Response to Stage two questions part 2 Keith Kondakor 16st Feb 2018 (Original question in this red colour) Matter 9 Infrastructure (including transport), Viability and Monitoring Issue 1– Does the Local Plan provide the infrastructure necessary to support the delivery of development? Q9.1) Does Plan policy clearly identify the infrastructure necessary for each phase of development on strategic site allocations and the likely timing of delivery? Is there a clear understanding of the timing, phasing and overall delivery of infrastructure needed over the plan period to support the growth proposals? No, of particular concern is the lateness or unaffordability of infrastructure for to mitigate traffic impact and provide completed cycling connections. Often Cycling and pedestrian crossings are only provided years after first occupations. Q9.2) Does the updated 2016 Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) provide a robust, proportionate and up-to-date evidence base for the purpose of Plan- making? Is there a need for more detailed modelling of each site to determine travel demand, impact on existing networks and any required mitigation? No. the county council has refused to release the output of traffic modelling or confirm what quantum of development is included in the model. Q9.3) Is there a clear policy relating to travel assessments and, where necessary, (Green) Travel Plans? No, The existing travel plans have been poor with some little more than a sheet of paper with weblinks. Q9.4) Is the Plan’s target of a modal shift of 15% in Policy HS2 justified and suitably realistic in terms of delivery? Is any progress being made on achieving modal shift in the Borough? No, so far the built developments have show negative modal shift with more people driving from new developments than from the existing housing. There has not been a survey from Davidson or Bellway developments but it is clear that there is virtually no travel by foot, cycling or use of public transport. Q9.5) Explain who is going to provide the infrastructure to support the growth in the Plan and what assurances have been given by service providers and others that their investment plans and/or developer contributions will facilitate the infrastructure necessary to support levels of growth over the Plan period. Explain what certainty there is that the required infrastructure will be delivered, including what funding is currently secured and what funding gap remains. So far after 7 years of the plan there has been zero miles of new off-site cycle route for new developments. There was a considerable battle to get walking route opened from Bellway site to Pallet drive (cyclist must dismount due to ransom strip). After 5 years there is still not the cycle lane from the church lane development to oaks nursery on Weddington Road. All the developments on 1 | Page KK response to Mater 9 Eastboro way have not provided funding for a cycle lane for the whole length of the road. Then there is no safe way to cycle to Attelborough over West Coast main line. There is no way to fund entrance on Weddington side of Nuneaton railway station and no way to get safe cycle crossing on Leicester road Bridge. Q9.6) The capacity of education and health infrastructure to support the proposed numbers of additional homes appears to be of particular local concern. How have the Education Funding Agency and Health Authorities been engaged in the Plan preparation and is this reflected in the IDP? What robust evidence is there that education and health services cannot be expanded to accommodate additional needs arising from the planned growth? There is a problem with failing academy schools in the west and South of Nuneaton leading to hosing pressures near the other schools. We are hopefully having a primary school on the lower farm site opening in 2019 but the Nuneaton East division has zero primary schools. The proposed site for the Secondary school on the Top farm site needs to be closer to the Long Shoot, There is also the issue of the Northern Distributer road being built in a piecemeal fashion with no certainty of completion in a reasonable time. Even when built the road may be unsuitable for a bus service due to its design. Q9.7) Explain what the consequences would be of non-delivery of infrastructure and what contingency plans and/or alternative strategies are in place. Is the Plan sufficiently flexible to deal with this? We are already facing serious impacts of congestion and air pollution. Much of this is on the Long Shoot and A4254 round Eastboro way and through Attleborough. None of that route has air pollution monitoring between Coton Arches and the A5. Q9.8) Do the IDP and Local Plan Viability Assessment meet the requirements of NPPF (paragraphs 173-177)? Please explain. Building 400 homes a year collapse house prices so that they are lower than those in Coventry and large S106 or CIL payments become unviable. To build over 1000 homes a year would make funding any infrastructure unviable. Until there is a total shortage of building land in Coventry it will always be more profitable to build in Coventry where there are 1000s of unused school places, less need for big highway improvements and higher prices. The only way to build more than 400 new market homes year in the borough is to massively discount them from the price of a home in Coventry and pay very little for infrastructure. In contrast places like Warwick District are already building over 1,000 homes per year with asking prices over £100,000 more than Nuneaton & Bedworth. The duty to cooperate request has come with no funding to support the alleged overflow and no cooperation to move employment north of Coventry. 2 | Page KK response to Mater 9 Issue 2 - Whether sufficient and justifiable provisions for transport infrastructure have been made and whether the provisions are deliverable. Q9.9) Explain how the transport evidence base fully complies with Part 54 of the PPG (‘Transport evidence bases in plan making and decision taking’). Q9.10) Are there any outstanding issues, including cross-boundary matters, relating to highways and transport infrastructure? What is the strategic approach to capacity at Junction 3 of the M6? The plan to electrify the Nuneaton to Coventry railway line have been mothballed. There is a plan to provide a dive under to the east of Nuneaton station to allow passenger services from Coventry to Leicester to bypass Nuneaton Station. This will be another blow for our town which lost its Virgin train service to Liverpool from Euston in December 2008. Q9.11) Are there any strategic transport infrastructure priorities or schemes, contained within the Local Transport Plan or West Midlands Strategic Transport Plan which the Borough Plan should recognise, facilitate or promote? Are there any specific transport schemes in and around Nuneaton whose routes/alignments should be indicated or protected in the Plan? What is the ‘Northern Relief Road’? [North Warwickshire Borough Council representation 3.0024]. Is this the proposed distributor link road through North of Nuneaton (HSG1)? Should such a scheme be identified in the Plan? The Northern distributer road though is already fairy useless as ransom strips prevent connections to parts of HSG1 without first going onto A47 or A444. Stockingford station (often called galley common) is the one good thing for the borough in the west midlands plans. The borough council has ignore it, Q9.12) Are there any additional infrastructure requirements relating to the Nuneaton – Coventry rail corridor which should be identified in the Plan? There needs to be east-west cycle and bus links from Bermuda station to developments along Gypsy Lane hsg3 and emp1. Need access from Weddington side of Nuneaton railway station to provide connections for Weddington and MIRA. Q9.13) Does the Plan reflect the West Midlands Metropolitan Transport Emissions Framework (WMMTEF) in respect of transport’s role in tackling air quality issues? Are there grounds to require new air quality monitoring apparatus as necessary new infrastructure? Big Yes for new air quality monitoring but also for turning automatic monitoring station back on. There are many issues with the current location of monitoring tubes. See my appendix 3 & 4 of my response to matter 6. 3 | Page KK response to Mater 9 .