Yes

Representation ID: 100558

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Rukin

The problem with all of your SG sites is that they include bits which shouldn't be there. It is impossible to disagree with the development of employment sites on the Showground, which used to have more permanent employment buildings, but to say you like that, is to say you like the rest of it. In this respect, the consultation is fundamentally flawed.

No

Representation ID: 100650

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Rawlings

This is Green Belt land and should not be built on.

Yes

Representation ID: 100774

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Taylor

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 100832

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Collyer

Linking housing to employment options makes a lot of sense as does building near major road networks.

No

Representation ID: 101036

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

No justification for removal of land from Green Belt when there are other non-GB sites available.

No

Representation ID: 101739

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Janet Neale

Stoneleigh should be kept as an agricultural facility

Yes

Representation ID: 102030

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon HARRISON

Supportive of development at this location

No

Representation ID: 102456

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Tawna Wickenden

The size and scope of the proposed SG02 site would likely overwhelm Stoneleigh village on its outskirts and radically alter its unique village character and virtually link it to Coventry as a mere suburb. Travel to and around the site would be likely to cause further congestion. In addition, this area sits within green belt land, valuable for both its biodiversity and agricultural land.

Yes

Representation ID: 102688

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Francesca Andrews

Suitable site and better location than others as already under development and does not encroach on other existing settlements

No

Representation ID: 102689

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Easton

Again too near the green belt. 25 years is too long what about the effect of HS2 here?

Other

Representation ID: 102710

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Coventry - Finham (STW) Wastewater Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has medium capacity constraints and very high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a medium/high risk location, there is some capacity however in order to accommodate growth, infrastructure upgrades will be required and we would need to work closely to understand build timelines, in order to plan accordingly.

No

Representation ID: 102801

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Howard Easton

The destruction of the greenbelt is of grave concern.
Given that all maps fail to include the route of HS2, the impact of these plans fail to indicate the how much of Warwickshire is going to be destroyed by these myopic proposals.

Yes

Representation ID: 103085

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 103158

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jack Casey

SG02 must be retained as an employment allocation with the inclusion of site REFID80 21.48 ha of land. Stoneleigh Park is assessed in the Employment Land Study 2024 and considered the importance of this area as an existing innovation cluster. Due to the impacts of HS2 on the area changes needs to be necessitated by the expansion of this key employment area.

No

Representation ID: 103359

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

* Green belt land should NOT be allocated for housing when more suitable non-Green Belt land is available.

No

Representation ID: 103856

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ira Goldsmith

An important Green Belt area for water retention during heavy rains, which prevents downstream flooding.
The proposal blurs the boundaries between Coventry and Kenilworth and almost merges Kenilworth with Coventry - loss of individual identities.
Increase in traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, further loss of Green Belt and strain on existing infrastructure with its negative impact on health and quality of life.
A popular route used by large number of horse-riders, cyclists, and runners this will become more dangerous.

Yes

Representation ID: 104052

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

Yes as next to existing employment and good transport links

No

Representation ID: 104191

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

As this development is on green belt land, we would not support this site as a priority for development, unless there were significant steps taken to avoid or mitigate any loss of biodiversity and carbon sequestration/climate change mitigation.

Yes

Representation ID: 104298

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jean Nixon

This land includes the NAC site which is largely developed with industrial units and offices. It will include brown or grey land and is preferable to removing more green belt land. It will provide much needed jobs for the housing in the area.

No

Representation ID: 104322

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Carl Bergstrom

NO

No

Representation ID: 104387

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Rukin

I would approve of SG02 if it was simply about employment sites on the Showground. The Showground used to have far more permanent buildings, providing employment for the local population and a new entrance to the site around 'Car Park 3' on the A46 side where HS2 enters the site would potentially make this a more sustainable employment location for Kenilworth residents. I expect this site would also fulfil the new criteria of 'Grey Belt'. However, SG02 includes many Green Belt sites outside of the showground and on both sides of HS2.

No

Representation ID: 104509

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Williams

This is part of our green belt land. This land is supposed to be protected from development unless absolutely necessary - this is not the case when there are many other areas not in the green belt to build on.

Other

Representation ID: 104535

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

YES ONLY IF the development is high density, linked with public transport and active travel infrastructure.

Do not build detached homes anywhere.
Painted bicycle gutters are NOT active travel infrastructure.
A bus is a bad public transport solution.

Yes

Representation ID: 104606

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

Stop building sprawling car-dependent suburbia. You are killing people with these decisions. Cars kill people, stop making people have to get in their cars to get to places. Build high density walkable neighbourhoods with active travel infrastructure.

Paint is not cycling infrastructure.
Buses are bad public transport.
Don't build any detached houses.

No

Representation ID: 104902

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Holme

No more development in this area already heavily blighted by HS2. This is green belt land and should not be built on.

Yes

Representation ID: 104985

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms M

SG02 seems to be an appropriate strategic growth location for inclusion within the plan, EXCLUDING ECHILLS WOOD. For the following reasons:
1. Better Transport & Infrastructure Connectivity: it is already built environment and is connected to the A45, A46, M6, and M40.
2. Closer proximity to Coventry (including both Universities), Coventry Airport and Birmingham which will be of practical benefit via employment, amenities etc.
3. SG02 should have some level of commercial use/planning precedent, which could reduce delays in the approval process.
4. The woods provide important local environmental and wildlife benefits which will be of use to the development.

Yes

Representation ID: 105005

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr T .

SG02, is well-suited for strategic growth development due to its transport links, including access to the A45, A46, M6, and M40. Its close proximity to Coventry and Birmingham and both Warwick and Coventry universities, will provide valuable opportunities for employment and amenities. Existing commercial use and planning precedent for current development in the area could help streamline the approval process. I would suggest, Echills Wood, is excluded from this development area as it is essential for preserving local wildlife and environmental diversity and it would benefit residents of the development in the future.

Yes

Representation ID: 105219

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Stoneleigh Park Employment Group – SG02 – SUPPORT

Yes

Representation ID: 105550

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alexander Hargie

SG01/SG02/SG03/SG07 because of very close transport proximity to the main trunk roads A45/A46.

No

Representation ID: 106016

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Richard Bennett

As a resident of Green Lane, Finham, Coventry I object to the following proposals for the Kings Hill Development.
1) No to a Bus Gate on Green Lane. Too dangerous and close to the Primary School.
2) No to a roundabout at the bottom of Green Lane and Howes Lane. Too much ancient hedgerows and greenery are disappearing.
Also:
3) Yes to preserving our ancient hedgerows
4) Yes to keeping our trees along Green Lane. Those trees are up to and beyond 150 -200 years old.
5) Yes to a green corridor along Green Lane. There's a reason it is called Green Lane!
6) Yes to preserving Anglo-Saxon remains at the bottom of Kings Hill and Green Lane.
Furthermore:
7) Finham Parish Council wants reassurances on a child's play area, probably at the proposed bus gate site.
8) Finham Parish Council wants reassurance of the Primary School and Secondary School being built early doors.
9) The Finham Parish Council wants reassurance that the promised clinic will be in the first phase of building.
10) The Finham Parish Council wants reassurance that a new Community Centre is built.
11) The Finham Parish Council seeks clarification on what CIL/S106 monies will be made available by the developers.