AREA HA18 BETWEEN BRAY LAKE AND WINDSOR ROAD
ALLOCATED - AGAINST BRAY PARISH COUNCIL AND HRA OPINION
FOR THAMES HOSPICE AND HOUSING
SEE ALSO BRAY LAKEHA18 (2) FOR CORRESPONDENCE WITH RBWM
It has been some time since this page was updated. Now at 18th August 2020, the Hospice buildings are substantially complete, and the change to this Green Belt area is not a change that we would wish upon anyone!
Not only is it an eysore and an extreme deterioration to the former visual quality of the surroundings of local residents, its process of construction has been extremely problematic to residents close to the site.
At least one has had damage to the house; another has suffered extreme noise and vibration; many have suffered noise early in the morning before any work was allowed; some have suffered worse.
It is to be hoped that the RBWM Councillors who approved this building on Green Belt will not be re-elected. Their approval relied upon the "Very Special Circumstances" clause which should also have been considered together with any possible other location being available. Was the latter possibility properly explored?
The letter excerpt below is from a letter sent by a Windsor Road resident on 14th August 2020 to our MP Theresa May and copied to the RBWM Councillor occupying the position of Lead Member for Planning, who is also a Councillor for our area, and to Bray Parish Council.
Bray Parish Council will be discussing this matter at their meeting on 24th August 2020.
The BPC agenda item reads;
30.1 Windsor Road
Report from Cllr Elvin on the impact on residents by the building of Thames Valley Hospice, existing Summerlease traffic movements and the Water Oakley gravel extraction.
Proposal for the Parish Council to arrange a meeting with the new Head of Planning at RBWM, Adrian Waite and residents; the object of the meeting would be to discuss how the adverse effects of the developments on the local residents could be mitigated.
Not only is it an eysore and an extreme deterioration to the former visual quality of the surroundings of local residents, its process of construction has been extremely problematic to residents close to the site.
At least one has had damage to the house; another has suffered extreme noise and vibration; many have suffered noise early in the morning before any work was allowed; some have suffered worse.
It is to be hoped that the RBWM Councillors who approved this building on Green Belt will not be re-elected. Their approval relied upon the "Very Special Circumstances" clause which should also have been considered together with any possible other location being available. Was the latter possibility properly explored?
The letter excerpt below is from a letter sent by a Windsor Road resident on 14th August 2020 to our MP Theresa May and copied to the RBWM Councillor occupying the position of Lead Member for Planning, who is also a Councillor for our area, and to Bray Parish Council.
Bray Parish Council will be discussing this matter at their meeting on 24th August 2020.
The BPC agenda item reads;
30.1 Windsor Road
Report from Cllr Elvin on the impact on residents by the building of Thames Valley Hospice, existing Summerlease traffic movements and the Water Oakley gravel extraction.
Proposal for the Parish Council to arrange a meeting with the new Head of Planning at RBWM, Adrian Waite and residents; the object of the meeting would be to discuss how the adverse effects of the developments on the local residents could be mitigated.
Dear Mrs May,
My name is *** and I live at *** Windsor Road.
I originally organised a petition in the Windsor Road opposing the application for the Hospice at Bray Lake (A308). Therefore, from time to time I receive emails from other residents affected by the development of the Hospice.
I enclose an email from *** of *** Windsor Road setting out her concerns in graphic detail, and which you may have seen. She is one of 2 households who are particularly badly affected by the work because they live close to the entrance to the site. The other resident is *** at No ***. They are both aware that I am writing to you.
The email makes grim reading, both in relation to the devastating impact on their lives and the poor response from the RBWM.
This application should not have been allowed to proceed on this site, which is greenbelt. The Bray Parish Council objected to the application and yet the Borough Council bulldozed it through with, what appeared to be a hand picked committee. That committee did not take account of the fact that, for development to be allowed in the Green Belt, there have to be both exceptional circumstances and no alternative site. No other site was considered even though the large site at Heatherwood Hospital was being developed and would have accommodated a Hospice. The local authority preferred to allocate some of that land for housing.
As things stand we are now faced with a fait accompli.
The impact of the development, which is far more than a hospice, with 200 car parking spaces, has affected everyone in the Windsor Road - severe traffic disturbance, dust, flies, light pollution and constant noise. I can confirm that, walking along the footpath at the rear of the houses, the noise is apparent and has rendered the gardens of people living close to the entrance unuseable.
I would ask that you use your influence over the various levels of local government to ensure that the developers address the issues raised by the frontagers and ensure that the hedge opposite the car park is reinstated, that a comprehensive planting scheme is carried out on the A308 boundary and the East and West boundary to screen this development and restore what was a rural aspect.
I understand that The Government gave funds to local authorities to conduct traffic surveys. It is time that the A308 was the subject of such a survey.
Equally there is a need for the A308 from Braywick to Monkey Island Lane to be subject to 30 mph as opposed to 40 mph.
Finally I would urge you to ask Bray Parish Council to write to the RBWM asking them to inform members of the planning committee, who took the decision to allow the hospice application, of the severe impact this decision has had on the people living opposite the site entrance and the Windsor Road generally.
You might wish to consider whether the worst affected households should be offered some compensation or a rebate on their council tax.
Yours sincerely
****
My name is *** and I live at *** Windsor Road.
I originally organised a petition in the Windsor Road opposing the application for the Hospice at Bray Lake (A308). Therefore, from time to time I receive emails from other residents affected by the development of the Hospice.
I enclose an email from *** of *** Windsor Road setting out her concerns in graphic detail, and which you may have seen. She is one of 2 households who are particularly badly affected by the work because they live close to the entrance to the site. The other resident is *** at No ***. They are both aware that I am writing to you.
The email makes grim reading, both in relation to the devastating impact on their lives and the poor response from the RBWM.
This application should not have been allowed to proceed on this site, which is greenbelt. The Bray Parish Council objected to the application and yet the Borough Council bulldozed it through with, what appeared to be a hand picked committee. That committee did not take account of the fact that, for development to be allowed in the Green Belt, there have to be both exceptional circumstances and no alternative site. No other site was considered even though the large site at Heatherwood Hospital was being developed and would have accommodated a Hospice. The local authority preferred to allocate some of that land for housing.
As things stand we are now faced with a fait accompli.
The impact of the development, which is far more than a hospice, with 200 car parking spaces, has affected everyone in the Windsor Road - severe traffic disturbance, dust, flies, light pollution and constant noise. I can confirm that, walking along the footpath at the rear of the houses, the noise is apparent and has rendered the gardens of people living close to the entrance unuseable.
I would ask that you use your influence over the various levels of local government to ensure that the developers address the issues raised by the frontagers and ensure that the hedge opposite the car park is reinstated, that a comprehensive planting scheme is carried out on the A308 boundary and the East and West boundary to screen this development and restore what was a rural aspect.
I understand that The Government gave funds to local authorities to conduct traffic surveys. It is time that the A308 was the subject of such a survey.
Equally there is a need for the A308 from Braywick to Monkey Island Lane to be subject to 30 mph as opposed to 40 mph.
Finally I would urge you to ask Bray Parish Council to write to the RBWM asking them to inform members of the planning committee, who took the decision to allow the hospice application, of the severe impact this decision has had on the people living opposite the site entrance and the Windsor Road generally.
You might wish to consider whether the worst affected households should be offered some compensation or a rebate on their council tax.
Yours sincerely
****
The pictures immediately below are of the HA18 area on 20th August 2020. Unfortunately my photo software would not combine them in the same way as it did for the earlier combined photo below. These August 2020 photos were taken from approximately the same point as was the combined photo. It is interesting to see that, so far, the presence of the Hospice makes little difference to the view of HA18 from this point. But its presence, and the process of its construction has caused huge discomfort and concern to those living near it.
Now we are approaching a point in time when the new Borough Local Plan will be put in place, and we know that it allows building in the HA18 area. The Summerleaze proposals already mooted, but planning permission has not been applied for as the current Local Plan would not allow building on Green Belt unless Very Special Circumstances applied. These proposals are shown further down this page.
These proposed houses will complete the destruction of this Green Belt land. Further, should they go ahead, their construction work will cause further pain to resdents living near the Thames Hospice entry, as we see from the Summerleaze plans that the 100 houses will share the Thames Hospice entry, albeit that it will be shifted slightly.
We have seen today a report that Thames Hospice intends to run a commercial Cafe business, but we believe and hope that the planning permission they were given does not allow it. Even without such a Cafe - for visitors not connected with any Thames Hospice patients - the concept of residents of 100 new houses and visitors to the Thames Hospice all sharing the same entry from this exceptionally busy A308 is one which no Planning Officer or Councillor should approve of.
Now we are approaching a point in time when the new Borough Local Plan will be put in place, and we know that it allows building in the HA18 area. The Summerleaze proposals already mooted, but planning permission has not been applied for as the current Local Plan would not allow building on Green Belt unless Very Special Circumstances applied. These proposals are shown further down this page.
These proposed houses will complete the destruction of this Green Belt land. Further, should they go ahead, their construction work will cause further pain to resdents living near the Thames Hospice entry, as we see from the Summerleaze plans that the 100 houses will share the Thames Hospice entry, albeit that it will be shifted slightly.
We have seen today a report that Thames Hospice intends to run a commercial Cafe business, but we believe and hope that the planning permission they were given does not allow it. Even without such a Cafe - for visitors not connected with any Thames Hospice patients - the concept of residents of 100 new houses and visitors to the Thames Hospice all sharing the same entry from this exceptionally busy A308 is one which no Planning Officer or Councillor should approve of.
Above is the Green Belt area identified by RBWM as Area HA18. RBWM have embraced the concept of building the Thames Hospice and 100 houses on this land. The view above shows trees along the Windsor Road and extending at right angles to the road as far as the Bray Lake. A presentation given on behalf of the owners, Summerleaze, on 29th November 2017, advised of the existence of bats in the area. Subsequently we hear that their presence is well known to local residents. Bray Lake, over which they can collect insects, and whose water they can sip, will be a major attraction for them, and the ivy covered trees all around the area will make good roosts.
Planning application 17/00798/FULL to build a Hospice on this Green Belt Flood Plain between the A308 and Bray Lake was approved subject to some conditions about traffic and flood control. We do not recall hearing anything about the presence of bats in that application.
The following links give interesting information about bats including in some, the duties of a local authority.
www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html
www.bats.org.uk/pages/batsurveyguide.html
www.bats.org.uk/tags.php?action=view&id=27
www.bats.org.uk/pages/planning.html
www.berksbats.org.uk/Home
www.bats.org.uk/pages/get_involved.html
www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_planning.html#LPA
www.bats.org.uk/data/files/publications/Bats_Trees.pdf
www.bats.org.uk/publications.php
www.bats.org.uk/data/files/Amazing_Bats_2015.pdf
www.bats.org.uk/publications_detail.php/327/woodland_management_for_bats
A reading of much of the above tells us that bats roost or hibernate in trees, in holes or even just behind ivy. Many of the trees in the photo are shrouded in ivy. Further, we see that bats use lines of trees and hedges, shrubs etc to navigate. So all of the trees and shrubs in the photo above and in those below are important for the bats that live in and around Area HA18.
|
|
|
Below you can see the double-sided Summerleaze leaflet that has been delivered to many residents on 10th January 2018. It shows the location and general intentions for the whole of HA18.
Below you can see an abstract from Google Earth showing how the area looked before Summerleazes's plans began to take effect, with shrubs and trees along the lake side and along the run of the watercourse that runs from the pumping station across the land. Now as of 11th Jan 2108 it is much different, even before the Hospice has full approval. Due to a flaw in the software used to combine photos the A308 is shown with a break - as if an earthquake had struck! Well, maybe the entry into HA18 - (one entry for both the Hospice and the houses) will have a similar effect on traffic flow.
Following shows the area at the outlet of the stream after developers have removed trees and bushes and dug a hole revealing rubbish - was this are used for landfill purposes in the past? Note all bushes and trees gone from the edge of the lake, and remains of a bonfire.
Photos above taken in January 2018. Following two photos taken at end of March 2018 - the left hand photo shows the water entering the pipe crossing Area HA18, the right hand one as it leaves the pipe into Bray Lake. Note in the left picture the field is saturated. Looking at the outlet photos we can see the water level is much higher in March. All of Bray Lake level is higher.
|
|
Here is text from a letter by a local resident to the Windsor Road Consultation;
Hello
I have a number of concerns about the plan for the Windsor Road. I have lived here on the Windsor Rd since 1981 and have seen many changes during that time. I worked as a GP at Holyport Surgery from 1983 until I retired in October 2014, and I know the area and most of its inhabitants very well.
As a resident my primary concerns are several.
Loss of open space and view, sound trivial, but affect people’s outlook on life and mood, at a time when there are more than enough stresses affecting mental health already.
This area is an area where bats are living. I frequently see them flying around my garden in the summer. Bats are a protected species. In addition there are many birds on the Lake, and deer, badgers and foxes live around the lake, and frequently appear in and around my garden. How will they be affected?
Loss of drain-away space for surplus water during periods of heavy rain. Being the owner of a cellar in my house [which was built in 1840], I know that the water table can rise up to a considerable level. The last time this happened was in March 2014 when the water was over waist deep in my cellar, and was threatening the main supply electrical cable to the house. The Lake regularly overflows.
Traffic on the Windsor Road is very heavy particularly during the morning and evening rush hours. The road is a two-way A road with a 40mph speed limit, and a cycle path down one pavement. It is a road which is in constant use and is a main route between Windsor and Maidenhead. If there is a problem on the M4 then the road is grid-locked with people trying to avoid the blockage. The traffic has increased enormously since I first moved here, and how much more will it be with staff and patients at the Hospice, and 100 homes with possibly 200 or more extra cars? Houses on the Windsor Road open directly onto the road- often with front doors very close to it.
Can the local surgery accommodate all these extra patients? I would think not. The Holyport Surgery is limited in size with not much room for expansion.Local GPs are under enormous strain as it is, with increasing demands for all types of healthcare, particularly with an ageing population.
Can the local school accommodate extra pupils? The school has already been enlarged - how many more children can it take?
Slow traffic causes even more pollution.
Pollution levels must be very high already, and pollution causes real health problems. In addition to the Windsor Rd we have pollution from the M4 and we are under the flight-path for Heathrow. Pollution causes 40,000 premature deaths in England every year, and has far-reaching deleterious affects. Particulate elements from inhaled polluted air have been tracked and have been found to be deposited in the coronary and cerebral arteries, causing coronary artery disease, angina and heart attacks. The cerebral arteries are similarly affected, causing stroke. For patients with asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease the affects can be disabling and devastating. All of these conditions cause premature death, or long lasting disability, with significant loss of quality of life. In addition it has recently been found to cause low birth weight in newborn babies if pregnant women are exposed to pollution. Low birth weight has far reaching health consequences from this poor start in life.
I can get you references for all these things if you wish.
In conclusion, I would like to hear what risk assessments have been done, with respect to:-
the bats and effect on the wild-life
the added risk of flooding and consequent damage to property
the affects of even more traffic on the Windsor Road, with added dangers for pedestrians and cyclists
the added risk to residents of an already polluted area
the strain on the infrastructure- GP services, and school places in particular
the effect on quality of life for residents living on the Windsor Road
You can probably gather that I feel very strongly about this proposed plan. Unfortunately I will not be in the UK to attend your exhibition on January 18th, as I will be working [as a Volunteer Doctor] on the Amazon in Peru.
I would be grateful for an early reply.
The following button will deliver a PDF file on how to complain to the Local Authority in order to protect bats. It is from this pack that much of the information in HRA email of 5th December 2017 to RBWM Head of Planning was obtained.
If you wish to make a Tree Preservation Order request, as I have done, go to;
https://forms.rbwm.gov.uk/popup.aspx/RenderForm/?F.Name=aXJCY2ZSKk7
The following is the text I used in the boxes to be completed;
Around the border of Borough Local Development Plan Area HA18, including the edge of Bray Lake.
Any trees that are being used by bats, either for roosts, hibernation, or as guidance for their flights. The latter
reason will apply to all trees.
The owner of this land, through his agent, held a meeting on Wednesday 29th November 2018, in the presence
of Cllr Coppinger, to describe intentions for housebuilding, and also access to the Thames Hospice. Part of
the presentation recognised that bats are present.
Earlier in the form it asks for the address - I entered Local Development Plan Area HA18.
https://forms.rbwm.gov.uk/popup.aspx/RenderForm/?F.Name=aXJCY2ZSKk7
The following is the text I used in the boxes to be completed;
Around the border of Borough Local Development Plan Area HA18, including the edge of Bray Lake.
Any trees that are being used by bats, either for roosts, hibernation, or as guidance for their flights. The latter
reason will apply to all trees.
The owner of this land, through his agent, held a meeting on Wednesday 29th November 2018, in the presence
of Cllr Coppinger, to describe intentions for housebuilding, and also access to the Thames Hospice. Part of
the presentation recognised that bats are present.
Earlier in the form it asks for the address - I entered Local Development Plan Area HA18.
Residents on the A308 within the HRA area are justifiably extremely unhappy with the prospect of this land being built upon, both for the Hospice and for housing, and many have objected.
Other than for this Hospice “Good Cause” it seems unlikely that this piece of land would be built upon. This approval has of course opened the way to the rest of the land being allowed for housing.
Below are two photographs of traffic on the A308, a road that by rights should have a 30 mph limit but is currently relaxed by RBWM to 40 mph, not that there is much chance in peak times for even 30 to be achieved. More building with associated increased traffic is not appropriate for this road.
The area to be occupied by the Hospice is the lowest part of the area – most likely to flood – no doubt the architect can keep the structure above the flood levels, but it seems to the writer that all such developments will contribute to flooding in the immediately surrounding area, as the barrier to rain water constituted by the building and the parking area prevents rain water from going directly into the soil thus being directed off the area onto the adjacent land, which in this case are existing and possibly future houses whose gardens would likely be badly affected.
The hospice plans are supposed to mitigate locally against this bad effect by installing a so-called Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS).
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), are touted as the solution that will allow building on flood plains. One method is by using underground water storage tanks, and this is the method intended for the hospice. The concept is that the tank is empty, and when rain falls heavily the water fills the tank - then the water is pumped out more slowly than it fell. The SuDS title includes the word "sustainable" but we believe that this underground storage method is not sustainable.
These SuDS underground tanks occupy underground volume that would otherwise contribute to the general capacity of the ground to absorb rainwater and allow it to flow or seep underground, in this case to Bray Lake and thence to the river Thames. Further, the walls of the tanks facing the direction of underground flow would constitute a barrier around which the underground water has to deviate. All of this contributes to a decrease in the capacity of the surrounding area to cope with rainwater falling locally and on the large catchment area to the South-West of Windsor Road.
It seems then, that the consequence could be a raising of the water table in the area, perhaps raising enough to result in areas of surface water.
A nationwide use of underground tank SuDS will cause an ongoing cumulative decrease in the Nation's natural underground flood absorption volumetric capacity. Creating underground volumes for the purpose of particular developments, at the expense of a loss in natural underground seepage capacity is actually unsustainable.
The same will apply to any SuDS using underground tanks if these are also proposed for the latest housing development.
The Friends of Bray Lake have a facebook page setup called @SaveBraylake. Please go onto the page and write some comments to support. When it is setup the admin will put up the link to the e-petition there also. Please sign the e-petition and encourage your friends and neighbours to do so.
Other than for this Hospice “Good Cause” it seems unlikely that this piece of land would be built upon. This approval has of course opened the way to the rest of the land being allowed for housing.
Below are two photographs of traffic on the A308, a road that by rights should have a 30 mph limit but is currently relaxed by RBWM to 40 mph, not that there is much chance in peak times for even 30 to be achieved. More building with associated increased traffic is not appropriate for this road.
The area to be occupied by the Hospice is the lowest part of the area – most likely to flood – no doubt the architect can keep the structure above the flood levels, but it seems to the writer that all such developments will contribute to flooding in the immediately surrounding area, as the barrier to rain water constituted by the building and the parking area prevents rain water from going directly into the soil thus being directed off the area onto the adjacent land, which in this case are existing and possibly future houses whose gardens would likely be badly affected.
The hospice plans are supposed to mitigate locally against this bad effect by installing a so-called Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS).
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), are touted as the solution that will allow building on flood plains. One method is by using underground water storage tanks, and this is the method intended for the hospice. The concept is that the tank is empty, and when rain falls heavily the water fills the tank - then the water is pumped out more slowly than it fell. The SuDS title includes the word "sustainable" but we believe that this underground storage method is not sustainable.
These SuDS underground tanks occupy underground volume that would otherwise contribute to the general capacity of the ground to absorb rainwater and allow it to flow or seep underground, in this case to Bray Lake and thence to the river Thames. Further, the walls of the tanks facing the direction of underground flow would constitute a barrier around which the underground water has to deviate. All of this contributes to a decrease in the capacity of the surrounding area to cope with rainwater falling locally and on the large catchment area to the South-West of Windsor Road.
It seems then, that the consequence could be a raising of the water table in the area, perhaps raising enough to result in areas of surface water.
A nationwide use of underground tank SuDS will cause an ongoing cumulative decrease in the Nation's natural underground flood absorption volumetric capacity. Creating underground volumes for the purpose of particular developments, at the expense of a loss in natural underground seepage capacity is actually unsustainable.
The same will apply to any SuDS using underground tanks if these are also proposed for the latest housing development.
The Friends of Bray Lake have a facebook page setup called @SaveBraylake. Please go onto the page and write some comments to support. When it is setup the admin will put up the link to the e-petition there also. Please sign the e-petition and encourage your friends and neighbours to do so.
I show immediately below the text of an email from a resident of Windsor Road, giving further reasons why 17/00798/FULL should be rejected.
Why are we against building on the Bray lake field and why do we object to the Hospice?
We do not object to the Hospice, we applaud their work BUT the location they have chosen is unsuitable, when ALL planning considerations are against building on this currently a Greenfield flood plain on a very congested road!
Importantly this is also a residential area! So building anything of this size and projected growth (industrial size) will generate a lot of disturbance, not just in the building stages but thereafter.
How does this affect you?
First the practical reasons- Traffic flow, Air Pollution, Noise Pollution, Flood plain
1. This road is already a congested road with transit traffic to and from Windsor, to and from the M4, to and from A404M and even to and from A330. This is of course in addition to the local traffic and not even considering that Cross rail is coming and will generate additional traffic . .
So adding traffic of at least another 200 cars for staff+ ~50 for patients' visitors, estimate + ~50 for outpatients and of course ambulances.
There will have to be supply vehicles, maintenance vehicles etc
As an education center there will be the vehicles of the attendees and then fundraising events which will have attendees, extra associated duty of care staff, perhaps also security staff and you can see how the numbers are mounting.
2. This generates not just problems with traffic flow but also Air pollution and Noise pollution. We already have air pollution in excess of recommended levels and without open spaces it does not have the chance to disperse so it will collect in our gardens - great for the health of our children or even the adults.
3. As this is a hospice it doesn't shut down so the Noise and disturbance will be present most of 24 hours a day for staff shift changes, ambulances etc 7 days a week, most of the year
This congestion and its knock on effects affect NOT just Windsor Road but also Holyport Road, Court Close and in fact all the roads which lead off Windsor Road.
4. This field floods a little way most winters. Last winter the flood water came half way up the field; this is with the Jubilee River (flood control) in operation. If this flood plain is not available, the water will have to find whichever opening it can at a lower level and probably come onto the road or existing houses / gardens.
Even for those whose houses are not likely to get flooded, their house insurance premiums will go up based on post code.
5. Again the Hospice do sterling work but personally I object to the Hospice using emotional blackmail and lending themselves to special consideration using an emotional argument for development on this site which will be a fore runner to further development (140 houses) on the Bray lake field.
6. The reasons that the Hospice want the land for the visual amenity ie the scenic view over the lake is equally important for us the residents. It does not affect just those who can see it from their houses but also walking or driving past, it gives us the feeling of openness in an increasingly congested area where it is the only open, green space left between the Fifield road and the Braywick roundabout.
If this open space disappears we will miss it, even though we take it for granted now.
Why are we against building on the Bray lake field and why do we object to the Hospice?
We do not object to the Hospice, we applaud their work BUT the location they have chosen is unsuitable, when ALL planning considerations are against building on this currently a Greenfield flood plain on a very congested road!
Importantly this is also a residential area! So building anything of this size and projected growth (industrial size) will generate a lot of disturbance, not just in the building stages but thereafter.
How does this affect you?
First the practical reasons- Traffic flow, Air Pollution, Noise Pollution, Flood plain
1. This road is already a congested road with transit traffic to and from Windsor, to and from the M4, to and from A404M and even to and from A330. This is of course in addition to the local traffic and not even considering that Cross rail is coming and will generate additional traffic . .
So adding traffic of at least another 200 cars for staff+ ~50 for patients' visitors, estimate + ~50 for outpatients and of course ambulances.
There will have to be supply vehicles, maintenance vehicles etc
As an education center there will be the vehicles of the attendees and then fundraising events which will have attendees, extra associated duty of care staff, perhaps also security staff and you can see how the numbers are mounting.
2. This generates not just problems with traffic flow but also Air pollution and Noise pollution. We already have air pollution in excess of recommended levels and without open spaces it does not have the chance to disperse so it will collect in our gardens - great for the health of our children or even the adults.
3. As this is a hospice it doesn't shut down so the Noise and disturbance will be present most of 24 hours a day for staff shift changes, ambulances etc 7 days a week, most of the year
This congestion and its knock on effects affect NOT just Windsor Road but also Holyport Road, Court Close and in fact all the roads which lead off Windsor Road.
4. This field floods a little way most winters. Last winter the flood water came half way up the field; this is with the Jubilee River (flood control) in operation. If this flood plain is not available, the water will have to find whichever opening it can at a lower level and probably come onto the road or existing houses / gardens.
Even for those whose houses are not likely to get flooded, their house insurance premiums will go up based on post code.
5. Again the Hospice do sterling work but personally I object to the Hospice using emotional blackmail and lending themselves to special consideration using an emotional argument for development on this site which will be a fore runner to further development (140 houses) on the Bray lake field.
6. The reasons that the Hospice want the land for the visual amenity ie the scenic view over the lake is equally important for us the residents. It does not affect just those who can see it from their houses but also walking or driving past, it gives us the feeling of openness in an increasingly congested area where it is the only open, green space left between the Fifield road and the Braywick roundabout.
If this open space disappears we will miss it, even though we take it for granted now.
Here is another Windsor Road resident's excellent letter objecting to the Hospice (equally applicable to the houses proposed for the rest of HA18);
Dear Sir / Madam,
I write in connection with the above planning application (17/00798). I have examined the plans, attended the recent planning meeting and know the site well. After careful consideration, I wish to strongly object to the development of the proposed 28-bedroom hospice. I believe it will have a detrimental effect on our local environment and community for several reasons, which I will attempt to outline in this letter.
I recently attended the parish meeting and listened to both arguments presented by a local resident and Debbie Raven (representative from Thomas Hospice). Firstly, I would like to address some of the points made that evening By Debbie Raven. Ms. Raven stated that the residents were consulted prior to the proposal. Unfortunately, this is completely incorrect; we have never been approached by letter, in person, email, text or newsletter by any representative of Thomas Hospice or the proposed planning team. In fact we only heard about the proposed site via a neighbor; prior to the meeting.
Secondly, the point was made that on average it takes 22 to 23 seconds to join the main road. Once again all the residents we have spoken to were not approached/consulted by a ‘vehicle turning onto the main road experts or researcher.’ To this effect I have compiled my own 'vehicle turning onto main road, Windsor Road' research (please see appendix 1). Further to this, existing from our drives is difficult enough, we are dependent on motorists letting us out at peak times and often a right turn is impossible! Moreover, even a left turn requires more space since the A308 is incredibly narrow and even small vehicles require more space impeding the oncoming right-hand traffic. (Please feel free to send researchers to our home to conduct your own research).
Congestion – Traffic
I strongly object to the proposal of the hospice because it will exacerbate an existing congested A308 and surroundings area with increased traffic, air pollution and noise pollution. The A308 main road is notoriously jammed during peak commuting hours around school drop-off, pick up but consistently choked most of the day due to oversize delivery vehicles blocking routes, stationery packed vehicles, cyclists and the sheer volume of traffic attempting to join the major motorways M4/M40/M3 and surrounding towns (Windsor/Ascot/ Slough/Reading). In addition, the A308 provides a direct route to one of the most popular tourist destinations, Windsor, River Thames and world famous restaurants in Bray. Undoubtedly, these issues have a great impact on road safety for motorists as well as pedestrians: children and the elderly in particular. My young children are too afraid of walking on the pavement since the vehicles seem to be so close on a narrow road, the noise seems to be intensified and the larger vehicles which pass overwhelm them.
Air Pollution
Indubitably, I sincerely object to the proposed site for development of the Hospice on grounds that it will increase as well as contribute to worsening air pollution and noise pollution in the area. The council needs to ensure and take greater responsibility that traffic and congestion across the parish is not increased. Most concerning is the junction of B32041 Upper Bray Road and the A308/Holyport Road which now exceeds the National air quality objective (NAQ0). Road transport is one of the biggest sources of pollution in the UK, contributing to poor air quality, noise disturbance, congestion and climate change. Air pollutants from transport include nitrogen oxides, particles, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons they all have a damaging impact on the health of people, animals and vegetation locally. Air pollution is estimated to be responsible for a shocking 29,000 premature deaths a year in the UK - ten times the number of people killed in road accidents, according to the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution, an advisory committee to the Government.
A variety of air pollutants have known or suspected harmful effects on human health. Long term exposure to air pollution can lead to more serious symptoms and conditions affecting human health. This mainly affects the respiratory and inflammatory systems, but can also lead to more serious conditions such as heart disease and cancer (See appendix 3). Therefore, unquestionably we need open spaces to disperse existing air pollution and not contributing to an overly congested area. Jenny Bates, Friends of the Earth air pollution campaigner, said: “Dirty air is already the nation’s biggest killer after smoking. The solutions are out there but we need the government to listen to MPs and campaign groups and take more urgent action now.”
Please refer to the article by the guardian and BBC that people living near a busy road have an increased risk of dementia, according to research that adds to concerns about the impact of air pollution on human health. Roughly one in 10 cases of Alzheimer’s in urban areas could be associated with living amid heavy traffic, the study estimated – exposure to exhaust fumes causes neuro degeneration.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/04/living-near-heavy-traffic-increases-dementia-risk-say-scientists
Air Pollution effect on the environment
Not only will the air pollution affect human life but it will also have a detrimental effect on our environment. Air pollution causes damage to plants and animals, affecting biodiversity and crop yields. The proposed planning site in question is a direct threat to local wild life. Hoards of dragonflies and damselflies use the lake, and bats hunt over the open water at dusk and dawn. Aquatic and woodland birds thrive there too. The lake draws not only water birds such as herons, common terns, great crested grebes and kingfishers but also swallows, swifts and house martins as well as great spotted woodpeckers. A large number of colourful wild flowers create meadow areas along the margins of the lake. There are oxeye daisy and wild carrot. The wild flowers in turn attract insects - including over 20 species of butterflies, lots of bees and numerous noisy bush crickets. I have spent many an evening spotting different species of wild life. It is our responsibility to protect this wildlife.
For information see - https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/effects
Noise Pollution
In addition, I strongly believe the proposed site for development of the Hospice is particularly ill–considered worsening increasing noise pollution. I have personally suffered from the noise of traffic during the day and particularly at night directly from the A308 and the adjoining M4 as well as from aircraft noise: the current flight path is directly over the proposed site. Most nights I am kept awake or woken from my sleep, which has resulted in mental health issues; I would prefer to discuss these in person rather then on a public forum. The noise on some nights has been unbearable from my bedroom (138), which overlooks the A308 and M4. Unfortunately, we can’t open the windows especially on a hot summer’s evening because of the deafening noise of traffic (A308/M4) coupled with the air pollution, which aggravates my asthma and breathing.
Unquestionably, the impact on the health of the public, local residents should be determining factor when considering a proposed plan of this scale. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), noise is second only to air pollution in the impact it has on health. It is a major cause, not only of hearing loss, but also of heart disease, learning problems in children and sleep disturbance. Not only is noise pollution an annoyance it affects 30% of people in the UK but it can also be a significant short and long-term health hazard. The report below cites research findings that suggest, "Traffic noise triggers a complex chain of responses affecting human health and well-being."
www.roadtraffic-technology.com/features/feature126199/
http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/policy-areas/air-quality/air-pollution-and-transport/car-pollution/
The following research supports my concerns about noise pollution and the impact it has:
European Environment Agency good practice guide on noise (2011)
Noise creates stress to which our body reacts, for example, with an increase in heart rate and blood pressure.
European Heart Journal: Study on road traffic noise and stroke (2011)
Exposure to residential road traffic noise increases the risk of stroke among people over 64 years of age.
CE Delft study on Traffic Noise Reduction in Europe (2007)
For people living in streets with average noise levels above 65-70dB(A), the average risk of heart disease is 20% higher than for people living in quieter streets.
HYENA: Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (2006)
Exposure to 24-hour road traffic noise also increases blood pressure, particularly in men.
RANCH: Road Traffic and Aircraft Noise Exposure and Children’s Cognition and Health (2001)
Research in the UK and Spain found a clear link between traffic noise and effects on reading, comprehension and memory.
WHO report: Burden of disease from environmental noise (2011)
Noise causes or contributes to annoyance and sleep disturbance and also heart attacks, learning disabilities and tinnitus.
www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/vehicle-noise/what-science-says
Flooding
Moreover, I strongly object to the planning of the proposed hospice because it is clear that the prospect of flooding is a substantial issue for the applicant. In the winter of 2015/16 the land to the south of the lake, including the site, was flooded some feet beyond the boundary of the lake. Gardens on the south side in the vicinity of the site have experienced flooding. The proposed development will exacerbate the problem. Half of the site has had the gravel extracted so it has lost its natural drainage. The land is very boggy in winter. To conclude the flood plain alone is reason not to proceed with this proposal.
As a resident – human rights
I am a relatively new resident of Windsor Road (Summer 2015). On a personal note, my family and I spent a considerably length of time finding a suitable family home. After careful research we decided to move to Lakeview, 138 Windsor Road. Prior to moving to the area we did consult with the local planning authority and discussed the potential and possibility of planning on the proposed site (17/00798). However, we were assured by the RBWM planning department that planning would be highly unlikely since the land was at risk of flooding and ‘greenbelt ‘ land. Unfortunately, we put all our savings into a house after taking into consideration the advice given by your planning department. We wanted an environment with open, green spaces where we could appreciate the local wild life.
Experience with the hospice – vital
On a personal note we have great admiration and praise for the invaluable work the hospice does for the local community. I have been a great supporter of the Thomas Hospice charity in the past since my late father-in-law (a COPD patient) used the hospice services at The Paul Bevan House. Firstly, he was aware of the relocation and expansion of the site to Bray but was unaware of the exact location. My father in law expressed great concern about the location of Bray (A308) as he was familiar with the area when visiting us. He found his symptoms (struggling with breathing, irritation of the lungs exacerbated when visiting us) – he was convinced it was the poor quality of the air in this area as he would be affected immediately. Secondly, he found the level of noise traffic would disturb him greatly, causing headaches, irritation, annoyance and weak concentration. He was particularly vocal and often distressed about the congestion on the A308 sitting in slow moving traffic, lack of public transport, distressed from the air and noise pollution. He often discussed these issues with his ‘fellow hospice patient peers’ and he expressed concerns that they also thought the relocation to this A308 site / area was an ill thought out one. I think this is a particularly important reason, although very personal to our family. Here is someone who used the vital facilities of the hospice but believed this area was totally inappropriate for relocation!
In addition, I would like to add that I certainly did not appreciate Debbie Raven’s opening address at the planning meeting earlier this month when she addressed the council and local residents. I object to the Hospice using emotional blackmail and lending themselves to special consideration using an emotional argument for development on this site which will be a fore runner to further development (140 houses) on the Bray lake field. If Debbie Raven had approached any number of the residents that evening she would have realized that we objected strongly to the proposal unlike the inaccurate quote reported in the Maidenhead Advertiser ‘that she has had meetings with residents groups who did not have ‘any significant objections. ’ I am yet to meet a single resident who had a conversation with Ms. Raven.
I am 100% aware of the need for a community hospice after losing both my father to cancer and father-in–law to COPD; the latter who benefitted from the Hospice’s services but once again I must strongly state that I whole heartedly believe that this location is not the location they are looking for. It is the wrong location for the hospice.
As an alternative to this proposal, we would urge the council recommend that this application be dismissed and the District council assist the hospice to locate a brownfield site nearer the urban area with better transport links for the staff, visitors using the facilities.
In addition to my objection stated clearly in this letter I have shared my views on the facebook page started by local resident @savebraylake.
I would also like it to be mentioned and noted that I think the advertising and communication for this proposed planning has been almost non–existent. We have had very little time to prepare an objection. The dates for submission have been directly after Easter which haven’t provided sufficient time for most residents; many of which have children at home or family visiting. A slightly longer time for submission after Easter would have been helpful, reasonable and fair.
Finally, please note that my submission of objection is in respect of the proposed development. While I have taken every effort to present accurate information for your consideration, I cannot accept any responsibility for unintentional errors or omissions and you should satisfy yourselves on any facts before reaching your decision.
Appendix 1
Exiting onto main road (A308 from 138 Windsor Road)
Health effects at very high l
Dear Sir / Madam,
I write in connection with the above planning application (17/00798). I have examined the plans, attended the recent planning meeting and know the site well. After careful consideration, I wish to strongly object to the development of the proposed 28-bedroom hospice. I believe it will have a detrimental effect on our local environment and community for several reasons, which I will attempt to outline in this letter.
I recently attended the parish meeting and listened to both arguments presented by a local resident and Debbie Raven (representative from Thomas Hospice). Firstly, I would like to address some of the points made that evening By Debbie Raven. Ms. Raven stated that the residents were consulted prior to the proposal. Unfortunately, this is completely incorrect; we have never been approached by letter, in person, email, text or newsletter by any representative of Thomas Hospice or the proposed planning team. In fact we only heard about the proposed site via a neighbor; prior to the meeting.
Secondly, the point was made that on average it takes 22 to 23 seconds to join the main road. Once again all the residents we have spoken to were not approached/consulted by a ‘vehicle turning onto the main road experts or researcher.’ To this effect I have compiled my own 'vehicle turning onto main road, Windsor Road' research (please see appendix 1). Further to this, existing from our drives is difficult enough, we are dependent on motorists letting us out at peak times and often a right turn is impossible! Moreover, even a left turn requires more space since the A308 is incredibly narrow and even small vehicles require more space impeding the oncoming right-hand traffic. (Please feel free to send researchers to our home to conduct your own research).
Congestion – Traffic
I strongly object to the proposal of the hospice because it will exacerbate an existing congested A308 and surroundings area with increased traffic, air pollution and noise pollution. The A308 main road is notoriously jammed during peak commuting hours around school drop-off, pick up but consistently choked most of the day due to oversize delivery vehicles blocking routes, stationery packed vehicles, cyclists and the sheer volume of traffic attempting to join the major motorways M4/M40/M3 and surrounding towns (Windsor/Ascot/ Slough/Reading). In addition, the A308 provides a direct route to one of the most popular tourist destinations, Windsor, River Thames and world famous restaurants in Bray. Undoubtedly, these issues have a great impact on road safety for motorists as well as pedestrians: children and the elderly in particular. My young children are too afraid of walking on the pavement since the vehicles seem to be so close on a narrow road, the noise seems to be intensified and the larger vehicles which pass overwhelm them.
Air Pollution
Indubitably, I sincerely object to the proposed site for development of the Hospice on grounds that it will increase as well as contribute to worsening air pollution and noise pollution in the area. The council needs to ensure and take greater responsibility that traffic and congestion across the parish is not increased. Most concerning is the junction of B32041 Upper Bray Road and the A308/Holyport Road which now exceeds the National air quality objective (NAQ0). Road transport is one of the biggest sources of pollution in the UK, contributing to poor air quality, noise disturbance, congestion and climate change. Air pollutants from transport include nitrogen oxides, particles, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons they all have a damaging impact on the health of people, animals and vegetation locally. Air pollution is estimated to be responsible for a shocking 29,000 premature deaths a year in the UK - ten times the number of people killed in road accidents, according to the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution, an advisory committee to the Government.
A variety of air pollutants have known or suspected harmful effects on human health. Long term exposure to air pollution can lead to more serious symptoms and conditions affecting human health. This mainly affects the respiratory and inflammatory systems, but can also lead to more serious conditions such as heart disease and cancer (See appendix 3). Therefore, unquestionably we need open spaces to disperse existing air pollution and not contributing to an overly congested area. Jenny Bates, Friends of the Earth air pollution campaigner, said: “Dirty air is already the nation’s biggest killer after smoking. The solutions are out there but we need the government to listen to MPs and campaign groups and take more urgent action now.”
Please refer to the article by the guardian and BBC that people living near a busy road have an increased risk of dementia, according to research that adds to concerns about the impact of air pollution on human health. Roughly one in 10 cases of Alzheimer’s in urban areas could be associated with living amid heavy traffic, the study estimated – exposure to exhaust fumes causes neuro degeneration.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/04/living-near-heavy-traffic-increases-dementia-risk-say-scientists
Air Pollution effect on the environment
Not only will the air pollution affect human life but it will also have a detrimental effect on our environment. Air pollution causes damage to plants and animals, affecting biodiversity and crop yields. The proposed planning site in question is a direct threat to local wild life. Hoards of dragonflies and damselflies use the lake, and bats hunt over the open water at dusk and dawn. Aquatic and woodland birds thrive there too. The lake draws not only water birds such as herons, common terns, great crested grebes and kingfishers but also swallows, swifts and house martins as well as great spotted woodpeckers. A large number of colourful wild flowers create meadow areas along the margins of the lake. There are oxeye daisy and wild carrot. The wild flowers in turn attract insects - including over 20 species of butterflies, lots of bees and numerous noisy bush crickets. I have spent many an evening spotting different species of wild life. It is our responsibility to protect this wildlife.
For information see - https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/effects
Noise Pollution
In addition, I strongly believe the proposed site for development of the Hospice is particularly ill–considered worsening increasing noise pollution. I have personally suffered from the noise of traffic during the day and particularly at night directly from the A308 and the adjoining M4 as well as from aircraft noise: the current flight path is directly over the proposed site. Most nights I am kept awake or woken from my sleep, which has resulted in mental health issues; I would prefer to discuss these in person rather then on a public forum. The noise on some nights has been unbearable from my bedroom (138), which overlooks the A308 and M4. Unfortunately, we can’t open the windows especially on a hot summer’s evening because of the deafening noise of traffic (A308/M4) coupled with the air pollution, which aggravates my asthma and breathing.
Unquestionably, the impact on the health of the public, local residents should be determining factor when considering a proposed plan of this scale. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), noise is second only to air pollution in the impact it has on health. It is a major cause, not only of hearing loss, but also of heart disease, learning problems in children and sleep disturbance. Not only is noise pollution an annoyance it affects 30% of people in the UK but it can also be a significant short and long-term health hazard. The report below cites research findings that suggest, "Traffic noise triggers a complex chain of responses affecting human health and well-being."
www.roadtraffic-technology.com/features/feature126199/
http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/policy-areas/air-quality/air-pollution-and-transport/car-pollution/
The following research supports my concerns about noise pollution and the impact it has:
European Environment Agency good practice guide on noise (2011)
Noise creates stress to which our body reacts, for example, with an increase in heart rate and blood pressure.
European Heart Journal: Study on road traffic noise and stroke (2011)
Exposure to residential road traffic noise increases the risk of stroke among people over 64 years of age.
CE Delft study on Traffic Noise Reduction in Europe (2007)
For people living in streets with average noise levels above 65-70dB(A), the average risk of heart disease is 20% higher than for people living in quieter streets.
HYENA: Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (2006)
Exposure to 24-hour road traffic noise also increases blood pressure, particularly in men.
RANCH: Road Traffic and Aircraft Noise Exposure and Children’s Cognition and Health (2001)
Research in the UK and Spain found a clear link between traffic noise and effects on reading, comprehension and memory.
WHO report: Burden of disease from environmental noise (2011)
Noise causes or contributes to annoyance and sleep disturbance and also heart attacks, learning disabilities and tinnitus.
www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/vehicle-noise/what-science-says
Flooding
Moreover, I strongly object to the planning of the proposed hospice because it is clear that the prospect of flooding is a substantial issue for the applicant. In the winter of 2015/16 the land to the south of the lake, including the site, was flooded some feet beyond the boundary of the lake. Gardens on the south side in the vicinity of the site have experienced flooding. The proposed development will exacerbate the problem. Half of the site has had the gravel extracted so it has lost its natural drainage. The land is very boggy in winter. To conclude the flood plain alone is reason not to proceed with this proposal.
As a resident – human rights
I am a relatively new resident of Windsor Road (Summer 2015). On a personal note, my family and I spent a considerably length of time finding a suitable family home. After careful research we decided to move to Lakeview, 138 Windsor Road. Prior to moving to the area we did consult with the local planning authority and discussed the potential and possibility of planning on the proposed site (17/00798). However, we were assured by the RBWM planning department that planning would be highly unlikely since the land was at risk of flooding and ‘greenbelt ‘ land. Unfortunately, we put all our savings into a house after taking into consideration the advice given by your planning department. We wanted an environment with open, green spaces where we could appreciate the local wild life.
Experience with the hospice – vital
On a personal note we have great admiration and praise for the invaluable work the hospice does for the local community. I have been a great supporter of the Thomas Hospice charity in the past since my late father-in-law (a COPD patient) used the hospice services at The Paul Bevan House. Firstly, he was aware of the relocation and expansion of the site to Bray but was unaware of the exact location. My father in law expressed great concern about the location of Bray (A308) as he was familiar with the area when visiting us. He found his symptoms (struggling with breathing, irritation of the lungs exacerbated when visiting us) – he was convinced it was the poor quality of the air in this area as he would be affected immediately. Secondly, he found the level of noise traffic would disturb him greatly, causing headaches, irritation, annoyance and weak concentration. He was particularly vocal and often distressed about the congestion on the A308 sitting in slow moving traffic, lack of public transport, distressed from the air and noise pollution. He often discussed these issues with his ‘fellow hospice patient peers’ and he expressed concerns that they also thought the relocation to this A308 site / area was an ill thought out one. I think this is a particularly important reason, although very personal to our family. Here is someone who used the vital facilities of the hospice but believed this area was totally inappropriate for relocation!
In addition, I would like to add that I certainly did not appreciate Debbie Raven’s opening address at the planning meeting earlier this month when she addressed the council and local residents. I object to the Hospice using emotional blackmail and lending themselves to special consideration using an emotional argument for development on this site which will be a fore runner to further development (140 houses) on the Bray lake field. If Debbie Raven had approached any number of the residents that evening she would have realized that we objected strongly to the proposal unlike the inaccurate quote reported in the Maidenhead Advertiser ‘that she has had meetings with residents groups who did not have ‘any significant objections. ’ I am yet to meet a single resident who had a conversation with Ms. Raven.
I am 100% aware of the need for a community hospice after losing both my father to cancer and father-in–law to COPD; the latter who benefitted from the Hospice’s services but once again I must strongly state that I whole heartedly believe that this location is not the location they are looking for. It is the wrong location for the hospice.
As an alternative to this proposal, we would urge the council recommend that this application be dismissed and the District council assist the hospice to locate a brownfield site nearer the urban area with better transport links for the staff, visitors using the facilities.
In addition to my objection stated clearly in this letter I have shared my views on the facebook page started by local resident @savebraylake.
I would also like it to be mentioned and noted that I think the advertising and communication for this proposed planning has been almost non–existent. We have had very little time to prepare an objection. The dates for submission have been directly after Easter which haven’t provided sufficient time for most residents; many of which have children at home or family visiting. A slightly longer time for submission after Easter would have been helpful, reasonable and fair.
Finally, please note that my submission of objection is in respect of the proposed development. While I have taken every effort to present accurate information for your consideration, I cannot accept any responsibility for unintentional errors or omissions and you should satisfy yourselves on any facts before reaching your decision.
Appendix 1
Exiting onto main road (A308 from 138 Windsor Road)
Health effects at very high l
Appendix 2
Road pollution is more than twice as deadly as traffic accidents, according to a study of UK air quality. The analysis appears in Environmental Science and Technology , carried out by Steve Yim and Steven Barrett, pollution experts from MIT in Massachusetts. They estimate that combustion exhausts across the UK cause nearly 5,000 premature deaths each year. Far more effective, experts say, would be to invest in public transport, taking cars off the road altogether. "We estimate the premature deaths are costing the UK at least £6 billion a year," says Steven Barrett, "and perhaps as much as £60 billion."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116
Vehicle Emissions and Air Quality
When a car’s engine is running, several different types of gasses and particles are emitted that can have detrimental effects on the environment. Of particular concern to the environment are carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas; hydrocarbons -- any of more than a dozen volatile organic compounds, some of which are known carcinogens; nitrogen oxides; sulfur oxides; and particulate matter, tiny particles of solids, such as metal and soot. Other emissions that affect human health and create smog include ozone and carbon monoxide.
Effects on the Environment
Vehicle emissions can affect the environment in several ways. Cars emit greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming. Some air pollutants and particulate matter from cars can be deposited on soil and surface waters where they enter the food chain; these substances can affect the reproductive, respiratory, immune and neurological systems of animals. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are major contributors to acid rain, which changes the pH of waterways and soils and can harm the organisms that rely on these resources.
Effects on the Ozone Layer
The ozone layer helps to protect life on earth from the sun’s ultraviolet rays, but human activities have contributed to the accelerated depletion of this protective shield. Substances that contribute to ozone depletion usually have high concentrations of chlorine or bromine atoms and include chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform.
Vehicle Fluids
Vehicles contain many different fluids, including motor oil, antifreeze, gasoline, air-conditioning refrigerants, and brake, transmission, hydraulic and windshield-wiper fluids. In most cases, these fluids are toxic to humans and animals, and can pollute waterways if they leak from a vehicle or are disposed of incorrectly. Many vehicle fluids are exposed to heat and oxygen while an engine is running, and undergo chemical changes.
homeguides.sfgate.com/car-pollution-affect-environment-ozone-layer-79358.html
Appendix 3
The table below shows the types of health effects experienced by the most common pollutants at elevated levels:
Road pollution is more than twice as deadly as traffic accidents, according to a study of UK air quality. The analysis appears in Environmental Science and Technology , carried out by Steve Yim and Steven Barrett, pollution experts from MIT in Massachusetts. They estimate that combustion exhausts across the UK cause nearly 5,000 premature deaths each year. Far more effective, experts say, would be to invest in public transport, taking cars off the road altogether. "We estimate the premature deaths are costing the UK at least £6 billion a year," says Steven Barrett, "and perhaps as much as £60 billion."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116
Vehicle Emissions and Air Quality
When a car’s engine is running, several different types of gasses and particles are emitted that can have detrimental effects on the environment. Of particular concern to the environment are carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas; hydrocarbons -- any of more than a dozen volatile organic compounds, some of which are known carcinogens; nitrogen oxides; sulfur oxides; and particulate matter, tiny particles of solids, such as metal and soot. Other emissions that affect human health and create smog include ozone and carbon monoxide.
Effects on the Environment
Vehicle emissions can affect the environment in several ways. Cars emit greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming. Some air pollutants and particulate matter from cars can be deposited on soil and surface waters where they enter the food chain; these substances can affect the reproductive, respiratory, immune and neurological systems of animals. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are major contributors to acid rain, which changes the pH of waterways and soils and can harm the organisms that rely on these resources.
Effects on the Ozone Layer
The ozone layer helps to protect life on earth from the sun’s ultraviolet rays, but human activities have contributed to the accelerated depletion of this protective shield. Substances that contribute to ozone depletion usually have high concentrations of chlorine or bromine atoms and include chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform.
Vehicle Fluids
Vehicles contain many different fluids, including motor oil, antifreeze, gasoline, air-conditioning refrigerants, and brake, transmission, hydraulic and windshield-wiper fluids. In most cases, these fluids are toxic to humans and animals, and can pollute waterways if they leak from a vehicle or are disposed of incorrectly. Many vehicle fluids are exposed to heat and oxygen while an engine is running, and undergo chemical changes.
homeguides.sfgate.com/car-pollution-affect-environment-ozone-layer-79358.html
Appendix 3
The table below shows the types of health effects experienced by the most common pollutants at elevated levels:
Long-term health effects
The following links provide information about long-term effects of air pollution.
· Public Health England
· WHO outdoor pollution fact sheet
· http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/20/noise-pollution.aspx
Despite the above and other excellent letters of objection, approval was given with conditions.
One wonders just what objections it would take to convince planners and RBWM Councillors that development of HA18 is a bad idea.
The following comments were sent to all RBWM Councillors before the planning meeting at which some councillors approved the Hospice Plans.
Holyport Residents Association Comments on the Price and Myers
Flood Risk Assessment Ver.6 for Thames Hospice, Maidenhead, SL6 2DW (Part of the Planning Application)
Page 5
2.3 Thames Water have to pump new sewage from this development to a Windsor Road manhole. Has Thames Water confirmed that their network has sufficient capacity? Who pays for this?
2.4 The water table is stated to be at 900 mm. Is this below the 24.5m AOD or the 20.5m AOD?
Page 8
4 Drainage channel has to be maintained. It drains an area of 196 hectares to South of Windsor Road. Has Thames Hospice committed to this maintenance?
Page 9 & 10
5.2 Flood Risk from Surface Water & Overland Flows
- Large catchment area to the South, whose configuration channels the water underground under approximately 14 properties on the Windsor Road. Have these property owners been advised of the dangers of interfering with the existing drainage?
Page 11
Fig 5.4
The Historical Surface Water Flooding Map shows the extent of flooding in the past. There are predictions of a sea level rise of 3ft in 50 years. Has this been considered?
Page 12
Fig 5.5 Shows possible Surface Water flooding in the existing situation, with 7 Windsor Road properties affected. Has the size of the new gully been designed to cope with not just such a spread of water, but that arising in the future bearing in mind that the development will divert water from its normal course and that the sea level is rising?
5.3 Sequential & Exception Tests
In accordance with the NPPF and the PPG, the risk-based Sequential Test should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Its aim is to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding (Zone 1). Developments should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites to accommodate the “proposed development" in areas with a lower probability of flooding.
It is clear that other sites are available in areas with a lower probability of flooding, therefore the proposed development fails this test.
The RBWMLP "Edge of Settlement Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment", dated July 2016, assesses the site's (Parcel M35) potential for future development. The assessment identifies all constraints, including flooding, and concludes that "The Parcel has been promoted for residential use and is considered available".
It is clear that other sites are available in areas with a lower probability of flooding, therefore the Edge of Settlement conclusions are wrong, as the proposed development, and any development in this area, fails the sequential and exception test.
PPG (para 102) states two conditions for the Exception Test to be passed:
1. "It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared".
As other sites are available in areas with a lower probability of flooding, it is nonsense to consider the above paragraph.
The RBWM Supplementary Planning Document - Planning for an Aging Population (Sept 2010) Requirement PAP11 Providing Care Homes or Housing for Older People in Areas with Restrictive Designations states, "The development , or redevelopment, of care homes or housing for older people may be acceptable within some restrictive designations where they will directly address a local need, as agreed by the council."
The Council have identified the need for a care home at this location which will benefit the local community. Therefore the development proposals meet the first part of the Exception Test.
Identification by the Council of a need for a care home at this location appears to be a sophism so as to mislead spectators into an acceptance of use of this land. This makes one suspect that there may be ulterior motives, or that planners or Councillors have been gulled into an unnecessary acceptance of use of this flood plain land.
2. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall."
A sea level rise will change the situation. We believe that this development will increase flood risk elsewhere. It cannot possibly reduce flood risk overall.
This FRA aims to assess the flood risk from all sources in order to ensure that the development will be safe from flooding, meeting the second part of the Exception Test.
As the first part has not been met the remainder is redundant.
Page 13
The area is subject to a greater than 75% Ground Water flood risk.
This should be enough to stop consideration.
Page 17
Existing ditch to be redirected. Riparian owner has to keep the watercourse clear and Council can serve notices on riparian owner to deal with obstructions.
The document states;
As the development is proposed in an undefended area of floodplain, which lies outside of the functional floodplain, the implications of ground raising operations for flood risk elsewhere needs to be considered. Raising existing ground levels may reduce the capacity of the floodplain to accommodate floodwater and increase the risk of flooding elsewhere due to flood water displacement.
The last sentence is particularly of interest and will be referred to later.
Page 18
Warning and Flood Evacuation Plan to be prepared in liaison with the Local Authority and the Emergency Services.
Further expense – who is to pay for this?
Page 20
The proposed development will increase the impermeable areas on the site by 49% (1.55ha), therefore the peak surface water runoff rate and volume to the public sewer will be increased.
As if the above is not a sufficiently bad consequence of this development, the report continues;
However it must be noted that the northern part of the site will be flooded in a 1 in 100 year storm event and there will be no surface water runoff for such a storm event. The unmitigated peak runoff rate has been calculated using the Modified Rational methods.
Page 22
It is proposed that cellular storage tanks be used to provide onsite attenuation storage to reduce the peak surface water runoff rate from the development. Surface water runoff from the car parks and the buildings will be attenuated before being discharged to the lake.
Figure 8.2 - Attenuation Storage In accordance with the SFRA, the peak surface water runoff rates will be reduced to Greenfield runoff rates prior to discharge to the public sewer. As mentioned in section 6.1 the Greenfield runoff rate was found to be 16.21 l/s. The proposed landscaped areas will have a runoff rate of 8.12 l/s which will discharge freely into Bray Lake.
Microdrainage has been used to determine the total volume of attenuation storage required to reduce the overall peak surface water runoff rate to remaining allowance of 6.9 l/s, for a 1 in 100 year plus 20% climate change allowance storm event.
The preliminary calculations (Appendix B) assume that there will be two attenuation tanks with a combined storage volume of 884m³. It is proposed that these tanks be located at the northern side of the car parks beneath the paving. This will keep the tanks away from any building foundation structures.
Final dimensions for the attenuation tanks are to be determined once the architectural plans are finalised. Refer to Appendix C for an indicative drainage layout plan. The attenuated surface water will be discharged by gravity via a Hydrobrake to control the flow rate. The surface water will be passed through a petrol interceptor before discharged into Bray Lake.
Cellular storage tanks are proposed, having a storage volume of 884 cubic metres. This is equivalent to a cube of 9.597 metres or 31 feet. However, the thickness of the containing walls has not been mentioned, so an even greater volume will have been extracted from the water bearing capacity of the land.
Consider an area of land that currently has a certain capacity for drainage. Removal of 884 cubic metres of that land will cause higher water levels in the area, an area in which in this case there is already cellar flooding in at least one older property. The creation of this 884 cubic meters tank will assist the proposed development to drain its own area but will reduce the drainage rate in the surrounding area. We believe that such devices are unhelpful and that development of this idea is a sophism, designed to gull planners and Councillors into accepting flood plain development.
Page 24
Property Owner is responsible for ensuring that the SuDS are maintained.
Page 25
Conclusions and Recommendations
This FRA related to fluvial flooding from Bray Lake. The site is located partially within Flood Zone 1 and 2. By raising the levels of the site, the development can be built and occupied with residual flood risk. The Hospice is proposed for allocation in the RBWMLP with the associated housing development to the west of the site.
As far as we know there has been no definite proposal for housing so this should not be mentioned here.
• Ground levels will need to be raised for the buildings falling within the Flood Zone 1 and 2. Ground levels will be lowered within the site to mitigate the displacement of flood water into the neighbouring properties and surrounding areas. This will be on a volume for volume basis.
We see no indication in the plans as to where or how this lowering will take place. (Later we did see where this is proposed). No figures are given for the volume referred to. It may be impossible to make such a reduction. The report says on page 5 Para 2.4 that the water table is at only 900mmm below the surface. Lowering below the normal water table is not allowable in making this benefit, and any lowering close to the water table will result in muddy areas.
• The FFLs of the proposed buildings will be set at 23.170m AOD which meets the minimum required 300mm freeboard above the 1 in 100 year plus 35% climate change allowance design flood level of 22.809. This will also allow the FFLs to remain above the flood level for a 1 in 100 year plus 70% climate change allowance design flood level of 23.168m AOD;
• There will be an increase in impermeable areas on site and therefore an increase in the surface water runoff rates or peak volumes;
This will result in an increase in the water table height, to the detriment of adjacent areas.
• Rainwater will be stored onsite and surface water discharge will be restricted to 16.63l/s;
• If possible, permeable paving, green roofs and rainwater harvesting will be included in the development proposals;
The words “if possible” are not acceptable – do the plans include it or not?
• The drainage strategy will seek to restrict peak flows via an attenuation tank system (designed for the 1 in 100 year plus 20% climate change allowance storm event) before discharging to the nearby water body (Bray Lake);
See comment below.
• An attenuation volume of 884m³ will be required to achieve a total proposed runoff rate of 16.63l/s;
Cellular storage tanks are proposed, having a storage volume of 884 cubic metres. This is equivalent to a cube of 9.597 metres or 31 feet. However, the thickness of the containing walls has not been mentioned, so an even greater volume will have been extracted from the water bearing capacity of the land.
Consider an area of land that currently has a certain capacity for drainage. Removal of 884 cubic metres of that land will cause higher water levels in the area, an area in which in this case there is already cellar flooding in at least one older property. The creation of this 884 cubic meters tank will assist the proposed development to drain its own area but will reduce the drainage rate in the surrounding area. We believe that such devices are unhelpful and that development of this idea is a sophism, designed to gull planners and Councillors into accepting flood plain development.
• Therefore, the proposed development has an acceptable flood risk within the terms and requirements of NPPF, the EA and the SFRA.
We do not agree.
Holyport Residents Association Comments on the Price and Myers
Flood Risk Assessment Ver.6 for Thames Hospice, Maidenhead, SL6 2DW (Part of the Planning Application)
Page 5
2.3 Thames Water have to pump new sewage from this development to a Windsor Road manhole. Has Thames Water confirmed that their network has sufficient capacity? Who pays for this?
2.4 The water table is stated to be at 900 mm. Is this below the 24.5m AOD or the 20.5m AOD?
Page 8
4 Drainage channel has to be maintained. It drains an area of 196 hectares to South of Windsor Road. Has Thames Hospice committed to this maintenance?
Page 9 & 10
5.2 Flood Risk from Surface Water & Overland Flows
- Large catchment area to the South, whose configuration channels the water underground under approximately 14 properties on the Windsor Road. Have these property owners been advised of the dangers of interfering with the existing drainage?
Page 11
Fig 5.4
The Historical Surface Water Flooding Map shows the extent of flooding in the past. There are predictions of a sea level rise of 3ft in 50 years. Has this been considered?
Page 12
Fig 5.5 Shows possible Surface Water flooding in the existing situation, with 7 Windsor Road properties affected. Has the size of the new gully been designed to cope with not just such a spread of water, but that arising in the future bearing in mind that the development will divert water from its normal course and that the sea level is rising?
5.3 Sequential & Exception Tests
In accordance with the NPPF and the PPG, the risk-based Sequential Test should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Its aim is to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding (Zone 1). Developments should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites to accommodate the “proposed development" in areas with a lower probability of flooding.
It is clear that other sites are available in areas with a lower probability of flooding, therefore the proposed development fails this test.
The RBWMLP "Edge of Settlement Part 2 Constraints, Opportunities and Delivery Assessment", dated July 2016, assesses the site's (Parcel M35) potential for future development. The assessment identifies all constraints, including flooding, and concludes that "The Parcel has been promoted for residential use and is considered available".
It is clear that other sites are available in areas with a lower probability of flooding, therefore the Edge of Settlement conclusions are wrong, as the proposed development, and any development in this area, fails the sequential and exception test.
PPG (para 102) states two conditions for the Exception Test to be passed:
1. "It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared".
As other sites are available in areas with a lower probability of flooding, it is nonsense to consider the above paragraph.
The RBWM Supplementary Planning Document - Planning for an Aging Population (Sept 2010) Requirement PAP11 Providing Care Homes or Housing for Older People in Areas with Restrictive Designations states, "The development , or redevelopment, of care homes or housing for older people may be acceptable within some restrictive designations where they will directly address a local need, as agreed by the council."
The Council have identified the need for a care home at this location which will benefit the local community. Therefore the development proposals meet the first part of the Exception Test.
Identification by the Council of a need for a care home at this location appears to be a sophism so as to mislead spectators into an acceptance of use of this land. This makes one suspect that there may be ulterior motives, or that planners or Councillors have been gulled into an unnecessary acceptance of use of this flood plain land.
2. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall."
A sea level rise will change the situation. We believe that this development will increase flood risk elsewhere. It cannot possibly reduce flood risk overall.
This FRA aims to assess the flood risk from all sources in order to ensure that the development will be safe from flooding, meeting the second part of the Exception Test.
As the first part has not been met the remainder is redundant.
Page 13
The area is subject to a greater than 75% Ground Water flood risk.
This should be enough to stop consideration.
Page 17
Existing ditch to be redirected. Riparian owner has to keep the watercourse clear and Council can serve notices on riparian owner to deal with obstructions.
The document states;
As the development is proposed in an undefended area of floodplain, which lies outside of the functional floodplain, the implications of ground raising operations for flood risk elsewhere needs to be considered. Raising existing ground levels may reduce the capacity of the floodplain to accommodate floodwater and increase the risk of flooding elsewhere due to flood water displacement.
The last sentence is particularly of interest and will be referred to later.
Page 18
Warning and Flood Evacuation Plan to be prepared in liaison with the Local Authority and the Emergency Services.
Further expense – who is to pay for this?
Page 20
The proposed development will increase the impermeable areas on the site by 49% (1.55ha), therefore the peak surface water runoff rate and volume to the public sewer will be increased.
As if the above is not a sufficiently bad consequence of this development, the report continues;
However it must be noted that the northern part of the site will be flooded in a 1 in 100 year storm event and there will be no surface water runoff for such a storm event. The unmitigated peak runoff rate has been calculated using the Modified Rational methods.
Page 22
It is proposed that cellular storage tanks be used to provide onsite attenuation storage to reduce the peak surface water runoff rate from the development. Surface water runoff from the car parks and the buildings will be attenuated before being discharged to the lake.
Figure 8.2 - Attenuation Storage In accordance with the SFRA, the peak surface water runoff rates will be reduced to Greenfield runoff rates prior to discharge to the public sewer. As mentioned in section 6.1 the Greenfield runoff rate was found to be 16.21 l/s. The proposed landscaped areas will have a runoff rate of 8.12 l/s which will discharge freely into Bray Lake.
Microdrainage has been used to determine the total volume of attenuation storage required to reduce the overall peak surface water runoff rate to remaining allowance of 6.9 l/s, for a 1 in 100 year plus 20% climate change allowance storm event.
The preliminary calculations (Appendix B) assume that there will be two attenuation tanks with a combined storage volume of 884m³. It is proposed that these tanks be located at the northern side of the car parks beneath the paving. This will keep the tanks away from any building foundation structures.
Final dimensions for the attenuation tanks are to be determined once the architectural plans are finalised. Refer to Appendix C for an indicative drainage layout plan. The attenuated surface water will be discharged by gravity via a Hydrobrake to control the flow rate. The surface water will be passed through a petrol interceptor before discharged into Bray Lake.
Cellular storage tanks are proposed, having a storage volume of 884 cubic metres. This is equivalent to a cube of 9.597 metres or 31 feet. However, the thickness of the containing walls has not been mentioned, so an even greater volume will have been extracted from the water bearing capacity of the land.
Consider an area of land that currently has a certain capacity for drainage. Removal of 884 cubic metres of that land will cause higher water levels in the area, an area in which in this case there is already cellar flooding in at least one older property. The creation of this 884 cubic meters tank will assist the proposed development to drain its own area but will reduce the drainage rate in the surrounding area. We believe that such devices are unhelpful and that development of this idea is a sophism, designed to gull planners and Councillors into accepting flood plain development.
Page 24
Property Owner is responsible for ensuring that the SuDS are maintained.
Page 25
Conclusions and Recommendations
This FRA related to fluvial flooding from Bray Lake. The site is located partially within Flood Zone 1 and 2. By raising the levels of the site, the development can be built and occupied with residual flood risk. The Hospice is proposed for allocation in the RBWMLP with the associated housing development to the west of the site.
As far as we know there has been no definite proposal for housing so this should not be mentioned here.
• Ground levels will need to be raised for the buildings falling within the Flood Zone 1 and 2. Ground levels will be lowered within the site to mitigate the displacement of flood water into the neighbouring properties and surrounding areas. This will be on a volume for volume basis.
We see no indication in the plans as to where or how this lowering will take place. (Later we did see where this is proposed). No figures are given for the volume referred to. It may be impossible to make such a reduction. The report says on page 5 Para 2.4 that the water table is at only 900mmm below the surface. Lowering below the normal water table is not allowable in making this benefit, and any lowering close to the water table will result in muddy areas.
• The FFLs of the proposed buildings will be set at 23.170m AOD which meets the minimum required 300mm freeboard above the 1 in 100 year plus 35% climate change allowance design flood level of 22.809. This will also allow the FFLs to remain above the flood level for a 1 in 100 year plus 70% climate change allowance design flood level of 23.168m AOD;
• There will be an increase in impermeable areas on site and therefore an increase in the surface water runoff rates or peak volumes;
This will result in an increase in the water table height, to the detriment of adjacent areas.
• Rainwater will be stored onsite and surface water discharge will be restricted to 16.63l/s;
• If possible, permeable paving, green roofs and rainwater harvesting will be included in the development proposals;
The words “if possible” are not acceptable – do the plans include it or not?
• The drainage strategy will seek to restrict peak flows via an attenuation tank system (designed for the 1 in 100 year plus 20% climate change allowance storm event) before discharging to the nearby water body (Bray Lake);
See comment below.
• An attenuation volume of 884m³ will be required to achieve a total proposed runoff rate of 16.63l/s;
Cellular storage tanks are proposed, having a storage volume of 884 cubic metres. This is equivalent to a cube of 9.597 metres or 31 feet. However, the thickness of the containing walls has not been mentioned, so an even greater volume will have been extracted from the water bearing capacity of the land.
Consider an area of land that currently has a certain capacity for drainage. Removal of 884 cubic metres of that land will cause higher water levels in the area, an area in which in this case there is already cellar flooding in at least one older property. The creation of this 884 cubic meters tank will assist the proposed development to drain its own area but will reduce the drainage rate in the surrounding area. We believe that such devices are unhelpful and that development of this idea is a sophism, designed to gull planners and Councillors into accepting flood plain development.
• Therefore, the proposed development has an acceptable flood risk within the terms and requirements of NPPF, the EA and the SFRA.
We do not agree.
A few more relevant items follow below
The following link will provide a PDF copy of a flood report commissioned in 2014 by the Holyport Preservation Society as part of a joint submission to RBWM. The report was written to present a case for no building on the area between Holyport Road and Ascot Road, and the triangular area between Ascot Road, M4 and A308(M). However this report also includes maps providing interesting and cautionary information about the land between Bray Lake and Windsor Road and indeed the whole of the Holyport Area.
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/hps_rbwm_hydrology.pdf
The screen and map shown below with its various options for viewing is available from the Environment agency website at this link;
flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/summary/490700/178386
