nuneaton and bedworth · web view1.1this statement is the ‘consultation statement’ for the...

HSG7 Concept Plan Supplementary Planning

Document (SPD)Consultation Statement

April 2020

1

HSG7 Concept Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Consultation Statement

1. Introduction

1.1 This statement is the ‘Consultation Statement’ for the HSG7 Concept Plan

SPD as required by the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)

(England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). This statement sets out how the

public and other stakeholders were consulted on the SPD, key issues raised

by stakeholders in relation to the SPD and the Council’s responses to those

issues.

2. Background

2.1 The HSG7 Concept Plan SPD provides supplementary guidance to Borough

Plan Policy HSG7 – East of Bulkington. Paragraph 7.6 of the adopted

Borough Plan states that detailed site concept plans will be created for

housing and employment sites and adopted as supplementary planning

documents to sit alongside the Borough Plan. The HSG7 Concept Plan will

therefore help ensure co-ordinated delivery of the allocation and associated

infrastructure. The Concept Plan provides a visual representation of policy

requirements to inform the detailed masterplan to be submitted at the

planning application stage. The Concept Plan therefore shows proposed

locations for residential development, vehicular access points, walking and

cycling routes, landscaping and other key infrastructure.

2.2 The Concept Plan also provides information on the site’s context including the

surrounding area, views, landscape, habitat and biodiversity, highways and

transport, local facilities, heritage, environment and utilities.

2

3. Public consultation

3.1 The draft HSG7 Concept Plan SPD was approved for public consultation by

the Council’s Cabinet Member on 27th September 2019. Public consultation

was held from 14th October 2019 to 9th December 2019. All consultees on the

Council’s consultation database were notified of the consultation including

statutory consultees (such as adjoining Local Authorities), and other

consultees (such as individuals, developers and community groups).

3.2 Hard copies of the Draft SPD were made available at Nuneaton Town Hall

and the Bedworth Area Office. A press release was issued, the consultation

was posted on the Council’s Facebook and Twitter accounts and all

information was held on the Council’s dedicated SPD consultation webpage.

3.3 A number of drop in sessions were also held:

Nuneaton Academy: 16 October 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

CHESS Centre: 24 October 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

Goodyers End Primary School: 4 November 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

Whitestone Community Centre: 7 November 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

Horeston Grange Church: 11 November 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

Bedworth Civic Hall: 15 November 2019, 3 pm to 5 pm

Nuneaton Academy: 19 November 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

Hawkesbury Village Meeting Place: 21 November 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

Bulkington Village Centre: 25 November 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

St James' Church Hall, Weddington: 28 November 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm

Nuneaton Town Hall: 3 December 2019, 5 pm to 7 pm.

3

3.4 Comments could be emailed to

[email protected] or posted to Planning Policy,

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, Town Hall, Coton Road, Nuneaton

CV11 5AA. A telephone number was also provided for those who wanted to

ask questions or seek further information.

3.5 Comments received during the public consultation along with the Council’s

response to those comments are set out in Table 1 below.

4

mailto:[email protected]

Table 1: Comments received on the SPD and the Council’s response to those comments.

Ref. Page no.

Paragraph Comments Suggested modifications

Officer response

105 3.4.3 Serious concern that the Concept Plan SPDs exclude any mention of off-site communityfacilities other than those covered by criteria 3 and 4 of the two respective policies:

“3.4.3 Given the close proximity of HSG7 to Bulkington Recreation Ground, it is proposed that offsite community facilities are enhanced as part of the strategic housing site delivery. Off-site works include; upgrading the existing sports facilities and teenage play provision at Bulkington Recreation Ground; and, improvement of facilities at Miners Welfare Park in Bedworth, a

The SPD has to be supplementary to Policy HSG7 and the SPD as drafted is considered to reflect the policy requirements. If there is a clear evidenced need that the development would need to make contributions towards other community facilities than those set out in the policy, that would be addressed at the planning application stage and considered in accordance with Policy HS1 - Delivery of Infrastructure.

5

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

‘destination park’ within the Council’s Open Space Strategy; and other community facilities within the village itself. On site provision for younger children’s play is likely to be required. The location, design and type of provision should be determined in consultation with the Council’s Parks andCountryside team.”

However, all contributions have to meet the strict legal tests.

107 32 3.8.1 We consider that the open space budget as set out in the Concept Plan (3.28 ha i.e. 32% of developable land) appears excessive for a development of this size. From a review of the other Strategic Allocation Concept Plans, the suggested open space for HSG7

It is suggested that land use budget figures be removed from the Concept Plan at

The land use budget is going to be removed from all concept plans, as upon review we

6

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

is among the highest levels and more than a number of the much larger sites.

paragraph 3.8.1. have decided that the figures are not needed due to the conceptual nature of the plans. However, we do not consider the open space set out in the concept plan for HSG7 to be excessive.

On site open space provision is a requirement under Policy HSG7. The POS has been proposed in consultation with the Council's Parks team as it is considered to offer the best opportunity for useable/useful open space providing the

7

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

fewest amenity issues. Alternative arrangements can be proposed at the application stage, but there would need to be a robust justification and that would be considered by the Parks team.

107 29 3.4.1 The overall density of 28 dwellings per hectare. Policy HSG7 sets out a housing figure of a minimum of 196 dwellings, therefore, a density figure based on 196 dwellings is not in keeping with the wording of the Policy.

The net density figure should be removed from the Concept Plan at paragraph 3.4.1.

The 28dph density figure is the starting point under Policy SA1. Alternative densities would need to be justified at the planning application stage, taking account the unique characteristics of the site and potential constraints.

8

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

202.1 2.2.2 The map shows green boundaries on the northern, southern and western edges of the site but no landscaping is proposed on the eastern parcel adjacent to Ryton Gardens, Bramcote Close and Long Street. This would give separation and break up the additional houses.

Include a green boundary on the eastern boundary in accordance with para. 2.5.2 - e.g. "maintain all vegetated boundaries" and "provide additional hedgerow and hedgerow tree planting to the eastern boundary (southern part of the site)".

The area of landscaping reflect the recommendations from the 2017 Landscape Assessment. The landscaping shown on the eastern boundary is to provide a defensible green belt boundary. More detailed landscaping for amenity purposes would need to be investigated at the planning application stage.

202.2 2.7.4 Warwickshire County Council Highways stated at the Stage 2 hearings that Bramcote Close is not suitable as a vehicular access into HSG7.

Remove the reference to Bramcote Close as an access point as per the instructions of WCC Highways

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street,

9

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

at the stage 2 hearings on Bulkington

Wolvey Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is considered that vehicular access via Lancing Road may be more straightforward and preferable. As it is the role of the concept plan to set the vision for site delivery, it will be changed to show vehicular access via Lancing Road only. It should be

10

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

noted however that vehicular access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated issues are overcome.

202.3 2.7.4 The northern plot of HSG7 has only one access point via B4112. This is inadequate in case of emergency where the access may be blocked. This should result in the parcel being removed from the plan.

Remove northern parcel of HSG7 due to inadequate vehicular access as there are no connecting roads for both parcels of land

If primary access can be provided via the B4112, there would appear to be no impediment to provision of an alternative emergency access via B4112 (if required). Such detail would be determined at the planning application stage, having regard to the advice of the WCC Fire and Rescue team.

202.4 3.4.1 Further clarity is required on the maximum number To help control The wording

11

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

of houses and the density of houses as mentioned in para. 3.4.1

numbers which are too high across the Borough firm upper limits need to be set to stop over development and higher than required land density use.

reflects policy HSG7. A maximum number is not proposed as a holistic view needs to be taken by balancing delivery of an efficient use of land for housing (as required in the NPPF) and infrastructure against the constraints of the site and the potential impacts of the development. Final numbers can only be provided once detailed site masterplanning has taken place.

202.5 3.4.5 In the original plan it discusses Arden Forest being closed down and a new primary school being built on HSG7 or HSG8. Para. 3.4.5 talks about "reorganisation and expansion of both Arden Forest Infant and St James Academy Junior Schools" -

Clarification regarding Arden Forest Infant and St James Junior

This has been checked and Warwickshire County Council have advised that

12

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

unclear as to the future and if both primary schools will be closed and a new one opened up. If a new one is opened up on HSG7 or HSG8 then it could result in increased traffic, congestion and possible safety concerns from children getting to school.

schools. financial contributions will be required from both sites towards expansion of existing schools. It is not considered necessary therefore to allocate land within HSG8 (or indeed HSG7) for education purposes.

202.6 3.9.2 It discusses improvements and upgrades to Lancing Road, Nuneaton Road and Bramcote Close, but the Vectos report discussed at the Stage 2 hearings indicated that no possible measures could be put in along Wolvey Road, Long Street or Bramcote Close - and so traffic congestion would increase.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to

13

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is considered that access via Lancing Road may be more likely and so the Concept Plan will be changed to show access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated issues are overcome.

202.7 3.9.2 Since the plan was approved, planning permission has been granted for the old New Inn public house site for 46 new dwellings. The plan and the Vectos report does not take this additional traffic flow and

A reappraisal of accessibility and traffic congestion needs to be done

A detailed transport assessment would need to be submitted at the

14

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

parking into account. The area around Bramcote Close, Wolvey Road, Long Street and Ryton Gardens is already a "rat-run"- HSG7 and the New Inn development will damage air quality and increase congestion for residents.

which takes in to account dwellings from HSG7 and the 46 proposed dwellings on the New Inn site. How will additional cars be accommodated? The New Inn site will have insufficient car parking spaces for residents. How will on street parking be dealt with as the road is already blocked by double parked vehicles.

planning application stage based on the most up-to-date traffic modelling available. Warwickshire County Council's Highways team will be consulted and asked to comment on the highway impacts of the proposal.

202.8 3.9.2 The grass verge at the end of Bramcote Close is not highway land. It is privately owned by a resident and they have been solely responsible for maintaining it since the houses were built in the 1960s.

Noted.

15

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

302.1 The northern plot of HSG7 has only one access point via B4112. This is inadequate in case of emergency where the access may be blocked. This should result in the parcel being removed from the plan.

If primary access can be provided via the B4112, there would appear to be no impediment to provision of an alternative emergency access via B4112 (if required). Such detail would be determined at the planning application stage, having regard to the advice of the WCC Fire and Rescue team.

302.2 Warwickshire County Council Highways stated at the Stage 2 hearings that Bramcote Close is not suitable as a vehicular access into HSG7 and should only be used as a pedestrian access. Vehicle access would be reduced by a third, resulting in unacceptably high traffic levels.

Bramcote Close needs to be removed as a proposed access point. The Northern proposed Parcel of HSG7 should

As above, WCC have advised that access via Lancing Road may be a more straightforward/preferable alternative to access from

16

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

be removed due to inadequate vehicle access. There are no connecting roads able to link both parcels of land -and no appropriate access options.

Bramcote Close, given network capacity and land ownership constraints. However, if Lancing Road access is not possible, and the Bramcote Close access constraints can be overcome, there would be nothing to rule out access from Bramcote Close.

302.3 WCC have informed planners that no additional measures can be put in place along Wolvey Road, Long Street or Bramcote Close - resulting in increased congestion along other roads, which increases pollution, noise, and decreases road safety.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road

17

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is considered that vehicular access via Lancing Road may be more straightforward and preferable. As it is the role of the concept plan to set the vision for site delivery, it will be changed to show vehicular access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that vehicular access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out

18

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

if the associated issues are overcome.

302.4 Green boundaries are still being removed. This goes against the Council's own guidelines: "New development should seek to retain and enhance existing important landscape features such as trees…"This links with ongoing concerns about climate change and environmental damage. The loss of trees could cause issues relating to heave.

All vegetated boundaries should be maintained and additional planted to replace that destroyed.

The Concept Plan is indicative and provides a visual representation of Policy HSG7 and the recommendations of the Landscape Assessment (2017). The applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with policies SA1, HSG7, NE1, NE3 and NE5, which refer to trees.

302.5 A reappraisal of accessibility and traffic congestion need to be carried out which takes account of the HSG7 dwellings and the 46 dwellings proposed for the New Inn site - which has insufficient car parking allocated for residents. How will additional cars be

Noted. A detailed transport assessment would need to be undertaken at the

19

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

accommodated as the road is already blocked by double parked vehicles?

planning application stage, which would take account of the latest traffic modelling available. Warwickshire County Council, as highway authority, will be consulted and asked to comment on the transport assessment submitted.

326 20 2.7.5 This paragraph states that the public footpath, B46, runs from Long Street via Firleigh Drive unfortunately this is incorrect. Page 13 point 2.1.3 states it correctly when is says that the public footpath starts after Firleigh Drive, commencing level with the gate at the farmers field. This is also confirmed by the map on page 16 figure 3 where this shows the PROW ending at the end of the farmers field. Firleigh Drive is a private road maintained by various parties. I have always assumed there was a public right of way, however given these documents

You need to reissue this document with the correct facts as the document in its currently form is factually incorrect.

Negotiations will need to talk place

Warwickshire County Council’s Public Right of Way team have confirmed that the public right of way (footpath) extends along Firleigh Drive to Long Street. This can be seen on the

20

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

I am now not so sure, however there is not a footpath. The owners of Firleigh Drive will not allow this to be converted to a cycle path and NBBC do not have the right to do this. In fact, whilst you are allowed to walk along the road, the residents have the right to refuse access and regular users are supposed to contribute financially to maintaining the road. This last statement is supported by the wayleaves in place for the utility companies.

My other concern is that increased footfall on Firleigh Drive will increase the wear and tear on the road surface which ultimately will lead to a reduced lifespan of the surface. This is an addition burden on the parties responsible for maintaining the road and therefore is unfair as this additional liability was unknown when the property was purchased.

with the owners of Firleigh Drive as to whether they will continue to allow the PROW. The developer will need to financially contribute to the maintenance of the road, or indeed purchase this, so that NBBC can adopt it however current owners will need to be involved in these discussions.

Warwickshire Definitive Map of Rights of Way. Public rights of way exist, irrespective of private ownership.

21

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

327 20 2.7.5 Duplicate of 326 Duplicate of 326 n/a

328 20 2.7.5 This paragraph states that the public footpath, B46, runs from Long Street via Firleigh Drive unfortunately this is incorrect. Page 13 point 2.1.3 states it correctly when is says that the public footpath starts after Firleigh Drive, commencing level with the gate at the farmers field. This is also confirmed by the map on page16 figure 3 where this shows the PROW ending at the end of the farmers field. Firleigh Drive is a private road maintained by various parties. I have always assumed there was a public right of way, however given these documents I am now not so sure, however there is not a footpath. The owners of Firleigh Drive will not allow this to be converted to a cycle path and NBBC do not have the right to do this. In fact, whilst you are

You need to reissue this document with the correct facts as the document in its currently form is factually incorrect.

Negotiations will need to talk place with the owners of Firleigh Drive as to whether they will continue

Warwickshire County Council’s Public Right of Way team have confirmed that the public right of way (footpath) extends along Firleigh Drive to Long Street. This can be seen on the Warwickshire Definitive Map of Rights of Way. Public rights of way

22

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

allowed to walk along the road, the residents have the right to refuse access and regular users are supposed to contribute financially to maintaining the road. This last statement is supported by the wayleaves in place for the utility companies.

My other concern is that increased footfall on Firleigh Drive will increase the wear and tear on the road surface which ultimately will lead to a reduced lifespan of the surface. This is an addition burden on the parties responsible for maintaining the road and therefore is unfair as this additional liability was unknown when the property was purchased.

The footpath B46 runs from Long Street. I would ask you to look at details of a planning application for the three bungalows application no. N83/0012.

The area from tarmac circle in Firleigh Drive to the farm gate is my property and is registered with HM Land Registry, Title Number WK281252.

Please refer to correspondence. My husband XXX, now deceased, had with XXX Planning Enforcement Officer 2012-13. There are photographs showing drive, bungalow No. 3 and beginnings of pathway.

to allow the PROW. The developer will need to financially contribute to the maintenance of the road, or indeed purchase this, so that NBBC can adopt it however current owners will need to be involved in these discussions.

exist, irrespective of private ownership.

23

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

I would like a copy of the Concept Plan for strategic allocations, HSG7 East of Bulkington as I do not have access to the internet.

334 There is no justification or requirement for so many new houses in the village of Bulkington. It is a village with a community and not a town with sub communities. Please leave it a village. That is why certain people choose to live in villages. I understand progress but this is not progress this is housing town people and people from other countries in a already large village. As for HSG7 in particular the views across the meadow at the adjacent to the bottom of Cleveland road towards Bramcote are spectacular particularly at dawn and dusk. Again that is why people live in villages. I have lived in Bulkington all my life and enjoyed so many walks via the footpath between Lancing Road and Long St and to see that go would be very disappointing. If anything had too happen though my preference would be jut to build on the parcel of land to the right of the footpath and leave the rest as beautiful as it is. That would relieve the difficulties of the pumping station area and the flooding in that area, maintain the outlook for many, remove the access issues that will be caused I Nuneaton Road and leave that rare sight of the meadow at the bottom of Cleveland Road. Even then the traffic

Alter it to lessen the detrimental effect on so many peoples lives by either cancelling it or as a minimum halving the size of HSG7 as mentioned above and resubmit with those changes and include the recommendations for traffic, particularly Lancing Road/Amberley Ave and remove the very quietly added new exit/entrance from Ryton’s Bramcote Close,

The borough needs to deliver 14,060 new houses from 2011-2031, for which we have had to allocate all suitable sites within the borough, which includes Bulkington.

We have to provide houses for people, whether they are from the borough, from other towns, or from other countries.

The proposals have taken account of access issues, as the site has been assessed

24

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

Issues likely in Amberley Ave which is already an issue will be virtually in surmountable. These proposals take no account of access issues, they simply brush it aside to the next phase. They must be included in more detail as I am sure there can be no solution that won’t seriously affect those current and indeed new residents. HSG 7 & 8 will increase the size of the village by approx. 25%. So 25% more crime, 25% more traffic, vehicle emissions, more dog mess, traffic, doctors appointments all of which are current issues that aren’t being addressed so have little faith they will or can be addressed in the future. HSG7 alone will directly affect the views of approximately 80 houses so around 300 people. You make specific reference to Weston Hill Farm, what about the other residents. You make ref to funding a cycle path to Bedworth. When have the residents asked for that or why do you think there is a need. Also why should the money go to improve the Miners Welfare Park. Surely those improvements can be funded by Bedworth people or at least the proposed improvements be made public. Many of the suggestions regarding sustainability and environmental improvements are pie in the sky and not at all improvements for the residents of Bulkington. Many houses have currently been up for sale for very long periods so why think there is a

in fact the more I think and type the whole scheme is just not practical. So yes cancel it and continue if you must but would prefer not with HSG8 where there are less issues. I find it so strange that the council has repeatedly turned down applications to build on land at the rear of Coventry Rd in HSG8 but now decide it is ok for the council to propose and pass their own plans. Also need to introduce plans to ensure crime doesn’t rise by

through our Strategic Transport Assessment as being appropriate for development. Detailed access arrangements will be assessed at the planning application stage.

The need for additional GP facilities has been taken into account in the Borough Plan, and contributions will need to be made by developers to meet the need created from the development.

Creating a cycle path to Bedworth will help people

25

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

need for more and ruin village life. So apart from the obvious issue regarding spoiling the village and village life and all what that entails my main thrust in this response is to try and dampen down at least HSG 7 to the area behind Oakham Crescent and Bramcote Close and leave well alone the Meadow at the bottom of Cleveland Road and lets please include those proposals for traffic control in that area as it seems to me that this area cannot be satisfactorily solved. Even then I feel sorry for the poor people who bought homes to look over fields/country side and paid search fees for the privilege only for people who it won’t affect to decide on such life changing disruption and effect on their daily lives. I am all for change and progression, but this is not the way.

25% and include more detail for Doctors as it is already very difficult, sometimes impossible to get appointments and a study into what effect in the centre of the village this 25% rise in village population will have on businesses especially as people don’t use the village shops due too the parking issues.

cycle between the two areas, helping promote sustainable forms of travel.

Money will be directed to Miners Welfare Park as it is a destination park, and serves both Bedworth and Bulkington.

Previous applications behind land on Coventry Road would likely have been on Green Belt, however through the Borough Plan we have de-designated a strategic area from the Green Belt in order to meet the

26

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

overall housing needs for the borough.

The increased number of residents in Bulkington will help the local economy by providing more customers to use local businesses.

325 13, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28

2.1.3, 2.75, 3.23 to 3.24, 3.28, 3.26 to 3.28

The Map on page 25 and para 3.36, 3.37 & 3.38 shows a footpath and proposed cycle routes and explains that improvements will be made to the existing PRoW and adding a Cycle path. The Key indicates that this will be a diverted / new public right of way and the entry point for the cycle route is at the end of Firleigh drive not Long Street.

This PRoW has been in existence for decades and is, in part, not on land included within the southern strategic building plot. See the attached land registry plans and photograph. Page 13 para 2.1.3 is not correct.

Can you explain what is meant by the choice of the

Paragraph 2.13 redrafted to say the Public footpath b46 runs partly through the southern parcel of land and the adjacent land parcels.

Paragraph 3.2.3 remove the word “encourage” and replace with “required”

Paragraph 2.3.1 is correct, but it will be clarified to say "Public footpath B46 serves the development site, providing access from Firleigh Drive, through the development site to Lancing Road. Part of the PROW lies outside the development site."

27

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

Key to define the PRoW and any proposed diversions. Map page 25

Can you explain what improvements are envisaged or planned and how they will affect the footpath that is currently not part of the strategic building land plot. para 3.36 to 3.38

Can it be confirmed that the cycle path is assumed to be on the same land as the PRoW and not a separate path as the map seems to suggest. Map page 25

Can it be confirmed that the PRoW extends through Firleigh Drive to Long Street which is not shown on the Map on page 25. page 20 Para 2.75

Can you confirm the plan also acknowledges the specific rights of way of access to the parcel of land from Long Street for vehicles to manage the adjacent agricultural land allowing access for tractors, vehicles, trailers and other agricultural machinery. The planned cycle route should not impede access with any barriers Page 20 para 2.75 and map on page 25

The adjacent land has the benefit of two hedgerows

Paragraph 3.2.8 remove the word “should “and replace with “will”

Map on page 25 redraw showing the footpath in the Southern parcel has a footpath not included in the strategic build parcel. (see amendment to para 2.1.3)

Map on page 25 redrawn showing the footpath and cycle path as one route

Map on page 25 redraw showing the right of way

Warwickshire County Council have confirmed that the PROW extends all the way along Firleigh Drive to Long Street.

The legal alignment of the PROW does not align with the existing navigable route/ proposed route. The key therefore clarifies that additional legal work is required to stop up and divert the PROW onto the proposed alignment.

The PROW improvements are unknown at this

28

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

that provide cover from the elements for livestock. Can you confirm that page 26 Para 3.23 & 3.24 and page 27 Para 3.28 are not aspirational but are in fact a firm requirement of any development applications. Consistent with section 2.5 & 2.6.

clearly extending to Long Street and providing a right of way for agricultural vehicles to the adjacent land parcel.

Paragraph 3.3.6 to include reference to all rights of way for the public but also access to the agricultural land on the attached land registry document (WK258301) from Long Street and explain it is for maintaining the land for agricultural purposes. A right of way exists in

stage and can only be determined at the planning application stage. The PROW is required to serve the HSG7 site - so even if part of the PROW lies outside the boundary, the developer will be required to contribute to improving the PROW. Warwickshire County Council, as highway authority, will be invited to advise on, and agree, any potential improvements. It is, however intended that the cycle route will follow the same alignment of the

29

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

the conveyancing of this property across the land from Long street to (WK 258301) of land and an obligation to maintain the boundary.

PROW- but the highway rights would need to be upgraded formally to allow cycle use.

The issue of specific private rights of access for agricultural purposes will be dealt with at the planning application stage. If private rights of access exist, then the public rights of access cannot prohibit those private rights.

Policy HSG7 requires the developer to "maintain and enhance vegetated boundaries that

30

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

front onto the wider rural area (to be maintained as Green Belt defensible boundaries)."

351.1 13 2.1.2 Does not mention Ryton Gardens.

Figure 2 HSG7 Site location map - doesn't show the road Ryton Gardens at all which is crucial as my house, which is clearly shown on the map as are the other houses in Ryton Gardens, bordered the field included in the Southern parcel for development. The red line defining the field runs along the back of my house thereby directly affecting my house.

General Note: Bulkington is not a town, it cannot take on a town appearance or size. The roads around Ryton HSG7 - are narrow village type roads. Buses cannot access them. The properties around HSG7 North & South parcels are predominately bungalows - to build houses - affordable or otherwise - will encroach on

The Concept Plan uses an Ordnance Survey base map appropriate to the scale of the plan. Not all road names are shown such as Firleigh Drive. It is not a legal or policy requirement for all road names to be shown, but the Ryton Gardens properties are clearly visible and so it is not considered to be misleading.

Incorporating hedgerows within

31

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

existing properties. To suggest existing properties are given the responsibility to maintain hedgerows & trees is insane. That type of action needs to be set up on a legal basis.

I absolutely insist the SPD is reproduced immediately clearly showing the existence of Ryton Gardens - excluding my Close makes the document totally unsound.

This document

residential gardens may help clarify maintenance responsibilities and incentivise their timely maintenance if it is part of the property. Alternative arrangements for hedgerow management and maintenance can be suggested at the planning application stage.

The Council's Local Plan Committee will oversee the Plan Review process. The review will need to be undertaken in accordance with Government

32

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

falls way off the mark - the drop in events only added to residents anger & frustration - the officers there were under enormous pressure, didn't take notes, couldn't answer questions. A huge failing.

To make any document sound needs a complete revision of the housing number something which Councillor Neil Philips and the Council agreed to - an immediate review of numbers. Just

guidance.

33

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

when is this going to happen?

Only then maybe the residents of NBBC move forward - until then nothing is sound.

351.2 15 2.1.5 Residential properties which are one and half storey high are not mentioned in the description of properties - why not? Both my house & the neighbours are one and half storey homes.

Noted - paragraph to be changed accordingly to make reference to the one and a half storey properties.

34

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

351.3 15 2.2.2 No mention of Ryton Gardens Noted - reference to Ryton Gardens to be added.


35

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

351.6 18 2.5.2 The "visual prominence of HSG7 considered moderate to low with few attractive features" is subject to opinion. I consider the view quite pleasant and I draw your attention to my Stage one representation form which contains colour photographs showing the field full of crops in all its splendour.

The wording quoted is taken from the 2017 Landscape Capacity Study which was an important evidence base document for the Borough Plan.

351.7 19 2.6.1 HSG7 comprises "intensively farmed agricultural land" - again see my photos from previous representation form, which begs the question: Why are you allowing land which produces food to be built on? The answer is to remove the Southern parcel bordering Ryton Gardens & Lancing Road out of the plan & allow it produce food.

The principle of the site being developed for residential use has been established following the Borough Plan Examination/ Adoption. The loss of agricultural land was take into account as part of the decision making process, but there were

36

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

overriding considerations to justify its inclusion as a housing site as set out in the Inspector's report.

351.8 19 2.6.3 Many animals are visible each day, squirrels, pheasants & many more species of birds.

Noted. An ecological assessment would need to be submitted at the planning application stage.

351.9 19 2.7.1 It is my understanding that buses cannot proceed along Wolvey Road to service the village of Ryton. This was discussed at Stage One hearings. Therefore, you can't assume easy access or people living on Southern parcel HSG7 to a bus - another reason to remove the site from the Plan.

Point 6 of Policy HSG7 requires bus infrastructure improvements adjacent to HSG7 (with a potential to secure diversion of frequent local bus

37

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

services to serve the site). Nonetheless, existing bus stops are in reasonable proximity to HSG7.


Point 6 of Policy HSG7 requires bus infrastructure improvements adjacent to HSG7 (with a potential to secure diversion of frequent local bus services to serve the site). Nonetheless, existing bus stops are in reasonable proximity to HSG7.

351.11 19 2.7.3 The sheer number of link roads from the B4112 to a major A road of Motorway is far too much to expect the B4112 to cope with. Roads are immediately gridlocked when there is an issue on any major route as traffic gets diverted through Bulkington, turning right across the Rugby Rd/Wolvey Rd

Noted. Warwickshire County Council will be invited to comment on highway capacity

38

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

junction is perilous every morning. School traffic for St James school plus the school crossing person causes traffic to come to a halt every morning on the B4112 which needs to be free flowing but never is. Also coaches pull up to drop children off on the B4112, I have advised NBBC & WCC. It is very dangerous for children at that point.

and highway safety matters at the planning application stage once a detailed proposal has been submitted.

351.12 19 2.7.4 Vehicular access is NOT allowed through Bramcote Close - at Stage 2 hearings WCC clearly said this was NOT an option - only a pedestrian walkway. Please refer back to the officers who were present/minutes of the meeting/video of meeting - this needs changing to Lancing Road only which is somewhat prohibited by a ransom strip therefore further evidence that the Southern parcel of land should be taken out of the Plan.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is

39

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

considered that vehicular access via Lancing Road may be more likely and so the Concept Plan will be changed to show vehicular access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated issues are overcome.

351.13 20 2.7.5 It is my understanding Firleigh Drive is, in part, privately owned. NBBC cannot assume automatic use other than as part of the PRoW which it currently is

Warwickshire County Council’s Public Rights of Way team have confirmed that the public right of way (footpath) runs along Firleigh Drive to Long Street. Public rights of way

40

Ref. Page no.


Officer response


351.14 20 2.8.1 The Weavers Arms Public House doesn't have a carpark or off street parking for its patrons to use therefore during opening hours, patrons park in the streets around the pub - it becomes hugely congested on already narrow roads.

Warwickshire County Council would need to consider this, and any other highway safety considerations, at the planning application stage.

351.15 20 2.8.2 St James school causes huge traffic issues every morning as detailed in comments for 2.7.3 - another school/expansion to existing school will undoubtedly be required.

Noted - again, Warwickshire County Council would be required to assess the impact of St James' School traffic when assessing the highway capacity and highway safety implications of the

41

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

proposal at the planning application stage.

351.16 21 2.9.3 "Potentially change views from Weston Hill Farmhouse" - how can you be sure? What do you intend to allow to be built?

Views towards Weston Hill Farmhouse can only be ascertained at the planning application stage but proposals should be designed to have minimal impact on the Grade II listed building and its setting.

351.17 21 2.9.4 When will a dig be done? This is vitally important so as not to destroy any settlement which could be added as an attraction to Ryton/Bulkington thus adding to the local economy.

Warwickshire County Council's Archaeology team would be consulted on the planning application. If further archaeological investigation is required a pre-

42

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

commencement condition could be included to request things like archaeological trial trenches to record any possible assets.

351.18 21 2.10.2 If the land is classed as Grade 3 why destroy it for houses - see my stage one rep form for photos in support of the crops.

The impact from the loss of the agricultural land was considered as part of the land allocation process. However, the principle of the site being used for residential development is established.

351.19 21 2.11.2 It is vital STWA check Bulkington out very carefully - its local knowledge the system is running at near capacity now therefore supports the need to remove the Southern parcel from the Plan.

As a statutory consultee, Severn Trent were consulted on the Borough Plan and the Infrastructure

43

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

Delivery Plan (IDP). Their advice shaped the policy wording in Policy HS7- but there was no objection to the principle of allocating the site. The issue of sewerage would need to be addressed at the planning application stage.

351.20 22 Figure 5 Again no mention of Ryton Gardens yet mine & the other houses in the close are clearly visible.

The Ryton Gardens properties are clearly visible on the Ordnance Survey base map

44

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

351.21 25 Figure 6 No mention of Ryton Gardens & again I state WCC said Bramcote Close cannot be used as a vehicle access road. Take this field out of the Plan.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is considered that access via Lancing Road may be more likely and so the Concept Plan will be changed to show vehicular

45

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that vehicular access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated issues are overcome.

351.22 26 3.2.3 None of the plans show a green boundary across the back of my house in Ryton Gardens. You are not showing the green boundary which is there & is full of birds. How does NBBC propose to give the trees & hedges to existing residential properties - do you intend to pay for everyone's title deeds to be altered? How do the developers feel about selling houses which include this clause to maintain & leave protected hedgerows & trees in place? How do you propose to make this happen to protect a defensible boundary? Are you going to take my fence down, move my garden & re fence it & pay all costs and solicitors costs? This is a HUGE issue & statement to include in the SPD - this alone supports the need to remove the parcel of land from the Plan.

Paragraph 3.2.3 states that we will be seeking for existing hedgerows and trees to be retained and strengthened. The landscaping shown reflects the recommendations of the Landscape Assessment (2017) – but additional landscaping could be requested at the planning application stage.

46

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

The trees and hedges will form part of the new properties' garden space.

The maintenance and protection of the hedgerows and trees will be requested of the developer as part of their development of the site, as opposed to being a clause applying to the purchasers of any new properties.

The development of HSG7 will not require the removal of existing residents fences, or the moving of

47

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

their gardens.

351.23 26 3.2.4 Soft is the operative word here - it is boggy & difficult to walk in this part of the Southern parcel - take it out of the Plan.

It is proposed to improve the standard of navigable routes to encourage walking/cycling through the site

351.24 27 3.2.7 The number 3.2.7 has been used twice. Noted- numbering to be changed accordingly

351.25 27 3.2.8 The brook flows along Lancing Road where you The presence of

48

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

propose an entrance point which I don't think you have taken into consideration.

the brook is noted, however the scheme can be engineered to allow access across the watercourse. Stakeholders such as the Environment Agency, Warwickshire County Council's Flood team and Severn Trent will be consulted on any proposals.

351.26 27 3.3.1 The Southern parcel - subject to the ransom strip being resolved, will only have Lancing Road as its access point - the road is only wide enough to allow one large vehicle e.g. refuse lorry to pass by at a time. Lancing Road is simply not wide enough - again supports the removal of the field from the Plan.

Warwickshire County Council did not raise any objection to Lancing Road being used as a potential access and the Inspector did not raise any concerns. Highway safety and capacity issues would be

49

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

examined at the planning application stage.


Warwickshire County Council did not raise any objection to Lancing Road being used as a potential access and the Inspector did not raise any concerns. Highway safety and capacity issues would be examined at the planning application stage.

351.28 28 3.3.3 WCC have said Bramcote Close will not be used as a road into the site.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey

50

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is considered that access via Lancing Road may be more likely and so the Concept Plan will be changed to show vehicular access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that vehicular access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated

51

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

issues are overcome.

351.29 28 3.3.5 Are the developers aware of all the changes they need to finance for existing residential houses see 3.2.3

Final development costs can only be determined following the submission of a planning application and consultation with the necessary stakeholders in accordance with Policy HS1. Viability was tested at the Borough Plan stage and the site is considered to be viable.

351.30 28 3.3.7 Bulkington Resident Voice Committee demonstrated at the Stage 2 hearings the B4029 is too narrow in places to accommodate a cycle path. Views have been given as to the speed the traffic is allowed on that stretch travelling at 50 miles an hour, plus it includes a sharp bend. The road will require a lot of

The cycle path is a requirement of Policy HSG7, point 10. The Inspector considered all representations, but neither

52

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

money to make it safe & suitable for a cycle path. Warwickshire County Council nor the Inspector required this part of the policy to be changed.

351.31 29 3.3.9 I start work at 9 & finish at 5.30pm - I need my car as the bus times don't work with me or what I carry to and from work - I suspect this is the case for a lot of people. I/people do care, but work is what it is & many people need to use cars.

Noted. The sustainable travel measures seek to encourage model shift and reduce car dependency.

351.32 29 3.4.1 It is crucial that bungalows are built alongside properties including mine as I am a one & half storey house & account for Oakham being an old people's complex.

This cannot be prescribed at this stage but proposals will need to be in-keeping with the character and form of the local area. Visual

53

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

impact would be assessed at the planning application stage once a detailed proposal has been submitted.

351.33 29 3.4.2 Affordable housing should not be built against existing properties - so many properties affected around HSG7 are bungalows with older people in them. Bulkington having a large older community has to be respected.

Such an approach would not accord with government guidance. It is unclear why affordable housing should be treated as a special case.

54

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

351.34 30 3.5.1 No mention of my one & half storey home - which was built 5 years ago with large glass doors & windows, clear windows to the bathrooms which overlook the Southern parcel - which NBBC gave planning permission 5 years ago.

Noted - will be amended to "as well as newer one and a half storey houses"

352.1 13 2.1.2 Does not mention Ryton Gardens.

Figure 2 HSG7 Site location map - doesn't show the road Ryton Gardens at all which is crucial as my house, which is clearly shown on the map as are the other houses in Ryton Gardens, bordered the field included in the Southern parcel for development. The red line defining the field runs along the back of my house thereby directly affecting my house.

General Note: Bulkington is not a town, it cannot take on a town appearance or size. The roads around Ryton HSG7 - are narrow village type roads. Buses cannot access them. The properties around HSG7 North & South parcels are

The Concept Plan uses an Ordnance Survey base map appropriate to the scale of the plan. Not all road names are shown such as Firleigh Drive. It is not a legal or policy requirement for all road names to be shown, but the Ryton Gardens properties are clearly visible and

55

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

predominately bungalows - to build houses - affordable or otherwise - will encroach on existing properties. To suggest existing properties are given the responsibility to maintain hedgerows & trees is insane. That type of action needs to be set up on a legal basis.

I absolutely insist the SPD is reproduced immediately clearly showing the existence of Ryton Gardens -

so it is not considered to be misleading.

Incorporating hedgerows within residential gardens may help clarify maintenance responsibilities and incentivise their timely maintenance if it is part of the property. Alternative arrangements for hedgerow management and maintenance can be suggested at the planning application stage.

The Council's Local Plan Committee will oversee the Plan

56

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

excluding my Close makes the document totally unsound.

This document falls way off the mark - the drop in events only added to residents anger & frustration - the officers there were under enormous pressure, didn't take notes, couldn't answer questions. A huge failing.

To make any document sound needs a complete revision of the housing number something which

Review process. The review will need to be undertaken in accordance with Government guidance.

57

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

Councillor Neil Philips and the Council agreed to - an immediate review of numbers. Just when is this going to happen?

Only then maybe the residents of NBBC move forward - until then nothing is sound.

58

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

352.2 15 2.1.5 Residential properties which are one and half storey high are not mentioned in the description of properties - why not? Both my house & the neighbours are one and half storey homes.

Noted - paragraph to be changed accordingly


59

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

352.4 16 Figure 3 My house is clearly defined and affected by development yet no mention of Ryton Gardens

The Ryton Garden properties are clearly visible on Fig. 3 and marked as residential.


60

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

352.6 18 2.5.2 The "visual prominence of HSG7 considered moderate to low with few attractive features" is subject to opinion. I consider the view quite pleasant and I draw your attention to my Stage one representation form which contains colour photographs showing the field full of crops in all its splendour.

The wording quoted is taken from the 2017 Landscape Capacity Study which was an important evidence base document for the Borough Plan.

352.7 19 2.6.1 HSG7 comprises "intensively farmed agricultural land" - again see my photos from previous representation form, which begs the question: Why are you allowing land which produces food to be built on? The answer is to remove the Southern parcel bordering Ryton Gardens & Lancing Road out of the plan & allow it produce food.

The principle of the site being developed for residential use has been established following the Borough Plan Examination/ Adoption. The loss of agricultural land was take into account as part of the decision making process, but there were

61

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

overriding considerations to justify its inclusion as a housing site as set out in the Inspector's report.

352.8 19 2.6.3 Many animals are visible each day, squirrels, pheasants & many more species of birds.

Noted. An ecological assessment would need to be submitted at the planning application stage.


Point 6 of Policy HSG7 requires bus infrastructure improvements adjacent to HSG7 (with a potential to secure diversion of frequent local bus

62

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

services to serve the site). Nonetheless, existing bus stops are in reasonable proximity to HSG7.


Point 6 of Policy HSG7 requires bus infrastructure improvements adjacent to HSG7 (with a potential to secure diversion of frequent local bus services to serve the site). Nonetheless, existing bus stops are in reasonable proximity to HSG7.

352.11 19 2.7.3 The sheer number of link roads from the B4112 to a major A road of Motorway is far too much to expect the B4112 to cope with. Roads are immediately gridlocked when there is an issue on any major route as traffic gets diverted through Bulkington, turning right across the Rugby Rd/Wolvey Rd

Noted. Warwickshire County Council will be invited to comment on highway capacity

63

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

junction is perilous every morning. School traffic for St James school plus the school crossing person causes traffic to come to a halt every morning on the B4112 which needs to be free flowing but never is. Also coaches pull up to drop children off on the B4112, I have advised NBBC & WCC. It is very dangerous for children at that point.

and highway safety matters at the planning application stage once a detailed proposal has been submitted.

352.12 19 2.7.4 Vehicular access is NOT allowed through Bramcote Close - at Stage 2 hearings WCC clearly said this was NOT and option - only a pedestrian walkway. Please refer back to the officers who were present/minutes of the meeting/video of meeting - this needs changing to Lancing Road only which is somewhat prohibited by a ransom strip therefore further evidence that the Southern parcel of land should be taken out of the Plan.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is

64

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

considered that vehicular access via Lancing Road may be more likely and so the Concept Plan will be changed to show vehicular access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that vehicular access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated issues are overcome.

352.13 20 2.7.5 It is my understanding Firleigh Drive is, in part, privately owned. NBBC cannot assume automatic use other than as part of the PRoW which it currently is

Warwickshire County Council’s Public Right of Way team have confirmed that the public right of way runs the length of Firleigh Drive to Long Street. Public rights of access

65

Ref. Page no.


Officer response


352.14 20 2.8.1 The Weavers Arms Public House doesn't have a carpark or off street parking for its patrons to use therefore during opening hours, patrons park in the streets around the pub - it becomes hugely congested on already narrow roads.

Warwickshire County Council would need to consider this, and any other highway safety considerations, at the planning application stage.

352.15 20 2.8.2 St James school causes huge traffic issues every morning as detailed in comments for 2.7.3 - another school/expansion to existing school will undoubtedly be required.

Noted - again, Warwickshire County Council would be required to assess the impact of St James' School traffic when assessing the highway capacity and highway safety implications of the

66

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

proposal at the planning application stage.

352.16 21 2.9.3 "Potentially change views from Weston Hill Farmhouse" - how can you be sure? What do you intend to allow to be built?

Views towards Weston Hill Farmhouse can only be ascertained at the planning application stage but proposals should be designed to have minimal impact on the Grade II listed building and its setting.

352.17 21 2.9.4 When will a dig be done? This is vitally important so as not to destroy any settlement which could be added as an attraction to Ryton/Bulkington thus adding to the local economy.

Warwickshire County Council's Archaeology team would be consulted on the planning application If further archaeological investigation is required a pre-

67

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

commencement condition could be included to request measures such as archaeological trial trenches to record any possible assets.

352.18 21 2.10.2 If the land is classed as Grade 3 why destroy it for houses - see my stage one rep form for photos in support of the crops.

The impact from the loss of the agricultural land was considered as part of the land allocation process. However, the principle of the site being used for residential development is established.

352.19 21 2.11.2 It is vital STWA check Bulkington out very carefully - its local knowledge the system is running at near capacity now therefore supports the need to remove the Southern parcel from the Plan.

As a statutory consultee, Severn Trent were consulted on the Borough Plan and the Infrastructure

68

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

Delivery Plan (IDP). Their advice shaped the policy wording in Policy HS7- but there was no objection to the principle of allocating the site. The issue of sewerage would need to be addressed at the planning application stage.

352.20 22 Figure 5 Again no mention of Ryton Gardens yet mine & the other houses in the close are clearly visible.

The Ryton Gardens properties are clearly visible on the Ordnance Survey base map.

69

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

352.21 25 Figure 6 No mention of Ryton Gardens & again I state WCC said Bramcote Close cannot be used as a vehicle access road. Take this field out of the Plan.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is considered that vehicular access via Lancing Road may be more likely and so the Concept Plan will be changed to show

70

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

vehicular access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that vehicular access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated issues are overcome.

352.22 26 3.2.3 None of the plans show a green boundary across the back of my house in Ryton Gardens. You are not showing the green boundary which is there & is full of birds. How does NBBC propose to give the trees & hedges to existing residential properties - do you intend to pay for everyone's title deeds to be altered? How do the developers feel about selling houses which include this clause to maintain & leave protected hedgerows & trees in place? How do you propose to make this happen to protect a defensible boundary? Are you going to take my fence down, move my garden & re fence it & pay all costs and solicitors costs? This is a HUGE issue & statement to include in the SPD - this alone supports the need to remove the parcel of land from the Plan.

Paragraph 3.2.3 states that we will be seeking for existing hedgerows and trees to be retained and strengthened. The landscaping shown reflects the recommendations of the Landscape Assessment (2017) – but additional landscaping could be requested at the planning application stage.

71

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

The trees and hedges will form part of the new properties' garden space.

The maintenance and protection of the hedgerows and trees will be requested of the developer as part of their development of the site, as opposed to being a clause applying to the purchasers of any new properties.

The development of HSG7 will not require the removal of existing residents fences, or the moving of

72

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

their gardens.

352.23 26 3.2.4 Soft is the operative word here - it is boggy & difficult to walk in this part of he Southern parcel - take it out of the Plan.

It is proposed to improve the standard of navigable routes to encourage walking/cycling through the site.

352.24 27 3.2.7 The number 3.2.7 has been used twice. Noted- numbering to be changed accordingly

352.25 27 3.2.8 The brook flows along Lancing Road where you The presence of

73

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

propose an entrance point which I don't think you have taken into consideration.

the brook is noted, however the scheme can be engineered to allow access across the watercourse. Stakeholders such as the Environment Agency, Warwickshire County Council's Flood team and Severn Trent will be consulted on any proposals.


Warwickshire County Council did not raise any objection to Lancing Road being used as a potential access and the Inspector did not raise any concerns. Highway safety and capacity issues would be

74

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

examined at the planning application stage.


Warwickshire County Council did not raise any objection to Lancing Road being used as a potential access and the Inspector did not raise any concerns. Highway safety and capacity issues would be examined at the planning application stage.

352.28 28 3.3.3 WCC have said Bramcote Close will not be used as a road into the site.

WCC have advised that there are concerns over capacity of the network in and around Wolvey Road/Long Street, Wolvey

75

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

Road/Rugby Road and Rugby Road/School Road junctions and would be likely to require significant infrastructure improvements. Given land ownership and capacity constraints, it is considered that access via Lancing Road may be more likely and so the Concept Plan will be changed to show vehicular access via Lancing Road only. It should be noted however that vehicular access via Bramcote Close cannot be ruled out if the associated

76

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

issues are overcome.

352.29 28 3.3.5 Are the developers aware of all the changes they need to finance for existing residential houses see 3.2.3

Final development costs can only be determined following the submission of a planning application and consultation with the necessary stakeholders in accordance with Policy HS1. Viability was tested at the Borough Plan stage and the site is considered to be viable.

352.3 28 3.3.7 Bulkington Resident Voice Committee demonstrated at the Stage 2 hearings the B4029 is too narrow in places to accommodate a cycle path. Views have been given as to the speed the traffic is allowed on that stretch travelling at 50 miles an hour, plus it includes a sharp bend. The road will require a lot of

The cycle path is a requirement of Policy HSG7, point 10. The Inspector considered all representations, but neither

77

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

money to make it safe & suitable for a cycle path. Warwickshire County Council nor the Inspector required this part of the policy to be changed.

352.31 29 3.3.9 I start work at 7am & do not have a definitive finish time therefore I need my car as the bus times don't work for me - I suspect this is the case for a lot of people. I/people generally do care, but work is what it is & I need to use my car.

Noted. The sustainable travel measures seek to encourage model shift and reduce car dependency.

352.32 29 3.4.1 It is crucial that bungalows are built alongside properties including mine as I am a one & half storey house & account for Oakham being an old people's complex.

This cannot be prescribed at this stage but proposals will need to be in-keeping with the character and form of the local area. Visual

78

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

impact would be assessed at the planning application stage once a detailed proposal has been submitted.

352.33 29 3.4.2 Affordable housing should not be built against existing properties - so many properties affected around HSG7 are bungalows with older people in them. Bulkington having a large older community has to be respected.

Such an approach would not accord with government guidance. It is unclear why affordable housing should be treated as a special case.

79

Ref. Page no.


Officer response

352.34 30 3.5.1 No mention of my one & half storey home - which was built 5 years ago with large glass doors & windows, clear windows to the bathrooms which overlook the Southern parcel - which NBBC gave planning permission 5 years ago.

Noted - will be amended to reference one and a half storey houses

80

nuneaton and bedworth · web view1.1this statement is the ‘consultation statement’ for the...

Documents