Object

Representation ID: 5363

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

No detail is provided in the Core Strategy Preferred Options Paper

Object

Representation ID: 5415

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

The Kings Hill proposal will damage the Natural Environment.

Support

Representation ID: 5455

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

I am assuming that recreation land referred to in §17.1 does not include thing like sports facilities. Where are they covered in the context of their "open spaces".

Object

Representation ID: 5489

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Preferred Option should acknowledge the importance of urban gardens to wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 5502

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr John Kirkman

Environmental cost to Kings Hill - loss of farmland at a time when oil prices show volatility. Transporting food will not be an option - need to grow food close to market. Building on city fringes will reduce ability to do this. Loss of beautiful landscape for future generations - cannot be restored. Wildlife will have less space.

Object

Representation ID: 5506

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: V Strong

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt land and wildlife Precious little green open space inside Coventry now, taking green belt from around the city would reduce 'lungs' and diminish air quality. There are ancient hedgerows dating back to 1500 on land. Along with loss of green belt and agricultural land, there is loss of wildlife. Continuous loss of habitat is pushing too many species to extinction and the eco-balance is further upset.
Loss of farm land - food prices rising and world food crisis. Our food has to be imported , even that traditionally grown here, as production capacity per head of population is extremely low, yet we have some of the best farmland in the world. Land is built on and farmers paid minimum prices. Brown field sites can be reused but once greenbelt/farmland built on, it cannot be recovered.

Support

Representation ID: 5548

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5553

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joyce Reynolds

Object to Kings Hill site:
Area well used with productive agricultural land within ancient hedgerows and mature trees. 27 ponds support variety of wildlife and there are two plant nurseries providing jobs for those who find entry into other employment too challenging.

Object

Representation ID: 5592

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Newell

Object to Kings Hill site:
Green belt land will be destroyed - objectives are: protect natural or semi natural environments; improve air quality within urban areas; ensure that urban dwellers have access to countryside with consequent educational and recreational opportunities and protect the unique character of rural communities which might otherwise be absorbed by expanding suburbs.
Green belt has many benefits: walking, camping, and biking areas close to cities and towns; habitat for wild plants, animal and wildlife; cleaner air and water; better land use of areas bordering cities.
Precedent: Allowing development or building on the green belt would allow similar decision to be made on protected green belt areas. Will be gradual but definite erosion of irreplaceable resource.
Environment: At a time when world focussed on saving precious resources, WDC or Coventry will be communicating to the world its policy on the environment is to destroy, not maintain, decreasing resources such as these.

Object

Representation ID: 5594

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: George Martin

I strongly support retention of the green belt and indeed their selective expansion. Policies should also be linked to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act

Object

Representation ID: 5602

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Roger and Julia Graham

Object to Kings Hill site:
Loss of green belt and farmland and the subsequent consequences that would bring to wildlife. We should be protecting areas of grassland and trees not destroying them. This area also provides definition between Coventry and Kenilworth which people will be sad to see disappear.

Object

Representation ID: 5607

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Duncan Gowing

Unacceptable to develop open land - Will irrevocably destroy protected green belt. Will wipe out county wildlife - birds, mammals including field mice, foxes, badgers and foxes. Will remove good quality farming land when there is nationally recognised shortage.

Object

Representation ID: 5636

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Zoe Rycroft

Object to
Land at Lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane
Land South of Sydenham and east of Whitnash
Land at Woodside Farm, north of Harbury Lane
Land west of Europa Way, Warwick
Remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations.

Support

Representation ID: 5677

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5727

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Warren

Protecting the natural environment is surely the most important priority.

Support

Representation ID: 5787

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

Allotments across the district are home to diverse groups of flora and fauna along with providing a habitat for a great variety of birds, animals and reptiles including the protected Great Crested Newt and the national rarity Warwickshire Drooper Plum. May I once again remind WDC of the massive importance in maintaining green belt land between Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth and I support the decision to remove it from the Options for Growth.

Object

Representation ID: 5828

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Alison Cox

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 5866

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5944

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

But should include villages.

Object

Representation ID: 5963

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Nicholas Solman

Object to Kings Hill site:
Kings Hill is spot of real natural beauty that cannot be ignored - don't take that away.

Object

Representation ID: 5970

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Lisa Hartill

Object to sites south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash:
Areas of restraint put in place when Warwick Gates was built to protect area from over development. Situation hasn't changed, Whitnash still needs protecting. Why are these areas to be developed first and not last?
No consideration to maintaining individuality of Warwick and Leamington or Warwick and Whitnash. What about maintaining the green field areas between Leamington and Bishops Tachbrook? Will Bishops Tachbrook eventually merge with Leamington post 2026?
At Woodside Farm, houses were proposed but refused in 2007 due to the quality of agricultural land - can this now be ignored?

Object

Representation ID: 6013

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

How can you defend maintaing these designated rural areas, but at the same time modify some of the boundaries to fit the current plan.

Support

Representation ID: 6046

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6094

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6102

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Graham and Gail Clews

Object to Kings Hill site:
Green belt - shortage in Coventry and should be kept as it is for as long as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 6109

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Alan John Trinder

Object to Kings Hill site:
Grave reservations about loss of green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 6116

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Stephen Trinder

Object to Kings Hill site:
This would irreparably damage lovely countryside that provides green lung for city and would lead to merging of Coventry and Kenilworth.
Do not believe it to be in the best interests of people of Warwickshire and Coventry for the green belt to be obliterated.
Green belt between Coventry and Kenilworth will be reduced to a few hundred yards in places.
Great pressure put on wildlife haven of Wainbody Wood and designed local Nature Reserve and part of diminishing ancient woodland - flytipping and motorcycle riding through the wood, vandalism and criminal damage. This wood is one of Coventry's finest natural assets and despite any buffer zone around the wood, it is likely grave damage would be caused.
Would cause destruction of special landscape quality.
Would boost damaging proposals for southern relief road on attractive and arable land. Noise would be considerable.

Object

Representation ID: 6122

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: N G Fletcher

Object to Kings Hill site:
Green belt land should be protected at all costs and so called brown sites should be looked at first, which does not seem to be the case.

Object

Representation ID: 6147

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Angela Fryer

Object to Kings Hill site:
Would create urban sprawl joining Coventry, Kenilworth and Stoneleigh. Individual character would be destroyed.
Kings Hill good farm land which will become vital resource in future. Green agenda should protect green belt and encourage local growing to cut down on transportation.This development would destroy air quality and make mockery of green policy
Strategy should uphold Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Biodiversity Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6173

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Green

Object to Kings Hill site:
Against all environmental concerns to cover green belt land that provides a civilised buffer between towns and cities, in this case, Coventry and Kenilworth.
Not a NIMBY opinion, but genuine concern to protect attractive environment that everyone needs close to urban areas.