H43 - Kings Hill Lane

Object

Representation ID: 69600

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Paul Davis

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-The huge number of houses planned was not made known in appropriate time with the residents of Finham who are most affected by this proposal.
-Beautiful green land will be destroyed if this development proceeds. This area is also the source of water and home of several species.
- loss of farmland and habitat
-Increase in number of people will require improvement in roads, sewage and water removal.
-The density of population will become intolerable.

Object

Representation ID: 69605

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Jeremy Dickerson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposals has been brought forward as a rapid response to the Inspector's initial findings, it has therefore been introduced late in to the process. Rugby and North Warwickshire are less densely populated and could accommodate a greater share of Coventry's overspill. Kings Hill concentrates too many houses in one area and will dwarf neighbouring Finham. The location of the site also removes valuable green space adjacent to the City - green belt has always been protected in the past.
The plan requires considerable infrastructures to address: disturbing bat colonies; flooding; water contamination; drainage issues; archaeology; ancient woodlands,trees and hedgerows; the network of pipes under the site. there has been no in depth ecological study in to the site. Further, Wainbody Wood should be excluded from the site. The proposals will lead to loss of farmland and will increase the carbon footprint. The Alvis sports ground should be protected. Access would need to be from roads that are already congested. Local schools are already at capacity. So where is the infrastructure to support 4000 homes

Object

Representation ID: 69858

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs J Mackenzie

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Allocations contrary to NPPF requirement to maintain separation, prevent coalescence
Numbers based on Coventry requirements not approved in local plan, revised before 2017?
No critical examination of claims that land unavailable -areas of Coventry green belt could be developed with less impact
Provision of land to meet Coventry's overspill contrary to NPPF - require sub-regional SA to be valid
How do proposals fit with neighbouring development
No consultation undertaken with parish councils before decisions made
MoU providing additional housing for Combined Authority circumvents democratic process, NPPF
Impact of proposals at Thickthorn and Kings Hill next to over-capacity A46 not considered

Object

Representation ID: 69891

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Tony Pickard

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to allocation: -
- kneejerk reaction to previous failings
- loss of agricultural land
- loss of green belt
- more appropriate areas of green belt elsewhere in the sub-region could accept overspill
- high performing area
- significant investment in local road network would be required
- adverse impact on wildlife
- land prone to flooding
- adverse impact on landscape and environment
- adverse impact on heritage amenity
- constraints e.g. pipelines
- no justification for other uses if housing required

Object

Representation ID: 69935

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Clarification should be made in regards to the intended future of the sports club site (Alvis) at Kings Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 69951

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Robert James Bannister

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-Finham residents haven't receive any notice via Coventry press or WDC.
-Many houses in one area will completely ruin Finham.
-Placing houses against Coventry borders will remove green spaces and greenbelt between the authorities.
-It is not effective as the lower area of green lane will have a flood risk.
- potential adverse impact on Alvis sports ground
- overspill development should not be located exclusively in Finham

Object

Representation ID: 69993

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Local Plan Site Allocations Historic Environment Assessment Statement 2015 demonstrates the likely harm that would be caused by future development to the significance of the Kings Hill Deserted Mediaeval Village (Scheduled Monument) unless an informed strategic design response is pursued.

Historic England recommends that the Local Plan include specific reference to the effected heritage assets within the site and the necessary strategic design response to mitigate/avoid harm.

Object

Representation ID: 70004

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Sustainability Appraisal has assessed this site allocation on the assumption that Wainbody Wood & Stivichall Common LNR, Finham Brook and the onsite ponds will be protected from harm. Modification 14 to Policy DS15 does not list their protection and enhancement as key infrastructure that should be provided within the Development Brief or Layout and Design Statement.

Object

Representation ID: 70036

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Housing numbers not justified. Support Bishops Tachbrook PC in figures analysis.
Land with high landscape value, and 'best and most versatile' agricultural land was avoided. Modification sites not selected in same way.
Particularly relevant to Kings Hill - considered previously, rejected on green belt grounds.
Many allocated sites in unsustainable locations, away from town centre facilities, without infrastructure. Proposals allowing residents to travel by non- car means very weak. Creates more vehicle journeys with adverse impact on air pollution. Emphasis should be on high quality sustainable transport links to all development sites, including public transport, walking, cycling.

Support

Representation ID: 70065

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Stagecoach

Stagecoach supports the proposed modification allocating this site.
This site is likely to represent among the best choices when all reasonable options are considered. Proximity to the Gateway site, JLR Whitley and the University/Westwood, and potential connectivity towards such development that might occur at Stoneleigh represents a location advantage that suggests sustainable modes.

A great deal of work to be done to ensure that the transport and traffic impacts of this development, both within the Plan period and beyond, are appropriately provided for.

Effective provision will need to be made cross-boundary,

Support for the identification of a secondary school site within the allocation

Support

Representation ID: 70285

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Lioncourt Strategic Land - Andy Faizey

Agent: Savills

SUPPORT the allocation of additional land for housing at Kings Hill and associated amendment to the Urban Area Boundary (Site Ref: H43).
SUPPORT the removal of land from the Green Belt at Kings Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 70303

Received: 23/04/2016

Respondent: Hazel and Robin Fryer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The removal of a large area of the Green Belt in WDLP, Area H43 is unjustified because it is far in excess of any land required for 1,800 Coventry overspill housing and contravenes the NPPF requirement to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' for use of Green Belt land for development. Coventry's refusal to consider building on land in the Meriden Gap should be challenged by WDC as this Green Belt land has no more value or legal protection than the Kings Hill or Baginton Green Belt land