Town councillors have maintained their objections to plans to replace the Woodside Hotel with 55 homes.

Prior approval has already been given for the hotel to be knocked down, much to the disappointment of locals.

Kenilworth Town Council (KTC) had already objected to a second application to then redevelop the site into 43 houses and a block of 12 apartments.

And while the developer - Vistry Partnership West Midlands - has made changes to the second application, town councillors still opposed the scheme.

Councillors reiterated their view that there is no need for more houses on that side of town, and said the development would also 'decimate' the current orchard at Woodside.

“This is a strange one because they have already got permission to demolish the building," said Cllr Andrew Milton at last week's KTC planning meeting.

“I can’t see that they have taken into account any of the issues we have raised before."

He added: “I think we should be objecting.

advertisement

"I think we should be objecting for reasons of over development, impact on the land east of Kenilworth and taking away of green space.”

Members were also highly critical of a heritage statement included in the application which described the former hotel as a building of "low" local interest and historical value.

“I am shocked at the heritage statement that has been done. I was shocked at the number of times it uses the word ‘low’," said Cllr Alan Chalmers.

“I think it is appalling, given how much interest there was in the petition to save the building.

"I hope that this new crooked pub initiative is going to help preserve heritage assets.

"I am going to write to Sir Jeremy Wright and ask that we follow that up, because I think this is appalling what they are doing."

Meanwhile members also said there was little details on the proposed energy efficiency measures for the homes.

"I got the impression that there was a lot of wishy-washy wording in there," said Cllr Neil Eaton.

advertisement

"I took our original objection and the notes from the planning officer and tried to compare them, but one this is obvious is that our previous objections have not been met."

See the full application here.

Like this article? Why not subscribe to our free weekly newsletter here.