Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Issues and Options 2009 Response Document

1

Contents 1. Introduction

2

2. How the Issues and Options document was consulted o n?

5

3. Issues and Options responses

7

4. Overview of the Issues and Options document

7

5. Summary of the key issues comments

8

6. Summary of future growth comments

14

7 . Summary of comments regarding the spatial vision

15

8. Summary of comments on the strategic objectives

17

9. Summary of comments on the spatial options

19

10. Overall Summary of key points made during consultat ion

25

11. Further information and next steps

25

Appendices Appendix 1 Consultation events timetable

28

Appendix 2 Method of response

29

2

1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 This summary report has been prepared to provide a broad

understanding of the responses made during the Issues and Options consultation undertaken for the Borough Plan during a ten week period from 8 June to 14 August 2009.

1.2 The vision for the Borough 1 1.2.1 The consultation was carried out so the public had an opportunity to

consider and make comment upon ideas the Council put forward as its Issues and Options for change in the Borough Plan, formally the Core Strategy. These ideas were presented in the Issues and Options document, which discusses the key issues the Borough Plan will need to address and the principles that will be used to formulate the plan. The Borough Plan is the key document within the Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF) with its intention to set out the spatial planning framework for the long term development of the Borough.

1.2.2 The Issues and Options document firstly set out the context of the

Borough as a whole before looking at each of the localities individually.

1 From the Borough Plan Issues and Options document June 2009

By 2026 communities in Nuneaton and Bedworth will:

• Have a quality of life that is at least equal to that experienced by the rest of Warwickshire. The gap between the north and south will therefore be narrowed.

• Have a choice of housing that is affordable and meets local need. • Have a higher level of skills and qualifications with more people in

work, earning more money in better skilled jobs within a healthy, diverse and robust economy.

• Be able to access a wide range of services and facilities easily by walking, cycling or using public transport.

• Be living and working in a Borough where the best of the past is conserved and enhanced and new development is of high quality design, is well connected, locally distinctive, energy efficient and maximises the use of renewables to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The quality of local landscapes will be better and there will be improvements to biodiversity and the natural environment.

• Be healthier, have active lifestyles, improved access to healthcare and increased life expectancy. Communities will be safer and feel safer because of reductions in crime and anti social behaviour and they will be cohesive, equitable and empowered.

3

The seven localities were analysed and the issues within each were highlighted. From this the key issues facing the Borough, as a whole, were identified. Using the key issues as a guide a spatial vision was identified, as highlighted above, and eight objectives designed to enable the vision to be met. The document also set out eight spatial options to accommodate the necessary levels of growth within the Borough, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

1.2.3 The Issues and Options document moves the Development Plan

process forward setting, out the ‘key ingredients’ which the Council believe should form the basis for the strategy. The document is the first key milestone in the formation of the Borough Plan. The following chart sets out the anticipated process for developing the plan and highlights where we are at this point in time.

4

Evidence Gathering

Highlight the key issues Consider opinions Collect wide ranging evidence Discuss the alternatives available Work with various groups and organisations

Issues and Options C onsultation 6 weeks for people to comment on ideas and options put forward so far about the direction the plan is taking. This was undertaken in June 2009.

Continuous engagement and discussions to develop the plan further, refining the ideas presented at the Issues and Options stage.

Pre-submission Consultation 6 weeks to comment on the draft plan, the Sustainability Appraisal and the evidence base. This is regarded as the formal ‘pre-submission’ stage consultation.

Examination The final plan is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination in public and the Planning Inspectors report is received by the Council.

Adoption The final plan is adopted by the Council and then regularly monitored to make sure policies and changes are being successfully delivered.

Preferred Option s Consultation This will go out for consultation in 2013. This is an extra consultation stage, in addition to the ongoing continuous engagement with stakeholders and interested parities.

Preparation of the Borough Plan for submission. This includes the production of the draft plan.

Con

tinuo

us E

ngag

emen

t

The Plan at This Point

Creating a Borough Plan

The Borough

Plan process…

5

2 How the Issues and Options document was consulted on? 2.1 The consultation has been carried out in conformity with the Statement

of Community Involvement, with the aim being to enable and empower people to take an active role in the Development Plan process.

2.2 All of the comments made during the consultation process were given

due consideration in the progression of the Borough Plan. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council undertook an eight week consultation period and subsequently extended this by a further two weeks due to the high amount of interest shown in the plan.

2.3 The Issues and Options document was consulted on using a wide

variety of different methods in an attempt to raise awareness and attract a large response that could be used to inform the future direction of the plan. The methods used for consulting on the Issues and Options document are described below.

2.4 Opportunities for the public to comment on the Issues and Options

were publicised in the local press throughout the consultation period. Articles were printed in the following newspapers:

• Community Involvement Forum • Bedworth Echo • Coventry Telegraph • Nuneaton and Bedworth Weekly ‘Intouch’ Supplement • Nuneaton News • Weekly Tribute

2.5 As well as advertising in local newspapers, a radio advert was also

commissioned. The advert featured on Oak FM for ten days during the consultation period. During this time it was played 12 times a day and lasted for 25 seconds, drawing the public’s attention to the Issues and Options consultation and inviting them to provide comment on it.

2.6 A 17 minute film was produced and made available in CD format, this

was also published on the internet site Youtube. The internet was utilised further to maintain an up to date blog keeping people informed about the latest news and events regarding the consultation.

2.7 The Borough Plan Issues and Options document was available to view

and comment on at the Council’s website throughout the consultation period. The Council also produced leaflets and booklets that outlined the main themes in the document, these were available during the consultation period at a range of locations, including consultation events and various displays.

2.8 Displays and exhibitions were set up at the Council offices in Nuneaton

and Bedworth where the document could be viewed, along with booklets and leaflets that could be taken away. The Borough’s

6

community centres and six local libraries also had displays with these documents on show. At various times during the consultation period these displays were manned by Planning Officers to guide and help the public with information regarding the Issues and Options document.

2.9 The Council attended meetings with local residents associations,

community forums, ‘seldom heard’ groups as well as local stakeholders and businesses. Listed below are some of the meetings attended by the Council with the aim of engaging with communities and businesses.

• Community Involvement Forum • Edward Street Day Care • Galley Common Residents Association • Medium and Small Businesses • Nuneaton Civic Society • The Local Strategic Partnership • Warwickshire Ethnic Minority Forum

2.10 The Council set up numerous events around the Borough during the

consultation period. The aim of these was to engage with the general public and get their input into the progression of the Borough Plan. These events took a variety of forms including consultation events, surgeries and community forums. The venues for some of the various events are summarised below.

• Bedworth Area Office • Bedworth Civic Hall • Bedworth Heath Community Centre • Bedworth Town Centre • Bulkington Village Centre • Keresley Community Centre • Nuneaton Carnival, Gala Field • Nuneaton Town Centre • Nuneaton Town Hall • Nuneaton Sainsbury’s • North Warwickshire and Hinckley College • Stockingford Community Centre

2.11 Community forums took place in each of the seven localities in the

Borough with the aim of engaging with as wide a possible range of local communities and residents.

2.12 In total around forty events were held throughout the consultation

period. A list of the date and times all the consultation events, surgeries and community forums took place can be found in appendix 1. The Council received responses in a variety of forms including questionnaire comment cards, letters and emails. A breakdown of the methods used to make comments on the Issues and Options can be viewed in appendix 2.

7

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3 Issues and Options responses 3.1 This section of the document will review the comments made during

the consultation period. It shows the level of support for ideas presented in the document along with the issues people did not agree with.

3.2 It will firstly provide an overview of all the comments made on the

Issues and Options document. This will be followed by analysing the main chapters which cover the key issues, future growth, spatial vision, strategic objectives and the spatial options.

3.3 The document only attempts to summarise the main themes raised

during the consultation, you can read all the comments in full on the on the consultation website2. Some of the comments received from respondents using the questionnaire comment form left sections blank, for the purposes of analysing the data these sections have not been included in the graphs or figures shown.

4 Overview of the Issues and Options document 4.1 Over the ten week consultation period the Council received 3,792

comments on the Issues and Options document from 676 respondents. The table below shows the percentage of people who strongly agreed, agreed, were neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the overall nature of the Issues and Options document.

2 http://nuneatonandbedworth-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/

8

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Issues Future Growth Vision Objectives Options

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 1: Overall breakdown of the comments received on the Issues and Options document. (Please note some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

4.2 Figure one shows that 63% of the comments received by the Council

were in overall support of the Borough Plan Issues and Options document, with 10% strongly agreeing and 53% in agreement. Only 11% strongly disagreed and 19% disagreed with the overall nature of the document.

4.3 A breakdown of where in the Issues and Options document the

majority of comments were received is shown in figure two. The graph shows that the spatial options and the key issues were the most commented upon chapters, however, of those that commented, the majority of respondents disagreed with the future growth chapter. These chapters will be analysed in more detail at a later stage.

Figure 2: Summary of the comments received on the main chapters in the

Issues and Option document (Please note comments were also received on other areas of the document).

5 Summary of the key issues comments 5.1 The key issues chapter in the Issues and Options document

summarised the main issues and challenges that currently face the Borough, based on the evidence that has been collected. This allowed the Council to understand what needs to be addressed in achieving the spatial vision for the Borough. The issues were grouped in the following categories; housing, economy, education, town and district centres,

9

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

natural and built environment, leisure and recreation, transport and social issues.

5.2 In total, 692 comments were received on all the key issues raised in

the document. 262 were assigned generally to the key issues chapter and 430 comments related to individual key issues. Overall 61% were in support of the general key issues raised and 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. This is represented in figure 3.

Figure 3: Graph showing the overall agreement or disagreement with the key

issues raised in the Issues and Options document (Please note some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

Key issue 1 - Comments on housing 5.3 Of the 692 comments received, 115 were in relation to the housing key

issues. 47% were in support of the issues raised and 36% disagreed with what was put forward.

5.4 From the comments received there was support for the recognition of

the need for a mix of housing in the Borough, which also includes the provision for elderly living and the need to provide appropriate accommodation to down-size should they wish to do so. There is also a need for housing for young people. Support was given for the range of housing that is suggested in the key issues. It is also viewed that each community within the Borough should have a range of housing options in order to create more sustainable communities. There is support for the desire to promote and develop aspirational housing across the Borough. Although a number of respondents questioned what aspirational housing was, so this needs to be made clear in further

10

documentation. Others suggested that the term aspirational should be used on all houses not just ‘executive homes’.

5.5 Although numerous supportive comments were received, there were

also comments expressing concern. It was highlighted that there needs to be a change of attitude and culture in the Borough to avoid high earners going to southern Warwickshire to live. Concerns were also raised about the high levels of empty housing already in the Borough, suggesting these should be utilised before new housing in the area is developed. Respondents disagreed with the housing projections used, which claim there will be a population increase in the Borough during years to come. Some comments suggest that even if new homes are built the current economic problems will prevent residents from being able to afford to buy them.

Key issue 2 - Comments on the economy 5.6 52 comments were received in regard to the key issues relating to the

economy. 50% were in support and 42% did not agree with the issues raised.

5.7 Respondents recognised issues such as high unemployment, out

commuting and a decline in manufacturing as being important factors when deciding upon employment land provision. There is support for the need to improve research and service industries in the Borough with respondents keen to see the existing transport links fully utilised. As well as this, there were comments supporting the encouragement of small manufacturing firms, which would help to keep skilled people in the Borough.

5.8 There are concerns there are not enough jobs in the Borough and also

whether this can be changed in the current climate. Various comments suggest that employment issues should be given priority over housing development needs. It is viewed the Borough is in a ‘vulnerable’ position and the shortage of jobs should be addressed before additional housing is provided. Concern has also been raised over the way the Borough has been portrayed in the document. Comments claim that actually not all the Borough is deprived and it should be looked upon positively in order to attract new development into the area.

Key issue 3 - Comments on education 5.9 There were 40 comments on the education key issues received. 33%

agreed to the issues whilst 48% disagreed with what was put forward. 5.10 It was commented that the key education issues were correctly

identified and that it is important to lift aspirations allowing good access to activities, education and training in the local community. It is suggested this issue needs to be addressed at a wider level, with the

11

County working in partnership with Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council. Support was given for the enhancement of the skills base through higher attainment at GCSE and above and the development of high quality education facilities in the Borough, viewing these as fundamental issues that should be addressed in the Borough Plan.

5.11 There are concerns over some of the issues raised in this section. It is

stated that larger schools do not mean better schools, most comments that express concern relate to the joining of Manor Park and Alderman Smith into a new academy. It is believed that combining these schools will not increase standards, but reduce places at the academy at a time when more places are required. There were concerns that a joined up approach is not being taken. The Borough Plan is setting out housing development yet at the same time the number of schools is being reduced. This is an issue that some think should be addressed now and not further down the line when it may already be too late.

Key issue 4 - Comments on town and district centres 5.12 46 comments were received regarding the town and district centres key

issues. 42% were in support and 37% disagreed with the key issues. 5.13 There was general support for the town and district centre key issues

raised in the document. There was recognition of the identified difficulties highlighted in both town centres. The need to improve the attractiveness, competiveness and the range of uses present in Nuneaton and Bedworth was also highlighted. Things that work well such as the markets need to be supported to ensure they continue to draw people into the town centre. There is recognition of the need for the diversification of shops and the need for higher aspirations for shops/markets, though also need to be realistic about the size and the type of retailers who would be likely to locate within the Borough. A key issue raised is the need to provide more of a night time economy with a greater range of evening activities such as entertainment and restaurants. Concern was also raised about the lack of recreation and leisure opportunities in the town centre. There was mention of the need for more office based space in Nuneaton in order to improve the economy, suitable car parking for office staff was also identified as being key in attracting potential businesses into the town centre.

5.14 There is disagreement with the references to Bedworth. Comments

disagree with Bedworth being identified solely to ‘complement’ Nuneaton, it is suggested that it should be a ‘vibrant’ town centre in its own right, not subservient to Nuneaton. There is concern with Bulkington being referred to as a district centre, some of the comments received suggest it should be a village centre retaining its ‘individuality and uniqueness’. Comments also suggest that vacant shops should be filled before any new potential development, this is viewed as an important issue in many of the town and district centres in the Borough.

12

Key issue 5 - Comments on the natural and built env ironment 5.15 In total 56 comments were received in regard to the natural and built

environment. 56% agreed or strongly agreed with the key issues and 33% disagreed.

5.16 Comments stated that Green Belt land should be protected and

preserved within the Borough Plan in order to guard against urban sprawl, maintaining the natural spaces left in the Borough. There was support for the need to encourage higher quality design in the area as it was suggested that it could be substantially improved. There is support for the redevelopment of previously developed and contaminated land, which there is a currently high level of in the Borough. The Borough’s heritage is important to respondents and needs to be preserved; archaeological heritage should also be considered and valued appropriately.

5.17 Comments suggest that the key issues are not forward thinking

enough. This is followed on by concerns that key issues, such as the River Anker and climate change, are not included in this section of the document. There were concerns raised about countryside land being given the same weighting as areas of restraint and Green Belt land, when considered under Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 it cannot not considered to be ‘sensitive in its entirety’. Concern is also raised about flooding in the Borough and the potential increase in this caused by further development.

Key issue 6 - Comments on leisure and recreation 5.18 26 comments were collected on this key issue. 73% were in support

and agreed with the issues while 19% disagreed. 5.19 There is general support for the issues raised in this section with

agreement there is the need for more cycle and footpaths in the Borough. There is also support for the identification of the lack of green corridors and linkages between green spaces as a key issue that needs addressing. Concerns are raised about the accessibility of many leisure and recreational facilities across the Borough particularly if using public transport.

5.20 There is concern the key issues only recognise physical recreation and

don’t take into account arts and cultural activities. It is was also noted that key issues, such as providing youth clubs, are missed in this section of the document. It was suggested that a Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17 assessment, which includes indoor and outdoor facilities, should be conducted to provide evidence to support the statements made in the Issues and Options document.

13

Key issue 7 - Comments on transport 5.21 The transport key issue received 54 comments during the consultation

period. 69% agreed with the issues, while 21% disagreed. 5.22 There is strong support for addressing the traffic issues in the town

centres and on other major arterial routes through the Borough. There is also support for the recognition of public transport being an issue, with this viewed as important in reducing overall congestion in the Borough. Comments are made about the provision for transportation methods other than the car, for example a footpath/cycle lane on the A444. There was general agreement with the key issues and the need to improve public transport as this would bring associated benefits such as ‘access to jobs, new homes and supporting facilities’.

5.23 Concerns have been raised about the price of public transport. This

has forced people to travel by car causing congestion, which is highlighted in the key issues. Comments raised about the need to link employment/housing/education facilities in a way not to create congestion through car use. Respondents have also suggested that the only way to improve congestion is to build a relief round around Nuneaton.

Key issue 8 - Comments on social issues 5.24 44 comments were made on the social key issues. 57% were in

support and 36% disagreed with the issues put forward. 5.25 There is general support for the key issues identified in the Issues and

Options document, however, there are questions about how the issues would be solved. There are comments suggesting that building houses is not the answer to solving social issues and, if anything, it will make them worse. Comments also state that obesity and lack of physical activity can also take place in wealthy areas. It is stated that access to doctor’s surgeries, district nursing, children’s nursing etc, are key issues missed from this section. There was also some disagreement of the lack of community cohesion in the Borough. People believe that social issues are not an issue and actually the Borough is a good place to live with a high quality of life.

Summary of Key Issue Reponses 5.26 Figure 4 below, summarises the distribution of comments on all the

eight key issues highlighted in section five. It shows the amount and proportion of comments that strongly agreed, agreed, were neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the key issues identified in the Issues and Options document.

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

All HousingIssues

All EconomyIssues

All EducationIssues

All Town &District

Centre Issues

AllEnvironment

Issues

All Leisure &Recreation

Issues

All TransportIssues

All SocialIssues

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 4: Agreement and disagreement with key issues identified by category

(Please note some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

6 Summary of future growth comments 6.1 The future growth section of the Issues and Options document set out

the level of growth that needed to be accommodated in the Borough during the plan period. The document states that 10,800 new homes, 96 hectares of employment land, 35,000 sq metres of retail and 30,000 sq metres of office space would be required to meet the Borough’s needs up until 2026. The level of growth was set by the West Midlands Regional Assembly in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), however, due to the change in national Government in 2010 this is no longer the case and the Council is no longer bound by policies within the RSS. Further information can be found in section 11 of this document.

6.2 In total 104 comments were received regarding the future levels of

growth. Of these, 10% agreed with the levels identified and 84% disagreed with them. This is shown in figure 5.

15

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Figure 5: Graph showing the breakdown of comments received relating to

future growth in the Borough (Please note some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

6.3 There is support for the Council’s approach of seeking to meet the

requirements of the West Midlands RSS and meeting some of the growth assigned to Coventry, an approach that accords with PPS12. Support was given for the approach the Council has taken in accommodating significant amounts of new development. A respondent stated that the necessary growth should be developed with the minimum impact upon the natural environment, whilst delivering maximum benefits to people and the environment.

6.4 There were numerous comments which disagreed with the level of

future growth proposed in the Issues and Options document. This included concerns over the figures quoted in the document with comments suggesting there is not the need for such large amounts of housing. It was also viewed that this was being imposed upon the Borough. Respondents believed Nuneaton is large enough and further growth would see the spread of housing into other urban areas such as Coventry and Bedworth. This could lead to overcrowding in an already densely populated Borough with knock on effects on supporting infrastructure. This includes major effects on traffic, schools, doctors and other associated facilities. Other major concerns surrounded the loss of Green Belt land in the Borough and the destruction of the local environment, as well as the fact there are not enough jobs in the Borough to support such high levels of growth.

7 Summary of comments regarding the spatial vision 7.1 The Issues and Options document contained a spatial vision, which set

out what the Borough is aiming to be like by the end of the plan period. It builds upon the vision contained in the Sustainable Community Strategy and sets out where the Borough aspires to be.

16

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

7.2 Overall there were 329 comments made about the vision contained in

the Issues and Options document. 66% agreed with the aspirations it contained while 21% disagreed. This is shown in figure six below.

Figure 6: Breakdown of comments received on the spatial vision (Please note

some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

7.3 Numerous comments have been received stating support for the vision

believing that it is right for the Borough and addresses the key issues. Generally respondents welcomed and supported the vision and were pleased to see references to landscape, biodiversity, connectivity and local distinctiveness. The spatial vision, which seeks to address the specific issues for the Borough, is endorsed by a number of respondents. Overall the comments received showed agreement with the vision and supported the aims it was trying to achieve.

7.4 Although there were many comments in agreement with the vision

there were also some comments which expressed concern. Comments suggested the vision is not attainable in the given timescale of the plan and that it should be more measurable. There were also concerns over the deliverability of the vision with suggestions that unless there is a major shift in resources from the south of the County into the Borough, it is unrealistic that the vision will come into fruition. Comments suggested the vision was too vague and did not include the views of the residents within the Borough. It was stated the vision does not take into account the effect of an increase in the population and the effect this would have on related infrastructure and services. A respondent

17

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

also commented that the vision should be re-evaluated taking into account the current economic climate.

8 Summary of comments on the strategic objectives 8.1 To help support and deliver the spatial vision set out in the document

eight strategic objectives have been identified. The objectives are linked to those in the Sustainable Community Strategy and cover issues such as housing, employment, town centres, infrastructure, environment, climate change and sustainability and healthy communities.

8.2 In total, 373 comments were received in regards to the strategic

objectives. 64% agreed with them whilst 32% disagreed. The overall breakdown of comments on all eight objectives is shown in figure seven.

Figure 7: Overall breakdown of comments received on all eight strategic

objectives (Please note some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

8.3 There is general agreement with the objectives set out and the belief

that they will deliver the spatial vision for the Borough. However, there was a suggestion to see a greater spatial dimension included, with more links to the spatial vision. The West Midlands Regional Assembly state the RSS objectives are supported by the emerging objectives within the Borough Plan, and are therefore, supportive of what is set out in the Issues and Options document.

8.4 Comments were received that stated the spatial objectives would not

deliver the spatial vision. It was commented the objectives were too

18

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Obj OB1 OB2 OB3 OB4 OB5 OB6 OB7 OB8

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

wide and trying to cover too much rather than focusing on a smaller target, which could be successfully delivered. It was also stated there should be a greater focus on educational and infrastructure issues, rather than the need for expansive growth. Respondents viewed the objectives as being inconsistent and not recognising the needs of Bedworth sufficiently enough. Comments disagreed with the use of the RSS figures and that basing the objectives on building 10,800 homes was incorrect.

8.5 Figure eight below, shows the breakdown of comments received for

each individual objective. Objectives five, six, seven and eight received the most support, these covered infrastructure, the environment, sustainability and healthy communities. People disagreed with objectives one, two and four the most. These objectives related to future growth, housing and town centres. The majority of comments submitted under objectives one and two related to the RSS housing requirements of 10,800 homes, which people viewed as being too much and beyond the Borough’s capability of supporting. The graph shows the overall level of strong disagreement was low and excluding the future growth objective (Objective 1), the figure was less than 10% for all the remaining objectives.

Figure 8: Individual breakdown of the comments received for each of the

eight objectives (Please note some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

19

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1.Sequential

2. N-S 3a. N.Nuneaton

3b. E.Nuneaton

3c. W.Nuneaton

4.Bedworth

5. UrbExtensions

6. South ofM6

7. North ofM6

8. N&S ofM6

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

9 Summary of comments on the spatial options 9.1 A range of spatial options have been developed in order for the

strategic objectives to be achieved. The chapter also set out some of the possible impacts of each of the options. Eight spatial options were identified with options one to five looking at accommodating growth in and around Nuneaton and Bedwoth, whilst options six to eight looked at absorbing growth from Coventry. The spatial options are listed overleaf.

1. Sequential approach 2. North south corridor 3a. North of Nuneaton 3b. East of Nuneaton 3c. West of Nuneaton 4. Focus growth in Bedworth 5. Small urban extensions 6. Land south of the M6 motorway 7. Land north of the M6 motorway 8. Land north and south of the M6 motorway

9.2 Overall 1,173 comments on the spatial options were received, these

were spread over all the options put forward. 67% of the comments were in agreement with the spatial options and 30% were in disagreement.

Figure 9: Breakdown of comments received on individual spatial options

(Please note some respondents left sections blank. These are not represented in the graph).

20

9.3 Figure nine above, shows that of the spatial options suggested,

focusing growth on Bedworth, small urban extensions and using a sequential approach were supported the most. Development to the north and east of Nuneaton received the least support, however, all the spatial options showed relatively high levels of agreement and not one option was majorly preferred over another.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 1: s equential approach 9.4 Of the comments received relating to the sequential approach, 74%

were in agreement and 23% disagreed with the spatial option. There were 147 comments received relating to this option.

9.5 The comments that supported this spatial option generally agreed that

it was the most logical approach, sharing development throughout the Borough, therefore, development would be ‘less intrusive’ and would be the natural progression from the Local Plan. This was also supported as the approach would build on Green Belt land as a last resort. This approach was supported by a respondent as it meets the requirement of PPG2 and destroys the least amount of Green Belt land. It was also commented this approach would allow the natural development of the Borough with a chance of better integration between old and new.

9.6 Concerns centred on whether the land identified in the spatial option

was the most sustainable approach to development. It was also stated by various respondents that the lack of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment meant there was currently an ‘insufficiently robust evidence base to support this option’ for development. This approach was also criticised for being over reliant on the development of urban land, which could potential stifle development within the Borough.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 2: n orth south corridor 9.7 In total 145 comments were received for this option, 64% were in

support while 34% disagreed. 9.8 It was commented that the north south corridor followed the approach

and guidance set out in the RSS, and therefore, would provide a balanced opportunity for growth in the Borough. It was viewed this approach would particularly strengthen the local economy of Bedworth and has the advantage of being closely aligned with existing infrastructure. This option was supported by a respondent partly due to it being in line with the proposed sub-regional approach, but also because it would help the most deprived areas in the Borough and direct development towards the two main towns.

21

9.9 It was suggested this spatial option would put pressure on the existing infrastructure, most notably the A444, which would experience higher levels of congestion. It is viewed this would require substantial investment to solve. There are concerns that Nuneaton and Bedworth will merge together with this approach and an unacceptably large amount of Green Belt land will be lost. It is also viewed this spatial option will have a detrimental impact on the character of Nuneaton and Bedworth.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 3a: north of Nuneaton 9.10 Overall 122 comments were made regarding this approach. 52%

agreed with it and 44% did not. 9.11 Comments in agreement suggested it was logical to direct

development to the north of Nuneaton as land is available and in close proximity to existing transport infrastructure, the A444 and A5. Additionally, if development was to be located towards Galley Common it would be attractive to developers and provide a wide range of housing , including affordable housing, and would ease existing traffic problems, and in many cases avoid using the A444, by-passing the Nuneaton Town Centre.

9.12 It was further suggested that this area would be suitable for a

sustainable urban extension as it has good access to the town centre and everyday facilities. Comments also highlighted that land in this area of the Borough is less constrained than other parts.

9.13 It was also pointed out that Option 3a would ensure that the 3 main

settlements in the Borough would keep their distinct character and remain separated. This Option could also encourage more aspirational housing and would not require the release of Green Belt land.

9.14 Respondents disagreed with this option as they believed it would

create more traffic congestion north of Nuneaton. Concern was raised about the potential loss of woodlands in Galley Common and the negative impact of development on areas such as Weddington and St Nicolas. Comments suggested that by focusing growth in one area the overall spatial objectives of the Borough Plan will not be achieved, as the potential development will only affect Nuneaton and not help the rest of the Borough. This Option raised a lot of concern relating to increased traffic and congestion along the A5 and the capacity for schools to cope with population growth resulting from development.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 3b: east of Nuneaton 9.15 In total 104 comments were logged for spatial option 3b. 54% were in

support of this option while 45% disagreed with it.

22

9.16 Given the availability of developable land this spatial option was seen

by some respondents as a suitable approach to development, bringing a much needed influx of people to an area which is well positioned for employment opportunities in Coventry, Hinckley and Nuneaton. It was viewed this option is well positioned for employment and would help enhance Nuneaton’s existing town centre whilst bringing the area closer to Hinckley potentially establishing more inward investment. It was stated the area has good access to main transport corridors in Nuneaton and would provide future residents with the opportunity to use sustainable means of transport.

9.17 Concerns were raised that, as a result of this spatial option, Bulkington

would end up merging with Nuneaton. This would lead to the loss of its identity and current character. It is claimed there would also be the loss of large amounts of greenbelt and countryside land with the current infrastructure not being able to support the level of development proposed. Respondents also stated that this option does not take into the development needs of Bedworth.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 3c: west of Nuneaton 9.18 63% of the comments received regarding this spatial option were in

agreement, whilst 35% disagreed. In total 123 comments were received.

9.19 This spatial option is supported by the Arbury Estate, it is also viewed

this approach will create a better balance of development between the east and west sides of Nuneaton. Respondents believed that growth in this area would have less effect on the strategic route network, providing sustainable transport measures were properly implemented. Various comments also suggested this area of the Borough was in need of regeneration and offered more job opportunities for residents with a better balance of housing between east and west of the Borough, and that the prospect of a new rail station at Bermuda was viewed as attractive.

9.20 Comments strongly disagreed with building on well maintained

farmland and greenbelt land with this potentially being ‘decimated’ by this spatial option, exerting significant strain on existing infrastructure and will adversely impacting on ecologically sensitive areas and a Historic Park and Garden. People stated this area of the Borough has already seen large amounts of development and further building will increase the traffic issues that already exist and reduce people’s quality of life.

23

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 4: F ocus growth in Bedworth 9.21 119 comments were received for this option, 72% agreed with this

approach while 22% did not. 9.22 There was support for this approach as it develops currently deprived

areas and this would help to regenerate and encourage employment opportunities in this part of the Borough. People thought this approach made ‘sense’ as in the past there has been too much emphasis on Nuneaton at the expense of Bedworth. It is stated that Bedworth is in need of investment to stimulate the town’s economy.

9.23 There were strong levels of disagreement for this option with people

objecting to development around Bedworth woodlands and development on the Green Belt. It was also felt that development should not be focussed in one area as other areas would not benefit from growth and that development in Bedworth alone would put too much pressure on existing infrastructure. It was viewed this option would create large amounts of ‘urban sprawl’, which would destroy the town’s character and distinct urban form.

9.24 It was also pointed out that in the absence of a SHLAA there is no

evidence submitted that demonstrates that the land shown in the area of search is deliverable, developable or suitable against the tests contained in PPS3 and accompanying Practice Guidance.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 5: s mall urban

extensions 9.25 80% of the comments received in regard to this spatial option were in

agreement. 15% disagreed and overall 142 comments were recorded. 9.26 Comments stated this approach would benefit the whole Borough

without swamping one area with large amounts of unwanted development and spreading the load evenly. It is viewed this option will also not erode too much countryside or greenbelt land protecting the natural environment.

9.27 It is viewed that by developing small sustainable urban extensions the

Council would be failing to follow guidance established in the RSS. This approach would also fail to deliver the necessary transport and infrastructure measures needed to support the required level of growth in the Borough. It is viewed that less affordable housing would be delivered as a result and the approach would fail to address the key issues. It is stated this is a ‘piecemeal approach’, which would not yield wider benefits for the Borough.

24

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 6: l and south of M6 motorway

9.28 In total 97 comments on spatial option six were received. 65% were in

agreement and 31% disagreed. 9.29 It is viewed by some respondents that growth in this area would meet

both Nuneaton and Coventry’s needs, whilst utilising existing infrastructure. Bedworth is also viewed to gain positive aspects of the growth, which would help to regenerate ‘rundown’ areas in the Borough. The current road infrastructure is viewed to have good access points for development in this area.

9.30 Comments have stated this approach is contrary to the spatial vision in

the Issues and Option document and would join the Borough with Coventry, harming the character of Bedworth. Respondents believed that development would also not help to regenerate Nuneaton and Bedworth town centres, whilst having a detrimental effect on the greenbelt land in the area.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 7: l and north of the M6

motorway 9.31 Overall 87 comments on spatial option 7 were received, 71% were in

support of this approach while 24% disagreed with it. 9.32 Respondents stated that locating Coventry’s overspill here would have

extra benefits for the entire Borough. It is suggested this location is commercially attractive for potential businesses and offers the opportunity to revitalise Bedworth, whilst maintaining the distinction between Nuneaton and Bedworth. Comments suggested this option would also avoid creating urban sprawl with traffic in the town centres not being greatly affected.

9.33 Respondents have disagreed with the concept of taking any overspill in

development from Coventry. It is believed this option would also build on too much greenbelt land, whilst also being to close to the M6, which would make congestion far worse than it already is.

Summary of comments relating to spatial option 8: l and north and south

of the M6 motorway 9.34 68% of the comments received regarding spatial option 8 were in

agreement. 30% disagreed while in total 87 comments were received. 9.35 It is viewed this option would regenerate existing old/ poorer quality

housing and support housing requirements in the Borough, including the proposed NUCKLE link. Comments stated the land is of low value, in a sustainable location and that development in this area would increase cohesion and facilities.

25

9.35 The majority of comments followed a similar pattern to those received

on spatial options six and seven. These include believing Bedworth will be merged into Coventry, loss of Green Belt land and there being no benefits for the Borough as a whole, only Coventry.

10 Overall Summary of key points made during consul tation 10.1 As a result of the consultation a number of key themes have become

apparent, these are summarised below: 10.2 There was general support for the key issues highlighted in the Issues

and Option document with particular support for the leisure and recreation and transport issues.

10.3 High levels of disagreement were recorded in relation to the amount of

future growth proposed in the document. 10,800 new homes was viewed as too many and imposed upon the Borough.

10.4 There was a high level of support for the spatial vision identified and

also the strategic objectives that followed. However, there was less support for the future growth, housing and town centres objectives.

10.5 Overall there was very little difference in opinion between the spatial

options set out in the Issues and Options document. The most popular option was option five, which set out development in a number of small urban extensions.

10.6 Strong concerns were raised over the loss of Green Belt land in the

Borough due to development, as well as the significant increase in traffic that could be created. Worries were also set out about the loss of character in the town centre, with fears they would become merged together or with Coventry. There was, however, support for the principle of spreading development evenly throughout the Borough.

11 Further information and next steps 11.1 All of the comments received during the Issues and Options

consultation will help to the Borough Council to prepare the Preferred Options stage of the Borough Plan. All the comments will be considered and weighed against the objectives the Borough Plan seeks to achieve.

11.2 The Council so far has only set out broad spatial options for

development in the Borough. The comments received will, therefore, be genuinely useful as the Borough Plan is drawn up in greater detail.

26

11.3 The next part of the process of developing the plan is for it to proceed to the Preferred Options stage. The Council is in the process of producing the Preferred Options in light of all the comments received. This will be published for an eight week consultation period, anticipated to be in 2013. This will be known as the Borough Plan Preferred Options document and will be available for consultation.

11.4 Since the production of the Borough Plan Issues and Option document

there has been a change in national Government, and as a result, a move to a more localised approach to planning. As part of these changes the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has been revoked and the Council is no longer bound by policies contained within it.

11.5 With this in mind, the Council has reviewed its development targets for

housing, employment and retail provision. These changes will be reflected in the Borough Plan Preferred Options document.

27

Appendices

28

Appendix 1 – Consultation events timetable Consultation events and surgeries Monday 8th June, 11:30 – 13:30, North Warwickshire and Hinckley College Thursday 11th June, 15:00 – 19:00, Nuneaton Town Hall Friday 12th June, 10:00 – 14:00, Bedworth Town Centre Sunday 14th June, 13:00 – 17:00, Nuneaton Carnival, Gala Field Tuesday 16th June, 13:00 – 16:30, Bedworth Area Office Thursday 18th June, 10:00 – 13:00, Nuneaton Town Hall Friday 19th June, 15:00 – 19:00, Bedworth Civic Hall Saturday 20th June, 15:00 – 19:00, Nuneaton Town Centre Friday 26th June, 10:00 – 14:00, Nuneaton Ropewalk Friday 3rd July, 10:00 – 14:00, Sainsbury’s Nuneaton Saturday 4th July, 10:00 – 14:00, Nuneaton Town Centre Monday 6th July, 14:00 – 18:00, Nuneaton Town Hall Tuesday 7th July, 18:00 – 20:00, St. Michaels Primary School Wednesday 8th July, 10:00 – 13:00, Keresley Community Centre Wednesday 8th July, 15:00 – 19:00, Stockingford Community Centre Friday 10th July, 10:00 – 14:00, Bedworth Town Centre Monday 13th July, 10:00 – 12:00, Bedworth Heath Community Centre Monday 13th July, 13:00 – 15:00, Bulkington Village Centre Monday 20th July, 14:00 – 17:00, Bedworth Civic Hall Wednesday 22nd July, 10:00 – 14:00, Nuneaton Town Hall Tuesday 28th July, 10:30 – 12:30, Ramsden Centre, Attleborough Tuesday 28th July, 19:00 – 21:00, Keresley Community Centre Wednesday 29th July, 10:30 – 12:30, Guideposts Community Café Wednesday 29th July, 17:30 – 19:30, Edward Street Day Centre Community forums Monday 22nd June, Weddington and St. Nicolas Community Forum Monday 29th June, Camp Hill and Galley Common Community Forum Tuesday 30th June, Bede and Poplar Community Forum Wednesday 1st July, Bedworth North and West Community Forum Wednesday 8th July, Abbey and Wembrook Community Forum Thursday 16th July, Whitestone and Bulkington Community Forum Tuesday 21st July, Arbury and Stockingford Community Forum Meetings Thursday 25th June, Community Involvement Forum Tuesday 7th July, Local Strategic Partnership Tuesday 7th July, Nuneaton Civic Society Thursday 9th July, Medium and Small Businesses, The Longshoot Monday 13th July, Galley Common Residents Association Monday 20th July, Area Committee (Warwickshire County Council Members) Wednesday 29th July, AGM Warwickshire Ethnic Minority Forum Thursday 20th July, Bermuda Innovation Centre, Chamber of Commerce

29

Method of Response

Letter Online Questionnaire

Appendix 2 – Method of response The graph below shows the method of response by those consultees who

commented on the Borough Plan Issues and Option document.