection to the inclusion of alternative sites in the core strategy:
1a, 1b Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club & Training Centre Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth
5 Hurst Farm Burton Green
6 Land at Baginton

My reasons, based on planning principles, are as follows:

1a, 1b Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club & Training Centre Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth

Development of this area would result in the loss of a valuable green space buffer for between the A46 and the main development of Kenilworth bounded by Glasshouse Lane. The proposal would place dwellings very close to this busy trunk road with consequential possibilities of noise and other environmental nuisance for the occupiers of dwellings. The proposed development would create an incremental ribbon of an urbanising nature along the line the A46 adding to the scale of existing and proposed housing development. Incremental pressures on infrastructure, particularly road access would be entirely unsatisfactory. An additional point is the loss of recreational playing fields.

5 Hurst Farm Burton Green

I was under the impression that the proposal area was greenbelt designed to segregate and separate developed land in Coventry and Kenilworth. Inclusion of this site in the core strategy would appear to be in direct conflict with a general thrust of the 1947 planning acts. Specifically, this area of agricultural land is valuable in delineating communities, and has a rural feel even close to the principal conurbation of Coventry. It would result in the loss of important green fields and associated ecological benefit, especially noting the wooded areas and habitats which would be lost. The highways infrastructure would be completely inadequate to service such a development and major highway works would be required, which in themselves would be unacceptable by creating an urbanising effect in this area (In fact the roads are currently strained to accommodate rat running at commuting times.)

6 Land at Baginton

The proposal would irreparably harm the character of Baginton which currently retains a distinctive village environment. The sheer scale of the development is entirely inappropriate to this location and loses recreational space for the public. I believe the land is in various ownerships, including Coventry City Council who have indicated their intention not to permit development, and it is therefore difficult to understand how this might be a realistic proposal. As for other alternative sites this is intensive development in the open countryside in direct conflict with national planning policies. Somewhat bizarrely, the area includes the ancient monument of the Roman Lunt fort and there is no doubt also considerable archaeological value in the surrounding areas which might be adversely affected. At the present time the future of Coventry airport is uncertain and it would be particularly unwise to consider developments in this area.

Green belt land in the Thickthorn area has already been identified as suitable for development.

A further allocation in this area would impose severe strains on the local infrastructure. Glasshouse Lane, Crewe Lane, Dalehouse Lane and A46 Stoneleigh and Thickthorn Roundabouts are heavily used now and struggling to meet demand. There are also serious concerns that large scale new development will bring about a re-occurrence of drainage problems that affected Ashow in the past.

There is a lack of public transport in South Eastern Kenilworth as none of the major transport routes run through this area.

I support the development of these sites, in their entirety, for the provision of 500 homes and 7.2ha of employment during the second phase (2016-2021). They bridge between sites K01 at Thickthorn and K17 at Southcrest Farm. Although in the green belt, the joint review describes them as being of low landscape value owing to previous development usage.

In my response to the original consultation I referred to the potential of other sites in the area for use as a retirement village. These additional sites would complement and support that idea.

This training centre, adapted and added to, could become the hub facility for the retirement village.

I remain of the opinion that the need for such large housing development in this area as imposed by Government remains unproven but feel that the following considerations should be imposed on all proposals.
1. No green belt land should be considered until all Brownfield sites have been fully developed. Look at the history of Developers in Coventry where a Brownfield site is started with a large number of homes proposed but once the developer has planning permission the numbers of dwellings are reduced and they move to the next site.
2. Numbers of houses on a site should be restricted to 100 homes to ensure that no single area is 'swamped' by a development and loses its existing identity.
3. Any of these additional proposals are more acceptable than the initial plan to build in excess of 3,500 houses on Kings Hill. Congratulations to a Council that can admit when a proposal is seriously flawed.
4. The main objective for any housing plans should be to encourage local employment and minimise the need to commute. Therefore WDC should consider small developments that are close to existing developments within its own area to meet this need. Sites that are close to Warwick, Leamington and Stratford should take priority for these reasons. Development closer to Coventry would only result in permanently 'joining' the two areas and resulting in the long term of a new Coventry and Warwickshire District Council?
5. The area around Warwick Parkway has never appeared as a consideration yet this has excellent access to a rail and road network. I understand that a reason given was the presence of Great Crested Newts? If this is the reason then King's Hill with its large number of ponds, Badger sets and ancient woodlands should not be under consideration?

There are precious few sporting facilities around, so more people and less facilities surely means there will be more bored youths and therefore a likely increase in crime etc.

I support this development (providing it is not green belt) as it would mean Warwickshire homes for Warwickshire people and not use already inadequate Coventry services. It would maintain the clear boundary between the two distinctly different communities.

I believe that the current plans for any large scale housing development is miss judged. An
alternative would be the development of several sites of smaller numbers with a mix of properties.
The proposal to develop properties of all (mixed) types on a single site is a mistake. Rather it should be possible to develop smaller numbers with a more coherent spread of property types.

We would have no objections to the use of this land for building more homes if the plans included the provision of additional educational facilities (namely primary schools to accommodate the additional children in the 1000 homes). The apparent absence of any such plans is alarming and incredibly short-sighted. As many parents of young children in the Warwick Gates/Whitnash/Heathcote area have recently experienced difficulties in primary school admissions, it would be ludicrous to even contemplate adding a further 1000 new homes into the mix. Any new housing development will inevitably attract young people, newly-married couples, and people wanting to start a family. This has been the story of Warwick Gates over the past ten plus years, and now many of the residents have primary school-aged children, who are expected to somehow be squashed into a few spare places within the existing local schools. This is bad enough, but to potentially increase this problem further would be disastrous to the community.

These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.

CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.

We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on

CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.

* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport

In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.

This development, with the other planned developments for Kenilworth, could mean there will be up to 1000 new dwellings in Kenilworth. There is little to no spare capacity in the local Primary Schools and WCC would have difficulty in finding additional capacity for secondary school provision in the town.

The Highways Agency (HA) together with Warwickshire County Council (WCC) is currently undertaking an assessment of the implications of the strategic housing and employment allocations proposed in the Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options paper for both the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and the local road network. This work is expected to be completed by June 2010 and will help determing what, if any, measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed development options on the SRN will be requred. This work should also help to inform the development of the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which will underping the Core Stretegy.

Given the uncertainty about which, if any, of the alternative sites are suitable for development, the HA has been unable to undertake any such detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of these sites at this time but would wish to do so when there is greater clarity. For the purposes of responding to this consultation, we have, therefore, undertaken a qualitative assesment of each of the sites focussing on the potential impacts of each site on the SRN and their suitabilty in terms of sustainability.

Sites 1a & b, which are proposed for housing are located to the East of, but adjacent to the boundary of the built up area of Kenilworth. The A46 runs along the eastern boundary of the sites, however, we understand that access would be from the exisitng local road network, via Glasshouse Lane.

The proximity of these sites to the A46 could make them attractive places to live for people commuting to Coventry, Warwick and Leamington Spa by private car. The closest points of access to the A46 are the Stoneleigh Road Junction and Thickthorn Interchange. Both of these junctions currently suffer from congestion, which is expected to be exacerbated by any traffic generated by these sites. This is of concern particularly to public transport services and other sustainable transport infrastructure will, therefore, be required if this site is brought forward for development.

All six of the proposed alternative sites are considered to have some impact upon the SRN. It is expected that Site 2 would have the least impact, due to the relative distance from the M40, and the number of local services, amenities, and employment sites within the neighbouring areas. The remaining sites would have a more noticeable impact upon the SRN. Site 6 in particular has the potential to severely impact upon some sensitive locations along the A46. As set out above, we would, of course, wish to undertake further detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of the sites on the SRN when there is greater clarity about which, if any, sites are considered to be suitable for development.

Thank you for consulting English Heritage on the suggested additional six strategic sites.
Before any commitment to any strategic site is made there is an expectation that a thorough strategic environmental assessment/sustainability appraisal will have been undertaken and that evidence would have been gathered and applied to demonstrate the relative suitability, capacity, deliverability and consistency with matters such as regional (RSS QE 1, 5 and 6) and national planning policy has been determined. At present whether or not this has occurred is unclear. In this respect we refer you to our previous correspondence of 25 September 2009, our specific comments relating to the evidence base and also to the recently published PPS5 and its associated good practice guide.

Please note that English Heritage considers that this apparent shortcoming is fundamental to the soundness of the Core Strategy.

In addition to this generic maxim please find an initial observation on each site based, unfortunately, on a rather crude desk top consideration.

Site 1 -Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club and Woodside Training centre
The evident significance of the adjacent Stoneleigh Abbey and designated Glasshouse
Roman settlement and the potential for further archaeology should be carefully considered.
The specific function of the green belt in the separation of settlements and providing a natural setting to historic places should be acknowledged where relevant to all these sites.

Support - if building on this 'alternative site' option results in less housing development in the land to lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane, Land at Europa Way, Land at Woodside Farm then we are in favour of this development.