When submitting your objection it is important to include the planning application reference number (R19/1164) and your home address. Remember, the deadline is on 21st November, so if you wish to object then you have around a week to get your letters submitted.
We feel that valid points of objection would be the loss of amenity green space in an area of Rugby that is already way below the provision standards set by RBC. Other points of consideration would be the traffic risk caused by having two junctions in such close proximity (the one that already turns into the Funeralcare, as well as the new one that would provide access to this development) and the overbearing nature of the Extra Care facility, specifically for those residents living in the houses opposite on Bilton Road.
We have a couple of suggestions of points to avoid. We would be inclined to not dwell over the loss of the football pitch, as this application mitigates to provide an alternative full sized football pitch at Whinfield Rec, which is within the driving accessibility standards as set in RBCs provision standards. Equally, the increase in traffic would be negligible, as the target market are retirees – the over 85s don’t tend to generate much in the way of traffic; even less so at peak rush hour times. Therefore, the increase in traffic is something of a non-argument.
It is also worth bearing in mind that many of the objection points made previously are addressed by this new proposal, and so many of those points are now redundant. Dog walkers will have somewhere to walk their dogs if this proposal is accepted, and families will have a reasonably sized space to take their kids for an opportunity to let off steam.
An example objection letter might be as follows (to Chris.Kingham@rugby.gov.uk)…
Mr A N Other
425 Northcote Road
12th November 2019
Dear Mr Kingham,
I am writing to you to express my opposition to planning application R19/1164 (Extra Care facility on Oakfield Recreation Ground, Bilton Road).
It is my belief that Oakfield, as Protected Open Space and as an Asset of Community Value, should be protected from speculative developments such as this one. RBCs recent Local Plan has set the provision standards for Amenity Green Space at 1.1 hectares per 1000 people, and for Parks & Gardens this is set at 1.6 hectares per 1000 people.
New Bilton is under provision for all typology types, but focusing on just the two types that Oakfield lends itself to, we can see that this single ward is already over 9 hectares in deficit. This development represents a further hectare of open space being lost forever, as well as an increase in the population also which would create further demand.
Having observed that McCarthy & Stone attempted to challenge the open space provision standards and seen the approach rejected by a judge as “almost entirely without merit”, and having heard that McCarthy & Stones attempt to appeal this decision was refused in an equally stark way, we can absolutely assume these standards to be robust and up to date. If the standards are to be assumed to be up to date, and RBC has fought hard to retain them, then surely these standards ought to be applied rigorously.
The development would also mean that the entire approach into town along Bilton Road is saturated with bricks and mortar, and that the welcome break of greenery that which is currently provided by Oakfield Recreation Ground would be lost forever.
I also object to McCarthy & Stone using the figure of 59% to indicate the amount of open space that is to be freed up as a result of this application. It is clear that the hedgerows set out the boundary of the application site, and to include the Bowling Green seems to be an attempt to massage the amount of open space that is actually going to be available for the public and make it seem greater than it really is.
I would also express concerns about the positioning of the junction for the Extra Care facility. If I was driving along Bilton Road, heading into town, then this would represent two left hand turns that are very close to one another and would inevitably lead to confusing, late or non-existent signalling. Bearing in mind the recent fatalities along Bilton Road in recent years, it seems somewhat short-sighted to willingly add further hazards.
Finally, at 3 and a half storeys high, the Extra Care facility is so much bigger than the properties that immediately surround it which are typically two storeys tall. I can’t believe that this wouldn’t result in shadowing over the houses on Bilton Road opposite, as well as the houses immediately to the west of the site.
This summarises my reasons for objection, and I hope you will consider these points carefully before recommending that this application is refused planning permission.
A N Other