Object

Representation ID: 6408

Received: 26/09/2009

Respondent: Mr D. A. Rayney

Any new development in and around Kenilworth will and can only put further strain on the already woefully inadequate infrastructure and services.

I simply cannot agree with the proposals and am totally against any and all further incursions into green belt land purely to placate the frothings of central government and their pie-in-the-sky projections of future needs.

Object

Representation ID: 6410

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs H K Gosal

Appalled at the idea that Finham primary school may have to absorb any more children than it already has.

School is already overstreteched, traffic and parking in the vicinity is already bad.

Precious green belt acts as a buffer between local authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 6415

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Ann Bush

King's Hill Site

Traffic (access to estate), congestion etc. A45 and Green Lane already heavily congested.

Safety for local people on roads and children going to school

Loss of green belt
Loss of valuable agricultural land when this is in such short supply and the country should be planning for the future.

Flooding/drainage from King's Hill including water supply

Object

Representation ID: 6416

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Alan Bush

King's Hill Site

employment - where are the jobs for the increasing population going to come from. Even after recovering from recession.

Safety for local people on roads and children going to school

Loss of green belt
Loss of valuable agricultural land when this is in such short supply and the country should be planning for the future.

Flooding/drainage from King's Hill including water supply

Object

Representation ID: 6417

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Smith

RE: Kings Hill Development

I object most strongly to the proposed development to Kings Hill!
1. This is green belt, agricultural land
2. It is totally unsuitable for proposed housing development.
3. The existing road is already difficult to use for traffic purposes. The proposed development would make it impossible for more vehicles to use Kings Hill.
4. There are no facilities for education - schools in green lane are full and cannot be extended.

Object

Representation ID: 6418

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: John Kinsella

Appalled at the use of green belt land being used for housing.

King's Hill Lane is a pleasure to walk along and appreciate the wildlife.

Development will narrow the gap between Kenilworth and Coventry.

Increased traffic on a45 a46 if development goes ahead. Minor roads are used at peak times.

Will a new access road be built to the new estate?

The present social and community infrastructure will not be enough. Schools will need to be built at the same time as the houses.

Object

Representation ID: 6419

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Upton

Objections to King's Hill:

Loss of green belt land will affect wildlife, reduce air quality and will be detrimental to the local environment.

More houses and cars will exacerbate noise and air pollution from A45.

Will lead to more traffic congestion and danger to local people.

Location is unsuitable with inadequate amenities and employment opportunities.

The use of King's Hill Lane for recreation would be lost.

Infrastructure and amenities will need to be upgraded.

Object

Representation ID: 6422

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Dennis and Marian Amphlett

Number of people: 2

Object to proposed development of 3,500 homes on King's Hill:

1. Marked reduction of green belt land between Kenilworth and Coventry.
2. Road systems - huge increas in traffic on exisiting roads.
3. Provision of new facilities / expansion of existing facilities necessary for new development will require further encroachment onto Green Belt.
4. In the present economic situation, it is doubtful that public or private funds will be able to purchase homes.
5. With the increase in population, where will people be employed?

Support

Representation ID: 6447

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

The most popular site for housing according to report on Options.

Object

Representation ID: 6476

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs S Hyndnal

Loss of greenbelt which contains historic woodlands, hedge rows, trees and ancient monuments.
Loss of rich arable farm land at a time when more food is required.
Loss of wildlife habitats, including badgers, bats and great crested newts.
Lack of supporting infrastructure to support the development. The road and rail services would be drastically overstretched as well as local schools.
Coventry has taken on an unrealistic quota of housing which is being overspill into Warwick.
Great lack of of information on this issue for Coventry residents.
Local people do not wish this development to go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 6477

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Carey

Object to King's Hill Development.

Employment - Where are the jobs for the increasing population going to come from?
Safety for local people on roads and children going to school.
Loss of Green Belt.
Loss of valuable agricultural land when this is in such short supply and the country should be planning for the future.
Loss of school playing fields - when we are tackling a growing obesity problem.

Object

Representation ID: 6478

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Miss Deborah Carey

Employment - Where are the jobs for the increasing population going to come from?
Safety for local people on roads and children going to school.
Loss of Green Belt.
Loss of valuable agricultural land when this is in such short supply and the country should be planning for the future.
Loss of school playing fields - when we are tackling a growing obesity problem.

Object

Representation ID: 6483

Received: 16/10/2009

Respondent: Jane Kinsella

Appalled at the use of green belt land being used for housing.

King's Hill Lane is a pleasure to walk along and appreciate the wildlife.

Development will narrow the gap between Kenilworth and Coventry.

Increased traffic on a45 a46 if development goes ahead. Minor roads are used at peak times.

Will a new access road be built to the new estate?

The whole idea seems ludicous and, in my opinion, completely impractical during a recession.

Object

Representation ID: 6484

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Rod Pickering

Strongly object to the proposed development on King's Hill:


Losss of farm land.
Green Belt should be sacrosanct.
No guarantee that jobs will be available for people living there.
If the area cannot attract workers, why build properties there?
Concern for visual imact buildings will have on the rural landscape.
Narrow the gap between Coventry and Kenilworth.
Traffic flow and safety of the local population will be affected.
Current infrastructure cannot cope with new population.
More litter will be generated.

Object

Representation ID: 6485

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Claire E. Clarke

Loss of ancient hedgerows around the fields that support a great diversity of mammals and birds.

Some of the best farming land in Warwickshire. Food production is critical.

King's Hill provides a leisure amenity to walkers, cyclists, horse riders and joggers and provides the only vista from the top of the hill in King's Hill Lane in the south west of Coventry.

There are two lost medieval villages which need to be investigated archaelogically.

Evidence that the hedgerows and ponds date back to the 15th century.

King's Hill has a very special landscape. The are must not be spoiled by development.

Object

Representation ID: 6487

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Miss K Boulton

Number of houses Coventry is attempting to accommodate is not based on need or market forces.

Hadd CCC not agreed to increase figure to 33,500 there would no necessity for the cross boundary extension.

Local infrastructure and facilities are inadequate to cope with additional traffic and people. Would need to be increased significantly including possible A46/A45 link road.

Loss of gap between Kenilworth and Coventry.
Loss of wildlife habitat - contrary to SCW vision.
This is good quality arable land and is too important to lose.
Known flooding problems in the area that would be aggravated.

Object

Representation ID: 6488

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

Area of ancient woodlands with abundant wildlife and large variety of flora and fauna.

Rich hedgrerows would be ripped out and trees cut down.

Loss of valuable farmland.

Designated Special Landscape Area

Many people walk around this area.

Breathing space between Kenilworth and Coventry.

Character of south Coventry would be destroyed.

Number of houses proposed is wildly excessive. Where are these people going to work?

Huge tracts of land would be needed just for the new roads, because existing roads are already choked during rush hours.

There areas of greenbelt that could be used where the environmental impact would not be so great.

Object

Representation ID: 6507

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Miss Margaret Rutter

Object to site at Kings Hill:
Kenilworth already close to Kings Hill and do not want it to become part of Greater Coventry.
Essential green belt is preserved for future generations - area is rich in wildlife and has ancient hedgerows.
Since last letter, Hilary Benn has said we will need to increase domestic crops by 20% before 2050. Also that we will need to eat locally produced food more often. Makes no sense to destroy long established working farms and fertile land.

Object

Representation ID: 6509

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs S M Jones

Object to site for Coventry overspill at Kings Hill:
Loss of green belt between Coventry and Kenilworth. Acts as lung between towns and in area of natural beauty.
Do not object to a few houses being built south side of Green Lane South, but do object to thousands which are being considered. Amount of people and vehicles drawn into area would put strain on exisiting services which are not up to scratch anyway.
Sewerage - will Severn Trent cope with increased volume? Has anyone asked them?
Crematorium - proposal for additional has already been successfully objected to by residents of Green Lane.
Schools - Finham Junior School already successfully objected to proposed expansion of their school and will do so again. Finham Park School is just about to be rebuilt to accommodate current applications. Will it have capacity for increase?
Public transportation - current bus provision is poor and additional dwellings would be unbearable load. West Midlands Transport have had to be bullied by the local residents just to get poor service.
How will loss of farmland sit with DEFRA? If British farmers to produce more food, how will this be achieved if land is built on?
Loss of employment for people with learning disability at Leasowes Nursery. Since closure of Remploy, employment opportunities for this section of public is greatly reduced already, without taking these places too.
3,000 dwellings means 6,000 more cars which means increased pollution. Whatever green space is left will contain polluted air.
No mention of school provision in strategy when children are being encouraged to walk to school, cycle or use public transport. Children from new community will be likely to need to be driven to school.
Who will offer employment when Coventry has been in decline for years before current recession? There are offices in the city centre that have never been fully occupied and at Westwood Heath the same in a rural setting.
Area covered by PCSOs recently revised to reduce officer numbers. Dwellings at Kings Hill will mean an increase in officers needed.
Development has no benefit to local community. No mention of medical facilities, shops, schools and there will probably be few green spaces as they try to cram dwellings in.
Will be removing an area people use for walks and horse riding when government is encouraging people to become more active.

Object

Representation ID: 6513

Received: 18/10/2009

Respondent: Clive Pritchard

Of extreme importance that the Green Belt separating Coventry from Kenilworth is protected.

There is no requirement for the amount of new housing that is planned.

Increase in traffic which will damage the surrounding area. This will cause extra pollution and contrary to Government efforts to reduce the use of cars.

Damage to local habitat and decimate local wildlife. Concern especially for bats and badgers.

Unemployment level in Coventry is currently high. In this climate Coventry will be unable to provide employment for another 3500 households.

Object

Representation ID: 6515

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Saward

Object to site at Kings Hill Finham - would destroy charming landscape and impact on Kenilworth.
Object to number of houses proposed at Thickthorn site and loss of green belt.
Pleased that council didn't accept findings of Nathaniel Lichfield which would have been disasterous.
Identify more derelict and empty properties which could be brought back into use and offer incentives for house sharing before precious countryside and green belt developed.

Object

Representation ID: 6517

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Fitchew

Finham could not cope with increase in traffic or local services required.

Lack of demonstrable requirement for these new dwellings when we are in a downturn and no sign of jobs returning to Coventry.

Loss of Greenbelt land when it has not been demonstrated that all available brownfield sites have been used.

Lack of public consultation with Finham residents in the lead up to the announcement of the Core Strategy.

The seemingly unbalanced and unhealthy allocation of the majority of housing to the Coventry conurbation as agreed by the CSW sub regional forum.

Tragedy to loose the rural environment around us.

Object

Representation ID: 6520

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Steve Fitchew

The retention of the greenbelt land around Kings Hill has meant that Finham has managed to retain an element of rural charm amidst its urban development.

Do not allow the area where I hold so many treasured memories to be spolit for ever for the sake of extra buildings which will never be fully occupied.

Object

Representation ID: 6528

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Julian Humphreys

Decision by CWS to set a target of less than 11,000 houses for the whole WDC area falls way below Warwickshire needs or could comfortably accommodate around such a vast area. By surrendering part of its quota to Coventry aware that Coventry does not have capacity gifts the right to dictate where Warwickshires houses will be built whilst expanding its own borders and council tax revenue.
Proposal to concentrate building in small number of large housing sites alongside existing built up areas, completely contradicts strategic objective as well as ignoring green paper 'Houses for the future:more affordable, more sustainable', to dampen down house price inflation by providing more affordable housing in areas where demand outstrips supply.
Villages and rural communities are in decline and unlikely to survive unless there is a significant move to provide affordable housing and employment opportunities needed in these affected areas. Locations proposed will only contribute to this decline. Need to promote growth around villages and market towns sympathetically and proportionate to needs and not just build for the sake of it. Cannot afford for towns and neighbouring cities to get any bigger.
Kings Hill site previously rejected due to green belt status and preservation of identity of towns like Kenilworth preventing them becoming a suburb of Coventry.
Great importance placed on natural environment yet area most at risk south of Coventry is exactly the type of land it sets out to protect.
Kings Hill not a brown field site but highly productive agricultural land, rich in wildlife and home to ancient ponds, field boundaries, woodlands and sites of historic interest. Its importance should over ride Coventry's political ambitions and strategic importance placed in its location within prescribed long term strategy to limit building along north-south corridor described by sub-regional forums vision.
Whilst vision is to provide housing to 2026, it appears unlikely that demand is now realistic since target for 3 million homes was arrived at based on extrapolation several years ago at a time of unparalleled and seemingly endless house price inflation. While it is expected that market will recover and demand will return, it is inconceivable that combination of conditions that led to 3 million figure will be reached.

Object

Representation ID: 6532

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: David R. Pritchard

King's Hill provides an essential green space between Coventry and Kenilworth. Development will :

Destroy an area rich in historical, ecological and bio-diversity.
Remove a vital amenity for walkers riders, cyclists joggers etc.
Destroy rich, productive agricultural land.
Compromise the facilities currently enjoyed in the south of the City - transport, education leisure facilities etc.
Be putting a quick profit before long term quality of living an making an undemocratic decision that is in direct conflict with the expressed will of local people.

Object

Representation ID: 6534

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs G Walton

Object to Kings Hill site:
Not convinced proposed increase in housing in this area is justified. Based on arbitary figures produced by government and undemocratic agreement between local authorities, not on need.
Not sensible or practical to plan housing up to 20 years ahead - too many unkown factors. Local authorities are using housing development as spur to local growth rather than by increase to employment.
Coventry lacks quality retail outlets and is uninspiring. Any attempt to support city centres growth by house building in adjacent areas is unsustainable - people will continue to go outside city to shiop and work. Building outside the boundary will not increase the rates generated for the city - a vital need for expansion.
Dissatisfied with consultation process.
Development on green belt is wrong. Development needs on green belt should only be considered at the stage that all other sites have been utilised. Green belt shoud not be identified in advance to prevent pressure by developers to use it prematurely in preference to more costly brown field sites.
Use of green belt at Kings Hill especially controversial because:
The gap between Kenilworth and Coventry is very small
Roads already congested by traffic to University which continues to expand and bew road to connect A46 to serve development and University would also eat into green belt.
Plan states that development would rely on Coventry's infrastructure but contains no information about expansion of this to meet additonal load. Again this is a failure of cross boundary cooperation - or a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue.
Coventry's core strategy makes reference to the lack of high quality executive housing. Large scale development proposed would reduce attractiveness of area which has this type of housing stock.
Unconvinced that Coventry has made a case that extra housing could not be built within its boundary. Allocation of land for industrial and commercial development is unrealistic, relying on optimistic forecasts for growth. This includes land at Ryton freed up by Peugeot closure and potential for windfall if Coventry Airport closes. Preferable to use this land than irreplaceable green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 6547

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Miss F. Barlow

Schools and medical services are already oversubscribed, therefore any mahor development would have to include more schools, roads, shops, medical centres and bus routes. The present infrastructure could not support any more.

The "hard" cover of buildings and tarmac would prevent the fields acting as a "soak away". The cost of insurance cover and drains would be enormous in the event of floods too. This cannot be an acceptable planning decision.

A variety of wildlife lives in and depends on Kings Hill area.

The volume of traffic in the area is already too great. Any more traffic would necessitate major road building.

Object

Representation ID: 6577

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Peter and Sarah Watson

Object to Kings Hill site:
Green Lane is a narrow busy road, usually with cars parked.
Kings Hill Lane is long, very narrow and difficult for large vehicles to negotiate - hazardous for cars, pedestrians , cyclists and horse riders.
Access to A46 not easy. Stoneleigh Road busy main route to University - junction with Kings Hill Lane very dangerous.
A46 and other roads around Stoneleigh are heavily congested with commuters, especially for University and Westwood Business Park
Kenilworth/Coventry roads unable to cope with additional traffic and resulting bottlenecks.
Primary and Secondary school on Green Lane with resulting traffic and congestion on surrounding streets. Roads could not take extra traffic generated by large housing development.
Parking already a serious problem in Green Lane, Gretna Road and surrounding roads.
Green Lane is on main bus route and at present buses have to negotiate parked cars. Problem would intensify and more passengers for buses would increase their intensity.
Land is productive farmland.
Importance of green belt in highly built-up area
Stoneleigh as a village would be in danger of losing its character - historic setting and character of buildings.
Identities of City of Coventry, Kenilworth and Leamington would be in danger of being lost as the space between them is eroded.
Unclear whether new development would be extension of Coventry boundary or a new town in Warwick District.
Unclear what form of employment is proposed and where jobs for increasing population will come from even after recovery from current recession.
Kings Hill Lane is prone to surface water and flooding.
Finham Sewage Works is situated adjacent to land with resulting smells in summer.
Building would be close to and overlooked by long elevated A46 with resulting noise and air pollution.
Schools couldn't cope with extra pupils. New schools would be needed to be built at the same time as the housing.
Likelihood of loss of school playing fields a retrograde steo when there is concern about child obesity.
No facilities for children.
Bus service limited.
No local community centre or entertainment provision.
Local shops inadequate.
A risk that a decision to allow development in green belt would result in similar decisions on other green belt sites.
Result could well be transition of Coventy into a 'supercity' through the absorbtion of Kenilworth, Bubbenhall, Stoneleigh and Baginton similar to the paralllel at Leamington and Warwick.

Object

Representation ID: 6581

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Prof & Mrs R & S E Carey

Object to Kings Hill site:
Plans were drawn up in 2005/6 when economy was buoyant. Since then serious recession resulting in loss of major manufacturing in Coventry. Will there be working population in future to occupy proposed dwellings? Unemployment in Coventry is still rising. Proposed change to immigration criteria is likely to result in lower immigration and hence lower housing growth.
Based on population density, if such development takes place, the Coventry urban area will extend to include Kenilworth.
There are insufficient schools, general practice doctors, hospitals and police to provide the required support for increased population.
Stoneleigh Road is main through route to University from motorway network. Traffic density very high on this and adjacent roads and is virtually at a standstill for at least two hours morning and evening. There have been several serious accidents on these roads. Increase in population would exacerbate the problems. The nearest railway stations are Coventry, Tile Hill and Warwick, all at least 3 miles away.
Many tenant farmers managing the local farmland are likely to lose their livelihood.
Wainbody Wood is a protected site of natural interest. Bluebell carpeted woodland is home to badgers, foxes, crested newts, owls, woodpeckers, pipistrelle bats, blue jays and at least one pair of breeding buzzards. Habitat surrounding the wood is designated conservation area with many large, established trees fully protected with TPOs. All fields are bordered by hedges which are at least 100 years old. Most of these plants, birds and animals are unlikely to remain once development begins. This would result in serious loss of delightful local resource which has taken hundreds of years to become established.
National policy needs changing to prevent damaging such green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 6625

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: A Walton

Object to Kings Hill site:
Not convinced proposed increase in housing in this area is justified. Based on arbitary figures produced by government and undemocratic agreement between local authorities, not on need.
Not sensible or practical to plan housing up to 20 years ahead - too many unkown factors. Local authorities are using housing development as spur to local growth rather than by increase to employment.
Coventry lacks quality retail outlets and is uninspiring. Any attempt to support city centres growth by house building in adjacent areas is unsustainable - people will continue to go outside city to shop and work. Building outside the boundary will not increase the rates generated for the city - a vital need for expansion.
Dissatisfied with consultation process.
Development on green belt is wrong. Development needs on green belt should only be considered at the stage that all other sites have been utilised. Green belt should not be identified in advance to prevent pressure by developers to use it prematurely in preference to more costly brown field sites.
Use of green belt at Kings Hill especially controversial because:
The gap between Kenilworth and Coventry is very small
Roads already congested by traffic to University which continues to expand and new road to connect A46 to serve development and University would also eat into green belt.
Plan states that development would rely on Coventry's infrastructure but contains no information about expansion of this to meet additonal load. Again this is a failure of cross boundary cooperation - or a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue.
Coventry's core strategy makes reference to the lack of high quality executive housing. Large scale development proposed would reduce attractiveness of area which has this type of housing stock.
Unconvinced that Coventry has made a case that extra housing could not be built within its boundary. Allocation of land for industrial and commercial development is unrealistic, relying on optimistic forecasts for growth. This includes land at Ryton freed up by Peugeot closure and potential for windfall if Coventry Airport closes. Preferable to use this land than irreplaceable green belt.