Do you support or object to the development of Woodside Training Centre, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

Perfect place for additional housing

Perfect for additional housing it would not encroach on any existing housing.

Broadly support as it would be settlement relating to an existing thriving town.

Lifetime accessible homes, heat pumps, south facing windows, outside space for all.

Council should focus on brown field no greenfield.

Broadly support the use of smaller parcels of land with good road systems nearby as long as the infrastructure is put in place.

There is already housing allocated for this area the council plans to build 800 houses east of this area as part of the preferred option, this will massively increase traffic in an already congested area.

I believe that a well planned utilisation of land adjacent to Woodside in conjunction with the other nearby sites identified would have a lower impact on existing housing, would not detract from the setting of the conference centre and would enable investment and improved employment prospects at this important Kenilworth venue.

As a resident of Kenilworth, my main interests are in how the latest phase of consultation relates to Kenilworth and its immediate environs. Kenilworth's main attraction is its 'small town feel', an attribute likely to be diminished in any extension of housing. I would be more sympathetic to business/light industrial development in view of the need to offer young residents increased employment opportunities.
Of the various options relating to Kenilworth, I feel the least desirable are any that fill space between Coventry and Kenilworth as this would lead to loss of identity of the town.
I remain unconvinced that development in the Glasshouse Lane area will not impose severe traffic problems in the links between Glasshouse Lane and the A46.

I thought the whole idea was to preserve local employement why would we want to close Woodside. The wildlife impact would be a disaster and as a strong supporter RSPB and of the small town why would we want to use the last bit of land we have when there are plenty of other places with alot more surrounding rural land to use. I moved from a large Town for a better lifestyle for my son, if this development goes ahead would have to re consider living in kenilworth. This shared by local family & friends.
Lose local employment I thought we were trying to increase it in Kenilworth. Rural is not a word we can already strongly associate with Kenilworth there's hardly any green belt now - surely you can find an area that's not in Kenilworth which can better accommodate the development. Wildlife will be affected something I very much enjoy and my elderly neighbours also enjoy currently your development would destroy this.
Surely a development so close to a main road a very fast A46 would be dangerous for families with small children. We don't have the local facilities i.e. school places are already hard to get (my son couldn't get into Park Hill as my local school), insufficient utilities and road network to accommodate this development. Glasshouse lane is already a bottleneck between 730-900 due to volume of traffic using it to work/school run how can we consider further development and increase in noise & air pollution. I came to Kenilworth for a rural clean air aspect.

I believe that Glasshouse Lane is already extremely busy with traffic without additional housing adding to this. There is insufficient schooling locally and doctors etc at present this additional housing to this side of the town will further impact on this.

Completed Questionnaire.

Questionnaire completed.

The proposed development would have only harmful effects on the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of Kenilworth. It would add to traffic congestion on Birches Lane and the Leamington Road; it would rob the town of much needed green and open space; it would destroy the peace of Rocky Lane; and the houses would be too close to the A46. In fact, the proposal is incompatible with section 12 of the Core Strategy document with regard to open space. No further development should be permitted on the eastern side of Kenilworth.

If the Training Centre were to be demolished, I would not object to a small housing development,providing a buffer zone were maintained between it and the A46.

This site has good transport access and is adjacent to a built-up area.

As this site is not strictly greenfield then it should be considered for development.

This is greenfield/green belt land.

Should planning be granted it will set a precedent for similar greenfield/green belt areas and WDC would find it impossible to deny planning should similar sites of greenfield/green belt be put forward for development.

This is a site on an already built up area of the town and the infrastructure could not sustain further development.

This site forms the final narrow corridor of greenfield/green belt on this side of Kenilworth.

This would be a better site for a development due to the road access, but suitable mitigation would be needed to compensate for land lost

1a. Do you support or object to the development of Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

My support is on the basis that:
* There is sufficient allocation 25 acres + of employment land allocated in the Thickthorn area to include this site.
* Kenilworth TC / Warwick DC should be gifted by owners or under S106 / CIL a strip of land to define the boundary of the developed area and to limit further expansion pressure.
* A detailed development brief to be prepared in advance to clearly define what the site owner / a developer needs to provide in terms of infrastructure / planning uses / off site works / development densities etc.[Pedestrian links to town centre / railway station].
* A replacement facility for the Wardens of similar or greater size / facilities is a pre-requisite and this should be within Town limits


1b. Do you support or object to the development of Woodside Training Centre, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

See 1a above and in addition the Conference facility should be retained on site so only surplus undeveloped land can come forward for development as Woodside is an asset for the Town and should be protected.

Thank you for asking B.L.A.S.T. to comment on the latest Core Strategy Options Consultation dated 3rd February 2010.
B.L.A.S.T. (Bringing Leamington Allotment Societies Together) represents several allotment societies in and around Leamington who decided to join forces and oppose any plans to build on allotment land and to seek new land for future allotment use. The group have over 700 members producing fresh and wholesome food for nearly 3000 people, we also have a combined waiting list of over 200 people, enough to fill a good size allotment today if one were available in the near future. B.L.A.S.T. has already presented to the Council a document entitled 'Time to Grow More', a proposal for possible new allotment sites around Leamington Spa. We expect to discuss this further in April 2010 when Cultural Services have carried out their 'Greenspace Review'. This would, of course, be in light of any findings or decisions concluded during this Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation.
The B.L.A.S.T. view of Leamington 'green spaces' is to see them as potential sites for allotments and growing fruit and vegetables, whether it's on Warwick District land unsuitable for building or allocated for any other specific use or in this case land where potential housing development could take place.
B.L.A.S.T. believe and made this point to the full WDC meeting last year that all future 'new' housing development over a minimum size should make provision for people to grow fruit and vegetables by making sure the plans approved allow for gardens or an area suitable for collective growing that is part of the development. If the site is large enough, eg 100 houses, then an area for 25 allotment plots should be considered (an NSALG plot size is 30 x 10 yards).
This view would certainly be relevant regarding Glebe Farm, Loes Farm, Hurst Farm, and land at Campion School. Regarding the financing of this, it would come from the developer and be seen as an integral part of the development to the benefit of the future home owners health and self sufficiency. This new allotment area could link with its nearest existing allotment society to act as a guide and support until well established. This land could come under the control of the Council like many other allotment societies around Leamington.
Along with future allotment provision B.L.A.S.T. strongly support protection of existing allotment land and where relevant neighbouring Green Belt land. We notice most of these sites in this consultation are on Green Belt land as illustrated on your map page 10 in the Option for Growth leaflet dated May 2008. Green Belt land that can and is being used for growing should be the last place for building. Britain needs to use its food producing land as effectively as possible to provide for our present and future needs. As imports from overseas with carbon miles become more expensive in the changing climate and with Third World food demand increasing, self sufficiency and building on food producing land do not go together.
Growing land on Green Belt around Leamington and Warwick with its well established trees and hedges is part of the lungs of Leamington that give the town breathing space while also giving a home to local wildlife, flora and fauna, including the protected Crested Newt. Green Belt land also allows local people to exercise, socialise and grow their own food, lead a healthy lifestyle and help reduce Leamington's carbon footprint. 'Green Belt NOT Red Brick' 'Cabbage Patches NOT Semi-Detaches' as we said on our last campaign march

Questionnaire Response:
I object to the above development because we live in wonderful location, with beautiful views of the fields and wildlife on our doorstep. The children can play safely in our lovely quiet cul-de-sac. The perfect situation you would agree.

How horrified are we at the plans to ruin our perfect surroundings, by building thousands of houses on our doorstep and turning our cul-de-sac in to a main road in to the new houses.

The poor wildlife, roads and environment would suffer immensely putting strain on the local schools and Doctors surgery. My poor children would no longer be safe to play outside in the street - how sad for them to grow up on a building site.

We bought our house because of its location and views over the fields how awful to then look out over row upon row of houses.

As always with such developements they are presented as standalone proposals when in reality a vast range of other issues (eg transport, schooling, noise etc etc) need to be brought to bear on the decision and I see no evidence that these have been properly thought through in this case.

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 (1a & 1b), 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.

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 of Management Training Centre and loss of Green Belt land. Developing such a location is inappropriate without additional traffic management measures on Birches Lane / Glasshouse Lane. No local amenities within 10 mins walking distance, no local bus service. 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.