Please find below the formal Bannerbrook Residents Association response to the Public Consultation held on 30th October 2019 at The Penny Farthing, where the land was previously earmarked for a school and now a new development.
This is in relation to “Land at Banner Lane – Former School site”, thus Bannerbrook Residents Association raised the following questions. Persimmons answers are in italics with our questions in italics. Response dates from 28th November 2019.
1. The purchasers of properties at Bannerbrook Park estate purchased their property on the understanding that a school was to be built on this site.
We understand residents bought their properties under the impression that a school could potentially be built on the land, subject to Coventry City Council accepting an offer on the land. Persimmon Homes offered the land to Coventry City Council for a school to be constructed as per the legal S106 agreement. There was a five year time period for this to take place. Unfortunately, Coventry City Council didn’t build on the land. This caused the land to fall back into Persimmon Homes’ ownership.
2. A school would not only be a school but would also provide a social facility for the residents, i.e. after hours the school would provide a venue that could be used for clubs, fitness classes, evening classes and meetings etc. The youth on this estate need to have the facility of a supervised youth club to keep them off the streets especially during evenings in the winter.
We understand that community space may be beneficial. However, now that the land has fallen back into Persimmon Homes’ receipt, we are able to submit planning permission for residential properties.
3. If the school is not to be built any new scheme should include a suitable building that could be used by the community. It should be large enough for 100 to 200 people to attend meetings and functions + parking for the people attending.
Massey Sports and Social club is available to hire at the end of Broad Lane which Persimmon Homes funded. Furthermore, the newly completed cricket club facility is also available for hire at the top of Summerhill Lane which Persimmon Homes have provided.
4. The proposed scheme put forward by Persimmon did not address any of these requirements. Do you have any alternative plans for this land?
Coventry City Council have released in their Local Plan, which was adopted in 2017, that 24,600 dwellings need to be built by 2031. Persimmon Homes believes that providing residential development such as the one proposed at Bannerbrook, that we are contributing to Coventry to reach their overall target. Persimmon Homes does not have any alternative plans for the site in question, other than residential development.
5. There is major concern about the lack of Parking in the area with residents being forced to park in roadways, on verges and on the bends etc. This is currently causing major issues around the current apartment complex The Venue and the length of Monticello Way so any overspill from this potential development will only add to the existing problems.
A knee high rail has been constructed along Monticello Way to prevent vehicles from parking on the verges. Persimmon homes are looking at retaining the knee high rail when the development is in the process of construction and after completion to prevent cars from parking there.
6. Assuming that the 93 units house two occupants each with a vehicle then that equates to 186 vehicles of which 67 go with the houses and of the 61 apartments, 1 and a half spaces are being allocated. This leaves a shortfall of around 30 vehicles that would have to park on an already congested and very busy Monticello Way. That doesn’t take into account visitors to any of the 93 potential properties, so the 30 figure will increase causing more parking nightmares around that area.
Within previous development in Coventry, Persimmon Homes have provided 1.5 spaces per apartment and 2 spaces per house. Coventry City Council have approved this standard of parking. These standards have been applied to the proposed development. If Coventry City Council respond saying this standard is inadequate, the plans will be change to meet the requirements.
7. Any new scheme should not compound the car parking problem but help relieve the existing parking issues and should provide adequate space for vehicle access and parking for both residents and visitors.
During the application process, a Travel Impact Assessment will take place. A report will be produced following the survey which will confirm if the proposed development meets standards. If the proposed development does not meet the requirements, the plans would be altered to meet the standards set. It was mentioned to the Persimmon representatives that some residents do not use their parking to the rear of the house or use the tandem bays, and instead, park on the road at the front of their houses. If these spaces were utilised, the problem along Monticello Way could be alleviated.
8. Will this proposed development be subject to an Estate Maintenance Charge? If so, would this be a new Management Company and new charge? Or would it fall under the existing Estate Maintenance Charge already charged to those properties on the northern side of the park but not the southern? This development is in fact bordering the northern side but more on the southern side of the park.
At this stage the intention would be that the new properties would be party to a management charge as they would benefit of the current open space areas in the estate.
9. What would the anticipated monthly Estate Maintenance Charge be?
The charge would be set by the managing agent depending on the number of properties permitted.
10. Will Greenbelt be involved in the collection of the Estate Maintenance Charge and the maintenance of the land?
The intention would be to utilise the current management agent to provide services on the landscaping and the grounds as they are currently on the estate
11. Will Persimmon state on record that they will guarantee to provide full disclosure of details to prospective buyers to allow the FME1 form from the Law Society to be completed prior to buyer reservation?
The appropriate information regarding the management companies will be given to the buyers solicitor when purchasing the property.
12. Is the access road to the new apartments wide enough to cover 2 car widths?
The access road is planned to have a Bell mouth design which is wide enough for two cars.
13. Is the access road going to be double yellow lined else there is the possible double parking issues restricting movement of cars from the apartments? If not, how will the refuse collectors and emergency services access this part of the estate given the current issues on Monticello Way and Astoria Drive?
The roads are to be adopted by Coventry City Council in due course, Coventry may decide to implement traffic and parking restrictions. Tracking of the roads will also take place as part of the application which will determine if larger vehicles can access and manoeuvre around the proposed development.
14. Overspill parking from the new apartments will flood the new access road thus making life difficult for the new occupants of the houses on this development, let alone Monticello Way. How will this be addressed?
Persimmon homes cannot monitor or regulate who parks within the parking spaces of the new development. However, as a knee rail fence has been implemented on Monticello Way this should alleviate any issues. Also as above there is potential to retain the knee rail fence as part of the proposed development.
15. With the prospective new development, could the car parking area not be underneath the apartments with an entrance off Banner Lane under the central apartment block?
Unfortunately we cannot create an entrance/exit onto Banner Lane due to the separation distances between the already existing junctions. Stopping distances must be taken into account when designing a junction. Furthermore, there is not scope to provide underground parking for the apartments, there is sufficient space within the site to provide car parking above ground.
16. Is there a plan to paint white lines around the estate at key junctions (notably Monticello Way / Astoria Drive and Astoria Drive / Gramercy Park)? We already have cars speeding and not giving way to those on the right.
We will complete all the necessary road marking when the previous development was built. The roads will be adopted within due course and it will then be up to the discretion of Coventry City Council.
17. Will there be a paved raised junction off Monticello Way at the new access road junction?
Currently, we do not have any plans to create a paved raised junction to the access of Monticello Way. We having an extensive Travel Impact Assessment Carried out by experts. Any recommendations they suggest we will look into. Likewise, any suggestions Coventry City Council put forward, we will take on board.
18. Will the new proposed development receive FTTC or FTTP broadband access?
When the application has been approved, we will then contact BT to supply new services to this development of 93 dwellings. BT will then decide which level of service to provide, Persimmon Homes do not decide this.
19. How do you plan to allow all of these new homes / apartments to benefit from Electric Charging facilities as announced on 15th July 2019?
The document that was released in July 2019 was out for consultation from 15th July-7th October, the Government will now go through the process of getting the document adopted, therefore at current this document is in draft format and is not adopted policy. There are no standards set out within the current Coventry City Local Plan which state electric charging points must be included. Supplementary Planning Documents mention Electric charging points, however, these documents are just for guidance for the developer. There is no legal requirement to install such charging point within Coventry, unless Coventry City Council state otherwise. Although Electric charging points are not necessary, we will seek to provide 10% of dwellings with charging points.
20. The walk from Banner Lane to Monticello Way could allow thieves to congregate. Is this wise to have a cut through? Would it be well lit? Would the lights be maintained better than the current set on the estate which has been left for years and only being addressed as part of the adoption process?
Plots 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 all front onto the path meaning there will be natural surveillance. There will be a lighting plan produced to look at the potential of placing lighting along the path.