Object

Representation ID: 4815

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Nigel Warden

Object to Kings Hill site.
Green belt land easy option to develop and is effectively giving developers green light if earmarked.

Object

Representation ID: 4818

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Nigel Warden

Green belt precious commodity and should be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 4844

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

Green belt is precious and should be preserved

Object

Representation ID: 4896

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

The Tachbrook should be re-designated as a Strategic River Corridor

Object

Representation ID: 4939

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sukhjeet and Uinkar Dhillon

Object to sites in Harbury Lane and Whitnash area:
If development goes ahead there will be little or no green buffer between Warwick Gates and Bishops Tachbrook, just an urban sprawl. There is no green buffer between Warwick and Whitnash.

Object

Representation ID: 4944

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Lynn Morrison

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt would lead to Kenilworth eventually merging with Coventry.
Once built, farming land lost forever.

Object

Representation ID: 4952

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs A M Sills

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt gap between Coventry and Kenilworth
Loss of valuable agricultural land when in short supply and needed for future
Loss of school playing fields.

Object

Representation ID: 4957

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: H Round

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt gap between Coventry and Kenilworth
Loss of valuable agricultural land which is in short supply and will be needed in future
Designated special landscape on Kings Hill
Badger population - protected species and plenty of other wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 4964

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Richard Monday

Object to Thickthorn site:
Green belt should be sacrosanct.

Object

Representation ID: 4969

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Angela Murray

Object to Kings Hill site:
Will destroy farmland currently used to produce food crops
Will destroy wildlife habitats - badger setts on Kings Hill
Will destroy green gap at the perimeter of city bringing Coventry closer to Kenilworth and Stoneleigh making one urban sprawl affecting three established and separate communities.
Development would destroy attractiveness of existing area contrary to Coventry, Solihull & Warwickshire Sub Regional Economic Development Strategy 2008 - 2026.

Object

Representation ID: 4977

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Richard J Bennett

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt and good farming land and will destroy all wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 4980

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs H Wilson

Object to Kings Hill site:
Need for farming land to grow food.
Wildlife will suffer; buzzards, badgers, foxes and birds.
Loss of green belt reduces gap between Kenilworth and Coventry.
May be other vacant land available without developing green field site and good agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 4983

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Susan Pickering

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt, farmland, pasture and wildlife. Loss of school playing fields. Impact on landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 4995

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs P E Hunt

Object to sites at Bishops Tachbrook/Warwick Gates:
Green belt was considered of great importance but this has no meaning now.
Removing trees, hedges and building on open spaces increases effects of global warming.

Support

Representation ID: 5010

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

Qualified YES _ Generally insufficient importance is given to conserving and enhancing the biodiversity. There appears to be no recognition of the vital role that biodiversity can play in helping urban areas to adapt to climate change, nor of the role the countryside should play in energy generation. Green infrastructure role should be acknowledged.

Object

Representation ID: 5014

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Misses PK and EM Kennedy

Object to sites south of Harbury Lane and
Ignoring health, wellbeing and environment of community and ecological balance of wildlife. Increased pollution, traffic problems, destruction of rural and green field sites. Loss of unique characteristics and identity of villages and areas affected by development.

Object

Representation ID: 5018

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Stuart Morrison

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt and farming land would eventually lead to Kenilworth merging with Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 5027

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Stella Saad

Object to 8,100 new homes in Warwick area and specifically those planned for area west of Europa Way:
Area of restraint at time of planning Warwick Technology Park as green buffer zone to separate Warwick and Leamington.

.

Object

Representation ID: 5035

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: FGM Butcher

Object to Thickthorn site:
Green belt and should stay as such.
Should be kept for agricultural and sports use as now.

Object

Representation ID: 5040

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs MH Godsmark

Object to Kings Hill site:
Will destroy farmland and wildlife and will reduce gap between Coventry and Kenilworth.
Object to development on green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 5077

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Keylock

The Finham proposal fails on the below counts;
Vast areas of green belt loss, Vast areas of farmland loss, Flooding / drainage issues adjacent to Green Lane, loss of ancient hedgerows,trees ponds containing buzzards,owls,crested newts etc.This area has previously already been deemed an area of natural beauty by a building inspectorate

Object

Representation ID: 5079

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Dr Neville Hunt

Object to Kings Hill site:
Irreversible loss of green belt - easy option. No immediate need to build on green belt when Coventry City identified sites for around 20,000 new homes on urban or brownfield sites. Resist govt. policy and refuse to allow building on prime green belt land.
Discard proposed housing development at Kings Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 5150

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs ME Shaw

Object to sites south of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington:
Loss of valuable agricultural land at a time when it is needed to grow more food.

Object

Representation ID: 5170

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

You have a good policy, but its obviously worthless as the Council is happy to amend it to meet mass development plans.

Object

Representation ID: 5234

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sonia Owczarek

Absolutely not. The Council seem happy to destroy habitat and build on Green Belt. How can this be protecting the natural environment.

Object

Representation ID: 5251

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: MS Judith Bennett

Object to Kings Hill site:
Understanding that green belt land is protected from development to prevent towns and cities joining up and forming large conurbations. This will happen if this development goes ahead.
Beautiful view across farmland will be destroyed together with wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 5263

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: RL & M Davies

Object to Kings Hill site:
Too many green spaces being replaced with new developments. Should try preserving environnmentally sensitive lands for future generations.
Consideration should be given to wildlife, ponds, trees that would be lost.
Main considerations are impact on countryside, SINC, landscape character and inpact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Site of Importance for Nature Conservation - Development within this area should only be permissible if it can be demonstrated that the need for development outweights the impact on the site's wildlife interest. If it does not comply with the relevant countryside policies it would therefore be unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 5269

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

I do not think you are controlling new development at all.

Object

Representation ID: 5275

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: Mr A Emerson

Object to Kings Hill site:
Do not wish to see green belt/farmland destroyed in favour of housing that is not required but is being forced upon us by MPs.
Do not want wildlife destroyed - badgers, deer, foxes, woodpeckers etc all at risk.

Support

Representation ID: 5309

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

A compromise needs to be found whereby restrictions are applied to Areas of Restraint sensitively with real consideration of the real needs and impacts of individual cases.