Do you support or object to the development of Land at Baginton?

This option appears more suitable and plausible than that put foward for Kings Hill, Finham in the original document produced by WDC.

Very varied site. The airport, historical sites and plant nurseries already in existence, give the area character. An imaginative scheme with well designed eco homes could really work here - should not be 'done on the cheap' .

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

This development would swamp allotments, Lunt Roman Fort, local Nurseries and would build in an area which is near marsh conditions in places. The traffic pollution from the A46 would be horrendous and should the airport expand, this would create dire living conditions for the residents and cause road congestion that wouldn't bear thinking about. This development may also impede the expansion of the airport, which would be disasterous for the local econcomy.

If the land is designated Green Belt, development is wholly inappropriate and contrary to the original principles of preventing urban sprawl.

This site is close to Coventry which can support the increase in population

This certainly seems more sensible than some other, earlier, ideas. The land is close to existing infrastructure.

We must satisfy and meet the needs of Warwick district residents before offering this land to Coventry City Council. This area is well placed for access to the major road network and would provide very good employment opportunities being close not only to Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth but also to Coventry and Rugby. Acceptance of this site and other supplementary sites offered would distribute the housing allocation and its impact on the infrastructure more fairly over a much larger area unlike the current proposals which concentrate the majority of the allocation and its problems in the Heathcote area

The most suitable area so far identified by planners to meet increasing housing demand. Would revitalise Coventry and has good communication links

What an excellent idea and it will bring employent opportunites back into Coventry

half and half on this site ... it is a very large area so maybe it would be an eyesore and also impact too much on the rural aspect. if it is to be a smaller development then it may be acceptable but not if it joins small villages.

Completed Questionnaire.

The object of the new housing supply is to complement or encourage local employment and minimise commuting. Any housing development within WDC should be sited adjacent to existing conurbations to meet this requirement. I am opposed to any development situated away from Warwick/Leamington/Stratford etc. This includes this site at Bagington, the Airport site (if it is made available) and Kings Hill.

The proposed site is larger than the existing village, which has limited facilities. A large development here would create more traffic than Toll Bar Island could take - it is already congested at rush hours.

A small development, with additional community facilities, might possibly be acceptable.

Is the airport land really available for development?

The expansion of nearby Birmingham airport means this land is no longer needed for yet another regional airport. A more appropriate use of this area would be for housing or light industrial purposes, particularly given the good access to national motorway network etc.

Greenfield sites should not be considered an option for development until all viable brownfield sites have been fully utilised.

Perfect position for new homes - close to the main trunk roads A45, A46, M40 & M6 for commuters. Coventry needs regeneration for jobs since losing major manufacturing.
It would be great if this was a new housing development that was well considered and thought out, could be something for Coventry to be proud of - not a rabbit warren type development such as Cawston Grange or Warwick Gates. Think open spaces, environmentally friendly, eco-responsible.

There is a concern with this proposal that it could result in a loss of a golf course. Work should be done to ascertain that the golf course is 'surplus'. We would suggest that the principles of policy SC6 of the adopted Local Plan are applied.

Suitable contributions/land should be set a side within the development or off site for meeting the sporting infrastructure which will be needed by the new residents. This is in line with the principles of PPS 1.

Questionnaire Responses.

See main comment on Site 3Thank 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

I think this proposal as outlined is ridiculous. The number of houses suggested could never be absorbed into the infrastructure around Baginton. It would degrade the environment of the area, completely change its character and swamp the current amenities. I would be quite happy to see in fill on selected sites but to suggest that any community should be expanded by more than say 50% of its existing size is grossly unfair to existing residents.

The green belt between Lillington and Cubbington.

Yes support development at Baginton

Yes, support development at Baginton

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.

Questionnaire Response:
Subject to maintaining the integrity that part of the site currently in use as a golf course, the Golf Club Committee supports the development of the "Land at Baginton". At the same time, as the holder of The English Golf Environment Award, the Club recognizes the importance of maintaining and improving the environment and the wildlife habitat on land under its control.
Within a well thought out Master Plan for this site, we believe there are benefits to the area in terms of housing, employment generative uses and leisure activities. By bringing together the land-owners of the various parts of the site, this proposal represents an opportunity to produce the required number of houses in a location where the existing infrastructure should be capable of adaptation to cope with the demands put upon it.

The area indicated in the Core Strategy would appear to be sufficiently large to sustain a mixed development as outlined in the document. However, any development should be carried out with a sympathetic view to existing local inhabitants.
If Coventry Airport is retained in some shape or form, this would surely have an impact on any new residential development. We think there should be clear indications of how the airport would operate in the future in the light of the proposed intensified development.
We support the proposal in general given its proximity to existing infrastructure and the facilities Coventry offers and it would provide a boost to the surrounding small businesses. With the nearby historical sites and nurseries, this is an opportunity to provide a well-planned, well-landscaped housing development with every effort made to make it eco-friendly and a pleasure to inhabit.

This site has good infrastructure already close by in the A46, A45 and M69. It is suitable for a sustantial allocation of housing and employment land.

With the uncertainty of Cov Airport and hopeful growth of the area economically this would be an ideal site for development.

Size of this site plus access to A46 / A45 and location in relation to potential areas of employment seem to favour this site. I am sure their are opposing factors, but I am not aware of any.

Appropriate Council Cabinet member would need to consider whether to support or oppose the proposed allocation. As the landowner this cannot be organised formally in the timescale available, although we would like to do this with further time. The Council is on the verge of a new letting of the airport and would want to support the success of this venture by ensuring that land in the close vicinity was available for business use to support its sustainability in future. The area outlined red includes Council controlled land parcels which is ear marked for uses other than residential.