Publication Draft
Search representations
Results for Kenilworth Town Council search
New searchSupport
Publication Draft
Do you agree with the Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026?
Representation ID: 33908
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
We agree with the Preferred Version but do not feel that the Preferred Options implement that vision as far as Kenilworth is concerned.
Object
Publication Draft
Do you agree with the Preferred Growth Strategy for Warwick District to 2026?
Representation ID: 33909
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
We agree with the Preferred Growth Strategy but feel that again the Preferred Options do not carry out these sentiments in relation particularly to the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Kings Hill.
Object
Publication Draft
Do you agree with the Strategic Objectives for Warwick District?
Representation ID: 33910
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
Again the Strategy Objectives are a proper aim, but as far as set out in our general response we have grave doubts regarding the effects on Kenilworth.
Comment
Publication Draft
Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new employment land?
Representation ID: 33911
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
As far as Kenilworth is concerned we do not feel that Thickthorn is appropriate as it is Green Belt.
Object
Publication Draft
(iii) Land at Thickthorn, Kenilworth
Representation ID: 33912
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
We would not wish to see development of this site which is in the Green Belt. If it was to proceed a very careful and balanced planning brief would be required for the whole area before any development is allowed. Further, it should be in the THIRD stage.
Comment
Publication Draft
(iv) Land at Kings Hill, south of Green Lane, Finham
Representation ID: 33913
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
We understood that this area was for housing and would not feel that it should be in any way industrial. It is essential in any event that no development should take place thereon until such time as the developments in Coventry are complete.
Object
Publication Draft
Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for Rural Communities?
Representation ID: 33914
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
Kings Hill is a grave incursion into the Green Belt and should not be included until development is complete. We are, however, supportive of the decision not to develop in the area between the Town and Coventry and would support the Districts decision not to develop in the area of Burton Green.
Object
Publication Draft
Do you agree that the Council has identified all reasonable options for the location of new housing?
Representation ID: 33915
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
We are concerned that development is proposed in the Green Belt prior to the use of all other available land.
Support
Publication Draft
(i) Land at Former Ford Foundry, Leamington
Representation ID: 33923
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
Supports location
Comment
Publication Draft
(ii) Land at Station Approach, Leamington
Representation ID: 33924
Received: 28/09/2009
Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council
Supports location
