Thickthorn

I object to this development at the expense of Kenilworth' green belt but suggest instead to explore a number of unused post-industrial sites in Canley and Tile Hill. I believe that developing the latter sites into attractive residential areas would be a far better solution in many respects, in particular because of their proximity to major employment centres (Birmingham, Coventry, University of Warwick).

Could both councils (Warwick & Coventry) coordinate their development strategies and conduct a feasibility study of the above suggestion?

I read WDC's new plan for green belt development for Thickthorn with dismay and would like to add my objection to what would be this damaging and costly ruination of our town.
WDC have no democratic mandate to proceed with these plans. In response to a previous consultation nearly 60% of respondents opposed development in the Green Belt yet you ignore this and offer us only options on which massive level of destruction we would prefer. Where is the explanation of the benefits to Kenilworth that wrecking the southern part of the town ?
Green belt is there for a reason, and previous WDC studies had identified areas of development that did not require this harmful removal of precious land.
Kenilworth cannot cope with 700 additional homes and 1000 + cars. It is gridlock during rush hour and most of the day up the Warwick Road and surrounding streets. There is nothing in your plans to accommodate this extra traffic load on the existing roads other than shunting traffic lights on St John's gyratory. Expecting this alone to deal with the increased traffic flow is la la land nonsense.
Nor is there evidence of how the disruption, noise and pollution will be minimised or managed while the development is underway.
It is interesting to note that the few people who support your plans on the comments forum are either those who directly financially benefit from the scheme or those who actually live in the town and therefore won't be affected.
As with HS2, even though there is overwhelming local objection, the will of the majority is being ignored. Our democracy is a sham. Where is the option for us to say "None of the above"?

5.4.3
You quote...housing densities should be considered ......in sensitive locations such as Thickthorn Manor, yet the Employment land is located all around it.!!
This is GREENBELT Land

5.4.22
Green belt land is green belt land and I'm not sure who the Joint Green belt Study group is but it is only their opinion that this greenbelt is of "relatively less quality" If this goes ahead then it should not be removed from the green belt until the project is complete, as is the case with the gateway

5.4.24
Once again the Wardens moves. It was only allowed on to the present site because its old ground was used for housing. Now once again the opportunity to get more money for a new site. Where? Has this been identified? The opportunity of moving to Green field land /greenbelt land the other side of Kenilworth that in 10 years time can be sold off for more land. Will this green belt land be of better quality than Thickthorn?

The building of 900 new unneeded homes in kenilworth. Kenilworth has remained largely unspoilt since the major development by wimpy in the 1980's. The land owners are acting purely on monetary gain especially the rugby club, who proposition themselves as the club of kenilworth, yet they propose to move with their cash to Stoneleigh after selling out and ruining a great part of kenilworth.

A development of this size is not needed

The Parish Council are concerned that insufficient attention has been paid to the impact of the proposed new development at Thickthorn, Kenilworth, on secondary traffic routes.
Leek Wootton suffers from a great deal of unnecessary through traffic, trying to avoid congestion in Kenilworth. This is caused by traffic leaving the northbound A46 early in order to avoid the Thickthorn roundabout but also, those seeking to use the "back route" around Kenilworth via Woodcote Lane, Rouncil Lane and Rounds Hill.
This presents major problems at the 'Anchor Junction', especially at peak times.

I support development which is close to A46 i.e. Thickthorn East of Kenilworth and any other development both housing and employment which has direct access to A46 and the motorway network. The obvious places to build are north of Warwick district towards the proposed Gateway development and in the direction of Gaydon where Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin have built close to the M40. The areas which will be devastated by the building of HS2 should be considered for industry and employment.
Any development south of Warwick which will have an impact on Warwick town centre should be avoided at all costs. The historic buildings are being eroded and the health of its towns people is at risk NOW from the pollution and poor air quality in the town centre. These beautiful buildings directly and indirectly provide for this town and must not be put at risk. We should be encouraging visitors to the town (what about a park and ride?) to boost the economy not providing a rat run for commuters to Birmingham, London and Coventry.

As outlined elsewhere, we have concerns that this allocation will lead to traffic congestion at a key node on the strategic highway network, adversely affecting our existing and future operations.

We also will not be able to serve this allocation effectively without reducing or withdrawing existing high-frequency bus services serving other parts of Kenilworth.

Affordability - can this be increased to 50% affordability
Also Lifetime Homes - can this be increased to 40%
There appears to be no mention throughout the document of Sustainable homes and it would be great to build all the new homes with solar panels, ground source heat pumps, insulated walls, roof spaces and double glazed throughout as a pre condition of any houses being built under this plan

1, Traffic on Glasshouse and Birches Lane is already heavy. The proposed infrastructure will not prevent increased traffic on these roads as this will be the most direct route into Kenilworth town centre. Traffic flow should be restricted to prevent roads from Glasshouse Lane becoming secondary accesses. Access and exits must focus on the spine road.
2, The density of the development appears to be high. The scale and density of the dwellings should be in keeping with the current neighbourhood.
3, The entrance to the Rugby club is not suitable for vehicular access and should be restricted to a small area of the development.
4, As the area is greenbelt at the moment any proposed development should reflect the open character of the area. It should not prejudice the open landscape character of this part of Kenilworth.
5, Existing open spaces should be maintained. The Rugby club and Kenilworth Wardens would be ideally placed to provide the open spaces proposed in the consultation document.
6, The height of proposed dwellings should be in keeping with current residential development. Therefore no buildings should exceed 2 stories. Flats and apartments will not be in keeping, all properties should be detached or semi-detached.
7, The school would be more appropriately positioned in the middle of the development to allow people the opportunity to walk rather than increasing the use of cars unnecessarily.
8, The development should be undertaken as a sustainable development. The water run-off rate must not exceed the greenfield run-off rate and should incorporate sustainable urban drainage.
9, All proposals should take into account nature conservation.
10, All existing trees and hedgerows should be protected, especially those which run along the backs of Glasshouse Lane and Birches Lane.
11, As the number of homes directly affected by the development is relatively small these homes should be treated sympathetically and only homes of a similar character placed nearby or directly behind.

1. This is green belt site and no need for employment land has been demonstrated

2. There is a massive oversupply of employment land within the area, estimated to be 20 years. Abbey Park and Stoneleigh Park are struggling to find tenants.

3. There is inadequate provision for the disposal of surface water - a major concern South of the A46. There has been flooding on several occasions in Ashow over in recent years. The newly installed inadequate system provided by WDC, already operates at maximum capacity in heavy rain and the introduction of further surface water will cause flooding

I am writing not only as one of the 'interested members of the public' who attended this week's Community Forum meeting in Kenilworth, but as Secretary for the past 20 years of Kenilworth Allotment Tenants Association.
Your briefing on the plan for Kenilworth's development was enlightening, but with such a full agenda, there was no time for any questions afterwards. My concern very briefly was that when you talked about including open space/leisure amenities for the public, there was no mention of Allotments.
In the recent survey, which Councillor Coker put to the people of Kenilworth, I understand that 85% of the respondents voted for creating more allotment land (wherever this may be allocated), so surely this request cannot be ignored. Our Town Council will verify that the allotments are held in high regard within our town, being both well managed and playing a very active role within the Kenilworth Community.
Our activities include supporting some of the Town's major events such as the Lion's Show, Kenilworth Festival and Food Fayre. We play an important part in the education of young children relating to food production and host frequent visits from local schools. We have also set up a dedicated educational plot for children, which is used by Brownies, Rainbows and the University crèche group. We have been visited by Art and photography groups. Warwick Museum have in the past run 'Wildlife Safaris' at Odibourne site during school holidays, and we have also worked with the museum to record and lay down some present day history on allotments. The Heart of England Organic Society and the Kenilworth branch of U3A have also paid us visits. We have successfully set up a new site at Beehive Hill, inclusive of facilities for disabled and wheelchair users. This 'Beehive Hill' site site is now to be put forward for inclusion in the National Gardens scheme next year. I am given to understand that there is only one other allotment site in the country who has earned this privilege. Our contribution and full inclusion of the wider public is surely illustrated by our activities, and gone are the days of an insular 'old boy in a flat cap sitting in his shed image'!
We currently have 150 on our waiting list and even by splitting most of our plots, have realized that this is just a 'short term fix'. I dare not even estimate how long the people on our waiting list will have to wait for plots, but suffice to say that a whole generation of younger families will miss out on what are the most formative years in their young children's lives which is sad when we are trying to encourage and educate the younger adults of the future on the benefits of freshly produced food, zero food air miles, and an all-round healthier lifestyle.
I look forward to your response, which I hope will give me some glimmer of hope to pass on to my hard working Committee.

I made a contribution to the consultation on the original plan. This was based mainly on the premise of the importance of the this greenbelt area for a variety of recreational purposes in addition to parts in use as a nature reserve. A lot of others clearly thought similarly. However, the planners have not agreed with the objections and the development of the Thickthorn area appears to be going ahead.
I was at the Kenilworth Forum meeting last Monday and heard about the latest plans. As a result I would like to raise a few points.
1. Mention was made at the meeting that the trees bordering Rocky Lane are to be preserved. No mention was made of the fate of the mature trees bordering Glasshouse Lane including the nature reserve at Glasshouse Spinney. Are these going to survive as a screen for the development? I believe mature trees of this age often have preservation orders.
2.The positioning of the primary school and the community facilities at the northern extremity of the site appears to be somewhat bizarre. Surely both should be at the centre of the community. Some parts of the site will be over a mile from the school. Bearing in mind that some of the pupils will be as young as 5, it is inevitable that they will be brought to school by car leading to even more congestion in the morning rush-hour. I accept that as a cost-cutting exercise the Warden's ground could easily be made into playing fields for the school and the ageing clubhouse could form the skeleton for the community centre. The development will cost millions and I would have thought the developers could contribute generously to the building of the facilities in the heart of their community. There is a lot of flat farmland in the appropriate area. The present proposed siting will only make sense if the planners are already looking ahead to a further development up to Crewe Lane in which case their positioning would then be central. I trust the double-glazing in the school will be good as there is considerable noise from the adjacent by-pass. Surely a position
nearer to Glasshouse Lane would be less stressful for both pupils and staff.
3.The planners seem to assume that most people would exit the development in a southerly direction, hence the improvements at the Thickthorn and Jet islands. I assume as well as the spine
road connecting with the Thickthorn island there will also be exit points at intervals onto Birches and Glasshouse Lanes.I guess a lot of traffic will turn right onto these roads heading to Crewe Lane and Dalehouse Lane. The exit from Knowle Hill onto Dalehouse Lane is difficult and very busy in the rush-hour already but there has been no mention of improving this junction.
4.It has been reported that the Wardens and the Rugby Club are likely to relocate to Castle Farm. When this happens there will be no sports facilities left on the eastern side of town. This would be to the disadvantage of the large number of youngsters who use them at the moment, numbers that are likely to increase immensely with the development.

I have been a playing member at Kenilworth Wardens for nearly 30 years and have witnessed considerable changes from effectively a village side to one of the top amateur cricket and football clubs in the county. I have represented Wardens at both football and cricket, indeed I was one of the founding members of the football section. I have also been involved in the upkeep of the ground for the last 10-12 years and am fully aware of the heavy use to which it is subjected.

Wardens are perhaps the largest provider of sporting facilities in Kenilworth, if not the area, covering not only junior and senior cricket, but also junior and senior football. There is now a very large membership, which, as you will see below, has expanded well beyond expectations, but the facilities have basically remained unchanged for 20 years.

The standard at which all teams at the Wardens play has also risen significantly, which in itself has a massive bearing on the required quality, availability and layout of the pitches being used.

When Wardens moved to Glasshouse Park in 1989, there were 2 cricket teams, one senior Sunday football team, no junior football and 2/3 junior cricket teams.

The facilities comfortably met the club's needs: 2 cricket squares, one artificial wicket, one senior football pitch, outfields for practice, and indoor nets.

Over the last 20 years, there has been a massive expansion of both sports.

Cricket

There are now 4 senior cricket sides on Saturday, one on Sunday, midweek cricket games, a ladies team and over 100 junior cricketers at U8 to U17 levels. We also rent out our ground to other clubs for midweek games, as well as hosting various county junior fixtures and a 3 day county 2nd XI fixture.

Cricket facilities have been improved with the addition of outdoor nets, both grass and artificial, and extra new wickets on both squares.

The standard of cricket has also risen significantly, the first team moving up from a local league to the Premier division of the Birmingham League, although currently heading the First Division. Both 3rd and 4th teams play in the Cotswold Hills League. Junior cricket is also extremely active, supported by several qualified coaches and superlative training sessions, recognised by the Warwickshire Cricket Board and the ECB as being one of the best organised in the area. Junior sides now also play in competitive matches regularly. Junior training on Friday is very busy, using all areas of the 2 outfields and the nets, as well as occasionally both squares.

This all puts pressure on the squares, and our wickets are considerably over-used every season, despite the recently added extra wickets.

90% of the players are from within a 3 mile radius of the club.

Wardens are also an accredited ECB Clubmark club.

Football

From having a single Sunday morning team, Wardens senior football now have 2 Saturday teams and 2 Sunday teams.

In addition, there are now 22 junior football teams, aged from U7 to U16 and a youth team, each with their own team manager and coach. As with the cricket, junior football training is also recognised by the FA as being one of the best organised in the area.

There is however still only one senior football pitch, with 3 junior pitches on the outfield of the 2nd cricket pitch and 3 mini pitches on the outfield of the main cricket pitch. The majority of junior teams play their home fixtures on pitches around Kenilworth. This causes much dissatisfaction amongst these members, who are paying the same subscriptions as everyone else, but are unable to make use of our own facilities.

There will also be a further 3 junior teams in 2013-14, who will be playing as Wardens teams.

80-90% of junior footballers come from within a 3 mile radius of the club, and training of all teams takes place at either the Wardens or at Kenilworth School.

Wardens are also an accredited FA Charter Standard club.

Overall

The huge expansion of sporting activity at Wardens has put considerable pressure on what are now totally inadequate facilities. The club has outgrown it's existing site well beyond the original expectations and plans. Apart from having insufficient pitches, the layout can cause major problems at the changeover period from football to cricket and back. As all junior matches are played on the cricket outfields, all afternoon football stops once the cricket season starts. And if a cricket match is played on the main square, we do not allow any football, junior or senior, to be played simultaneously on adjoining areas for safety reasons. This is a particular problem when there is a backlog of football matches caused by postponements. In addition outfields need a period of recovery before cricket can be played.

More football pitches are required to allow all our teams to play at home, and a 3rd square, set in one of the 2 outfields will help to improve the condition and standard of the main squares.

With the correct layout of pitches, and an increased number, it would be possible to allow all sports to be played at the same time, thus eliminating the end of season conflicts of interest between football and cricket.

It is estimated that the club would need the following pitches:

2 cricket squares/pitches
3rd square on one outfield
Grass and artificial nets
Artificial wicket on 2nd square

2 senior football pitches
4-6 junior/mini football pitches
Plus junior/mini pitches on cricket outfields as bad weather back-up
Training pitch (longer term)
Floodlit artificial pitch (longer term)


As a CASC, Kenilworth Wardens are extremely conscious of their duty to provide a community based club within the confines of Kenilworth. It is their objective to continue to provide sustainable top class sporting facilities in the area, but the only way they will be able to do this is if they can move to suitable new premises, large enough to accommodate an adequate number of pitches within a workable, suitable layout and with the potential for future expansion. The club and its members are justifiably proud of what has been achieved in the last 20 years, on what is a relatively speaking restrictive site. In order to remain Kenilworth's premier sports club, playing a major role in the local community and offering a high standard of sport and junior training recognised and accredited by the sports' governing bodies, such a move is essential.

General Comments

With regards to the local plan, and the Eastern Kenilworth development area in particular, it is my considered opinion that to site a school at the edge of a development, ie on Warden's existing site, rather than in the centre is far from sensible. Apart from contravening recognised planning guidelines, it would create major traffic problems, as pupils are ferried from one end of the site to the other. This is hardly a green approach, or indeed a healthy approach. A centrally located school would allow pupils to either walk or cycle easily, and would significantly alleviate any morning/evening congestion of cars coming from just one direction.

I would ask that this element of the proposal be seriously reconsidered, and redrawn following accepted planning guidelines as well as following the recommendations of the Highway Authority.

I thank you for this opportunity to respond to the proposed local plan, and hope that my aspirations for Kenilworth Wardens future and their desire to continue to offer the youth of Kenilworth a sustainable high standard of sporting facilities are given the fullest consideration.

I write as a Kenilworth resident and hence my primary interest is the Thickthorn development.

1- The proposed Thickthorn & Old Milverton sites are adjacent to one another on either side of the A46. They currently provide essential greenbelt separation between the towns of Leamington Spa & Kenilworth. If both sites are developed then this will create a continuous urban sprawl and the two towns individual identities will be lost. The situation could be eased by not developing Thickthorn but instead, building on the land between Wardens and Kenilworth Golf Club. I question though whether the majority of the electorate in either town wish these developments to happen? WDC seems to have been so preoccupied in complying with Government, landowner & developers wishes that it has lost sight of both the purpose of greenbelt legislation and its own requirement to serve its electorate. Sooner rather than later, WDC need to accept that Kenilworth cannot grow any further without losing its identity. The County's housing needs are best served by using brownfield sites in existing towns and creating a new town to the north-west of Warwick.
2- The development sites are located on either side of the A46 at its junction with the A452. Because of the A46 location, the proposed industrial & housing developments will attract interest from the entire length of the A46 corridor and hence significantly reduce its intended benefit to local residents. It will also cause road chaos!

3- Currently the A46/A452 junction cannot cope with traffic flows at peak times. The proposed developments will greatly increase traffic and will require both the re-development of the junction and a new road system in and through Kenilworth. These need to be in place before development commences in order to avoid total traffic chaos. WDC should also note that any new road system should take into account:
- the new 'school run' traffic flows once all Kenilworth secondary school education is located solely at the Keynes Lane site
- the proposed new rail station for Kenilworth which will attract commuter traffic from far & wide
- and the KTC's proposal to pedestrianise Kenilworth town centre.

4- WDC has still to acknowledge it's responsibility of care to the future residents of the proposed sites, particularly in respect of their health since being sited so close to the A46, residents & workers may experience respiration & hearing problems. No medical centre is proposed at Thickthorns but one is necessary since the two existing Kenilworth GP surgeries are unable to cope with the current demands of residents.

5- The Government asks for new developments to be self- sustainable. In the case of Thickthorn I would suggest the intended industrial section be used exclusively for this purpose and include:
- woodland sufficient to provide a locally sustainable source of wood for wood-burning stoves in the houses
- a wind farm sufficient to provide electricity for all homes
- water collection, treatment and storage plant to service the homes
- an incinerator for the disposal of waste
- a mixed, livestock, arable & horticultural farm sufficient to feed all residents
- a suitable infrastructure for the healthcare, education & recreational needs of the residents.

6- Land for self-build needs to be included in these developments. WDC propose modeling the sites on a traditional English village centre but the council has failed to recognise that English village style & character was forged not by developers but by the villagers themselves. The only way to recreate this is by providing an area offering plots for individuals to purchase & build to their own requirements. I suggest that the sites be split equally between self-build, speculative developer housing and social housing thus creating a more typical village setting.

7- No mention is made of the financial arrangements for these developments - presumably WDC wishes to abide by the Freedom of Information Act and will ensure that all transactions between the council, councillors, landowners and developers are fully declared and made available to its electorate.

PO1 - Level of Growth
Where is this predicted growth to warrant 770 new homes in Kenilworth coming from? indigenous growth within Kenilworth or is it from increasing immigration from outside the UK? a very concerning development for the future make up of the town, though one I am sure one the Council does not want to accept as it is not deemed politically correct to talk about immigration.
Leamington residents are commenting to me about the increasing Polish community there with the associated difficulties that brings.

P02 Community Infrastructure Levy
Currently we have one senior school and one sixth form in Kenilworth, 770 homes could bring another 1400 plus children requiring education to Kenilworth, will a new senior school be built? How will the sixth form be expanded to cope with the increased demand? - I understand it is already oversubscribed.

P07 - Gypsies and Travellers
I would fully support that the District does not have any sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Why is consideration being given to non tax paying groups? It would appear to me they are given more consideration than tax payers, look at the time and resource to remove them from Beausale, I am sure if I infringed planning regulations I would not be afforded the leniency they have been afforded.
What is happening with Brookside Willows caravan park outside Warwick, I see a lot has been spent by Local Authorities on this "travellers" site and it remains empty.
Why are WDC rewarding this group, look at the cost and chaos the Horse fair causes in and around Kenilworth.

P08 - Economy
What employment opportunities beyond the building of the houses does the Kenilworth development offer? I cannot see any.

P016 - Green Belt
I do not believe the Local Authorities have given any consideration to retaining the Green Belt around Kenilworth, the intention would appear to be to destroy it.

For the above reasons I would like to register my strong opposition to the above elements of this Local Plan, these are not "preferred options" for Kenilworth or it's residents.

I look forward to your response

Why have the plans for greenbelt development in North Leamington been halted but not for Kenilworth? Surely the case for either would be the same? Either both go ahead or both do not, or is the Greenbelt of Leamington considered more sacrosant than Kenilworth?

2) You mention that Leamington has received planning applications for 4000 homes hence high level of demand from developers. However you didn't mention Kenilworth receiving any planning applications. If there is no demand from developers what is the case or justification in ruining the southern part of the town? Developers are reluctant to build in Kenilworth due to the mix of social housing which lowers profitability and dampens buying interest.

3) As you may be aware Birches Lane and the surrounding area is one of the most attractive in Kenilworth. If Greenbelt has to be destroyed, it seems perverse to target 700 homes and a business park on such a lovely area. Surely it would be better to scatter developments around the periphery of the town. Take for example Archery Fields in the North, back of Princes Drive on the west, back of Rounds Hill in the east and Rouncil Lane in the South. That way at least there would be an opportunity of expansion if the case was there. With Thickthorn, it would be a pretty rotten area to live in backing on to the A46 and, as you outlined, no chance of growth.

4) You didn't really address the last question at the forum about traffic congestion but apart from the wilful destruction of greenbelt is the most contentious issue. For the Leamington/Whitnash development you outlined major transport infrastructure improvements but for Thickthorn only a road through the estate on the Thickthorn roundabout and signalisation of St John's Gyratory. In the early consultation period plans showed improving the gyratory with lane expansion and a slip road of Birches Lane but in the last plan these appeared to have been shelved. Simply putting lights there will not help and will make it worse (as the modelling shows). For people living in Farmer Ward Road and Ferndale Drive will find themselves unable to get out as traffic backs up at the end of Birches Lane. Could this please be looked at again and consideration given people living in these two roads?

5) In the new plan there is an admission that the impact of the Thickthorn development on traffic congestion in the rest of Kenilworth but you don't need to be a member of Mensa to see it will be awful. We have two supermarkets both accessed along the Warwick Road with an additional 1000+ cars in the town. There will be gridlock between the Sainsbury traffic lights and the St John's Gyratory. The new plan cannot be sound (as you put it) if the affects of the development on the wider town itself have not been fully considered. Far better road improvements must be looked at.

6) There is nothing in the new plan on how the impact of the development will be minimised during the construction. Will the road through the estate be build first so lorries and construction workers don't fill up Birches Lane day and night for years during the build.


As you point out greenbelt status should only be removed after demonstrating "exceptional circumstances". However this is exactly what hasn't been proven for Kenilworth. There is no demonstrable demand and the only small numbers of people supporting the Thickthorn development are mostly those not affected or who financially benefit from the plan (Wardens, the owner of the land that houses the horse fair and Rugby club). There have been no planning applications for Thickthorn whilst in Leamington there have been ,as Chris Elliot publicly stated planning request for 4000 homes. As this is greenfield not greenbelt there is no reason not to build 4000 south of Leamington instead of circa 3300, especially given the major infrastructure improvements made in that area. I would have a thought WDC could be subject to a legal challenge destroying greenbelt land when greenfield is available elsewhere in the district and the demand is empirically proven. The only case given for the Thickthorn development is to quote Chris at the forum "to share the pain". That is not an adequate reason to rip up greenbelt.

You say that there is a need to forward local opportunities for employment and more homes yet as stated in Strategic Transport Assessment Overview Report March 2012 Kenilworth is "essentially a dormitory town". The reason people pay higher than average house prices to live in Kenilworth is because of this reason not in spite of it. Kenilworth is already at its optimum size with secondary schooling, medical facilities, retail and sports and leisure. Only building a primary school will not deal with the increased demands on the remaining services and amenities The biggest constraint for growth however remains the roads, with one main thoroughfare (Warwick Road) for shopping etc. The changes to Thickthorn Island and St John's Gyratory will do nothing to cope with the extra burden on the rest of the town. The traffic modelling you mention does not cover this as confirmed in Phase 3 report "... More detailed consideration of the impacts of the allocation strategy on the Kenilworth area should be considered within any forthcomingstages of assessment as this has not been considered in detail within the current round of testing"

What is interesting on the St John's Gyratory improvement is that in the Draft Implementation Plan May 2012 mention is made of additional capacity on the Birches Lane approach or lane widening upto Thickthorn and again in the Strategy Transport Assessment Modelliing Results document "Increase flare on Birches approach and additional lane on northern circulatory". These necessary improvements have now been dropped and all we have now is signalisation.

I would like my comments added, though I suspect there are many others who share the same concerns. However there does appear to be a democratic deficit whereby our voices may be heard but cannot affect the decision making

1 the area under development proposals is green belt and is a haven for all sorts of wild life interests of which need to be factored into the design of the development

2 I live on the south side of Jordan Close and in common with 10 other properties enjoy the amenity of a spinney which runs along the backs of the 11 gardens
This spinney has an abundance of wild life including foxes, deer, bats, owls and a large variety of common woodland birds such as bull and goldfinches, nuthatches,,jays, green and spotted woodpeckers etc all of which nest and breed in this habitat.
This "spinney" was once an access to Thickthorn and has not been managed by its owner in the 28 years I have lived at this address. It contains a number of ancient oak trees which are the subject of preservation orders as far as I know. At the present time it is totally wild though some residents do use it as a depository for their garden trimmings. This is good for hibernators.
I believe that this habitat should be preserved and looked after and enhanced rather than destroyed or incorporated into building plots which the developers may have in their proposals. The area represents a very small part of the total development and developers should be encouraged to minimise the impact of the new build on the existing residents and their properties.

2 the area marked as "Employment land" seems excessively large and should be made smaller. On Map 6 it looks as if it will abut the gardens of properties in Thickthorn Close and I believe there must be an appropriate and effective natural barrier incorporated into the plan to protect the privacy and outlook of those properties.

3 There should be provision made for cyclists wanting to go in the direction of Leamington. Whereas there is a cycle track from Leak Wootton, via Guys Cliffe towards Warwick there is no such facility towards Leamington and cycling in that direction is very hazardous especially over the Avon river at Chesford Bridge

4 The roundabout improvement over the A46 needs to be effective in coping with the extra traffic the development will cause. This should include a filter lane for those wishing to go in the direction of Coventry, who a present are stuck behind those going straight onto Leamington

I have had the opportunity to review the outline proposal and attended the Local Forum @ the Wardens Cricket Club. My comments are as follows:

1. Building Density
I fully understand the need for the requirement to build additional housing in Kenilworth area howerver, I do not understand why the density has to be so high 700 + dwelling is a substantial development.

2. Commerical Use
I object to a portion being commerical use - we have an abundance of factory units and offices lying empty - why build more?

3. Main access.
Access to the new estate is not clear - there is no indication where the main entrance will be should the development go ahead. The entrance onto Thickthorn roundabout is mentioned but there is no statement that this will be the main artery.

4. Protection of Thickthorn Close and the Orchards.
MY MAIN CONERN IS THE PROTECTION OF THICKTHORN CLOSE PARTICULARLY THE CUL-DE-SAC WHICH RESERVES 29 THROUGHT TO 43.
There is considerable traffic on the main close as it is hence using these roads as feeder road would make the situation intolerable and particularly dangerous to the elderly residence in the road and Thickthorn Manor.

I trust that my concerns will be taken seriously and inparticular the Protection of Thickthorn Close and the Orchards.

I spent a significant time studying the documentation including a couple of the consultant's reports, attending meetings and discussing various parts of the proposed plan with several people with sensible, professional views and whose opinions I respect.

I am against the loss of amenity that the proposed Thickthorn development would incur because it will degrade seriously the visual character of this entrance to the town forever. A view of new commercial buildings on rising ground with traffic lights on the roundabout, a new road and multiple traffic lanes will look like the approach to a large city suburb rather than a small town. This is not necessary and is not acceptable.

Thickthorn developed as all housing - ie without commerce is not acceptable either. The town is already too big for its infrastructure and facilities and a huge new housing development would make it even worse for everyone than it is now.

I am horrified at the quantity of new housing proposed in Warwick district overall when the expected need is much less.

I deplore the loss of significant areas of greenbelt at Gateway and Thickthorn when alternative options are available locally elsewhere. When it is gone, it's gone forever - as they say. This is not good planning.

Dear Sir,
Kenilworth Wardens Development Needs

Kenilworth Wardens are perhaps the largest provider of sporting facilities in Kenilworth, covering not only junior and senior cricket, but also junior and senior football. We now have a very large membership, which, as you will see below, has expanded well beyond our expectations, but our facilities have basically remained unchanged for 20 years.

The standard at which all teams at the Wardens play has also risen significantly, which in itself has a massive bearing on the required quality, availability and layout of the pitches being used.

When Wardens moved to Glasshouse Park in 1989, we had 2 cricket teams, one senior Sunday football team, no junior football and 2/3 junior cricket teams.

The facilities comfortably met our needs: 2 cricket squares, one artificial wicket, one senior football pitch, outfields for practice, and indoor nets.

Over the last 20 years, there has been a massive expansion of both sports.

Cricket

There are now 4 senior cricket sides on Saturday, one on Sunday, midweek cricket games, a ladies team and over 100 junior cricketers at U8 to U17 levels. We also rent out our ground to other clubs for midweek games, as well as hosting various county junior fixtures and a 3 day county 2nd XI fixture.

Cricket facilities have been improved with the addition of outdoor nets, both grass and artificial, and extra new wickets on both squares.

The standard of cricket has also risen significantly, the first team moving up from a local league to the Premier division of the Birmingham League, although currently heading the First Division. Both 3rd and 4th teams play in the Cotswold Hills League. Junior cricket is also extremely active, supported by several qualified coaches and superlative training sessions, recognised by the Warwickshire Cricket Board and the ECB as being one of the best organised in the area. Junior sides now also play in competitive matches regularly. Junior training on Friday is very busy, using all areas of the 2 outfields and the nets, as well as occasionally both squares.

This all puts pressure on the squares, and our wickets are considerably over-used every season, despite the recently added extra wickets.

90% of the players are from within a 3 mile radius of the club.

We are also an accredited ECB Clubmark club.

Football

From having a single Sunday morning team, Wardens senior football now have 2 Saturday teams and 2 Sunday teams.

In addition, there are now 22 junior football teams, aged from U7 to U16 and a youth team, each with their own team manager and coach. As with the cricket, junior football training is also recognised by the FA as being one of the best organised in the area.

There is however still only one senior football pitch, with 3 junior pitches on the outfield of the 2nd cricket pitch and 3 mini pitches on the outfield of the main cricket pitch. The majority of junior teams play their home fixtures on pitches around Kenilworth. This causes much dissatisfaction amongst these members, who are paying the same subscriptions as everyone else, but are unable to make use of our own facilities.

We will also be welcoming a further 3 junior teams in 2013-14, who will be playing as Wardens teams.

80-90% of junior footballers come from within a 3 mile radius of the club, and training of all teams takes place at either the Wardens or at Kenilworth School.

We are also an accredited FA Charter Standard club.

Overall

The huge expansion of sporting activity at Wardens has put considerable pressure on what are now totally inadequate facilities. We have outgrown our existing site well beyond our original expectations and plans. Apart from having insufficient pitches, the layout can cause major problems at the changeover period from football to cricket and back. As all junior matches are played on the cricket outfields, all afternoon football stops once the cricket season starts. And if a cricket match is played on the main square, we do not allow any football, junior or senior, to be played simultaneously on adjoining areas for safety reasons. This is a particular problem when there is a backlog of football matches caused by postponements. In addition outfields need a period of recovery before cricket can be played.

More football pitches are required to allow all our teams to play at home, and a 3rd square, set in one of the 2 outfields will help to improve the condition and standard of the main squares.

With the correct layout of pitches, and an increased number, it would be possible to allow all sports to be played at the same time, thus eliminating the end of season conflicts of interest between football and cricket.

It is estimated that we would need the following pitches:

2 cricket squares/pitches
3rd square on one outfield
Grass and artificial nets
Artificial wicket on 2nd square

2 senior football pitches
4-6 junior/mini football pitches
Plus junior/mini pitches on cricket outfields as bad weather back-up
Training pitch (longer term)
Floodlit artificial pitch (longer term)


As a CASC, we are extremely conscious of our duty to provide a community based club within the confines of Kenilworth. It is Kenilworth Wardens' objective to continue to provide sustainable top class sporting facilities in the area, but the only way we will be able to do this is if we can move to suitable new premises, large enough to accommodate an adequate number of pitches within a workable, suitable layout and with the potential for future expansion. We are justifiably proud of what we have achieved in the last 20 years, on what is a relatively speaking restrictive site. In order to remain Kenilworth's premier sports club, playing a major role in the local community and offering a high standard of sport and junior training recognised and accredited by the sports' governing bodies, such a move is essential.

General Comments

With regards to the local plan, and the Eastern Kenilworth development area in particular, it is our considered opinion that to site a school at the edge of a development, ie on our existing site, rather than in the centre is far from sensible. Apart from contravening recognised planning guidelines, it would create major traffic problems, as pupils are ferried from one end of the site to the other. This is hardly a green approach, or indeed a healthy approach. A centrally located school would allow pupils to either walk or cycle easily, and would significantly alleviate any morning/evening congestion of cars coming from just one direction.

We would ask that this element of the proposal be seriously reconsidered, and redrawn following accepted planning guidelines as well as following the recommendations of the Highway Authority.

We thank you for this opportunity to respond to the proposed local plan, and hope that our wishes and desires to continue to offer the youth of Kenilworth a sustainable high standard of sporting facilities are given the fullest consideration.

Dear Mr Barber

Warwick Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Consultation

Thank you providing English Heritage the opportunity to comment on the Revised Development Strategy.

My response is mindful of the expectation the Warwick Local Plan enables the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF , with one of the core dimensions being the protection and enhancement of the historic environment .

This letter responds to the proposed strategic site allocations at Thickthorn, Whitnash and south of Gallows Lane, and also considers the implication of the infrastructure provision to accommodate such growth.

Thickthorn, Kenilworth

"There is the potential for significant long term negative effect on heritage as Thickthorn Manor and Stables (Grade II Listed Buildings) are adjacent to the site and a small portion of the north east of the site contains part of a Scheduled Monument (Roman settlement at Glasshouse Wood). Stoneleigh Abbey Historic Park and Garden (Grade II) is also adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, albeit separated by the A46".
(Paragraph 4.58 Warwick DC Local Plan Interim SA Report June 2013).

It is surprising that section 5.4 (Thickthorn) of the Revised Development Strategy makes no reference to the number of heritage assets directly and indirectly affected despite the above comments in the SA and similar references in the SHLAA. There appears an absence of evidence to demonstrate there has been a proper assessment establishing what it is about each of the affected heritage asset that is important; how the land/site proposed for development contributes to that significance, and; what in turn this means for the principle of development, and any future design response (mitigation).

You should note that this explicit point has been made to you in previous correspondence.

You will also appreciate that due to the former Roman occupation of the site there also needs to be an assessment of the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets (of potential national importance) will be discovered .

Without such assessments you may not be able to assert that the objectives for sustainable development have been understood and therefore cannot say whether the objectively assessed development needs of the District will be met or not in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Consequently the Plan may be considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of the NPPF and therefore unsound.

It is expected that evidence has been taken into account when considering the impact of the proposal on heritage assets, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal .

You will appreciate that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and there is a legislative expectation that special weight is paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of any affected heritage asset.

The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage Guidance October 2011) provides a robust assessment methodology to help determine the extent to which this and other strategic allocations would impact upon the significance of any affected heritage asset and how decision making and potential mitigation may respond. We strongly recommend you apply this guidance before the principle of development is determined.

www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/setting-heritage-assets/

Whitnash

I note this sizeable development is proposed at the end of Church Lane, near the historic core of Whitnash and village conservation area that includes a number of listed buildings. Has the impact been considered?

South of Gallows Lane/west of Europa Way

As this particular site to the south of Warwick clearly has the most acute and evident impact on the significance of the historic environment I will focus my response accordingly. Nevertheless you should be mindful of the cumulative impact of progressive encroachment into the rural landscape from the number of proposals via this Plan and from adhoc planning applications. The Local Plan needs to determine a coherent landscape policy.

The site to the south of Gallows Lane is adjacent to Warwick Castle Park, which is included on the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens at grade I. This encompasses Warwick Castle which is partially grade I listed and partially scheduled as an ancient monument. The setting of the park to the north-west is the historic town of Warwick. The key building of the town which dominates views from the park in that direction is the tower of St Mary's Church. The site in question lies to the east of the park and is visible in distant views from the towers of the castle and the roof of St Mary's Church tower.

The park would have spilled over into this area and is therefore a consideration for how the park as a heritage asset is experienced.

We have inspected this area, including viewing the site from the roof of St Mary's Church tower, and from within the historic park. It seems to us that there will be an impact on the setting of the park, which is a part of its significance, and that it is such that it brings the development if this site into question.

The park was bounded by a circuit drive which ran through the woodland belt on the east side of the park adjacent to the site and in places was close enough to the edge of the park to permit views out. Whilst this historic tree belt provides a degree of screening it is relatively narrow and composed mainly of deciduous trees so when leaves are shed considerably less screening is provided.

As you would expect, the park incorporates a number of viewing points including, for example, Lord Brooke's clump, with a drive running to it; and the dam over New Waters. No assessment has been made of the impact of development on these viewpoints.

It should be noted that experience has shown that even vegetative barriers or shelter belts of a depth of 50m+ may be ineffective if the objective is total screening (as opposed to baffling development), especially if predominantly deciduous species are planted (native planting likely to be requested), which will be ineffective in winter.

It should also be noted that the historic park was intended to extend beyond this boundary into this proposed development site and also that modern traffic has considerably more impact now than during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Even allowing for relatively low scale development and landscaping development is still likely to impact on the significance of the park during both day and night time. There will be increased urbanisation as the result of, amongst other matters, lighting, increased traffic and noise. Impact will be accentuated by proximity.

The implication for the sense of arrival to Warwick, the setting of the Park, the Castle and the Warwick Conservation area appears not to have been thoroughly considered; an important material consideration and therefore a serious omission. As we know, visual impact is but one contributor to the setting of a heritage asset and in focusing only on visual impact any assessment is deficient.

I repeat the point made with regard to development at Thickthorn, that you should appreciate that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and there is a legislative expectation that special weight is paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of any affected heritage asset.

The Richard Morrish Landscape study objects to the principle of development at the Asps but surprisingly not to the site south of Gallows Lane/west of Europa Way which is a similar area of land immediately to the north i.e. closer to the town. Surely the very same concerns relating to the Asps also apply to the site south of the Gallows/west of Europa Way i.e. it "...provides a historic context to the castle park. As open land it is prominent in terms of approaches to Warwick and provides a valuable setting to the town." In consequence, surely the Richard Morrish Landscape study should come to the same conclusion i.e. the development is unacceptable in principle?

Whilst the attempt to militate against harm is noted we are not confident that even if development were one field depth back, and reinforced by a narrow shelter belt it would provide a sufficient response as screening/ filtering belts of trees are seldom effective in winter, even at 100 metres depth.

The SA considers development of this site would have significant medium and long term negative effects on the landscape, the town and the historic park. This is a significant statement.

Surprisingly however it does not question the principle of development on the site due, we deduce, to the principle being established by the SHLAA. It is not clear why this should be the case as the SHLAA is a fairly crude assessment which has not fully applied the policies of the NPPF; an example being that this site conflicts with policies for the protection of heritage assets in the NPPF (impact on the setting of Grade listed Castle Park) but the SHLAA considers it to be "suitable".

The SA suggests the significant medium and long term negative effects on the landscape, the town and the historic park can be mitigated by design. However it does not clearly set out what the negative effects are (views from the Castle; approach to Warwick from the south etc.?) so one can judge whether the design response would overcome those concerns.

One would have expected that a transparent methodology such as English Heritage's Guidance on the assessment of setting published in 2011, and by English Heritage's Conservation Principles would have been undertaken and applied to explain the rationale for including this strategic allocation. As it has not there is no evident justification.

District wide transport works to facilitate future development (section 5.6)

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of proposals on the historic environment must be appreciated. An example of an indirect effect could be the infrastructure required to accommodate additional traffic movements from major new development through historic towns such as Warwick and Kenilworth which may in turn have a profound impact on historic character and significance of affected heritage assets. Such potential harm must be considered at this stage of the Plan.

The Plan proposes a number of major highway engineering interventions with the potential to have an extreme adverse impact. English Heritage is particularly concerned regarding proposals 11, 12, 13 and 24 and the subsequent substantial harm to a number of nationally significant heritage assets.

It is surprising there is no reference to the townscape/landscape implications of these proposals in either the Revised Development Strategy, or SA - a serious omission.

An increased in traffic using the A425 (Banbury Road) adjacent to Castle Park.

The consequence of further increased use of the road in terms of noise, light pollution and visual intrusions from highway paraphernalia such as signage does not appear to have been considered; again an important material consideration and therefore a serious omission.

What are the implications for the sense of arrival to Warwick? What are the implications for the setting of the Park, the Castle and the Warwick Conservation area?

In accordance with the expectations of the NPPF, how has the Plan demonstrated that it has considered the opportunities to enhance the setting of the historic town and its nationally important assets between the Toll House (at the junction of Banbury Road and Gallows Hill) and the East Gate, a stretch of road blighted by past 'dramatic' road works particularly the Caste Hill Gyratory?

A substantial increase in traffic through the south and east of the historic town will have significant implications. Is there evidence of an appropriate assessment of the consequences for the historic environment, in particular for St Nicholas Church Street?

Castle Bridge - circa 1790 schedule monument and grade II* listed building.
This is another significant heritage asset that may be affected by the cumulative impact of development in the area. The direct impact on the bridge of considerably increased traffic movements and the inevitable 'highway works' in the vicinity will affect its setting which needs to be considered and resolved at an early stage.

Is there evidence available to reassure that this historic structure actually has the capacity to accommodate a significant increase in traffic?

The Warwickshire CC Strategic Transport Assessment Overview Report 2012 recognises at para 2.2.3 the national policy context to inform its transport planning in the District, and in particular makes reference to the need to accord with the NPPF and conserve heritage assets "in a manner appropriate to their significance" . However subsequent reports in the evidence base do not appear to address this matter at all; again a significant omission.

An objective for these schemes should be that they cause little or no damage to the historic environment. This means minimising any adverse impact on the rural context of Warwick from the south and the landscape setting of the Warwick Castle and nationally important Park. It is imperative that proposals are designed with utmost care. The NPPF expects those assets of the highest level of importance, such as these, be given the highest level of protection.

How compatible are the proposals with the ambitions of the Warwick Town Centre Action Plan regarding public realm and townscape improvements? How will these proposals enhance the experience of historic Warwick?

How can the Plan reassure English Heritage that these highway schemes will protect, and where appropriate, enhance the historic environment including the setting of individual heritage assets?

The Local Plan must be absolutely clear what it expects in terms of the design execution of these schemes. I refer you to the Manual for Streets (versions 1&2) (Department for Transport, March 2007 and September 2010).

You may wish to confirm that these traffic schemes will be sensitively designed having regard to Manual for Streets, and Streets for All to ensure they are all integrated into the landscape/townscape and take the opportunity to enhance the experience of the historic environment.

I hope this comprehensive response and further constructive involvement can help you to ensure a sound Plan and in doing so secure an effective conservation of the historic environment and the delivery of sustainable development.

If there any issues you wish to clarify please do not hesitate in contacting me.

Dear Sir/Madam

We welcome the opportunity to represent the views of Kenilworth's only Secondary School in Warwick District
Council's consultation on new Local Plan. The Governors and senior leadership of the School owe a responsibility to
current and future students, and their parents to ensure that the plan properly accommodates and integrates with
the future needs of the School. Indeed the Town and its community gain significant benefits, direct and indirect, from
having a successful secondary school.

As you will be aware Kenilworth School and Sixth Form has 1750 on roll, including 1300 on the Leyes Lane site and 450
sixth form students on the Rouncil Lane site. The school has recently been judged "Outstanding" by Ofsted and has
shown year on year improvements in results that are significantly above average. The results are the best for a non-
selective state-funded school in Warwickshire. The school has for many years attracted young families to Kenilworth,
keen to ensure the best education for their children. In this way the school helps to balance the age profile of
what is an ageing population in the town. This helps create demand for housing and other facilities, drives turnover
of the housing stock and contributes significantly to the town's economy.

The school is not however without its challenges as it adjusts to a changed educational landscape where schools
are being granted increased autonomy and less support from local authorities.

Kenilworth School is the merger of 3 secondary school sites and buildings, for the most part built in the 1950/60's.
The fabric of the buildings has been maintained but is now approaching the end of its viable useful life. The buildings
do not reflect the low carbon environmental sustainability that you identify as a key part of your strategic vision
for Warwick District. The fact that it remains the merger of 3 older schools means it has duplicated spaces (Halls,
Canteens, etc.) which in most cases are no longer fit for the aggregated size of the school to function efficiently.
In addition many of the teaching spaces are too small, irregularly shaped and under equipped to support a modern
effective learning institution.

The split site nature of the school has always been a challenge despite it being a feature appreciated by the
Sixth Form Students! The split site causes duplication of roles, detracts from efficient leadership and management,
and therefore increases teaching issues and costs. In addition changes to school funding arrangements have
placed increased pressure on Kenilworth School's budget. It is a priority of the School's Governing Body to address
these issues in the short and medium term.

It is important that Kenilworth School stays at the heart of the community, both physically and psychologically, we want
the school to be a centre for activities well beyond the school day supporting sports clubs, Air Cadets training,
community groups and well as providing leisure facilities. The 11-16 curriculum and delivery needs to adapt as the
needs of pupils change, driven by employers and further education requirements. We wish to remain comprehensive
in our provision supporting all segments of our community. Post 16 our provision will remain mainly
academic complementing other provision made locally.





We are a Trust school and therefore own the property the school stands on and have control over our own
admissions policy, which we believe needs to be as wide as possible within the school's places capacity. A large
catchment area allows for choice, a comprehensive intake and a stable budget.

We have read with interest the Thickthorn element of your proposals and are generally supportive of the proposal,
subject to a number of concerns and points that are clarified below.

We are not convinced that the secondary education requirements that will arise as a result of developments have
been fully explored and considered. It is clear from the proposal that it is felt necessary to provide additional primary
places through a new primary school on Thickthorns. However there is an assumption by Warwickshire County Council
that admissions should be restricted to Kenilworth School's priority catchment area first thereby avoiding the
need for additional secondary places. We would dispute this on two grounds.

Firstly, we have yet to see the pupil projections that support this assertion (showing future primary school numbers
and their expected secondary destinations). We would like to see any assumptions about the number of Kenilworth
children who are expected to travel out of the town for their education.

Secondly WCC do not set Kenilworth's admissions policy and we like other successful schools are expected
by central government to expand our places and offer them over the widest possible geography. It would not be
prudent at the current time for the school to be restricted to a narrow intake.

Based on your projections of 3.72 pupils per school year per 100 households, it is possible to see a need for an
additional form of entry. In total this could mean nearly an additional 200 pupils will need to be accommodated.

We also note that the current Thickthorn site is Green Belt/Greenfield and is concentrated on one side of
Kenilworth potentially unbalancing the infrastructure and amenities within the town. Given that Kenilworth School will
most likely need to relocate onto a single site, either one of the current sites or a new site, we would ask that that you
enter discussions with the School as to what part the surplus brownfields site(s) might be better designated for
development than the current Green Belt/Greenfield proposal before the Local Plan is confirmed.

We believe you have quite rightly identified that the infrastructure requirements of the town need to look beyond
the immediate impact of the individual sites to the cumulative impacts. We would like to understand how you see
the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and other funding opportunities being used to support the secondary provision
in the town (i.e. the educational purposes). Aside from the need to fund new school buildings we are concerned
to understand how the transport and road infrastructure will be adjusted particularly if it we decided to re-site the
whole or part of the school. Again these seem key issues to be addressed before any plan is progressed and finalised.

As you will appreciate there is considerable work to be done before we can be definitive about the future plans
of the school. However we would be happy to share with you our current thinking.

We have significant practical and financial evidence that it is not going to be viable to maintain Kenilworth School
on 2 sites. In order to maintain current educational standards and progress forwards we will need to create
contemporary better equipped flexible learning spaces for our students within the 15 years of your plan.
The current buildings are no longer fit for their purpose.





There are two realistic alternatives:

* Relocate the whole school to Leyes Lane either by building a new sixth form, a total rebuild of the whole school or a
mixture of new and refurbished buildings. This option has the merits of siting the school at the centre of Kenilworth
and on land the school already owns, but space is restricted and the roads infrastructure may not be sufficient to
support the extra traffic. Further work is required to ensure that the sporting opportunities for Kenilworth pupils
and residents are maintained and enhanced by any proposal in this location.

* To build a new school on a new site in Kenilworth. Whilst on paper an easier exercise, in reality the need for new land
(most probably Green Belt/Greenfields), the requirements for new infrastructure and the fact it is likely to be on the
edge of the town make this a less attractive option.

Locating the school at Rouncil Lane is not currently considered a viable option with its limited current access points
and location on the edge of town. It is the most likely site to be freed by the school's relocation and does offer
an opportunity within the Local Plan to use this brownfield land for development, there are 5 acres of built area
available. We would ask you to also consider the remaining playing fields (8 acres) which are currently Green
Belt for redesignation. The inclusion of the total parcel of land in the Local Plan would raise its value, and if
sold would release funds to flow directly back to the community by part funding a new school build. This would benefit
the whole community more than the current proposals for Thickthorn and would spread the development impact across
the town and its infrastructure.

Subject to the issues raised above the Governing Body of Kenilworth School and Sixth Form are supportive of the
Development Strategy for Kenilworth. We are very conscious that if the school is to continue to provide the best
education for Kenilworth children it needs to continuously improve its curriculum, employ the best teachers and provide a modern fully equipped teaching and learning environment, which WDC is in a position to support through the Local Plan.

We are ready at any point to meet with you and discuss the proposals for the town, and how the school can support
the process.

see attached

KENILWORTH ACTION PLAN NOTES
Kenilworth lies within the jurisdiction of Warwick District Council which is required by Government to put in place a Local Plan to govern its development for the next 15 years. This plan must make provision for the amount of housing and employment land which will be required during that period and where it will be sited. The plan will not only deal with these issues but also the infrastructure and facilities that will be required to service them and how such developments will benefit and complement the area.
The plan will deal with the District as a whole and must also take into account the needs of neighbouring authorities in the sub region. Further the Plan will require to be examined and approved at a Public Enquiry by a Government Inspector. This enquiry will require robust evidence to show that what is proposed is sufficient to meet the needs of the District and its sustainability in the view of the Government or it will fail. These requirements affect all parts of the District including Kenilworth and have been borne in mind by the Town Council in drafting its Action Plan.
Kenilworth was a medieval settlement attached to the Augustinian Abbey and Castle both of which were nationally prominent until the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Civil War when the Abbey and the Castle respectively were ruined. These two historical features still govern the character of the Town in the form of the Abbey Fields and the Castle ruins and it is the Town Council's intention to ensure that the character that these features have engendered is preserved.
The population of the Town has grown over the last 50 years by something of the order of 140% but despite this it has been able to preserve the intimacy, image and character of a small market town.
Kenilworth is a Town that supports a variety of community projects including two Cricket Clubs, Rugby and association football clubs, two theatres together with numerous charitable organisations and voluntary associations together with Church communities representing a variety of faiths. Further all of our Schools are of a very good standard at all levels. All of these assets are bound in a reasonably tight community which sees the Town as an important entity which we wish to preserve.
It is with this in mind that the Council has approached the Action Plan. Our view is that the Local Plan is not only about the number of houses that will be allowed or the amount of Industrial land allotted but how these will be developed and what effect they will have on the existing structure and character of the Town.
It is our view that this development must complement and preserve that which exists. This will require infrastructure that will connect those developments to the town and complement what we have. The Plan's object should be not only to preserve current facilities but to improve them in order to provide for the new developments. It should ensure that the Town continues to enjoy improved facilities and that those existing are not degraded.
Our object is to ensure that the new developments become part of our community and thus enhance it.
Funding for many of the projects or improvements that are required could and should be financed by the large sums that will be generated by the developments that will be allowed by the Local Plan. This funding should be used to improve the Town which has attracted the development as it will be necessary to keep services and facilities at their current level for the Town and its new residents.
In relation to this Action Plan we have found it necessary to consider a number of areas in detail in the first instance and then how these will be integrated into the Plan as a whole and their effect on the adjoining areas and the infrastructure and services.
In regard to those areas which merit particular mention in our plan we have the advantage of a recent consultation which has gathered opinions from over 1800 respondents as well as comments from owners of some of the areas affected and other organisations.
The following areas and subjects amongst others will need detailed consideration:-
The Abbey Fields
The Abbey Fields is in many respects the heart of the Town and is an essential part of its history and character. As a result any development within the Fields should be viewed very critically. As an ancient monument it has protection and has for many years only seen an evolution of existing uses. It was on this basis that the swimming pool was allowed because it fell within the footprint of that which had existed since the turn of the previous century
A) Swimming Pool.

The Swimming pool has recently been renovated and is an important asset of the Town and has the advantage of an out door pool. We feel that both of these should be preserved as the main pool is well used and together with the outdoor pool provides excellent exercise facilities which can be and are used by people of all ages.

B) Children's Play Area
The Children's Play Area has been relocated onto the bowling green which has been redundant for many years. This now provides a secure area for this feature and being fenced facilitates the exclusion of dogs from the area. The existing Pavilion is in our view an important feature in the Fields and should be found an alternative use such as a shelter for the users of the play area, provided that this can be achieved without any breach of safety for the play area
C) Picnic Area
Some of the site of the Old Play area is not now needed for the new scheme and should be converted into a picnic area. This area adjacent to the Play area and the Swimming Pool will complement these facilities and also the ancient Barn which houses the Abbey Museum.
D) Tennis Courts
We propose that the existing surface of the tennis courts be replaced with a more modern self-draining surface so as to allow for greater usage of this existing facility in the interests of providing more facilities for sport and the health giving exercise that flows from it.
 
E) Performing Arts

The relocation of the Play area may also allow one of the standings formerly used by the play equipment to be used as hard standing for the Bands and other entertainments that play and appear from time to time in the Fields. This will again enhance the picnic area and other facilities in the Fields. Otherwise an alternative site should be found.

F) Car Park

The refurbishment of the car park surface is already approved but we would wish it to be included in our plan. It is important that careful drainage arrangements are made and maintained on a regular basis so as to improve the drainage in the meadow below the car park and ensure it is not made worse by any run off.

Great care must be taken to comply with the requirements of English Heritage in respect of any works to ensure no damage occurs to the Ancient Monument of the Abbey beneath this area.
It is also essential that the landscaping of the car park is dealt with sympathetically in order to preserve the character of the Fields and that in particular that any trees that are removed are replaced.

This car park is not only essential for visitors to St Nicholas Church and the Abbey Fields but also to certain local residents and businesses which have no parking facilities. In those circumstances it is essential that there is a regime of charging which makes allowance for this as otherwise there is a danger that local streets will become congested and businesses will suffer.

G) The Lime Walk

The works to the car park are also necessary for the protection of the Lime Walk and part of the plan must be the protection of the Lime Walk trees from the compaction around their roots. The compaction resulting from parking has caused damage to these important trees and already shortened their life span. The plan for this area of the Fields should provide for the replacement of the trees in the Walk during the next 20 years.

H) Annual Fair

Traditionally this has taken place on the meadow adjacent to Bridge Street. This area is within the flood plain and as such this has presented a problem from time to time. It is suggested that this problem could be alleviated on a permanent basis by relocating the fair and other similar events to the area of the fields below Abbey Hill and adjacent to Forrest Road /Borrowell Lane. The entrance from that side should be improved to allow for easier access although it should remain gated as at present to allow for control of this use.


I) Cycle Access
The Town Council wishes to encourage more cycling within the Town as this not only leads to improvement in health but also less congestion on the roads and car parks. However we feel that it
Is necessary to separate cyclists from pedestrians in the same way we would wish to see cyclists
separated from vehicular traffic where possible. As a result we would not wish the pedestrian path ways in the Abbey Fields to be used for cycling.
We would propose that as an alternative a separate cycleway be constructed which would run from the bridge in Bridge Street along the side of the Brook to the Swimming Pool and then connect to a new cycle path running along side the existing path to Brookside Avenue. This would connect the cycle paths running up Bridge Street Bridge from the University through the Fields to Borrowell Lane and thence into the Town Centre or the cycle path into the Castle Farm. This new route would avoid the barrier that Abbey Fields creates at the moment and at the same time would provide separation between pedestrians and cyclists which we believe to be essential for the enjoyment of the Fields.

Castle Farm Sports Complex

A) Extend Sports Offering

The complex together with the fields does offer a valuable benefit to the Town for exercise sport and recreation and we would wish to extend that offering as part of the plan. This would however require the acquisition of further adjacent land in order to meet those wishes.

B) Use with Sports Clubs

The Rugby Club and Wardens Cricket Club have indicated a wish to relocate from their existing sites in order to provide additional facilities for their large memberships. This is something that the Town Council would support in order to increase their facilities which are so beneficial particularly for the younger members of our community.

However, their relocation creates a double problem as there is no land for their relocation without loss of further green belt and the possible loss to the Town of their relocating elsewhere. This could be solved by them being accommodated in this area on the west side of the Town and adjacent to the Castle Farm complex. We would then have the benefit of providing an area catering for a multiplicity of sports.

With the concentration of these sporting facilities in this area there would be an opportunity to increase the cooperation that already exists for sharing pitches when available and appropriate. We would also envisage that there would be opportunities to develop joint facilities that could be used by all which might otherwise not be available or practical for a club on its own.
We would envisage that an area set aside in this way for all sports could provide a Running track and other such facilities. Further the provision of this area would leave a large area of open space. The Clubs would obviously wish to restrict access to their pitches and we think that in these circumstances it would be essential that an area around their sites should be acquired as public open space to allow for existing footpaths and general recreation. Our support for the relocations of the Clubs which are in the green belt would be on the basis that no development of their current sites would be allowed until alternative site for their relocation had been agreed and approved.



Relocation within the Green Belt

During our consultation three possible new locations were suggested for relocation of the Clubs. These were in Glasshouse Lane, Warwick Road and Castle Farm. We would only be prepared to support Castle Farm.

The other two would be unacceptable as they will be on green belt land and will present a further temptation to build on that land in the future. They would be a further incursion into the green belt in sensitive areas without defendable boundaries once opened up. The Castle Farm site however would be protected by the Castle on the west side and also by public open space which should be provided as a result of these arrangements with WDC.


C) Access

This is an important issue as the concentrated use would lead to greater use of the current access point at Fishponds Road. This could be alleviated by the use of the current access together with new access points at Farm Road and John O Gaunt Road. This would need careful planning to avoid undue nuisance from traffic congestion and could perhaps be dealt with by and in and out one way system

Open Space
A) At Thickthorn

The new development will be of a size that will require the provision of open space if it is to meet the District's own standards and also the requirements of the Garden Suburbs Policy which the District intends to apply to all developments and which in the view of the Town Council is essential.

B) Extension to Castle Farm

As mentioned previously it will be necessary to acquire additional land over and above that for use by the Sports Clubs in order to allow for the continuance of existing footpaths and general recreation.

C) Crackley Triangle

This area is not in the green belt at the present time because of we believe of an error in the last Local Plan which intended that it should be included in the Green Belt. It lies in the very sensitive Crackley Gap which is the only defence against coalescence with Coventry. Further the prospect of the development of HS2 will be a further breach of this sensitive area and will further degrade the green belt in this area.
Whilst we are aware there are proposals for its development we do not think that these are feasible because there is no viable vehicular access.
This site would be an ideal acquisition for Open Space. Adjacent to the Green Way and the Common it would be an area which could be added to the open space that the Town needs and with this use access would not cause any problem.



D) The Common

The Common is a valuable asset for the Town and should be preserved in its natural state and protected from any further incursions and any attempts to make it a more formal area resisted.
The Castle
1) Improve connection with the Town
It is essential that safe pedestrian access is made between the Castle and the Town and the Abbey Fields to avoid the separation that occurs at the present time. This could be achieved by the provision of a footpath from the main car park entrance in the direction of the town. Further the provision of a pedestrian refuge adjacent to the Ford could provide a connection to a new walk way through the Castle grounds and thus avoid the entrance way to the car park.
These proposals would provide visitors with access to the Town in one direction and would open up the Ancient Monument of the Abbey in the other. The latter would also provide visitors and residents easier access from the Castle to the beauty of the Abbey Fields which many visitors do not see because of the lack of access.
2) The Mere
The reintroduction of the ancient Mere around the Castle is a project that has been under consideration for many years and has always been supported by the Town Council. It is a project that would not only enhance the Castle but would provide a Tourist attraction not only for Kenilworth but for the District and the region. Further, it could be used to control the flooding that occurs in The Ford, Abbey Fields and the whole of the valley.
The preliminary study carried out by Warwick University Business School suggested a number of ways in which this could be developed and the uses that would be necessary to make the project viable. This required the development of a hotel or some similar development consistent with a rural setting.
Any such project would require very careful consideration bearing in mind the huge cost that is likely to be incurred and also its effects on the local area.
It is also apparent from our survey that the developments that would be required to fund this project would not be acceptable to our respondents having regard to the effect on the area around this important Monument and the developments in the green belt that would be necessary.
This is a view that the Council shares as there would be a large incursion into the green belt which would be inappropriate in the sensitive area of the Castle which is an important national Ancient Monument.
Consideration should be given to the project on the basis of the provision of a nature park surrounding the Castle ,which would protect and enhance the current uses in this area, and a mere that could be developed on a scale that was acceptable in financial terms without the need for large intrusive developments. This would provide a valuable addition to the open space within the Town together with the equally valuable drainage advantages that could be obtained from it
The Civic Centre
It has been an objective of the Town Council and the District to have a Civic Centre at Smalley Place and this was one of the objectives consulted on locally at the beginning of the refurbishment of the Town Centre and which is still in progress.

a) Theatre

There is room between Jubilee House and the Library for the provision of a Theatre which could not only provide a new home for the Talisman Theatre Company but also an occasional cinema and meeting hall. We would expect that arrangements could be made to allow the Company to have access to the Theatre in order to be able to run their normal programme and allow space in the calendar for occasional cinema and meetings when not being used as a theatre. This would enable them to have a new and modern theatre to replace their current home, which is much in need of refurbishment at a cost below its replacement costs. Further, the other uses would allow the subsidy of this project because of the alternate uses for the public good.

b) Clinic
It was the original aim when purchasing Jubilee House to re-house the PCT Clinic on the ground floor and thus provide a modern facility for the Clinic patients and the staff in place of the current facility which is in need of replacement. This has stalled because of the reorganisation of the Health Service but whatever the change in the structure of the Health Service, we assume and expect that a clinic will still be provided and as such the original resiting of the clinic in this way would be a beneficial move for all concerned and would allow for the development of the clinic site.
c) Medical services

The town has two Doctors Partnerships serving the Community, who, we believe, with extra staffing will be sufficient to serve the enlarged Community. Whilst we are sure they will wish to remain independent, the relocation of the Clinic would provide an opportunity for them to relocate to a site adjacent to the Clinic. This would give them the opportunity to share such services as are acceptable and appropriate to them. It would also enable them to provide additional services in partnership with the Clinic to the community that may not be feasible separately.

This proposal is one that the Council would support but is obviously one that would have to acceptable to the parties concerned. In this respect there would, we believe, be a case for assistance to be given by the Local Authorities and the NHS to support this proposal which would have considerable benefit to the Community and be in keeping with the present policy of using all NHS services in cooperation to increase the service available.

d) Other Uses

A business case and survey is being conducted by the District on the Civic Centre site which will no
doubt considers all of the above suggestions and others relating to the remainder of the site. We would wish to support this and remain involved as in previous efforts to reach the goal of a full Civic Centre bringing together the various services that our Community needs.

Community Facilities

The Town has the benefit of The Kenilworth Centre which has recently been taken over and is now being run by a Charity. This charity has been supported by significant funding from the Town Council for the first three years in order to give the project stability until it is able to become self funding in that period. There is no doubt that this facility is extremely important to the Community and must be preserved and its work expanded.

Adjacent to it, the Senior Citizens Club is nearing completion and it is hoped that the Club will within the next twelve months take occupation of the premises and thus release their temporary accommodation at Jubilee House. This purpose built accommodation for senior citizens will allow for an improved service to this part of our Community having regard to its situation in the centre of the Town.

The Club has always hosted other Societies and we would hope that not only would this continue but be expanded to become a centre for all older persons within the town including for instance the Waverley Day Centre. Whilst that would be a matter for the two Societies we feel that a move of this nature would enhance the facilities provided for Senior citizens as a whole and help to ensure the continued viability of this service. This new facility together with the Kenilworth Centre would thus become a hub for assistance to the community.
Abbey End
There is a plan in existence for Abbey End which accords with the Town centre Plan. This was consulted on widely in the Town and agreed upon some years ago. We would like to see the completion of this. The Shopping Area has developed well to date but unfortunately the development of the rear of the shops and restaurants that was envisaged has never been completed. This should be encouraged with the current Tenants and Owners in order to present a more pleasing and attractive aspect to the car park and encourage entrance to those businesses direct from the car park.
This in our view has become even more essential with the development of the Kenilworth Centre, The Senior Citizens Club and also the redevelopment of Wilton Court. These three important new developments provide a new opportunity to Abbey End as effectively a new street front has been created on the other side of the car park and there is an opportunity for the shopping centre to benefit from it.
Talisman Square
Similarly there is in existence a plan for the completion of Talisman Square which accords with the Town Centre Plan. We would hope to see the completion of that development as a further contribution to the refurbishment of the Town Centre.
Station Road/Warwick Road
Semi Pedestrianisation of Station Road
It was decided when the new plans for the Town Centre were adopted, that the eventual aim was to make the Warwick Road end of Station Road from the car park entrance onwards, pedestrian friendly by the use of block paving and the slowing of traffic so as to allow a mix of vehicles and pedestrians, in a manner similar to West Street in Warwick. This plan met with mixed reaction in our survey and if advanced should receive further consideration as o it feasibility
Warwick Road
It is similarly essential that we put in hand measures to make the pavements in Warwick Road more user friendly. We do not believe there is room for the pavements to be widened without the provision of a one way system which would not be acceptable. The management of the footpaths could however be improved by limiting the number of A boards which appear to proliferate year by year and there should be restrictions on their positioning. There should also be a more careful positioning of the planters, which we feel must be retained. Careful management of the footpath furniture should be used to ensure that the pavements are kept as clear as possible.
Town Centre Shop Fronts
The Kenilworth Society produced a helpful Guidance document concerning shop fronts in the Town Centre. Whilst we would not wish to incorporate this without further consideration, this is a matter which should be given detailed consideration in order to improve the street scene and to give some conformity to the main shopping centre. We would wish at a later stage to agree a similar policy for implementation for the future and as part of the guidance for new developments
Car Parking in Town Centre
The Town car parks are already well used and on many occasions are completely full. With the advent of possibly 1000 more cars at Thickthorn or on new developments, we envisage that there will be insufficient parking in the Town centre. We would wish to take advantage of the new development to increase the viability of the Town Centre and thus it is essential that not only is there easy access to the Town but also more parking provision is made available.
The location of the existing car parks does not lend themselves to multi-storey parking as they are close to residential development. In this situation we feel that the only reasonable option would be to redevelop Square West in a similar fashion to the Waitrose car park with the first floor being semi sunk so the second tier would not be a high level. This would also allow for Pay on Foot parking which we believe would encourage shoppers to stay longer.
Like wise a similar method of construction could be considered in Abbey End Car Park where it could take advantage of the gradient that exists.
The Rail Station
Re-establishment of the Station on its original site at the junction of Priory Road and Waverley Road has been a desire of the Town Council for many years and has been discussed on many occasions. Kenilworth is the largest Town in the Country without the benefit of a railway station and the addition of a further 3000 in population make the provision of a station essential. The necessary land for the provision of Platforms and car parking are in place and in the ownership of the County Council. Further, its business case for this development is strengthened by the additional development proposed by the plan and the recent announcement of government support is welcomed.
It will be necessary however, for this development to have regard for the Traffic that will be generated in this area by reopening of the station. It will also be necessary to make provision for a connection with the local bus routes and thus provide a public transport network which would bear in mind the needs of the
Town and Warwick University which could benefit from the reintroduction of this service
The Fire Station
The provision of a fire station has been established as essential for the Town and confirmed recently after careful evaluation and consultation by the WCC. However, the station is not full time and is not ideally situated in School Lane which is a narrow residential street.
The allocation of employment land at Thickthorn presents an option for the establishment of a full time Fire Station near the Thickthorn junction. This location next to the by- pass would allow for easy access to Leamington and Warwick. It is also ideally placed to serve the new proposed developments at Baginton and Stoneleigh Park and the large area of the University now situated in the County thus benefitting the whole Distinct. The Town would also benefit from having a full time station within its boundaries.
This would also allow for the development of the existing site at School Lane for housing which would be a more appropriate use for that site as well as being of benefit to the public purse.
Allotments
Beehive Hill
There are insufficient sites to meet demand as there are currently some 150/200 applicants on the waiting list. This has to some extent resulted in the more efficient use of some of the sites by offering half plots which are sufficient for most users. We feel that in these circumstances that the area allotted in Beehive Hill should be increased by a similar number of similar size plots to those now existing.
Thickthorn
If the new development proceeds consideration should be given to a provision for allotment land
Thickthorn Estate Development
This development will provide for Employment land as well as housing and facilities. It is a large area and may take several years to complete. For the benefit of the Town and also those who will come to live in this area, it is the view of the Council that this area should have a defined plan to cover all of the infrastructure and the development and that this overall plan should be a prerequisite to its removal from the green belt for this purpose.. Having regard to its size it may well be that the work will be carried out by a number of builders and in such circumstances it is so essential that there be an overall plan is put into effect. Only in this way can the Town Council's objective of preserving the Town's Character be ensured.
We are convinced that if this estate is developed in the light of an overall plan it will be a better place to live and work in as well as an asset to the Town rather than a liability. An overall plan will avoid several parts being bolted together and thus losing the atmosphere of a Garden Suburb which is the District's wish for all its developments.
Kenilworth in many respects has the character of a garden suburb not only on the private estates but in the areas of the Council accommodation with adequate space allowed for a pleasant setting for residents. We feel it is essential that this is carried on through the new developments.
The overall plan must therefore address:-
a) Road Layout
The layout of the original roads is an essential component for the proposed scheme. This should take into account the pressures that will accrue from the development use as a whole when complete. There should be a spine road through the estate which is able to cope with through traffic as well as that for the estate. This should be used to alleviate traffic through the town which is already congested by traffic using roads constructed before the increase in the use of the motor car.
This road could be used for traffic accessing the east of the Town from the Leamington direction and thus avoid the town centre. Likewise, access from the estate or from the east of the Town can also avoid the Town centre and thus ease congestion. The construction of this road should be a pre condition for commencement of work on the site as a whole in order to keep construction traffic out of the Town as the roads are too narrow and congested to bear any further burden. Bearing these requirements in mind, it should be of a width that will allow for its being a through route as well as access to the new development. Further, it should be landscaped to provide a pleasing environment and access to the town.

b) House layout
It is the stated desire of the Local Plan that all development shall be carried out on the principles of the District Council's Garden Suburbs Policy. Our desire is that the new development shall be required to be in accordance with this policy. This type of plan is essential for it to be in keeping with the character of the town which we are anxious to protect. We also wish to ensure that the new estate becomes part of the town and benefits it, as well as benefiting from it. If this can be achieved, then the number of houses which are to be constructed will be more acceptable and be accepted as less of a problem. We wish the development to compliment the character of the Town, and thus become part of it. This can be achieved only by careful planning.

c) Business layout
The positioning of the employment land is an extremely important feature of this development. At present it is shown adjacent to Warwick Road which could have a detrimental effect on this important and pleasant entrance to the town. We suggest this area to be located along the Highway boundary. This would still have the advantage of easy access to the highway junction and further it would serve as a barrier to noise from the Highway. The noise from the A46 is considerable and the employment units could form a noise barrier which would be an advantage to the proposed housing and also that which already exists in adjoining areas.

The employment land should not in our view, allow for industrial use as this would be inappropriate in this area. It should be limited to Business Park /office type use and no retail out of town shopping should be allowed or envisaged. The introduction of any out of Town shopping provision would be devastating to our small town centre.

d) Open Space
In keeping with the character of the Town and also the Garden Suburb principle, there will be a need for open spaces in an area of this magnitude and provision must be made for this so that there is an opportunity for children and adults to have room to breathe. The current District suggestion that approximately 45% of the site should be occupied by open spaces and similar uses would appear to us to be reasonable and attainable in relation to the proper development of this site.

e) School
Having regard to the number of houses suggested the provision of a primary school for the new population would appear to be essential. This should be situated on the estate and should be located so that safe access can be easily being gained on foot. Such access should be encouraged in order to promote health and also prevent additional car movements and congestion. This should form part of the overall plan. There will also be a knock on effect on the need for Secondary School places which is estimated to be over 100. This in its turn will affect Kenilworth School.

f) Community Safety

The overall plan should also allow for Community safety to be taken into account. This should not only be from the point of view of safety in relation to the construction of the buildings but also affect the lay out of the estate from the point of view of criminal activity and road safety. Whilst this is a requirement, it is frequently overlooked. We would hope that this would form a significant feature in the development of the area so as to benefit those living there in the future and the Town as a whole as part of its community.

G) Roads

Connections

The access to and egress from the development needs very careful consideration as it could cause extreme congestion. We would have thought that a new island at the Leamington Road end of the entrances road would be the preferred option. This island would allow traffic to flow more easily than a set of traffic lights.

We believe that it would also allow for a slip road to be constructed from the new development to access the A46 and thus allow a filter of traffic from the estate directly to the highway slip road without entering either this island or the main junction island. This would spread the traffic and also allow access through the estate from eastern Kenilworth without gaining access through St Johns.
Likewise the access into Dalehouse Lane /Glasshouse Lane would require another island which would provide easier access than the provision of traffic lights.
H) Routes
The estate will require a spine road and this could be used to benefit the development by separating the employment element from residential. It should also be used to spread traffic into and out of the Town as previously indicated. It will also need to be constructed in a way that reduces the speed of traffic using it for that purpose. This would hopefully be attained by its shape rather than speed humps or similar methods. It is essential that this is borne in mind in the design of the road as other wise there is a danger of excessive speeds and the danger that flows from it.

J) Rocky Lane

It has been the Councils view that development of this area should stop at Rocky Lane in order to have a clear and defensible boundary to the incursion into the green belt that this proposal makes. Further this tree lined road is an important local feature that should be retained especially as it gives access to the countryside. The preservation of Rocky Lane and its character is essential, in the view of the Town Council, as part of the conservation of the character of the area. It should be preserved and allocated as a Local Wild life Site.

K) Thickthorn Ancient Wood and Glasshouse Spinney
The wood and also the Spinney running along Glasshouse Lane and Rockey Lane are important features of the area and should also be preserved by being allocated as local Wildlife Sites. They should also be protected by a 50 metre buffer. Not only is this important from the point of view of conservation, but it will also serve to soften the effects of the proposed development and also preserve the character of the area and its charm.

L) Boundary of the Development

It has become apparent that using Rocky Lane as a boundary would not accommodate the amount of housing and employment land that would be ultimately expected for the Town and that extra land will be needed to the north of the Lane. The need for a barrier still remains however and the Council would propose that this should be in the form of a Public Open Space dedicated to the District Council along the Northern boundary of the proposed developable area. This would not only form a barrier against further encroachment to the North but provide further open space which could accommodate areas for use by Local organisations such as the Scouts.

M) Green Belt

The Council has always been concerned by the possibility of encroachment into the green belt running along the town side of the A46. Once encroachment is allowed in this area there is a danger for it to continue along the highway to the District Boundaries and thus mean coalescence with Coventry. This is particularly sensitive because the gap between the Town and Coventry in the Crackley Gap is only a field's width in places. Whilst the District is not even proposing this at this time it is felt that this danger should be emphasised in order to confirm the need for a barrier such as we suggest.

Other matters that may need to be covered further by the Plan

a) Cycling elsewhere in the Town other than Abbey Fields

The provision of cycle ways throughout the Town would be the ideal solution but it is difficult to see how these could be provided as the existing roads are mostly either inadequate or only just adequate for current use. The use of pavements for joint use by pedestrians and cyclists is not acceptable in the Town Councils view within its boundaries. However, in rural areas where there is little pedestrian traffic we could accept that this would be a reasonable proposition .The suggestion that the pavements between Kenilworth and Leamington and Leek Wotton be used on a joint basis would not seem unreasonable.

Scout & Guide Provision
B] Scouts and Guides
Provision will need to be made for the Scouts & Guides if significant changes are made to Castle Farm then they are essential. Further ideally with the extension of the Town to the east we should consider additional space for these organisation and similar groups.

C) The New Developments

These fall within the Parish of St.John's Church. The Church has indicated that it wishes to be involved and help with the provision of community facilities. We would be supportive of this offer by the Church as it already has facilities available within easy reach of the area and we would hope that this would be developed.

D) Kenilworth School and Sports College

It has become apparent from our consultation that the School is experiencing considerable difficulties as a result of being located on two separate sites and an amalgamation would be beneficial. Further, the additional demand from the new development will increase the problems it is experiencing.

It would not be possible for the Sixth Form to be relocated to Leyes Lane and it is therefore likely that the school will need to be relocated to a site where both parts can be accommodated together with the additional intake expected.

This would obviously be beneficial to the School and in view of its sport facilities and culture perhaps this would provide an opportunity to locate in the area agreed for the sports clubs
With the emphasis that is placed on Sport at the School this would give further impetus to providing a sporting area where partnerships could be formed to increase the availability of sporting facilities to all of the Clubs and an increase in the Sporting offering available to the town.
E) HS2
Although only a short section of the safeguarded area of the proposed route of High Speed is within the town boundary (from the A46 to Finham Brook) the route passing through the Crackley Gap and on to Burton Green will have a dramatic affect on the town. Only a small number of residents and the Golf Club will be directly affected but both the construction phase and the completed railway will potentially affect thousands of homes. The environment in the Crackley gap will be devastated by the diversion of the Canley Brook and will take years to recover. The Town Council remains opposed to the scheme, which will be of no benefit to the town, but is working with HS2 to attempt to mitigate the e3ffects on the town should the railway be built

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached