· web viewcomment on lack of landscape buffers and enhancement is also relevant in this...

HSG2 Concept Plan Supplementary Planning

Document (SPD)Consultation Statement

April 2020

1

HSG2 Concept Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Consultation Statement

1. Introduction

1.1 This statement is the ‘Consultation Statement’ for the HSG2 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 HSG2 Concept Plan SPD provides supplementary guidance to Borough

Plan Policy HSG2 – Arbury. 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 HSG2 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 and spine roads, utility routes, primary

school, district/local centre 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 HSG2 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 Document name

Paragraph Comments Suggested modifications Officer Response

1001 HSG 2 Does not include any details on numbers or sizes of plots for allotment provision. Does not take into consideration for the needs of Bermuda

Show number and size of plots

Number and sizes to be determined at Planning Applications stage subject to the need in the area at the time of the application

113 HSG 2 2.1.3 Ensor’s Pool was designated as an SSSI in light of white-clawed crayfish being present.However evidence put forward by Natural England in the course of the Borough Plan examination has concluded that no white-clawed crayfish are present within the site, with surveys undertaken from 2014onwards recording no evidence of the species in the pool (see examination document reference: OTH.06 - thisdocument references a letter (Reference 169179) – dated 22nd February 2016). Nevertheless, appropriate mitigation can be undertaken to prevent any potential harm, as

It is agreed that Natural England recommend that a HRA can be undertaken at the outline planning application stage. However, according to Natural England, Ensor's Pool is still currently a designated SSSI. Natural England are empowered to denotify a SSSI site but until denotification is confirmed the paragraph is accurate. The paragraph makes no reference to the submission of a HRA or any other parts of the application process, it is used to set out the site context and is accurate.

5

Ref Document name


informed by a Habitat Regulations Assessment Stage 1 Screening Report at the planning application stage.

113 HSG 2 2.6.3 Although historically Heath End may have been a hamlet, it is misleading to classify thearea as a hamlet now. The Oxford Dictionary definition of a hamlet is: “a small village… a village without a church of its own, belonging to the parish of another village or town”. It is difficult to see how this definition canbe applied to Heath End and Stockingford more generally.

Accepted

113 HSG 2 3.2.2 We do not consider that a further buffer is required within the allocation boundary, inaddition to that provided by the Registered Park and Garden. If a further landscape buffer is required this could be provided on land within Arbury Estate ownership, in between the Registered

The requirement for a landscape buffer is set out in Policy HSG 2 of the Borough Plan: Forms of Development, Point 14 states there should be; "Provision of a landscape buffer on the southern and western edge of the site".

6

Ref Document name


Park and Garden and allocation boundary. The historic purpose of the gardens was to screen views to and out of the Grade I listed Arbury Hall.Consideration should be given for this historic purpose of the Registered Park and Garden when determiningthe extent of landscape buffers proposed.

113 HSG 2 3.2.2 There is no clear rationale for locating development exclusively in these areas. The wording is unnecessarily prescriptive and not supported with appropriate evidence. The provision of built development in this way is also not reflected in the proposed masterplan. We therefore object to this criterion, based on a lack of rationale in the evidence base and reflection in the masterplan. High level master planning workundertaken by Savills supported by a range of technical studies also

Accepted. This was an error.

7

Ref Document name


provides no rationale for the development of the northern and western parts of the site exclusively.

113 HSG 2 3.2.2 The above two criterion contradict the previous point made regarding the provision of a landscape buffer. If development can be screened from the Registered Park and Garden, then an additional buffer is not required. It is difficult to understand the rationale for provision of a buffer to screen an existing buffer.

The requirement for a landscape buffer is set out in Policy HSG 2 of the Borough Plan: Forms of Development, Point 14 states there should be; "Provision of a landscape buffer on the southern and western edge of the site".

113 HSG 2 3.2.4 We do not consider this is appropriate bearing in mind that the entire site is located in an area of underground coal workings. Such investigations if required, would need to be undertaken by means of a pre-commencement condition attached to a planning application.

Medieval kilns and potential for a medieval settlement on the site are highlighted in theHeritage Assessment (2016). NPPF (2019) para.189 requires, " Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets witharchaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers tosubmit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a fieldevaluation".

8

Ref Document name


113 HSG 2 3.3.3 The key deliverable access points that can be provided to service the allocation are fromHeath End Road and from the South of the site onto the A444 via the safeguarded route. Access via Hazell Way is difficult to provide due to an existing industrial unit being present on a long leasehold.We assume that reference to access from Walsingham Drive in fact refers to access onto Harefield Lane, Mimosa Close and then onto Walsingham Drive. If the development is to be served directly from WalsinghamDrive it would appear that development of the access road would need to take place outside of the allocation boundary. Furthermore if access is proposed from Mimosa Close, it should be considered whether this highway

The access points are based on the 2016 Strategic Transport Assessment produced by Warwickshire County Council. The Harefield Road/Mimosa Close and Hazell Way accesses are aspirational and any potential issues may be overcome in future. Nonetheless, the north-south distributor road is shown on the Concept Plan and remains a policy requirement.

9

Ref Document name


is adopted by Warwickshire County Council and indeed if there is a third party ransom situation which may make the access point unviable. To support delivery of the allocation and assist with north to south traffic movements through Nuneaton, such a road should be relied upon to provide suitable southern access to the site. A diagram showing our understanding of this is shown in Appendix C.

113 HSG 2 3.3.3 We require clarification on the type of access connection proposed. At present east ofMimosa Close, Harefield Lane is a cycle and pedestrian connection to the historic core of Bermuda village, adjacent to more recent development. West of Mimosa Close the lane is a farm track and public right of way,forming part of the Centenary Way. The

The proposed access points are taken from the STA. The developer will need to produce a transport assessment at the planning application stage and Warwickshire County Council will need to be satisfied that access and road infrastructure is appropriate for the development, taking into account vehicular movement and highway safety.

10

Ref Document name


safeguarded route will be progressed as a second access to the site.

113 HSG 2 3.3.5 We support consideration of the retention and enhancement of existing public footpaths where appropriate. However, it should be considered that footpaths may require diversion or stopping up inorder to facilitate development. This should be considered alongside the provision of new footpaths that better serve the proposed development and key nodes within and around it.

Support noted. The paragraph states footpaths should be retained and enhanced where possible.

113 HSG 2 3.3.6 We object to the Council’s proposal to provide a public footpath around the perimeter of the site. We do not consider that this is the most appropriate provision of pedestrian and cycle routes within theallocation. New pedestrian and cycle route should look to connect key destinations such as the Nuneaton Academy and Sports Centre, Bermuda Park

The majority of the proposed perimeter footpaths are exiting PROWs; the northern section is path number N48; the western section is in part path number N47; the southern section is path number N46. There is a new section of footpath proposed within the informal open space in the east. The proposed footpath is referenced in policy HSG2 point 28 "Create a footpath link to Ensor's Pool from Harefield Lane". The route within the

11

Ref Document name


Train station, George Elliot Hospital and routes to the Town Centre.

eastern landscape buffer is considered to provide an opportunity for a recreational route, providing an efficient use of space.

113 HSG 2 3.5.1 It is unclear what the local vernacular is. There does not appear to be a distinctive local architectural style in the area. We would request clarification from NBBC as to what they consider the local vernacular to be reflected is. On the basis of there being a range of architectural types we consider the plan should be amended accordingly.

The local vernacular is set out at 2.1.2 within the site and context section.

113 HSG 2 3.7.1 Circa 58.7ha is considered to be suitable for residential development. This would equateto 2054 dwellings at 35 dwellings per hectare (the allocation is for 1,500). We consider that this may be due to the provision of open space and habitat areas not being considered.We note that provision is made for a 1.4ha Local

The land use budget is going to be removed from all concept plans, as upon review we have decided that the figures are not needed due to the conceptual nature of the plans.

The provision of a local centre is a requirement of Policy HSG2; Point 3 "Provision of a local centre, including community facilities".

12

Ref Document name


Centre. We are not aware of evidence base which supports the provision of a local centre. If a Local Centre can be demonstrated as required at the plan stage, a suitablemechanism should be in place that following marketing this area of the allocation can be used for residential development if the provision of a local centre is not shown to be viable.

113 HSG 2 2.7.2 We consider that reference should also be made to the station being served by regularservices to Coventry, Leamington and Cambridge.

The text provides examples, as opposed to being a definitive list.

113 HSG 2 2.7.3 We disagree that Bermuda Park Train Station is located 2.3 miles away from the site. Ifmeasured from a central point on the site and a route followed via Harefield Lane, The Bridleway and St George's Way (See Appendix A). This equates

The measurement should have read 2.3 km, however having checked this again, the distance is 2.4 km, and this will be reflected in the plan.

The stations cited are examples, as opposed to a definitive list.

13

Ref Document name


to a circa 1.4 miles distance to the train station. We proposethat this paragraph is reworded to read:“Bermuda Park Train station is located circa 1.4 miles to the southeast of the site...”This paragraph should also state that the station is served by trains to Nuneaton, Bedworth, Coventry Arena(for Ricoh Arena, Bayton Road Industrial Estate and Prologis Park), Coventry, Kenilworth and Leamington.

113 HSG 2 2.7.5 This sentence should be amended to read: “The only present access point serving the site is from Charnwood Road…”

Accepted

113 HSG 2 2.8.1 We consider that reference should also be made to Arbury Local Centre, which isapproximately 1.2km from the centre of the site. This local centre is defined by the Local and District Centres Study (2012)

Accepted, Arbury Road Local Centre is identified in the Borough Plan list of Local Centres.

14

Ref Document name


having a range of shops and services which satisfy many of the characteristics associated with a District Centre.

113 HSG 2 2.8.3 We object to this measurement. If measured from a central point on the site and a routefollowed via Heath End Road to the centre of the hospital site (see Appendix B), this is circa 1 mile. We therefore consider that the Hospital should come under the category of “existing health services located within 1 mile of the site”.

All measurements within the concept plans have been adjusted to reflect the distance from the edge of the strategic sites, and this does bring the hospital within one mile.

113 HSG 2 3.8.3 The allocation is within the freehold ownership of the Arbury Estate. It should be noted that an industrial unit which requires demolition on Hazel Way is in a long leasehold agreement.

Noted.

113 HSG 2 3.8.5 It has not been agreed with either Council that this will be the case. Management of open space is a detailed matter that is usually formalised within a section 106 agreement

Accepted. The text will be amended to reflect this.

15

Ref Document name


301.1 HSG 2 3.3.3 The SPD does not state there will be a junction on Charnwood Avenue.

Noted, however the Strategic Transport Assessment produced by Warwickshire County Council proposed a secondary access onto Charnwood Avenue.

301.2 HSG 2 3.3.3 The roads are deteriorating with potholes and sinkholes. The roads can't cope with the excess flow. Will the roads be maintained? Will they be resurfaced before it goes ahead?

It is Warwickshire County Council's responsibility to maintain adopted highways and keep them in a satisfactory condition fit for the traffic using them.

301.3 HSG 2 3.3.3 Will there be a traffic management system in place to control the 3000 cars (from 1500 houses).

The impact from traffic will need to be assessed at the planning application stage, once a detailed transport assessment has been undertaken. As Highway Authority, Warwickshire County Council will be consulted and asked to comment on whether the proposed development is acceptable in highway terms.

301.4 HSG 2 3.3.3 What will happen to the other amenities? Are more doctors surgeries proposed? Will the hospital be expanded?

Financial contributions are required to go towards the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group who will advise as to how the money should be distributed.

301.5 HSG 2 3.3.3 The decision will impact residents' way of life with air and noise pollution. Children playing outside will be affected.

Air quality and noise assessments would be required at the planning application stage. The assessments would be considered by the Council's

16

Ref Document name


Environmental Health town. The Air Quality SPD, once adopted, will provide more detailed guidance in terms of how air quality should be addressed.

304 HSG 2 3.6.3 & 3.6.5 This proposal will cause a rat run through our estate and will be a danger to residents young and old. We already have a problem with people parking on our estate from Arbury Road making it dangerous to reverse off our drives. More through traffic will be horrendous for such a small estate causing the air quality to be at an unacceptable high.

A transport assessment would need to be submitted at the planning application stage. Warwickshire County Council, as highway authority, will be consulted on the application to ascertain whether the development is acceptable in highway terms (highway safety, traffic movement etc). An air quality assessment would also need to be submitted at the application stage and would be assessed by the Environmental Health team.

306 HSG 2 3.3.3 The Arbury View Estate can not substain the number of cars which will be generated by building 1,500 houses next to us. This could be changed to using a unused area of the Academy School playing field and unused allotments and on to Arbury Road as an access point. This will also make it safer for children

The principle of the site being developed for residential use has been established following the Borough Plan Examination and subsequent Adoption. The proposed access arrangements are based on the Strategic Transport Assessment (2016) produced on behalf of Warwickshire County Council. Highway capacity and safety will be assessed at the planning application stage following the

17

Ref Document name


accessing the Academy School.

submission of a detailed transport assessment.

331 HSG 2 3.3.3 The proposed entry from Heath End Rd on to Radnor Drive (Arbury View) for access to the new estate is totally unsound. With the academy traffic morning and afternoon. The sports centre traffic on late evenings and weekends, Radnor Drive is becoming a main road, traffic speed to match. The volume of traffic on to such a small estate is totally unnecessary and innappropriate.

To make supplementary document sound, only needs one entrance from Heath End Rd direct to new estate as planned.

The potential access point from Charnwood Avenue was set out in the Strategic Transport Assessment by the Highways team at Warwickshire County Council, and has been assessed through modelling and shown to be appropriate.

336.1 HSG 2 Figure 6 With regards to the supplementary planning document, the proposed residential area that reachesthe northern boundaries of the site do not provide sufficient green land between the existingpropoerties on Charnwood Avenue (numbers 24-44), which were built specifically to face the fields

Expanding the green land, significantly across the northern stretch of land that border the existinghousing estate will help to separate the houses from the proposed new properties. Helping tomitigate the loss of views, and the financial impact this will have on the Charnwood Avenueproperties that were designed and built to face

Our Sustainable Design and Construction SPD sets out recommended standards for distances between buildings in order to provide appropriate distances between existing and new buildings.

18

Ref Document name


with their gardens backing onto the road behind. The rest of the site has been drawn up with moregreen land bordering the estate, despite not having properties facing the proposed site. CharnwoodAvenue housing facing the site however, will have the fronts of their properties compromised by theproposed housing directly in front. This does not, in my view, provide sufficient privacy to existingresidents. Bearing in mind these houses were initially designed and built to face the fields of theArbury estate. This is a devastating result for the residents in this row of houses, who will lose thevery thing that made them invest in the properties in the first place.

the fields that will be lost if houses are built on theproposed site. It is very disappointing to see how little attention is being paid to the existingresidents and how this will negatively impact their properties, especially given the circumstances oftheir initial construction to take advantage of the beautiful countryside, which was in agreementwith the previous owner of the Arbury Hall estate. The loss of this part of the estate will be a terribleloss for the town. It should be protected from development, not lost to housing. The loss offarmland will be a tragedy, and will never be recovered.

336.2 HSG 2 Figure 6 With regards to the supplementary planning document, the proposed vehicle access point exiting/entering onto Charnwood

Removing direct access to the Arbury estate from the new estate will help to mitigate the adverseeffects caused by creating a 'rat run' through the

The potential access point from Charnwood Avenue was set out in the Strategic Transport Assessment by the Highways team at Warwickshire County Council, and has been assessed

19

Ref Document name


Avenue, as what appears to be a continuation of Kielder Drive, will causesignificant disruption to the existing housing estate. This will effectively turn the estate into ashortcut from Heath End Road to the existing Bermuda Park area, and subsequently the A444 andthe newly established Bermuda Park Railway Station. Traffic from the A44 will divert into the estateas a short cut to Stockingford and vice versa. It is clear, as residents of the area familiar with trafficpatterns, that the main access to the proposed estate will default to the northern access point that Iam opposing above. This will have an even greater detrimental effect on the Charnwood Driveproperties (numbers 24-44), which were built specifically to face the fields with the gardens

existing estate and onto Health End Road viaCharnwood Avenue, Kielder Drive, and Radnor Drive. If this connection to the estate is removedit will prevent traffic from the A444 from inevitably using the estate as a shortcut to Stiockingford.It will also prevent the detrimental effect that the increased traffic will have on the alreadycompromised houses that face the fields on Charnwod Avenue. These properties will be already benegatively impacted due facing the proposed site. These houses were designed to face the fields, nota housing estate, connected to the main transport highways to the south of Nuneaton town (A444).

through modelling and shown to be appropriate.

20

Ref Document name


backingonto the road behind.

337 HSG 2 6 I consider the supplementary plan to be unsound as the proposed road development into the Arbury View Estate is dangerous to residents, unsafe in respect of pollution noise and air quality, road safety, security of residents, flawed design creating a dangerous through road (on a quiet estate) causing congestion, damage to roads, existing property by traffic movements and destroying the environment of the existing residential estate.

Design an amended plan with no access to Arbury View Estate that would have otherwise caused increased congestion on Heath End Road and the estate road junctions affecting the local flow of traffic and increased danger to residents. Consider route via unused area of Academy School playing field and unused allotments onto Arbury as an access point or consider a route via Astley Lane, near Seaswood Pool.


338.1 HSG 2 We as residents of Charnwood Avenue, directly opposite the newly proposed road junction consider the supplementary plan to be unsound. The proposed road development into the Arbury View Estate is dangerous to residents, unsafe in respect of road safety, security to

Modification of Arterial (Distributor) road route making it more direct to Heath End Farm access point from bypass entrance, therefore having less impact of increased traffic on residents as this is an obvious way to avoid congestion into North Nuneaton.


21

Ref Document name


residents, pollution noise and air quality. The design is flawed creating a dangerous amount of traffic in a current quite residential estate. The through road will cause congestion through a residential estate.In addition damage to roads, existing property by traffic movements and destroying the environment of the existing residential estate.

We are residents of 67 Charnwood Avenue which would be directly opposite the proposed exit point of the road. We have a very young family and moved to the area from a busy road in order to provide them with a safer, quieter and more pleasant place to live and grow. This road will be opposite to that and mean that our current gardens where the children play freely will be overlooked by a large amount of traffic deeming it unsafe. The

Main arterial road should not go past the proposed first school due to safety of children and potential parking issues.

Design an amended plan with no access to Arbury View estate that would have otherwise caused increased congestion on Heath End Road and the estate road junctions affecting traffic flow and increased danger to residents.

Consider a route via the currently unused area of the Academy School playing fields and unused allotments onto Arbury road as an access point.

22

Ref Document name


pathways in which the children play, explore and walk family pets will no longer be safe.

338.2 HSG 2 3.1 Core concept plan (figure 6) Plan design inappropriate in respect of road design access and exit points and lack of landscape buffers for Charnwood Avenue (school approach Northern edge) as assured by council in Borough plan stage.



338.3 HSG 2 3.6.3 Pollution from noise and air quality on Arbury View Estate due to increased vehicle use. Also untold damage to private house by pollution and estate roads not designed for such traffic

A noise pollution assessment will be undertaken at the planning application stage.

We have undertaken an Air Quality Assessment which shows that the development of HSG2 will have an acceptable effect on air quality.

The potential access point from Charnwood Avenue was set out in the Strategic Transport

23

Ref Document name


Assessment by the Highways team at Warwickshire County Council, and has been assessed through modelling and shown to be appropriate.

338.4 HSG 2 3.6.5 Safety and security of residents and users of Arbury View estate. Increased vehicle access will potentially cause increased dangers to residents on the estate including young families and large numbers of children accessing the Academy School via the estate.We are residents of 67 Charnwood Avenue which would be directly opposite the proposed exit point of the road. We have a very young family and moved to the area from a busy road in order to provide them with a safer, quieter and more pleasant place to live and grow. This road will be opposite to that and mean that our current gardens where the children play freely will be overlooked by a large amount of traffic


We have undertaken an Air Quality Assessment which shows that the development of HSG2 will have an acceptable effect on air quality.

24

Ref Document name


deeming it unsafe. The pathways in which the children play, explore and walk family pets will no longer be safe.Air and noise pollution directly affecting our property will be substantial.

The potential for access to the estate for travelling criminals from Coventry and the M6 motorway increases substantially.Movement within the estate created untold danger for residents with a new road junction and increased traffic due to the plan created ‘rat run’ from the bypass to North Nuneaton with vehicles rushing to exit the estate avoiding congestion elsewhere.

338.5 HSG 2 3.2.11 The plan text states that ‘Existing trees and hedgerows will be retained to screen views of the strategic site where necessary enhancing such – the plan fails to support the text on the Charnwood


25

Ref Document name


Avenue side and in fact trees (for which previous Tree Preservation Orders were submitted but deferred pending any developments) would need to be felled to allow any prosed new road junction. Previous comment on lack of landscape buffers and enhancement is also relevant in this regard.

338.6 HSG 2 3.5 The character and design paragraph is contradictory in that it suggests no developed housing higher than 2-storeys and in keeping with surroundings when it uses the word ‘chiefly’ that suggests other design houses (3 storey) could be developed if this is not specific

Noted

338.7 HSG 2 3.3.3 The text related to Highway Access indicates a ‘distributor road’ and states only 3 access points in contradiction to the plan that includes a point onto Arbury estate. This tends to indicate this additional point has not properly considered in producing

3.3.3 highlights the primary access points, however Charnwood Avenue is a secondary access point.

26

Ref Document name


the concept plan339 HSG 2 3.3.3 a) I strongly disagree with

the destruction of the existing trees lining Charnwood Avenue, the oldest of which would be where the secondary exit would join Arbury View Estate. The environment will be damaged by the destruction of these trees, hedges and wildlife and will be a great loss to the residents of the estate.

b) The secondary road exit would cause mayhem on the estate. The top of Heath End Road is very busy as it is without bringing the extra traffic through the estate. At present cars belonging to residents of Heath End Road are parked on both sides of the two exit roads, stopping the easy flow on and off the estate. More traffic will only add to the problem.

c) Bringing extra traffic through the estate would

a) If there is no way to stop the building of new houses, let there be a buffer zone between the new houses and Charnwood Avenue, leaving the existing trees untouched.

b) For the safety of Arbury View Estate residents and school children only the primary exit for the new estate is built, coming out further down Heath End Road.


27

Ref Document name


make it very dangerous of the children attending Alderman Smith School.

340 HSG 2 3.3.3 a) I strongly disagree with ruining the present environment of Charnwood Avenue, not only with the destruction of trees but also to wildlife.

B) Residents of Kielder Drive who may have two cars but only one parking space on their drive would be constantly worried about damage to their vehicles if the proposed road was to come through by their properties. Non resident cars are parked by the exit to Radnor and go to work in the shops along the main Arbury road. There would be a significant build up of traffic trying to exit the estate to join already existing Heath End Road traffic.

c) Traffic would be a danger to school children from the Academy and young children who have

a) If there are to be new housing please let the residents keep some of their privacy by keeping the trees that have been there for years. There would be no avenue without trees. A buffer zone would also be good.

B) For the safety of residents and school children, only the primary exit for the new estate is built, exiting further down Heath end road.


28

Ref Document name


just moved on to the estate.

316.1 HSG 2 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 This section states Charnwood Avenue and Atholl Cresecent having private gardens backing onto the site boundary. In fact the front of our houses face onto the development with small gardens to the front. This was insisted on by Arbury Estates when the houses were built. We have open views of the site of the planned development, currently protected by hedgerows and trees.

In view of the impending loss of the amenity we currently enjoy, namely the open aspect to the front of our properties. We would ask that an increase to the natural boundary of some banking and hedgerows and some banking and the protection of the current trees along Charnwood Avenue be considered.

The concept plan will be amended to reflect the fact that the houses on Charnwood Avenue and Atholl Crescent front onto HSG2.

There is a landscape buffer proposed between the existing housing and proposed housing, which we feel will be sufficient.

316.2 HSG 2 3.3.3 This section of the concept plan relates to a distributor link which will connect HSG2 development to A444. It states 3 points of connectivity, Heath End Road, Hazell Way and Walsingham Drive. The concept plan (page 25) shows an extra road connecting to Arbury View Estate at the junction of Charnwood Avenue and Kielder Drive.

The road shown should only be a cycle and pedestrian route. The site boundary on Charnwood Avenue should be retained and the trees covered by a protection order. This was requested previously. It needs to be considered to prevent the contractors cutting them down. This is a small request when considered against the stipulations of Arbury Estate for their


29

Ref Document name


Previous plans showed a road connecting onto Arbury View Estate, at the junction of Charnwood Avenue and Rosendale Way, we objected strongly to that at the public consultation and were assured that would not happen and we are now faced with this proposal. We would object to any form of vehicle access on and off Arbury View Estate. The grounds for our objection are that the roads on the estate are too narrow, with tight corners with limited view of oncoming traffic. Roads are already congested with parked vehicles particularly at the junctions of Radnor Drive and Atholl Crescent with Heath End Road. Residents from Arbury Road and Heath End Road park on the estate roads.

Congestion increases at school times with the access to the academy being on Radnor Drive,

boundaries.

30

Ref Document name


also with the sports centre beign open 'til late evening.

This proposal will cause a rat run through the estate, leaving residents in danger, the increase in noise and pollution is also to be considered. Any access from Arbury View onto the HSG2 development could also be used by contractor's vehicles, something we endured during the build of the sports centre, at the academy. It was a nightmare, we were often blocked in our drive by vehicles waiting for access to the site, the roads were covered in mud and at times flooded. We must be protected from this happening again.

317 HSG 2 Figure 6 site concept

The plans illustates a major road connection from A444 onto the development site continuing across to join Charnwood Avenue and Kielder Drive. This is contrary to infromation on

There is no sense in connecting this road onto Charnwood Avenue, the roads on Arbury View Estate could not cope with increased traffic, then main connection must be from A444 directly to

The plan is not contrary to paragraph 3.3.3, as the access onto Charnwood Avenue will be secondary access, whereas this paragarph refers to primary access points.

The main connection is from the

31

Ref Document name


page 28, 3.3.3. It show this main road running next to the proposed primary school? This will be a very busy road with not only local traffic but though traffic exiting onto Heath End Road.

Heath End Road with services roads to Hazell Way industrial site, the school needs to be nearer to the Bermuda Flowers Estate.

A444 on to Heath End Road, as well as Hazell Way.

321 HSG 2 That you consider the supplementary plan to be unsound as the proposed road (I live on this road and I don't want to see more traffic using it) development into the Arbury View Estate is dangerous to residents, unsafe in respect of pollution noise and air quality, road safety, security of residents, flawed design creating a dangerous through road causing congestion, damage to roads, existing property by traffic movements and destroying the environment of the existing residential estate.

3.1 Core concept plan (figure 6) plan design inappropriate in respect of

The access onto Arbury View Estate has been assessed by the Highways team at Warwickshire County Council, and they consider it to be appropriate.

We have conducted an Air Quality Assessment which has shown that the effects of the developments outlined in the Borough Plan will be acceptable.

There is a landscape buffer proposed between the existing housing on Charnwood Avenue and HSG2.

The three access points mentioned in paragraph 3.3.3 are main access points; the access into Arbury View Estate is a secondary access point.

The access onto Arbury View Estate will provide access to

32

Ref Document name


road design access and exit points and lack of landscape buffers for Charnwood Avenue (school approach northern edge) as assured by council in Borough Plan stage.

3.6.3 Pollution from noise and air quality on Arbury View Estate due to increased vehicle use. Also causing untold damage to private houses by pollution and estate roads not design for such traffic.

3.6.5 Safety and security of residents and users of Arbury View Estate. Increased vehicle access will potentially cause increased dangers to those residents in the estate including many young families and large numbers of children accessing the academy school via the estate, one new young family immediately next to proposed access point. The potential for access to

Nuneaton Academy for residents of HSG2, whereas a road through the academy's playing fields and the allotments would not.

33

Ref Document name


the estate for travelling criminals from Coventry and the M6 motorway increases substantially. Movement within the estate creates untold dangers for residents with a new road junction and increased traffic due to the plan created 'rat run' from the bypass to north Nuneaton with vehicles rushing to exit the estate avoiding congestion elsewhere.

3.2.11 The plan text states that 'Existing trees and hedgerows will be retained to screen views of the strategic site where necessary enhancing such' - the plan fails to support the text on the Charnwood Avenue side and in fact trees (for which previous Tree Preservation Orders were submitted but deferred pending any development) would need to be felled to allow any proposed new road junction. Previous

34

Ref Document name


comment on lack of landscape buffers and enhancement is also relevant in this regards.

3.5 The character and design paragraph is contradictory in that it suggests no developed housing higher than 2-storeys and in keeping with surroundings when it uses the word 'chiefly' that suggests other design houses (3-storey) could be built by developers if this is not specific.

3.3.3 The text related to Highway Access indicates a 'distributor road' and states only 3 access points in contradiction to the plan that indicates a point onto Arbury Estate. this tends to indicate this addtional point had not been properly considered in producing the concept plan.

Other considerations for modifications may be:

35

Ref Document name


Modification of arterial (distributor) road route making it more direct to Heath End Farm access point from bypass entrance, therefore having less impact of increased traffic on residents as this is an obvious way to avoid congestion into north Nuneaton.

Main arterial road should not go past 1st school due to safety of children and potential parking issues.

Design an amended plan with no access to Arbury View Estate that would have otherwise caused increased congestion on Heath End road and the estate road junctions affecting the local traffic flow and increased danger to residents.

Consider route via unused area of academy school playing field and unused allotments onto Arbury Road as a access point.

36

Ref Document name


322 HSG 2 3.2.2 to 3.2.11 and figure 6

The Concept Plan for Arbury is unsound in several ways (detailed on additional comments). Having now attended the Consultation Meeting at The Academy relating to the proposals for the HSG2 development I would raise the following objections to the concept plan. It was immediately obvious that the document itself is unsound as the written text regarding the concept differs from the detail shown on the Concept Plan map for HSG2. (Page 25 - figure 6)The detail in question being that the map shows an exit onto the Arbury View Estate that has never previously been suggested at any stage in the Borough Plan (Adopted Plan) and was not subject to the Planning Inspector review as a result. The text in the concept report saying there are only 3 accesses to the development (Walsingham

The modifications required to the Concept Plan primarily relate to the removal of an Access Road into Arbury View Estate. This road is not justified, has substantial impact on the surrounding environment and residents to the strategic site and was never part of the Borough Plan agreed with the Planning Inspector and therefore not part of the Adopted Borough Plan Map.

This modification has an impact on Noise & Air Pollution, Safety & Security of local residents, Impact on existing surrounding road structures, Impact on additional road congestion and access to Heath End Road, Safety of local school children accessing and exiting the Nuneaton Academy. So should be removed from the Concept.

The access onto Arbury View Estate was suggested in 2016 in the Strategic Transport Assessment, and was part of the evidence base assessed by the planning inspector.

Within the three accesses stated, it should say A444 instead of Walsingham Drive.

There is a landscape buffer in the concept plan between Charnwood Avenue and the proposed new residential areas.

The access from the A444 directly links to Heath End Road.

The concept plan in the Borough Plan indicates the primary access points, not the secondary access points, so the concept plan SPD does not conflict with the Borough Plan.

37

Ref Document name


Drive, Hazel Way and Heath End Road) which contradicts the details shown on the concept map. I would therefore demand that the access endorsed on the map be removed from all publications as not viable or validated through a full consultation or inspection process.

My objection to the suggested road onto Arbury View Estate would be based on the impact caused to the residents including the increase in pollution, the impact of the noise and additional traffic on the people and the buildings, the impact on the minor roads in the estate. The location of the road access is in a dangerous location into the heart of the estate where young families live and play. Such a road would interfere with the exit and entry of school children to the Academy school and

The concept plan should be amended in such a way that prevents the distributor road becoming a ‘Rat Run’ from A444 to Stockingford using an existing housing estate network. It should be designed to carry the through route traffic directly to Heath End Road and not via junctions that would endanger new residents and create issues for those new to the estate looking for the way out to Stockingford.

The main distributor road should not go past 1st school due to safety of children and potential parking issues. The plan should be clearer in the type of housing development to ensure it is in keeping with the adjacent estate not as the report suggests the old design of houses found in Stockingford roads that do not border the

38

Ref Document name


create an unnecessary danger to children. The route through the estate is also a popular route for countryside walkers with dogs and the increase in traffic and a busy junction would be an increased danger. Such a road would also provide the ability to enter the estate for criminals coming directly off the motorway and A444 Bypass something not a current concern for our small community including a number of aged residents.

I would also raise the issue in the concept plan that a rural barrier as agreed in the Adopted Plan for the Arbury View Estate (Charnwood Avenue section) using the likes of allotments or substantial hedging and trees, mentioned in text in the plan has not been reflected in the new map. Suggestions at the consultation meeting by

development.

39

Ref Document name


planners that our estate would wish to integrate with the new development is naïve to think a quiet small community wants to be swamped by a new conglomeration of housing is ridiculous. As much protection from the development that can be afforded should be a priority. (Page 26 – Para: 3,2.2) (Page 27 – 3.2.11)

The concept plan also shows what is described as a distributor road, but all this does is create a danger for the proposed 1st school as it runs past the building. It fails to link the southern access point from A444 to the most northern access on Heath End Road directly, but draws all this additional traffic throughout the housing estate and does not deal with the fact that invariably the public will use this road as an alternative route to Northern Nuneaton from

40

Ref Document name


the A444 and not just an estate access. This is another argument that a clear northern access is required that does not interfere with existing residential areas. The indicated cycle route on the concept plan creating a direct link between the two exits, should be designated as a road.

The original map in the Adopted Borough Plan described by your planners as ‘The Holy Grail’ shows that the only access to Arbury View Estate would be a cycle and pedestrian route at the most and this should be reinstated. The difference between map and text suggests unsound preparation of the map by the council’s consultants (WYG).

This change of plan cannot be justified and should not be allowed to progress to a masterplan planning stage or SPD.

41

Ref Document name


Page 27. Para: 3.2.11 – references existing trees and hedgerows that should be retained to screen views of the strategic site and where necessary to enhance – the inclusion of an access point as endorsed at Figure 6 would mean the destruction of several trees which have already been subject to ‘Tree Preservation Order’ requests that the council refused saying they would only be applicable in the event of development (that is now) so these Orders should be enforced. This proposed road junction would be such a development that would require removal of these substantial trees that currently provide a substantial barrier from the strategic site area. These trees as with all those in the street along Charnwood Avenue (67-75) subject of the previous requests, it should be

42

Ref Document name


pointed out are habitat for Bats a part of the local wildlife.

323 HSG 2 1.2.3 to 3.6.5 The Concept Plan for Arbury is unsound in several ways (detailed on additional comments). On page 6, para: 1.2.3 - it references development of the principles set out in the Borough Plan which has an ‘Adopted Plan’ authorised in June 2019 by the Planning Inspector. However, the Concept Plan figure 6 (page 25) differs from the authorised ‘Adopted Borough plan’ for Arbury, in that it shows a ‘Distributor road’ with only 3 access points to the site at the borough plan stage. However, the concept plan (figure 6 Page 25) now shows 4 access points where a footpath possible cycle route marked originally has been amended inappropriately to show a further road and access point into the heart of Arbury View housing estate. This contradicts

The modifications required to the Concept Plan primarily relate to the removal of an Access Road into Arbury View Estate. This road is not justified, has substantial impact on the surrounding environment and residents to the strategic site and was never part of the Borough Plan proposed to the Planning Inspector and therefore not part of the Adopted Borough Plan Map.

This modification has an impact on Noise & Air Pollution, Safety & Security of local residents, Impact on existing surrounding road structures, Impact on additional road congestion and access to Heath End Road, Safety of local school children accessing and exiting the Nuneaton Academy.

The concept plan does not contradict the Borough Plan, as the Borough Plan shows the primary access points, whereas the concept plan shows a secondary access point onto Arbury View Estate.

The access onto Arbury View Estate was suggested in 2016 in the Strategic Transport Assessment, and was part of the evidence base assessed by the planning inspector.

There is a proposed landscape buffer on the concept plan between Charnwood Avenue and the proposed residential development.

The funding required from Arbury Estate for the road linking to the A444 is set out at paragraph 3.8.2.

The access point onto Arbury View Estate does not replace the walking and cycling route, it is in addition to it.

43

Ref Document name


what had been agreed by the Planning Inspector and creates a totally different impact to existing communities near the strategic site, to that agreed by the Inspector. This change of plan cannot be justified and should not be allowed to progress to a masterplan planning stage or SPD.

Page 8. Para: 1.3 – references WYG prepared this concept plan in consultations, but clearly had no consultation with existing residents to understand the impact of a further access point has, thus not considering their views, despite numerous representations in the Borough Plan process, and previous tree preservation requests that are impacted upon, by this change to the plan in regard to a further access point.

Page 12. Para: 2,1,2 – fails to correctly identify the

The concept plan should be amended in such a way that prevents the distributor road becoming a ‘Rat Run’ from A444 to Stockingford using an existing housing estate network.

The concept plan should show a suitable route to the Heath End Road access point that will carry through traffic without affecting residents.

The main distributor road should not go past 1st school due to safety of children and potential parking issues.

The specific requirements in terms of landscape buffer, access arrangements etc would have to be determined at the planning application stage once a scheme is submitted and the impacts of the proposal are known. The landscaping will be informed by the various assessment that would be required at the planning application stage (visual impact, ecology, residential amenity etc). The necessary highway infrastructure and access arrangements will be scrutinised at the planning application stage following the submission of a transport assessment. Warwickshire County Council, as highway and transportation authority, will be invited to comment on these matters in respect of highway capacity and highway safety matters.

44

Ref Document name


housing surrounding the North side of the site with a 1970’s built housing estate (Arbury View) that will border the strategic development and changes the perspective from what was defined as an old 1950’s terraced housing border, as stated, that is in fact some distance from the border to a newer and not deprived housing area. This can have an impact on decisions as to where affordable housing may be sited.

Page 14. Para 2.2.2 – references Charnwood Avenue but fails to state that houses (67-75) face onto the proposed development with limited buffer, as opposed to Athol Crescent houses that have an allotment buffer, hence the need for these houses to have a substantial landscaped buffer (not shown on concept plan only a cycle route) as stated in the Borough Plan

45

Ref Document name


stating existing residents will have protection from the new development. .

Page 19. Para: 2.7.5 – references that the roads on the north side of the strategic site ‘DO NOT ACCESS’ the strategic site except for the single-track, farm driveway to Coton Lawns Farm. Should the proposed access point on Figure 6 Page 25 be adopted this comment would not be true and misrepresented as it would bring Arbury View Estate into the strategic site. Surely the proposed road should be referenced.

Page 19. Para: 2.7.7 – fails to evidence how the A444 and the strategic site are linked. We are told by planners at consultation meetings the link road that Warwickshire County say was not viable for them to build, so is going to be funded by Arbury Estate. Why is this not being

46

Ref Document name


published.?

PRIMARY OBJECTION - Page 25. Figure 6. Para: 3.1 – This map of the Concept Plan is unsound in several ways but primarily with the inclusion of an additional Access point within the heart of the Arbury View Estate replacing planned cycle and footpath routes without consultation and failing to comply with the Adopted Borough Plan map. This has several below detailed issues related to such a link into the strategic site.

Page 26. Para: 3.2.2 – Design principles state that the development should be screened on the urban edges by woodland or buffers, but these do not show on the Concept plan along the edge with Charnwood Avenue (67-75) and any access point would destroy this concept.

Page 27. Para: 3.2.11 –

47

Ref Document name


references existing trees and hedgerows that should be retained to screen views of the strategic site and where necessary to enhance – the inclusion of an access point as endorsed at Figure 6 would mean the destruction of several trees which have already been subject to ‘Tree Preservation Order’ requests that the council refused says they would only be applicable in the event of development (that is now). This proposed road junction would be such a development that would require removal of these substantial trees that currently provide a substantial barrier from the strategic site area. These trees as with all those in the street along Charnwood Avenue (67-75) subject of the previous request it should be pointed out are habitat for Bats a part of the local wildlife.

48

Ref Document name


Page28. Para: 3.3.1 – references ‘Movement’ and the inclusion of a road into the existing Arbury View Estate would have a major impact from the new development and therefore creating work outside the development in improving road structures and junctions outside of HSG2 would create a negative impact from such development.

Page 28. Para: 3.3.3 – References the ‘Distributor Road’ on the strategic site and states ‘Primary Access points are on Heath End Road, Hazell Way and Walsingham Drive’. There is no mention of a 4th access point into Arbury View Estate which is in contradiction to Figure 6 (page 25) and this text is also in line with the Adopted Borough Plan Map and not what has been produced on this concept plan map.

49

Ref Document name


It also references one access to Heath End Road which is all about controlling congestion on Heath End Road as mentioned in the Borough Plan and WCC Transport reviews. The concept plan fails to show this access point on Heath End Road as being the primary route through the strategic site from the A444 corridor.

Page 30. Para: 3.4.5 – Locating a 1st school on the primary distributor road for the new development cannot be sensible bearing in mind safety of the children and necessary parking for families at the school.

Page 30. Para: 3.5 – The Character and Design paragraph is contradictory in that it suggests no developed housing higher than 2-storeys and in keeping with surroundings when it uses the word

50

Ref Document name


‘Chiefly’ that suggests other design houses (3-storey) could be built by developers if this is not specified.

Page 31. Para: 3.6.3 – Noise and Air Quality should include the implication of surrounding existing environments and residents as a result of the strategic site proposals. The inclusion of a road into Arbury View Estate at Charnwood Avenue would have a substantial negative effect on the residents and properties on the existing estate. The increased vehicle load into the estate bring additional pollution from the cars and their occupants including the stresses these vehicles will put on the road structures. The design of the road on the concept plan map creates a ‘Rat Run’ from the A444 Bypass and will see traffic from Coventry and the M6 Motorway brought into the estate

51

Ref Document name


roads in an attempt to access Heath End Road creating new congestion pinch point areas. Substantial arguments not to have such a road.

Page 32. Para: 3.6.5 – Safety and Security should also include the implication of surrounding existing environments and residents as a result of the strategic site proposals. The inclusion of a road into Arbury View Estate at Charnwood Avenue would have a substantial negative effect on the residents and properties on the existing estate. This road would allow persons to access the estate directly from the A444 via the strategic site meaning access for additional potential criminal gangs from the M6 Motorway and Coventry area thus increasing the safety and security of the estate with no prospect of mitigations. Let alone the safety aspects involving

52

Ref Document name


the additional traffic on the estate. The Safety of School children should also be considered and such a road onto what is in effect a Cul-de-Sac estate providing a safe environment for school children to access and exit the Nuneaton Academy would be affected by increased vehicle traffic and a further junction to negotiate having implications on the children’s health and safety.

324 HSG 2 Figure 6 : HSG2 site concept

There is a proposed vehicle access point from Charnwood Avenue/Kielder Drive. Firstly this is a very quiet estate and the proposed access point results in this very quiet residential area being a busy main access road for non-residents. This will result in this are becoming a main road access point to both the A444 and Heath End road.

Significant space in front of the Charnwood avenue (back to front) houses so as to avoid new homes being built directly in front of the existing homes with only a footpath between them.

Green space to be put in front of the Charnwood Avenue homes which face the Arbury fields.

No road to be built in front

The access via Charnwood Avenue / Kielder Drive is a secondary access point.

There is a proposed landscape buffer between the housing on Charnwood Avenue and the proposed residential areas.

53

Ref Document name


There is a far more suitable access point off Heath End Road, rather than through a quiet residential area.

Finally this road is very quiet and rarely see’s much traffic. The home at the end of this stretch on Charnwood Avenue (number 44) will move from being a quiet home with little traffic or disruption to having a main road running right past this house.

Frustratingly and once again we continue to see the plans are bordering right up against the houses which face ‘back to front’ on Charnwood Avenue (i.e. the front of the houses faces out onto the public footpath, facing out onto the Arbury fields). This is extremely frustrating as this suggests that the Charnwood Avenue Road (where houses look out onto the fields) will have houses built directly in front

of the Charnwood Avenue homes which face the Arbury fields, in order to ensure you do not create the homes being on a roundabout.

No access point through the quiet residential area and removing the main road access point from Charnwood Avenue/ Kielder Drive.

54

Ref Document name


of these houses.

Worse still, if a road were to be built in front of these houses, then this would cause the houses that are on this stretch of roach to in effect be on a roundabout. This is clearly unacceptable.

There is no clearance included in the plans in front of these houses for either green space/allotments/any kind of space which prevents these houses being seriously encroached upon.

I am baffled that the plans proposed include a perimeter around of the entire site for green space, but there is no regard to these specific homes which face back to front and are in an unusual position. The homes were specifically built to take advantage of the views of the field, hence their

55

Ref Document name


unusual back to front build, and there is no consideration whatsoever in the plans for this.

342 HSG 2 Figure 6 There is no through road on site giving exit/access to any other road other than Heath End Road. This road is already subject to major delays daily. Directing traffic through the existing estate would be a nightmare. The second access/exit through Bermuda only leads to St Georges Way and on to Griff Island and presumably on to Bedworth or Coventry - not Nuneaton Shops.

A bypass of Heath End Road is essential and the Planning Department should have considered that first, without this the plan is not viable

The proposed Arbury distributor link road and Bermuda Bridge project will provide alternatives to alleviate congestion on Heath End Road - particularly for traffic going to/from Coventry etc. The primary access point onto Heath End Road is intended to be in the north-east corner of the site as the Charnwood Ave access is intended to be a secondary access and suitable for residential traffic only.

343 HSG 2 Not noted Traffic congestion. There is a problem already with the exit onto Heath End Road from Radnor Drive

The new estate must be kept separate from Arbury view estate. The exit for the new estate must be the road where Heath End Farm is, not Kielder Drive. Where is the buffer between the estates we were promised whilst you were trying to get the plans passed?

Noted. As above, the access onto Charnwood Avenue is anticipated to be a secondary access suitable for residential traffic only and not heavy traffic.

345 HSG 2 Figure 6 We have problems now at the junction of Radnor

The Concept Plan shows a primary access onto Heath End

56

Ref Document name


Drive/Heath End Road. The new road has got to join Heath End Road where the farm is. There is room to put an island in , which would let traffic flow. There is also room for a road at the top end of the Academy, where the allotments are, this would help with the congestion on Heath End Road.

We already have problems in Radnor Drive with traffic from the school and sports centre. People from Heath End Road park their cars at the junction with Radnor Drive, making Radnor drive a single carriage way.

Road by Heath End Farm. Access arrangements can only be finalised once detailed site work has been undertaken and following the submission of a transport assessment at the planning application stage. Warwickshire County Council's Highways team will be invited to comments on matters such as highway capacity and highway safety.

346 HSG 2 Figure 6 I consider the SPD unsafe for residents of Arbury View estate. The proposed road through via Kielder Drive and Radnor Drive would affect everyone including children using the Academy School. It would also cause congestion as the estate was never designed for through traffic. Young families have

I feel that alternative routes would give better access:1. From bypass entrance direct to Heath End Farm access point2. Via Hazel Way, Bermuda Road Industrial Estate3. Access to Arbury Road via unused playing field and allotments

The proposed access onto Charnwood Avenue stems from the Strategic Transport Assessment which proposed a secondary access. The access will be designed to accommodate residential traffic only to allow access to Nuneaton Academy and so will not be designed for heavy traffic. Access arrangements can only be finalised at the planning

57

Ref Document name


recently moved on the estate with no knowledge of the proposed plan.

application stage following the submission of a detailed transport assessment.

346 HSG 2 3.6.5 I consider the SPD unsafe for residents of Arbury View estate. The proposed road through via Kielder Drive and Radnor Drive would affect everyone including children using the Academy School. It would also cause congestion as the estate was never designed for through traffic. Young families have recently moved on the estate with no knowledge of the proposed plan.

I feel that alternative routes would give better access:1. From bypass entrance direct to Heath End Farm access point2. Via Hazel Way, Bermuda Road Industrial Estate3. Access to Arbury Road via unused playing field and allotments

As above, access arrangements can only be finalised at the planning application stage following the submission of a transport assessment.

347 HSG 2 The proposed access to this new development off Heath End Road through the existing housing, then out onto the A444 and the opposite direction. Will increase the congestion on Heath End Road, Arbury Road, Croft Road, The Raywoods and Northumberland Avenue because people from Camp Hill, Ansley Common, Galley Common and Chapel End will use all

A 'real' relief road is needed. From the road to Fillongley off Arbury and Ansley Roads, across the existing farmland. This would relieve the traffic congestion from all routes on that side of Nuneaton.

Noted, but neither Warwickshire County Council, or any other highway authority, has proposed or required an alternative relief road. Nonetheless, the distributor link road through HSG2, and the Bermuda Bridge scheme will play key roles in reducing congestion in the west of Nuneaton.

58

Ref Document name


these roads to access the A444 rather than go through Nuneaton.

353.1 HSG 2 3.3.3 It states the distributor link road will include primary access points on Heath End Road, Hazell Way and Walsingham Drive. However, page 25 figure 6 shows an additional vehicle access point on Charnwood Avenue which is neither illustrated nor referenced in the Adopted Borough Plan. point 29 of said plan also states access to any development should avoid approaching the site from the north.

There have been numerous public consultations on the Borough Plan so to insert a hitherto unpublicised road junction into the Concept Plan is both underhand and undemocratic.

Design an amended plan with no access to the Arbury View Estate.

The Strategic Transport Assessment (2016) proposed a secondary access onto Chanwood Avenue and so the Concept Plan reflects that requirement. The access will be amended to mirror the STA showing the access at the junction of Charnwood Ave and Rossendale Way.

353.2 HSG 2 2.7.5 It is stated the only present access point serving the site is from Charnwood Road (sic)

This is a major omission that needs correcting. Harefield Lane should be included as an access

Noted, and the alternative access points will be included in the text, although the access point is indicated on the Concept Plan on

59

Ref Document name


This is incorrect as access can be obtained from Harefield Lane via Mimosa Close on the south-east edge of the site.Harefield Lane is not only a public footpath (N46) but is also the access road to Lane House and Dennis Farm from Mimosa Close.

point to the site. page 25.

353.3 HSG 2 2.8.1 Kingswood Road is stated to be a district centre 3.2km distance from HSG2Appendix E on page 251 of the Borough Plan names it as a local centre.However, the nearest local centre is Arbury Road which has a more diverse range of shops and services and is only 160m from HSG2.This is well within the requirement of the Borough Plan Policy TC3 quoted on page 30 para 3.4.3 of the concept plan and so the proposed new local centre is incorrectly sited.

The information on page 20 para 2.8.1 needs correcting.

The proposed local centre should be relocated nearer the south east of the HSG2 development site so that it can also be used by residents of the properties known as the "Flower Estate" off Mimosa/Walsingham Drive who have no facilities whatsoever.

Noted - the text will be amended to clarify the nearest district centre, which is at Queens Road at approx. 1.4km east.

353.4 HSG 2 2.8.2 Values Academy is listed as an Independent School. It is not a mainstream

Remove Values Academy from the list of secondary education options

It is agreed that Values Academy is a school for pupils with special educational needs and so its

60

Ref Document name


school but is for children with "challenging needs" - in other words having been excluded from mainstream school. Should this really be listed for a secondary education option in this locality.

context needs to be clear. The capacity of the school (30 pupils only) will also be clarified.

353.5 HSG 2 Figure 6 EXISTING PRoW. A third of the way in from the western edge of the site, parallel to the North Drive, the plan indicates continued use of an archaic public right of way which, although never legally rescinded, has not been used in at least four decades. The reason for this is that it involves crossing land in agricultural cultivation. The path is not signposted at either end, has not been maintained and kept open and the northern end has had a fence across it for many years.

Utilise the existing route of the well established Centenary Way which follows the farm road between Coton Lawn Farm and Charnwood Avenue/Rossendale Way junction, thereby retaining the status quo. This is a well known local route used by ramblers, dog walkers, cross country cyclists, wildlife watchers, etc., and should be kept in situ in accordance with page 58 point 18 of the Borough Plan.

Noted, however the 'once a highway, always a highway' legal maxim applies. Acknowledging the status of the PROW helps to ensure that the route is recognised as part of site masterplanning, and that opprtunities to enhance the route are potentially explored. We agree that the Centenary Way needs to be addressed in the SPD so that it is considered as part of site masterplanning. Reference to the route will be included in the SPD.

353.5 HSG 2 Figure 6 Ensors Pool is already an established "open space" and is within a short distance of the larger wildlife area of Bermuda

If the planned grassland habitat is to extend southward to Harefield Lane, the south-west corner boundary should be

Ensor's Pool is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a site of designated international ecological importance. The buffer indicated reflects Borough Plan

61

Ref Document name


Pool. It does not, therefore, warrant being enlarged to the extent shown. The southern edge joining onto Harefield Lane will be about 350m long which is excessive.

How can this large extension of "informal open space" even be considered with an access road proposed through it from east to west/west to east as indicated on the map?

moved eastwards by about 110m and the western edge realigned accordingly. This would then line up with the field boundary indicated on the map on the southern side of Harefield Lane. Your so-called "green link" shown on the map would still have ample room to serve its purpose.

Policy HSG2 point 23 which requires a minimum 100m buffer zone to ensure that hydrological pathways are not compromised. The area of open space could be scaled back if it is proven that there would be no unacceptable impact to the SAC. The Hazell Way access was proposed in the Strategic Transport Assessment and is reflected in the HSG2 Concept Plan on page 57 of the Borough Plan.

353.6 HSG 2 Figure 6 Haselbury Corner, Christchurch Close and Shillingstone Drive are screened by the trees surrounding Ensors Pool

Mimosa Close and Walsingham Drive (north) are shielded by "the mound" and will also have new woodland planted nearby (Borough Plan page 58 point 15). The RPG is obscured by its own woodland and even has an additional landscape buffer allocated along the site boundary in

Provide a substantial landscape buffer, with integrated tree planting, along part of the northern boundary to screen the vulnerable properties in Charnwood Avenue and help the established estate retain its identity. It should be kept separate from the vast development thereby endorsing the government inspector's report of 9th April (paragraph 114) stating the HSG2 site "would not .........result in coalescence with neighbouring settlements".

Para. 15 of Policy HSG2 requires use of woodland planting to screen the urban edge. A landscape buffer is already present on the Concept Plan in this location, however the key has been missed off the plan, which was an error, so this will be added.

62

Ref Document name


the concept plan.

By your own analysis of Topography and Views on page 17 paragraph 2.3.3, towards the north built development comprises a continuous line of properties with the limited presence of trees or hedgerows. Why does the plan show no landscape buffer or woodland planting to screen Charnwood Avenue, the only properties devastated by HSG2?

The landscape buffer should be shown on the mapped diagram Figure 6 confirmed in text to avoid future misinterpretation. Arbury View Estate has been a settled community for over fifty years and deserves some consideration.

353.7 HSG 2 3.2.2 HERITAGE: This states "Development to be located within the northern and western parts of the site".

However, page 59 paragraph 7.41 of the adopted Borough Plan states the development will be restricted to the northern and eastern boundaries. Which is correct?

Clarify exactly where the development is to be located.

This document contains so much inaccuracy, incorrect information, bad grammar, misused words plus a mixture of metric and imperial measurements that it needs completely redrafting

The bullet point at 3.2.2 has been taken from the Heritage Assessment for the Borough Plan, however the text should say eastern rather than western. In light of the 100m buffer requirement adjacent to Ensor's Pool however, development cannot be located to the eastern part of the site, therefore we will remove this bullet point.

353.8 HSG 2 3.2.2 HERITAGE: The latest Ordnance Survey maps

More consideration should be given to safeguarding

Registered Park and Gardens national heritage designations

63

Ref Document name


show far more woodland now surrounds Arbury Hall and Gardens than when the Borough Plan was in its infancy many years ago.

However, there is an unwavering preoccupation with landscape buffers to screen the RPG and North Drive; over time each edition of the Borough Plan contains the same mantra.

the "heritage" of the only properties seriously affected by HSG2; namely Charnwood Avenue.

As yet there is no specified buffer zone to minimally redress the obliteration of the Green Belt and its unremitting effect.

In fact, there appears to be a deliberate intention to merge the Arbury View Estate with the proposed new development despite paragraph 114 of the government inspector's report of 9th April stating the HSG2 site "would not....result in coalescence with neighbouring settlements".

and so have to be afforded protection. The Charnwood Avenue properties are not designated as of heritage significance, but the impact of the development on those properties (e.g. visual impact, landscape impact etc) would be assessed at the planning application stage.

353.9 HSG 2 3.2.8 AREAS OF WILDLIFE INTEREST: From the position of the properties a 100m buffer zone did not appear to have been considered or implemented when the site of the adjoining Griff No.4 spoil heap was developed for housing (Christchurch

Reduce the buffer zone to a more appropriate distance.

The impact of the Christchurch Close proposal would have been assessed at the planning application stage. The 100m buffer has been proposed following discussions with Natural England based on the latest information available and accords with the latest legislation/guidance available.

64

Ref Document name


Close et al) even though native crayfish were present. Numerous specialist surveys have declared there are no longer any crayfish in the pool and it is understood a review is currently underway to see if it should d retain its SSSI status. Hydrological pathways to the pool have already been compromised over time by pesticides and chemical fertilisers percolating into groundwater via run-off from adjacent agricultural land. An extended buffer zone is therefore outdated and inappropriate.

The appropriateness of the buffer can only be considered at the application stage following detailed site work.

353.10 HSG 2 3.2.11 EXISTING WOODLAND, TREES & HEDGEROWS: The text states "the existing trees and hedgerow should be retained to screen views……. and where necessary, enhanced". This is disingenuous as trees, for which TPOs were submitted but deferred pending any development, would have to be removed

Clarify and reaffirm your policy on the retention of existing trees and hedgerows.

The removal of a tree may be necessary to allow access, but it is clearly the intention that the trees are retained where possible and potentially enhanced. Mitigation and compensation measures can only be ascertained at the planning application stage, but it is a policy requirement that there is no net loss to biodiversity.

65

Ref Document name


to allow the proposed road junction on Charnwood Avenue.

As it takes 100 saplings to reduce pollution and suck in greenhouse gases to the same extent as a mature tree (Daily Mail 23/11/19), the delivery of your "net biodiversity benefits" in accordance with Policy NE3 could be somewhat short of fulfilment.

353.1 HSG 2 3.2.13 (& Page 25 Figure 6 HSG2 Site concept) OPEN SPACE: It is stated that a Community Park will be provided to form a habitat corridor linking Ensors Pool and local wildlife sites to the south but the map on page 25 shows it will be located on the south-west edge well away from Ensors Pool. Not only is it a very small area about 100m wide but it has a cycleway and public right of way running through it and will also have to accommodate a play area. It is situated at the bottom

The Community Park needs to be re-sited to a more prominent and accessible area.

Considering the large amount of grassland proposed to the south and west of Ensors Pool, some of this area should be exchanged for a larger "community park".

It is intended that the community park would lie to the west of Ensors Pool in the area marked as 'informal open space'. The concept plan will be amended to make this clear. The Community Park area to the west seeks to deliver younger childrens play provision (0-12 years), so will be amended to show formal open space.

66

Ref Document name


of a slope, next to a flood zone and will remain very wet and muddy after heavy rain, so is not fit for purpose. Presumably it is unsuitable for building on so has been allocated the dubious status of "country park".

353.1 HSG 2 3.2.15 OPEN SPACE: It is unclear what is meant by "the wider Arbury historic landscape".

Clarify where the tree and meadow buffer should be created and explain exactly what is meant by "the wider Arbury historic landscape".

This relates to the setting of the Registered Park and Garden, as well as the Arbury Park historic landscape character area. It is an aspiration to secure tree planting and meadow within the buffer but the detail will only be determined at the planning application stage.

354a HSG 2 Figure 6 The highway access proposals are not shown in detail but are only indicated by arrows. After seeking technical advice, I understand that an outline planning application (based on this Concept Plan) will have to show all access roads and layouts in detail as highways cannot be left until the detailed application stage. Consequently, the Concept Plan should also show detailed highways layouts

Design an amended indicative plan to show all the highway access roads and layouts in detail, together with detailed highways layouts and improvements in the existing road network, which will be required prior to any outline planning application.

There should then be a further consultation on the detailed highway proposals shown.

Access arrangements would be determined at the planning application stage. The Strategic Transport Assessment determined that, in principle, the development could go ahead without having an unacceptable impact on the highway network, subject to appropriate mitigation. However, the final assessment can only be ascetained once a detailed scheme has been proposed and following the submission of a detailed transport assessment at the application stage.

67

Ref Document name


and improvements on the existing road network.

354b HSG 2 Figure 6 This plan is unsound and ill-conceived with no thought given to the consequences of promoting the influx of traffic through an isolated housing estate. - Increased pollution- Increased noise- Decrease in air quality- Lowering of road safety standards- Destroying the environment - Disruption for pupils accessing Nuneaton Academy via the estate- Serious danger to children by planning a primary school on a main arterial road which will become the western by-pass.

WCC made it known that the opening of the Bermuda Bridge would provide an alternative route between Heath End Road and the A444.

Although it is maintained in some quarters that the government inspector decreed that the HSG2 site should also contain an Arbury relief road direct to the A444 this is not substantiated in his requested amendment MM45. This merely states:- "The distributor link road will need to secure a connection that links the site to the A444".

By joining the road directly to the A444 roundabout, instead of easing local traffic congestion you are, in effect, creating the Nuneaton western bypass and it is inconceivable that you are proposing to utilise the Arbury View Estate as

The principle of the site being developed for residential uses has already been established following the Borough Plan Examination/Adoption.

The link to the A444 will be determined at the planning application stage following detailed transport assessment work and Warwickshire County Council, as Highway Authority, will be asked to comment on any proposals. Nonetheless, the existing alignment is based on the advice of the Planning Inspector following representations made at the Examination stage.

The access point onto Charnwood Avenue will be changed to reflect the secondary access indicated in the Strategic Transport Assessment which proposed an access at Charnwood Avenue/Rossendale Way to allow access to Nuneaton Academy.

68

Ref Document name


the northern connecting end.

You may consider it to be a secondary access but it is obvious that, with a straight road through the proposed development, traffic will head directly to the Charnwood Avenue junction. It will then wend its way through Arbury View Estate creating rat-runs to Heath End Road. The result will be three exit/access points on Heath End Road within approximately 350 meters, i.e. Radnor Drive, Atholl Crescent and Heath End Farm causing more congestion and affecting the local traffic flow.

A more responsible alternative is to modify the route of the proposed arterial road by moving it eastwards to connect more directly to the Heath End Farm northern access point. This would result in far less impact on the

69

Ref Document name


existing properties and residents. In the southern direction a connection could then be made to Walsingham Drive, level with Bermuda Pool. It would be far shorter (and possibly cheaper?), would avoid the residential estate at Bermuda Park but still eventually link with the A444.

355 HSG 2 3.3.3 4) I would like to express opposition to the linking road of the housing development to the bottom of Keilder Drive, and to any road linking to the Arbury View estate for the following reasons:a) It'll make a rat-run for people trying to jump queues at the Arbury Road end of Heath End road, driving through to the Radnor Drive entrance to the Arbury View estate.b) The roads of the Arbury View estate are narrow, and often double parked, and unsuitable to take further traffic. Current traffic (for the school and

Comments noted. The proposed access via Charnwood Avenue will be secondary in nature and will not be designed to accommodate heavy traffic. This is set out in the Strategic Transport Assessment. Instead, the primary access is intended to be in the north east of the site via a signalised junction with Heath End Road.

The impact on any proposal will be assessed at the planning application stage. Warwickshire County Council, as highway authority, will be invited to comment on highway safety and highway capacity matters.

70

Ref Document name


sports facilities) through the estate to the Nuneaton Academy already causes a problem.c) Access to the new development, as shown on Heath End Road and at Harefield Road should be enough, and puts traffic onto main roads, rather than crossing existing, but unsuitable roads.d) Access to the Nuneaton Academy but children living on the new estate, would thus be encouraged to be by foot.e) It would also encourage traffic through the Radnor Drive and Atholl Crescent entrances, via Charnwood Avenue and Keilder Drive to the planned primary school.

5)a) I propose the deletion of vehicle access between the new development and the Arbury View estate orb) Scrapping the whole HSG2 development, preserving the green field

71

Ref Document name


site.

356 HSG 2 3.3.3 I strongly object to a road for the new development HSG2 Arbury, coming on to Arbury View Estate, via Kielder Drive. We are just a small estate and cannot cope with all the extra traffic, it would create.

In appropriate road design access and exit points. If the road is allowed to go ahead, this estate will become a rat run, creating traffic congestion, damage to the roads, which are not adequate for more traffic, we already have extra traffic at certain times of the day and night to the academy sports hall. We are just a small estate and cannot cope with more traffic if this road goes ahead.

Noted. The impact on the estate would need to be assessed through a Transport Assessment and Warwickshire County Council's Highways team will consider the assessment.

357 HSG 2 3.3.3 I am very concerned about the route for A444 through to our estate linking new estate on to Charnwood Avenue then on to Kielder Drive, with Bermuda Bridge opening next year and improvements to College Street giving quicker access to Heath End Road. A road from A444 through to Arbury View estate will only be a lot more traffic trying to

Can't see one Noted. The impact on the estate would need to be assessed through a Transport Assessment and Warwickshire County Council's Highways team will consider the assessment.

72

Ref Document name


miss traffic on Heath End Road

73

· web viewcomment on lack of landscape buffers and enhancement is also relevant in this...

Documents