• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Ref: Borough Plan Main Modifications Representation Form (For official use only) Name of the Local Plan to which this representation relates: Borough Plan Main Modifications Please return to Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council by 3rd December 2018 via: Email: planning .policy@nuneatonandbedworth .gov .uk Post: Planning Policy Consultation, Town Hall, Coton Road, NUNEATON, CV11 5AA This form has 2 parts: Part A – Personal details Part B – Your representation(s). Please fill in a separate sheet for each representation you wish to make. Part A 1. Personal details* 2. Agent’s details (if applicable) * If an agent is appointed, only the Title, Name and Organisation boxes in section 1. are required. Agent details should be completed in section 2. Title Mrs First name Lynne Last name Price Job title Chairperson (where applicable ) Organisation Hawkesbury Village (where applicable) Residents Association House number (Redacted) Street (Redacted) Town (Redacted) Post code (Redacted) Telephone number (Redacted) Email address (Redacted) 1 3. Which of the following age brackets do you fall within? Up to 15 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ Part B – Please use a separate sheet for each representation 4. Name or Organisation Hawkesbury Village Residents Association 5. To which main modification does this representation relate? MMC reference MMC22/HSG12 Policy 6. Do you consider the Borough Plan is: 6.(1) Legally compliant Yes No x 6.(2) Sound Yes No x Please mark with an ‘X’ as appropriate 7. Please give details of why you consider the main modifications are not legally compliant or are unsound. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the main modifications, please also use this box to set out your comments. Inclusion of Hawkesbury Golf Course came in under the radar with a very limited time to consult locally and see plans. Inaccurate and potentially misleading information in the agreement from Tetlow king Removal of Green Belt status No improvements or planned improvements to the area since the previous 2 applications were refused Transport survey not complete – and no definitive decision made The area of Hawkesbury has grown from 199 houses prior to 2000 to more than 750 currently. There have been 3 prior planning applications to develop the area both of which were refused at a local level and a further appeal was called in and refused by the secretary of state on the basis of Green Belt and no justification for the very special circumstances that already exist for its protection. We believe that the council have been dictated to by prospective developers who prefer to build on green belt and have been persuaded to include at the last minute this development not for reasons that benefit the area, the community or provide a good opportunity for development but because the developer having invested significant resources into the planning has made it almost impossible to say no and the council have not raised an objection. On this basis we believe the borough plan is not therefore legal and at best fundamentally flawed. As local residents we have repeatedly objected to these plans for the following reasons and none of these conditions have changed. It is very close to the Coventry border and whilst this does not appear to affect the local plan it does have a significant impact on the local community*. In addition the potential reduction in the Coventry requirement plan does not appear to have been factored in to mitigate the requirement for local houses on bordering areas.** (Houses, schools)** Green Belt – the land is currently in the green belt. Should the local plan be approved the council will instantly change the status of the area and move it out of the greenbelt with the result the pending application for 80 houses will have few reasons for refusal (as the further work on traffic has only been requested by Warwickshire County Council after the borough plan is approved and therefore they technically do not have an objection as they have requested more detail after the issue of green belt has become null and void) and the additional development plans available for view at the Porto cabin ( as this is the only community resource available) on only 2 dates in the last month will undoubtedly be submitted immediately. We are aware of the reasons for protecting the greenbelt and have to acknowledge that the area in consideration was deemed as not quite “green” enough which is the poor justification for re classifying the area in order to green light already submitted planning applications . Infrastructure and amenities: In the document of common ground Tetlow King included is local information about the resources and services available that justify the further development of the area. They do not mention that the area already supports 750 households. Bus stop within the desired walking distance – this bus runs once per hour and does not provide a service to local schools, city or town centres. In order to be able 3 to use a bus service that would connect to areas of employment or education would mean travel to the top of Black Horse Road more than 1000m walking. Local schools – due to the proximity of the development to the border with Coventry the schools again identified in the reasonable walking distance are not within the local authority catchment and therefore unavailable for local children to attend. The catchment schools for residents in Hawkesbury are 1.1 miles for infant and junior and 1.7 miles for senior schools. All of these schools are outside the desired maximum walking distance. Access – there are two access roads to the development – one via a traffic light signal at the top of black horse road and the other over a single lane weight limited single track bridge which means that heavy vehicles and lorries must use Black horse Road. Additionally in the past couple of years 5 new industrial units have been built at the top of Black Horse Road, a church has been converted into a day nursery and 120 new houses are being constructed the other side of the single track bridge which put further pressure on the already stretched access road system. As most residents have been affected by the failure of the level crossing barrier at one point or another and the frequency of the down time, is 4.5 minutes on average above the national average supplied to inspector. walking to the top of Black Horse Road is further impeded and indeed considering children or more vulnerable members of the community to be actively avoided. If the barrier is down this can add easily a further 10 minutes to reach the top of the bottom of the road and in some cases with barrier failure has meant a round trip of almost 3 miles. It’s not a maybe it’s a when which is why we all drive. Furthermore due to the uniqueness of the area, the lack of public transport and the distance required to travel on foot to access schools the significant majority of households have 2 or more cars. You cannot catch a bus to work; it is too far for children to walk to school therefore everyone drives and make multiple journeys. There is nothing in the local plan or even suggested that eases the pressure on the road system. We also feel that the underhand way the area in the local plan has not given sufficient time for either the planning inspector to understand the local area or for the local residents to be able to engage effectively. Every other area has had more than a year and in some cases it has been an on-going issue for more than 8 years. We would challenge the requirement for the volume of houses within the borough plan – the inspector will see separate representation and argument for this to be considered. We challenge whether greenbelt should be automatically included. We believe both the highways agency and Warwick County council are sitting on the fence rather than making a decision on flawed and not relevant data and we would 4 appeal for a planning inspector to visit on a number of occasions the area to understand the particular challenges we all face. Brownfield site has been ignored and our letter of support follows. (Redacted) To whom it may concern The Hawkesbury Residents' Association strongly objects to the inclusion of the Hawkesbury Golf Club as a main modification site on the basis that it fails to have a satisfactory access and would cause unacceptable highway congestion, particularly along minor roads such as Blackhorse Road, on which the village is totally dependent. The Promoters of the Golf Club site have failed to show that the highway impacts on local roads are acceptable. By contrast, the Hawkesbury Tip site has immediate access on to Parrott's Grove, B4109, a road capable of carrying much more traffic. Moreover, we note that with the construction of a bridge over the canal, the Hawkesbury Tip site could provide additional access to the Hawkesbury Golf Club site from Parrott's Grove. This could potentially serve to improve the utilisation of the golf course ground without further exacerbating congestion in Hawkesbury Village. In addition to the clear benefit of Hawkesbury Tip in terms of access and congestion, we also believe that the remediation and development of Hawkesbury Tip, as a former commercial tip / coal mine, makes sense for local residents from an environmental perspective. Yours Sincerely Lynne Price - Chair on behalf of the Hawkesbury Village Residents Association.

Load more

  6

Copy Link