Publication Draft

Support

Representation ID: 7063

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

Prevailing local and national conditions mean that a no change option cannot be realistically argued. For this reason we accept that there may be a case for future development of the Thickthorn site providing, and only providing, that priority is given to an economic strategy based on Kenilworth's unique proximity to the University of Warwick. It is anticipated that this economic strategy will help define the optimal balance of employment and housing land on the Thickthorn site. Any attempt to ignore or devalue this provision can only endanger the distinct identity and the sustainable evolution of Kenilworth.

Comment

Representation ID: 7064

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

We note that a significant amount of industrial land is being or has already been converted to housing in Kenilworth. It is assumed that if the core strategy is adopted then the balance of residential to industrial land in Kenilworth will restored in the allocations on the newly designated development sites. It this is not done then there is a real chance that Kenilworth evolves as dormitory town with all that implies for the district carbon footprint.

Object

Representation ID: 7065

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

Kenilworth is ideally positioned to take advantage of its close proximity to the regional and national economic hub represented by the University of Warwick. We believe this advantage has been underplayed in developing local employment opportunities. For instance we are well positioned to accommodate spin out companies from the university in a similar fashion to the economic competitive advantage which has been realized by Cambridge through the deployment local land and the economic potential generated by a world class University.

Comment

Representation ID: 7066

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

It is critical that the unique identity (of Kenilworth) and quality of local services is not squandered. Strongly believe that the town cannot accommodate more than 800 new dwellings. More than this will be to the severe detriment of the heritage assets of the town, its community and its infrastructure. Any further development of Kenilworth must be preceded by an impact assessment on the infrastructure and services needed by the community e.g. education, health, transport, road links and community facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 7067

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

There is an acute shortage of affordable housing for young people which is vital for the maintenance and development of good community

Comment

Representation ID: 7068

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

If Kenilworth is to evolve as a sustainable community minimizing its carbon footprint it is vital that new local employment opportunities are found.

Comment

Representation ID: 7069

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

Pleased that any major new development in Kenilworth will be sited away from the heritage and major green assets of the Town. However, it worth pointing out that despite facilities like Abbey Fields, the average green space per person in the town will still be less than its neighbors.

Comment

Representation ID: 7070

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

Pleased that any major new development in Kenilworth will be sited away from the heritage and major green assets of the Town. However, it worth pointing out that despite facilities like Abbey Fields, the average green space per person in the town will still be less than its neighbors.

Comment

Representation ID: 7071

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

While the Princes Drive Estate is well served by public transport, access for deliveries by large lorries is difficult particularly as the Common Lane railway bridge is not easy to negotiate. An industrial area in Thickthorn will provide a more accessible and coherent venue for modern industrial use. Such relocation would mean that the Princes Drive site would be available for redevelopment for housing and reduce the proposed incursion into the greenbelt in the Thickthorn area.

Object

Representation ID: 7072

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

Regard the expansion and incursion of Coventry of land adjoining Finham to represent serious threat to future balanced development and identity of Kenilworth:
Given proximity of Finham and excellence of Kenilworth services (e.g. schools) is inevitable that this development will impact on infrastructure, transport and health provision in the town.
Dangers of coalescence with Coventry threatens the distinctive identity of Kenilworth
Capacity of connecting road systems , the A46 and A429, may well be overwhelmed to detriment of both locations.

Hence we strongly oppose such development. For similar reasons we do not support the development of the area between Kenilworth and Leamington.