BRAY LAKE HA18 (2)

Thames Hospice request to RBWM to remove Condition 23 which required Archaeological Investigation

HRA's objection to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was sent to the Planning Casework Unit of that Government Department ( pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk ) today 4th September 2018. Its text is shown below.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Decision re Ref 18/02013 related to 17/00798. Resulting UK-wide Archaeological Investigation Crisis.

To The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
c/o The Planning Casework Unit

CC Theresa May MP

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have written already complaining about the conditional approval with 27 conditions of Thames Hospice's application to build a new hospice on Green Belt land between the A308 and Bray Lake. The Planning Application reference is 17/00798.

I have also written to you about a variation on the aforementioned reference, being 18/01313. (On this latter variation RBWM have not yet made a decision)

You declined to agree with me in these aforementioned previous objections.

Now Thames Hospice have applied in application ref 18/02013, to have a requirement for an Archaeological Survey (Condition 23 of 17/00798) removed.

Holyport Residents Association, who I represent, objects to the removal of the condition.

We consulted with local Archaeological bodies and they indicated their concern, especially as - if this condition were to be waived, it would set a precedent that could be relied upon by developers throughout the UK who would claim that their development would benefit the public. This could result in a major decrease in archaeological investigations. A representative of the Berkshire Archaeology Research Group wrote to me;

"As a local volunteer archaeology group who can represent the views of the wider archaeological community, we are deeply concerned that this is a direct challenge to the basis of pre-development archaeology in east Berkshire and would be a disaster if it sets a wider precedent - the same argument could be used for any other development said to create a benefit for the public."

Additionally, Berkshire Archaeology had already written to RBWM on 21st April 2017 against application 17/00798, and again on 16th May 2018; and on 23rd August 2018, the Council for British Archaeology wrote to RBWM all as shown in the attachments. I also include a submission from a concerned resident.

The Local Planning Authority decided that the condition should be waived, and the rules required that it be put to the RBWM Development Management panel of Councillors for them to consider. On behalf of the Holyport Residents Association and having taken note of the concerns of the Archaeological groups who responded to my requests for their thoughts, I spoke at the meeting as shown in the attachment HRA_MDMP_18_02013_VAR.pdf.

My plea however, had no effect. One of the Councillors agreed with me but the others either did not agree or abstained.

I put it to you that you must intervene and have this condition 23 maintained as, if it is cancelled, as I paraphrase from the British Archaeology Research Group's statement, its cancellation will set a UK wide precedent - the same argument will be used for any other development whose developer claims it will benefit the public.

By copy of this to my MP Theresa May - I ask her to ensure that the Secretary of State gives his full attention to this problem.

Thames Hospice asked RBWM to remove the condition and HRA Committee decided that we would object to this. Our statement read to the RBWM Development Management Panel on 29th August 2018 can be accessed from the "HRA Objection" button below.

RBWM Councillors voted to remove the condition. We are disappointed and will be writing to the Government's Planning Casework Unit to argue that to remove this condition will set a precedent that could be followed Nationwide allowing removal of such conditions for any other development that could be said to create a benefit for the public.

We have written to the Maidenhead Advertiser on 2 Sep 2018 as follows;

"Thames Hospice's proposed premises between the A308 and Bray Lake was conditionally approved by the Borough's Maidenhead Development Management Panel earlier this year.

One of the conditions was that Archaeological Investigations would be done. But Thames Hospice want to do away with such annoyances, and requested removal of the condition.

At a meeting of the aforementioned panel on Wednesday 29th August, Holyport Residents Association (HRA) spoke against the stance of the RBWM Planning Authority, who had agreed with Thames Hospice that the condition should be removed.

Apart from one RBWM Councillor, the others either voted to remove the condition, or abstained from voting, so, subject to the Secretary of State for Communities agreement, the condition will be removed.

The Secretary of State has to be consulted (through the Planning Casework Unit (PCU)) because the project is located in Green Belt and its original approval, being contrary to the existing Local Development Plan, had to be considered by the Secretary of State - who approved it.

Although Bray Parish Council commented to RBWM against the Hospice project as a whole, and against removal of this condition, they failed to field a representative to speak at the meeting.

The Hospice argument is that their contributors do not want their money wasted on such frivolities; although the cost is estimated as only 0.16% of the Hospice cost of £18m.

HRA will be writing to the Secretary of State through the PCU to request that this condition be retained. If the condition is removed then this RBWM decision will set a UK wide precedent against archaeological investigations - as the same argument could be used for any other development or construction project SAID TO create a benefit for the public. Anyone who is in favour of Archaeological Investigations should also write to pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk " quoting Reference RBWM 18/02013.

HRA Objection

Correspondence between Andrew Cormie and Theresa May's Office about Thames Hospice and RBWM Planning

As Theresa May's Office has (as shown in the red text below) expressed the view that Central Government cannot assist in Local Government Planning matters, these being, in their view, nothing to do with Central Government, I have responded to Theresa May's Office as shown in the immediate text of the email chain shown below.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 18 July 2018 18:17
To: 'MANN, Maya'
Cc: Theresa May MP (mayt@parliament.uk); 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'; 'BPC Clerk'; 'pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk'; 'Georgina Bishop'; 'Jenifer Jackson'; Cllr A Majeed; Cllr A Smith; Cllr C Bateson; Cllr C Bullock; Cllr C Cox; Cllr C Hollingsworth; Cllr C Rayner; Cllr C Stretton; Cllr D Burbage; Cllr D Coppinger; Cllr D Evans; Cllr D Hilton; Cllr D Sharp; Cllr D Wilson; Cllr Dudley; Cllr E Quick; Cllr E Wilson; Cllr G Clark; Cllr G Hill; Cllr G Muir; Cllr H Bhatti; Cllr H Sharma; Cllr J Bowden; Cllr J Diment; Cllr J Grey; Cllr J Lenton; Cllr J Rankin; Cllr J Sharpe; Cllr J Story; 'Cllr L Evans (cllr.l.evans@rbwm.gov.uk)'; Cllr L Jones; Cllr L Targowska; Cllr L Walters; Cllr L Yong; Cllr M Airey; Cllr M Alexander; 'Cllr M Beer'; Cllr M Gilmore; Cllr M Ilyas; Cllr M J Saunders; Cllr M Mills; Cllr N Airey (cllr.n.airey@rbwm.gov.uk); Cllr N Pryer; Cllr P Bicknell; 'Cllr P Brimacombe'; Cllr P Lion; Cllr P Love; Cllr R Kellaway; Cllr R McWilliams; Cllr S Carroll; Cllr S Luxton; 'Cllr S Rayner'; Cllr S Shelim (cllr.shelim@rbwm.gov.uk); Cllr S Werner; Cllr W Da Costa; Cllr W Richards; Maureen Hunt (cllr.hunt@rbwm.gov.uk)
Subject: RE: Your "Reply" to my "Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Ref 18/01313/VAR, 18/02013, and 17/00798/FULL - Thames Hospice - RBWM Area HA18"

Importance: High
Dear Maya,

You are of course correct that planning applications are dealt with primarily by the local authority, but the latter has to deal with them in a way that is determined by Central Government - i.e. the NPPF and related legislation whose "presumption in favour of sustainable development" is a key Central Government enforcement on Local Authorities. The presumption suspends local planning rules on development, including those on where housing or other development should be located and how much development should take place. And if the Local Authority does not agree to enough housing to meet a set percentage of their housing target, councils and communities get punished by the presumption.

The pressure applied from Central Government obliges Local Government to behave in the way they do as they are terrified of refusing a developer who will then sue them and be supported in this by Central Government's Planning Inspectorate.

Central Government has a department (you keep changing its name) that oversees planning, and the Planning Casework Unit is a part of that.

The Thames Hospice planning application was approved by RBWM councillors on land that was and is not in the current Local Plan. It has 27 conditions.

It was only approved because it was dealt with as if "Very Special Circumstances" applied. In my view no such special circumstances apply.

You say to speak with the RBWM. I and others already objected to RBWM about the Thames Hospice, but our objections were ignored.

I also objected to the Planning Casework Unit on that original application but my objections were not accepted.

RBWM recently received an application from Thames Hospice to change their plans for dealing with floodwater.

I objected to that (to RBWM) and also to the PCU on the subject.

PCU determined against me - so I then provided more comments. No reply to my latter comments has been received from the PCU.

Latterly - another application from Thames Hospice to RBWM to have a condition set by RBWM requiring archaeological survey removed.

I have objected to that and also claimed that RBWM are wrong in considering such an application, (they should have rejected it outright) and I have advised the Planning Casework Unit of these objections.

So - I hope you understand that I disagree with you telling me to object to RBWM not to Central Government.

I conclude that Central Government does have a part to play and I ask your office to deal with my concerns in a serious manner, advising PCU that you expect them to properly deal with my complaints.

Sincerely

Andrew Cormie
Chair, Holyport Residents Association,
Old Pines
Holyport Road
Maidenhead
SL6 2HA

From: MANN, Maya [mailto:maya.mann@parliament.uk]
Sent: 18 July 2018 12:33
To: Andrew Cormie
Subject: Reply

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your further correspondence to Theresa about the below planning matter.

Theresa notes your additional comments, however as planning applications are down to the relevant local authority the best thing to do is to speak directly to the RB and raise your concerns.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,
Maya

Maya Mann
Office of The Rt Hon Theresa May
MP for Maidenhead and Prime Minister
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

In line with data protection laws, this office processes constituents’ data under the lawful basis of public task.

In instances where this lawful basis is not sufficient, a member of the office will get in touch with you to establish your consent.

You can view our full data protection and privacy policy at www.tmay.co.uk.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 16 July 2018 17:25
To: MANN, Maya <maya.mann@parliament.uk>
Cc: MAY, Theresa <theresa.may.mp@parliament.uk>; SHARKEY, Jenny <SHARKEYJ@parliament.uk>; 'clerk' <clerk@brayparishcouncil.gov.uk>; pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk; 'Georgina Bishop' <GeorginaB@baylismedia.co.uk>
Subject: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Ref 18/01313/VAR, 18/02013, and 17/00798/FULL - Thames Hospice - RBWM Area HA18
Importance: High

Dear Maya,

I wrote to the Planning Casework Unit on 28th June 2018, and copied my email to your office. I attach it again for your easy reference.

Further, I wrote to you on 29th June 2018 as you will see below, and had your response that you had "noted" my comments.

Having had no reply from the Planning Casework Unit, other than a "receipt" email, I now write to request you to ensure that the Planning Casework Unit acts to prevent the illegal disturbance of bats, by having Planning Application 17/00798 and all further applications connected with it rejected.

RBWM have advised on 12th July 2018 of a further application made by Thames Hospice that Condition 23, (which requires archaeological investigations be carried out) be removed, contrary to applicable regulations.

I have objected to that application, considering that RBWM cannot waive that condition and that RBWM should have rejected all approaches by Thames Hospice to have the condition removed. I have sent a copy to the PCU, and I copy my email and objection to you herewith. I have asked the PCU to support my argument that the condition cannot be removed, and to quash the entire application 17/00798, and I look for Theresa May's support as my MP and as Prime Minister.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
Old Pines,
Holyport Road,
Maidenhead
SL6 2HA

From: MANN, Maya [mailto:maya.mann@parliament.uk]
Sent: 03 July 2018 10:11
To: Andrew Cormie
Subject: Acknowledgement
Dear Mr Cormie,

Thank you for your further comments about planning; they have been noted.

Sincerely,
Maya

Maya Mann
Office of The Rt Hon Theresa May
MP for Maidenhead and Prime Minister
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

In line with data protection laws, this office processes constituents’ data under the lawful basis of public task.

In instances where this lawful basis is not sufficient, a member of the office will get in touch with you to establish your consent.

You can view our full data protection and privacy policy at www.tmay.co.uk.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 29 June 2018 12:23
To: MANN, Maya <maya.mann@parliament.uk>
Cc: MAY, Theresa <theresa.may.mp@parliament.uk>; SHARKEY, Jenny <SHARKEYJ@parliament.uk>; pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk; 'clerk' <clerk@brayparishcouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Ref 18/01313/VAR and 17/00798/FULL - Thames Hospice - RBWM Area HA18
Importance: High

Dear Maya,

Thank you and Theresa for your help in discussing the subject matter with RBWM Head of Planning.

When I began to consider the Variation I searched on the internet for the usage of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act and I saw something about it being used for minor changes. Since receiving your letter I have searched again and now cannot find what I previously saw. I see that it can be used for minor changes but not that it is solely for minor changes.

So - my submission had claimed that as the change was not minor it should not be dealt with under Section 73. I now see that that argument is not valid, however, all of the other points I highlighted do remain valid.

As you have brought RBWM Head of Planning into this, I now remind you of an email I had sent to her on 5th December 2017, and had also transmitted to you at that time as attached. (I had no response from you) It concerns the welfare of bats in the area (RBWM designation HA18) that RBWM are allowing to be developed. I have had no response from RBWM about that. The attachment also includes the email I sent to Cllr Coppinger the Lead Member for Planning on 3rd December 2017.

I have written to the Planning Casework Unit yesterday highlighting that RBWM ecology has not expressed any concerns, and directing their attention to my concern on bats and the legal imperatives that prevail. I copied that email to you.

I now look for Theresa's support in seeing to it that the Planning Casework Unit acts to ensure that bats are not harmed in Area HA18 - and the only way to do that is to have all current planning permission in that area rescinded, and have none agreed for the future.

I copy below part of what I wrote to RBWM Head of Planning, (It is contained in an attachment to the attachment); I further include an excerpt from the RBWM ecologists original report on 17/00798/FULL.

In their Planning and Development Advice Pack the Bat Conservation Trust also highlights legal cases as follows;

A 2009 case involving granting of planning consent affecting bats without mitigation in place resulted in Cheshire East Borough Council being taken to Judicial Review. A local resident challenged the planning consent and the High Court judgement quashed the planning consent. Subject to the decision of the House of Lords in Berkeley v SSE [2001] 2 AC 603, dealing with obligations under EC law, if a permission is found to have been unlawful in any way, then it should be quashed provided that the outcome, if there had been no unlawfulness, may or might have been different.

An important judgment was handed down by His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court at the start of June 2009 in the case of R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council. The judgment clarifies for the first time the legal duty of a Local Planning Authority ("LPA") when determining a planning application for a development which may have an impact on European Protected Species ("EPS"), such as bats, great crested newts, dormice or otters. The court considered that in granting planning permission the LPA had failed in its duty under Regulation 3(4) of the 1994 Habitats Regulations by failing to give consideration to the three derogation tests contained in the species protection provisions of the Habitats Directive.

Furthermore, the Court held that a LPA cannot discharge its duty simply by adding a condition to the grant of planning permission which requires a licence from a statutory nature conservation organisation to be obtained.

The Bat Conservation Trust document describes further the relationship between licensing and planning permission; identifying ‘The three tests’ which must be satisfied before a licence can be issued.

The statutory requirements include a system of strict protection for European Protected Species (EPS), such as bats. A derogation from this strict protection - by way of a licence granted to a person under the Regulations - is only allowed in certain limited circumstances and only after three specific tests have been satisfied.

Where bats may be harmed by a development proposal (e.g. such that one or more criminal offences is reasonably likely to be committed), the LPA must have regard to the three tests required by the Regulations as well as the licensing authority (due to the duty under Regulation 7(1)).

Consequently, for all LPAs, the following are important material considerations:

• firstly, is a criminal offence likely e.g. is an applicant when implementing the proposed development reasonably likely to commit a criminal offence under the Habitats Regulations – such as causing harm to bats? and where this is the case

• can the three tests can be satisfied e.g. is the eventual granting of a licence likely - so as to permit activities which would otherwise be unlawful?

In other words, the LPA should not grant consent where they suspect a criminal offence might result and where the three licensing tests are unlikely to be satisfied.

The Three Tests

A licence cannot be granted until the licensing authority is satisfied that:

• the purpose of the intended action (development) is for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment

And as long as:

• there is no satisfactory alternative; and

• the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a Favourable Conservation Status in their natural range.

This means in proposals where bats may be affected, a planning application must provide sufficient information (in the form of a survey and a report on mitigation measures) for the LPA to consider it against the three licensing tests.

If there is no evidence that the LPA has gathered enough information, or the LPA have not referenced that an application has satisfied the three tests then an application can be subject to challenge.

The licence must be in place before commencement of any works.

In my view, for any development of Area HA18;

Is a criminal offence likely – DEFINITELY YES

Can the three tests be satisfied – ABSOLUTELY NOT

Re Test 1 - the purpose of the intended development is not for preserving public health or public safety nor for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

Re Test 2 – clearly there are alternative locations.

Re Test 3 - the development of the Thames Hospice (and the 100 houses) will be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the bats present around HA18, thus it would be a criminal offence to proceed with any development on HA18.

As there is an obligation in law for Local Authorities to ensure that bats are not harmed by development, please comment.

Note also that in an attachment hereto there is the following earlier commentfrom RBWM Ecology;

Thank you for consulting the RBWM ecologist with respect to the above application. The comments below are based
on a review of the documentation submitted with this application and concern the potential ecological implications of
the proposed development.
Documents Reviewed
Baseline Ecological Site Audit and Great Crested Newt HSI, Site Adjacent to Bray Lake, Maidenhead (Betts Ecology,
July 2016).
Comments
Habitats
There are a number of ecologically valuable habitats on or adjacent to the site which are likely to qualify as Priority
Habitats. These include broadleaved woodland in the north of the site, species rich hedgerows with trees in the east,
south and middle of the site and Bray Lake, adjacent to the site to the north. It is understood that there will be a buffer
of 5m from the lake and retention of the woodland and the majority of the species-rich hedgerows. All mature trees are
with high ecological value (listed within the ecological site audit) are understood to be retained. Should the Local
Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that a suitably worded
condition is included to ensure these habitats are retained and protected during and after development.
It is understood that sections of the species-rich hedgerow in the middle of the site are to be removed to facilitate
development. As it is likely that these hedgerows are priority habitat, it is recommended that it they are replaced on a
like for like basis with a similar native species composition. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to
grant planning permission, it is recommended that this advice be incorporated into a suitably worded
condition.
Bats
It is understood that none of the trees with the potential to support roosting bats are to be removed to facilitate
development. However, if plans change and these trees are to be removed as part of the development, it is
recommended that a bat survey of the trees is undertaken prior to the determination of this application. Further surveys
may be required following these initial surveys and all surveys and mitigation plans should be provided prior to the
determination of this application.
There was good foraging and commuting habitat within the site in the form of lines of trees, hedgerows and the lake
and the site currently experiences low levels of lighting. Light spill from the proposed development has the potential to
disturb roosting, commuting and foraging bats as well as other mammals and invertebrates. It is therefore
recommended that a sensitive lighting strategy is prepared and implemented across the development in order to
minimise the negative impacts of lighting at the site. The strategy should detail how the negative impacts of lighting will
be minimised including type of lighting to be used, timing of lights, avoidance of light spillage and the use of directional
lighting away from sensitive areas such as trees, hedgerows and the lake. Should the Local Planning Authority be
minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that this advice be incorporated into a suitably
worded condition.
Compare please, the two statements that I have highlighted in red. The second, immediately above, by RBWM ecology is invalidated due to the first statement.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
Old Pines,
Holyport Road,
Maidenhead
SL6 2HA

From: MANN, Maya [mailto:maya.mann@parliament.uk]
Sent: 25 June 2018 16:25
To: Andrew Cormie
Subject: Reply
Dear Mr Cormie,

Thank you for your email to Theresa concerning planning.

Theresa has spoken to the Royal Borough on your behalf and please find the below reply attached, which I hope you will find informative.

Sincerely,
Maya

Maya Mann
Office of The Rt Hon Theresa May
MP for Maidenhead and Prime Minister
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

In line with data protection laws, this office processes constituents’ data under the lawful basis of public task.

In instances where this lawful basis is not sufficient, a member of the office will get in touch with you to establish your consent.

You can view our full data protection and privacy policy at www.tmay.co.uk.

From: Jenifer Jackson [mailto:Jenifer.Jackson@RBWM.gov.uk]
Sent: 25 June 2018 10:01
To: MANN, Maya <maya.mann@parliament.uk>
Cc: Russell O'Keefe <Russell.O'Keefe@RBWM.gov.uk>; Ashley Smith <Ashley.Smith@RBWM.gov.uk>; Hilary Hall <Hilary.Hall@RBWM.gov.uk>; Kerri Farrell <Kerri.Farrell@RBWM.gov.uk>; Debra Reading <Debra.Reading@RBWM.gov.uk>
Subject: Planning - Andrew Cormie

Dear Maya,

I have reviewed the correspondence from Mr Andrew Cormie and I am writing to update you as follows.

Planning conditions are often applied to the grant of planning permission. These limit and control the way in which the planning permission may be implemented.
Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows applications to be made for permission to develop without complying with a condition(s) previously imposed on a planning permission, the section is used properly here as it is not about the scale of the development. The local planning authority can grant such permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions, or they can refuse the application if they decide that the original condition(s) should continue.

In this instance Thames Hospice has sought to vary matters relating to flooding and surface water. The case office is currently reviewing the application submission. If permission were to be granted – and there is no indication at this stage of the outcome – this would be a fresh planning permission. Usually the case officer would proceed on the basis of assessing the differences between the scheme already approved and that for which permission is now sought and this would be clearly laid out in the officer report.

The original planning permission will continue to subsist whatever the outcome of the application under section 73.

I note that Mr Cormie would wish to pursue a call in request with the National Planning Casework Unit: it would normally follow that the Council reaches a recommendation on an application before referral to the casework unit. As you know it is then for the casework unit to consider whether to call in the application for consideration by the Secretary of State. Irrespective of the officer recommendation the application will be reported to the Maidenhead Development Management Panel for a decision. Should Mr Cormie write to the Council making representations he would then be notified of the Panel meeting date and offered the option to register to speak to the meeting.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to Mr Cormie.

Kind regards,

Jenifer Jackson MRTPI
Head of Planning
RBWM
Place Directorate
Town Hall
Maidenhead
SL6 1RF
T. 01628 796042

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.
UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

SUBMISSION BY THAMES HOSPICE TO RBWM PLANNING (Related to Planning Ref 17/00798 and having new number 18/02013) REQUESTING THAT A CONDITION BE REMOVED (RBWM letter dated 12 July 2018.)

Condition 23 of the twenty-seven conditions that RBWM applied when they gave permission to Thames Hospice to build in Area HA18 is as follows;

23 Prior to the commencement of development, including site preparation works, the applicant will implement a programme of archaeological field evaluation in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The results of the evaluation will inform the preparation of a mitigation strategy which will be submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The mitigation strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: The site is within an area of archaeological potential, as noted on the Berkshire Historic Environment Record. A programme of works is required to mitigate the impact of the development and ensure preservation by record of any surviving remains. Relevant Policies - Paragraph 114 of the NPPF and Local Plan policies ARCH2 & ARCH4.

Thames Hospice have applied to RBWM to have the condition removed.

The "reason" given by Thames Hospice is;

"We consider the condition to be unreasonable and unnecessary given the public benefit of the proposed hospice."

Our comments are that the condition cannot and must not be removed, as RBWM regulations require it. Further we consider that;

Contrary to Thames Hospice mention of public benefit, there is a great deal of public disadvantage and danger in building the Hospice in the proposed location and we refer you to the many objections to 17/00798 received by RBWM Planning.
We consider that this application to have a condition removed cannot be dealt with under the "Variation under Reg 73" as Thames Hospice has made no changes to any of their plans or proposals.
RBWM should not have encouraged Thames Hospice to believe that Condition 23 or any other condition could be removed.
RBWM Planning, having received the application, should not pass it out to residents for their comments, but should simply refuse the application and then advise residents that the request had been made and has been refused.

We have also copied our objection to the Planning Casework Unit and to our MP Theresa May asking that intervention take place to stop the building of the Thames Hospice.

A copy of our submission to RBWM Planning can be downloaded from the following button;

HRA against 18/02013

SUBMISSION BY THAMES HOSPICE TO RBWM PLANNING, (Related to Planning Ref 17/00798 and having new number 18/01313) CHANGING THE "FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES" THEY HAD PROPOSED FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT (RBWM Letter dated 29 May 2018)

In reviewing the documents on the RBWM Planning website for 18/01313/VAR, which is a so-called variation on 17/00798/FULL, we noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority has responded in a document the thrust of which is as shown below in blue, with our highlight in red;

We consider the variation of condition 25 is a matter for the Environment Agency.

This document only seeks to assess the application for variation of condition 27.

1.3 Comments
Based on the review of the above mentioned documents, we have the below comments:

1. We have been unable to review any of the previously approved documents referred to in Condition 27 (they do not appear on the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead planning public access module). It is therefore impossible to assess the scale of the proposed variation and any supporting information that may be required. Would the Local Planning Authority be able to supply copies of the previously approved plans? Alternatively would the applicant be able to supply copies of these plans together with a commentary describing any variations from the previously approved plans?

2. We note that a screen / grill is now indicated on the upstream side of the proposed culvert. What is the proposed maintenance regime for this screen / grill, who will be responsible for its maintenance?

3. How will the kiosk/electrical components of SWPS2 be protected from water ingress when the flood storage area is under water? How will this storage area be drained down in the event of pump failure?

4. We note that foul pipes intersect the culvert, can the applicant confirm that these will be located below the culvert?

5. A surface water pipeline is also shown crossing the line of the ditch downstream of the proposed culvert. Will this also be located beneath the watercourse?

6. How will the proposed bespoke bend in the culvert be created? Can a construction detail be provided? There is a concern that this interface may be susceptible to erosion/siltation/ blockage.

7. Can the structures indicated as being located within the watercourse to the east of F12 be clarified? What effect will these structures have on the capacity of the watercourse?

8. The capacity calculations for the culvert indicate that the proposed bed slope is greater across the length of the culvert than the corresponding bed slope of the channel. This would result in the downstream end of the proposed culvert being deeper than the existing level. Can this be clarified?

9. It is unclear what information the capacity calculations for the culvert and the proposed ditch sections are trying to convey? Can this information be clarified to include:

o The existing capacity of the channel as it enters and exits the site

o The capacity of the proposed culvert and channel as they enter and exit the site

o The capacity of the most restrictive section of existing channel

o The capacity of the most restrictive section of the proposed channel/culvert

10. How will flows in the watercourse be managed during construction of the proposed culvert?

1.4 Recommendations
Unless the applicant is given an opportunity to respond to the above comments we recommend that the application is refused.

1.5 Informatives
The applicant should note that a separate application will need to be submitted to the Lead Local Flood Authority for approval, under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, for any works affecting the cross section of any ordinary watercourse (including all ditches) on or adjacent to the site

We applaud the stance taken by the RBWM Lead Local Flood Authority, this being in contrast to the acceptance of this project by the RBWM Councillors who approved it subject to many conditions.

We further note and commend the submission as follows by a retired doctor living in a house on the adjacent flood plain.

20 June 2018

Planning application re Thames Valley Hospice Bray Lake

Original ref 17/00798/FULL

I am concerned about the “minor material amendment” to the original design, which is given in very technical language, not easy to understand. However, the fact that there is proposed a 67% increase in the volume of the underground water tanks, a shift of position of one of the tanks and a change to the area to be lowered, surely does not constitute a “minor amendment”.

The combined volume capacity of the proposed underground tanks is going to increase from 884 cubic meters to 1476 metres, which will be for the sole usage of the Hospice.

I would like to know what, if any, risk assessment has been carried out as to the likelihood of neighbouring properties flooding as a result of this plan.

I have lived on the South side of the road in the 1980’s, and experienced flooding, and now live on the other side , and experience flooding. Your plan to catch the water that falls on the Hospice site and feed it into the Lake will only compound the problem. The Lake water level rises during heavy rainfall . The water in my cellar rises with it, and in 2014 reached waist height, threatening the main cable bringing electricity into the house. The Fire Brigade can give no help - simply advising that there is no point in pumping out the water - it will just come straight back in again, due to the high water table in this area, and the fact that the house is on the flood plain.

There is comment in the documentation advising to site patients’ rooms in the Hospice closest to the A308 road, as there they will be” less likely to be affected by flooding”. On the one hand they will be in danger of flooding, and on the other hand you need to put patients near to the already overwhelmed Windsor Road, with its accompanying air pollution and noise pollution. This site is surely not fit for purpose.

As a retired Doctor who spent many years providing Palliative Care to patients, I understand how most patients and their families appreciate quiet, and fresh air, particularly when they are at the end of life. Adding the risk of flooding to an already stressful situation is beyond imagining.

The Windsor Road is frequently very congested with long tail-backs of traffic in both directions. Pollution levels are highest in these circumstances. With all the extra traffic the Hospice [and the new houses] will bring - this can only get worse.

I have just been informed about the start of work on the M4 Smart Motorway project, September 2018. Extra Construction Vehicles using the A308, and the constant problem of people diverting off the Motorway because of hold ups , will mean the traffic congestion will become impossible for residents of the Windsor Road.

The third runway for Heathrow was announced last week, which will adversely affect noise and air pollution levels. Air pollution causes deterioration of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and low birth weight babies when pregnant women are affected. Particulate matter is deposited in coronary and cerebral arteries causing heart attacks and strokes, and there are an estimated 40,000 premature deaths a year in the UK due to toxic air pollution.

A new study has found that children are exposed to 30% more air pollution because they are shorter and nearer to exhaust fumes than adults. This adversely affects children with asthma, lung and heart problems, potentially reducing the growth of children’s lungs. [Global Action Plan research]. The advice is to encourage exercise, but walk your children on quieter roads. But if you live on the Windsor Road there is no choice but to walk along it, next to the heavy traffic.

The British Heart Foundation has urged the Government to abide by the World Health Organisation Guidelines on Air Pollution to prevent the detrimental impact toxic pollutants have on the Nation’s health. Heart disease is the Nation’s biggest killer and there is a direct link with particulate Air Pollution.

Unicef UK suggests 30% of children live in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution, potentially causing long term health problems. Is the Windsor Road one of them?

Noise pollution is known to significantly affect mental and physical health.

Have levels of air and noise pollution been assessed on the Windsor Road, or is there any plan to do so?

I feel that the genuine concerns of reasonable people are not being listened to, and the fact that trees have been removed and digging has started on the site already is not only disquieting, but also premature with all the obvious problems relating to this proposal.

I strongly agree with the Holyport Residents’ Association objections which deals with the technical details much better than I can. This new proposal is anything but a “minor material amendment”, and must be treated as a major change to the original plan, which will have very detrimental affects on those of us living on the Windsor Road.

The new information about added pollution as a result of the Smart Motorway Project and the Third Runway at Heathrow must be factored in, along with all the new information about detriments to health, morbidity and premature mortality occasioned by toxic pollution. The evidence is growing almost on a daily basis, and cannot be ignored.

RBWM advised on 29 May 2018 that the Council had received an application for the Thames Hospice development proposed for area HA18 adjacent to Windsor Road. RBWM consider this proposal to be a "minor material amendment", so they have dealt with it by considering it to be a "variation" of the original design. RBWM identify it as a Variaton under Regulation 73 and have given it an application reference 18/01313/VAR. The original application for Thames Hospice has the reference 17/00798/FULL.

HRA does not agree that the proposals are minor and we have objected that RBWM should not consider the changes as minor; and we have also objected to the proposals. Our objection is as shown in the PDF document that may be downloaded below.

hra_submisssion_on_18_01313_var.pdf
File Size:	90 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Subsequent to the objection sent as shown in the file that can be downloaded from above, I sent the following email to the Planning Casework Unit.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 17 June 2018 11:19
To: 'pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: Theresa May MP (mayt@parliament.uk); 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'
Subject: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Ref 18/01313/VAR and 17/00798/FULL

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have corresponded in the past about the planning application to RBWM No. 17/00798/FULL for which 18/01313/VAR identifies a so-called variation.

I attach previous correspondence with your Gerry Carpenter.

I also now attach my comments as Chairman of the Holyport Residents Association supported by vote of the HRA committee, on the 18/01313/VAR variation. I have submitted these comments to RBWM.

You will see that I consider the changes to be so extensive that 18/01313/VAR cannot be considered as a variation.

Further, I raise matters that I believe should cause you sufficient concern that this proposal should not proceed as it could cause flooding problems for neighbouring properties.

Please also give your consideration to the cessation of the whole concept of SuDS of the underground tank variety for reasons as explained in my comments.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie

Having had no reply from the Planning Casework Unit by 21st June 2018 I then sent the following email to our MP Theresa May.

Dear Theresa,

In the case of the original application for the Thames Hospice (17/00798/FULL) intended to be built adjacent to Windsor Road, RBWM councillors decided that this would be built despite the complications in construction and a very large amount of conditions, some of which have been ignored. RBWM had to get approval for that application from the Planning Casework Unit.

I submitted objections to both RBWM and the Planning Casework Unit but was too late; however, I did receive responses from the Planning Casework Unit's Gerry Carpenter. I know that he has now moved elsewhere.

Now Thames Hospice agents have made changes and have applied to RBWM to have these agreed (18/01313/VAR). RBWM have agreed or decided to treat these changes as a variation, thus avoiding resubmission of the entire proposal. Variations can only be agreed if the changes are minor. The proposed changes are not minor. Therefore the submission as a variation cannot be agreed, and RBWM have not acted within the law's requirements.

The scenario is that minor changes were made to a document - except that one of those changes was the identification of a revised drawing, in which major changes have been made.

I believe that the changes are sufficiently major that the original submission is compromised and has to be resubmitted or the project scrapped. I believe that if it is built, neighbouring land, where flooding has already occurred will consequentially be subjected to a higher water table, with more flooding during periods of heavy rainfall.

I write to you now, because the closing date for the current application as a variation closes on 26th June, and I have had no response from the Planning Casework Unit, to my email to them of 17th June, which I copied to you then and which is appended below.

I ask you as my MP to please contact the Planning Casework Unit and require that they timely deal with my correspondence.

I also ask that you carefully consider the effect of the so-called Sustainable Drainage System of the underground tank variety on surrounding neighbours with a view to having these devices banned.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ADDED ON 28th July 2018 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The following letter was received from the Planning Casework Unit, rejecting my request that the Secretary of State should intervene in the Thames Hospice application.

Having received the letter shown above, and having already made a submission to RBWM in response to the non-committal submission by the RBWM ecology unit, I wrote again as follows to the Planning Casework Unit. It included two attachments, one was just what RBWM Ecology had said. The other is shown in this colour below the following email text.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 28 June 2018 12:24
To: 'pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: Theresa May MP (mayt@parliament.uk); 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'; 'clerk'
Subject: RBWM Planning Application 18/01313/VAR - referring to 17/00798/FULL - Your Ref PCU/RTI/T0355/3205335

Importance: High

Attachments: 18/01313/VAR So called "Variation" on Thames Hospice Application 17/00798/FULL; 18_01313_VAR-ECOLOGY-1870666-1.rtf

Dear Mr Colbourne,

Thank you for your letter dated 25th June 2018, your reference PCU/RTI/T0355/3205335, in which you notified me of the Secretary of State's decision not to call in this application.

I attach for the Secretary of State's further consideration another email description of adverse effects that will be, and have already been imposed on wildlife, as a result of the Thames Hospice project on the A308, adjacent to Bray Lake. It has already been sent to RBWM and copied to you.

Much of the text - as you will see was sent already to RBWM, to both the Lead Member for Planning and the RBWM Head of Planning.

It is the presence of the Bray Lake which has encouraged the bat population in this entire HA18 area. Many residents in the area are aware of the bats.

RBWM ecology has apparently failed to identify any problem. I suggest that knowledge of these additional adverse effects may provide sufficient impetus for a call in.

You will note references to houses. RBWM designated this area as HA18; and decided in their draft Local Plan, currently under examination in public by a Government Inspector, that the area would be used partly for the Thames Hospice and partly for housing. Currently that draft Local Plan is not applicable. But RBWM in a special meeting of Councillors decided that the Hospice would be built, even though the applicable Local Plan does not allow it, and a very long list of conditions had to be applied. At least one of these has been breached - trees were removed from the edge of Bray Lake, and this removal will have adversely affected the bats as they use all such items as landmarks in their navigation.

To approve the Hospice, a claim of "very special circumstances" was used. Concurrently the land-owner who sold the land to the hospice plans to build houses on the rest of HA18. However, although a public advertising meeting took place, no planning application has been made for these, as of course no case for "very special circumstances" can be made for them. It seems that the land-owner awaits the adoption of the new Local Plan.

Currently, a single access is intended to be created onto the A308, which will be shared by approximately 100 houses and the Thames Hospice. See http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/bray-lake-ha18-1.html

I further show below the text of a letter from another objector, who describes flooding already experienced in two locations near the Thames Hospice site. The letter can no doubt be found on the RBWM planning website.

HA18 is unsuitable for development, due to high water table, traffic density on the A308, and harm to bats.

If development does proceed, I expect to be in a position to revert to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister in due course to report an increase in the flooding problems that currently prevail, traffic chaos, and disappearance of bats.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
Chair, Holyport Residents Association,
Old Pines,
Holyport Road
Maidenhead
SL6 2HA

20 June 2018

Planning application re Thames Valley Hospice Bray Lake

Original ref 17/00798/FULL

I am concerned about the “minor material amendment” to the original design, which is given in very technical language, not easy to understand. However, the fact that there is proposed a 67% increase in the volume of the underground water tanks, a shift of position of one of the tanks and a change to the area to be lowered, surely does not constitute a “minor amendment”.

The combined volume capacity of the proposed underground tanks is going to increase from 884 cubic meters to 1476 metres, which will be for the sole usage of the Hospice.

I would like to know what, if any, risk assessment has been carried out as to the likelihood of neighbouring properties flooding as a result of this plan.

I have lived on the South side of the road in the 1980’s, and experienced flooding, and now live on the other side , and experience flooding. Your plan to catch the water that falls on the Hospice site and feed it into the Lake will only compound the problem. The Lake water level rises during heavy rainfall . The water in my cellar rises with it, and in 2014 reached waist height, threatening the main cable bringing electricity into the house. The Fire Brigade can give no help - simply advising that there is no point in pumping out the water - it will just come straight back in again, due to the high water table in this area, and the fact that the house is on the flood plain.

There is comment in the documentation advising to site patients’ rooms in the Hospice closest to the A308 road, as there they will be” less likely to be affected by flooding”. On the one hand they will be in danger of flooding, and on the other hand you need to put patients near to the already overwhelmed Windsor Road, with its accompanying air pollution and noise pollution. This site is surely not fit for purpose.

As a retired Doctor who spent many years providing Palliative Care to patients, I understand how most patients and their families appreciate quiet, and fresh air, particularly when they are at the end of life. Adding the risk of flooding to an already stressful situation is beyond imagining.

The Windsor Road is frequently very congested with long tail-backs of traffic in both directions. Pollution levels are highest in these circumstances. With all the extra traffic the Hospice [and the new houses] will bring - this can only get worse.

I have just been informed about the start of work on the M4 Smart Motorway project, September 2018. Extra Construction Vehicles using the A308, and the constant problem of people diverting off the Motorway because of hold ups , will mean the traffic congestion will become impossible for residents of the Windsor Road.

The third runway for Heathrow was announced last week, which will adversely affect noise and air pollution levels. Air pollution causes deterioration of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and low birth weight babies when pregnant women are affected. Particulate matter is deposited in coronary and cerebral arteries causing heart attacks and strokes, and there are an estimated 40,000 premature deaths a year in the UK due to toxic air pollution.

A new study has found that children are exposed to 30% more air pollution because they are shorter and nearer to exhaust fumes than adults. This adversely affects children with asthma, lung and heart problems, potentially reducing the growth of children’s lungs. [Global Action Plan research]. The advice is to encourage exercise, but walk your children on quieter roads. But if you live on the Windsor Road there is no choice but to walk along it, next to the heavy traffic.

The British Heart Foundation has urged the Government to abide by the World Health Organisation Guidelines on Air Pollution to prevent the detrimental impact toxic pollutants have on the Nation’s health. Heart disease is the Nation’s biggest killer and there is a direct link with particulate Air Pollution.

Unicef UK suggests 30% of children live in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution, potentially causing long term health problems. Is the Windsor Road one of them?

Noise pollution is known to significantly affect mental and physical health.

Have levels of air and noise pollution been assessed on the Windsor Road, or is there any plan to do so?

I feel that the genuine concerns of reasonable people are not being listened to, and the fact that trees have been removed and digging has started on the site already is not only disquieting, but also premature with all the obvious problems relating to this proposal.

I strongly agree with the Holyport Residents’ Association objections which deals with the technical details much better than I can. This new proposal is anything but a “minor material amendment”, and must be treated as a major change to the original plan, which will have very detrimental affects on those of us living on the Windsor Road.

The new information about added pollution as a result of the Smart Motorway Project and the Third Runway at Heathrow must be factored in, along with all the new information about detriments to health, morbidity and premature mortality occasioned by toxic pollution. The evidence is growing almost on a daily basis, and cannot be ignored.

The same person wrote as follows responding to the public meetings in connection with the proposed housing;

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.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 25 June 2018 11:26
To: 'planning@rbwm.gov.uk'
Cc: 'pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk'; Theresa May MP (mayt@parliament.uk); 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'
Subject: 18/01313/VAR So called "Variation" on Thames Hospice Application 17/00798/FULL

Importance: High

Dear Sir / Madam,

My apologies - I sent this recently but forgot to formally identify myself. Please scrap the previous and use this one.

I am Andrew Cormie, Old Pines, Holyport Road, Maidenhead, SL6 2HA

I write to object to the subject "variation" application, as I have already done, but to add my objections to the assessment given in the attached RBWM submission on ecology.

In that submission we see;

"This application is to vary Condition 25 (flood risk assessment) of 17/00798/FULL (construction of a 28-bedroom hospice). It is proposed to amend the condition so that it refers to updated documents. Since there were previously no ecology-related objections, and as the proposed changes are not likely to significantly further affect wildlife, there are no objections to this application on ecological grounds."

The statement from RBWM ecology states "Since there were previously no ecology-related objections"!!! What do they mean? Do they mean that they themselves previously made none - in which case they have failed in their duty - or that no other people made any such objections?

It is not correct that this project will not affect wildlife. It has already affected wildlife. Bats are especially at risk.

See http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/bray-lake-ha18-2.html

There we show emails sent to the Lead Member for Planning and to the Head of RBWM Planning Department as follows;

(NOTE ADDED WITH THIS ADDITION TO THE WEBSITE - THE ORIGINAL OF THE FOLLOWING WAS REPORTED SOME TIME AGO FURTHER DOWN THIS PAGE)

The following email was sent on 29th November 2017 to RBWM's Lead Member for Planning.

Dear Cllr Coppinger,

Further to our attendance at the presentation by Summerleaze representatives today, when they raised the topic of the presence of bats, whereupon I queried the possibility of their being disturbed by the felling of trees in which they might roost, I draw your attention and the attention of RBWM Planning to the leaflet available at the following link;

http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/publications/Bats_Trees.pdf

The document highlights various aspects, not only roosting, that may be applicable to area HA18, between Bray Lake and the A308 Windsor Road.

It is clear that bats are present, as was highlighted by the attendee from Court Close.

As you well know I am against any and all development of this site due to the traffic problems that will result. I further highlight that development here must be prevented unless it is clear that bats will not be disturbed.

Further, I ask that tree protection orders be applied to all trees in the HA 18 area that are used by bats for navigation and or roosting.

I draw your attention to points 4, 5 and 8 on the Trigger List below

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following email was sent on 3rd December 2017 to RBWM's Lead Member for Planning and to the RBWM Head of the Planning Department

Dear Clr Coppinger,

Further to my email of 29th November attached, as you know, the Holyport Residents Association is against the inclusion in the Local Development Plan of Area HA18, against it for the Thames Hospice, and against it for the 100 houses indicated in the Summerleaze meeting that you and I attended on 29th November 2017, together with other HRA representation and Bray Parish Council representation.

The reference to bats being present having been made in the Summerleaze presentation for the 100 houses, I now question whether any such consideration was identified in the planning application and public meeting concerning the Thames Hospice on the same Area HA18. If not, then I consider the conditional approval of the Thames Hospice as being invalid.

Clearly, should these developments proceed the bats will be adversely affected by both the Thames Hospice buildings and the houses.

Having read the various publications available at the following links..;

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/batsurveyguide.html

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html

http://www.bats.org.uk/tags.php?action=view&id=27

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/planning.html

http://www.berksbats.org.uk/Home

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/get_involved.html

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_planning.html#LPA

http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/publications/Bats_Trees.pdf

http://www.bats.org.uk/publications.php

http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/Amazing_Bats_2015.pdf

http://www.bats.org.uk/publications_detail.php/327/woodland_management_for_bats

...I see that damage to bats would not just result from removal of any trees in which they might roost or hibernate; damage also occurs due to the removal of trees that bats use to navigate. It is clear that a major attraction for bats in this area is the presence of Bray Lake, and that all of the trees, shrubs, hedges, bushes that exist around Area HA18 are associated with the life of these bats.

Therefore, further to my email attached, I have made a Tree Preservation Order request for all of the trees around HA18, and I attach it also.

I attach a file "Planning Advice Pack for website 2015.pdf". It includes the following text;

"What you should expect of the local authority

The planning authority has a legal obligation to consider whether bats are likely to be affected by a proposed development. If a survey has not already been undertaken to determine the potential for bats on site and/or the presence of bats, the authority should request that the developers commission an appropriate survey.
If a survey demonstrates that development is likely to affect bat foraging and/or commuting habitat then linear features such as tree lines should be retained, and compensatory planting should be considered wherever possible.
If a survey demonstrates that bats and/or a known roost are likely to be affected by the proposed development, and planning permission is to be granted, a condition should be placed on the decision notice requiring the developer to apply for, and obtain, a European Protected Species Licence before work commences.
The licence will specify planning conditions such as timing of works and mitigation to lessen impacts. If you later suspect that a developer is contravening the conditions of their licence try to check the conditions of the licence with the authority that issued it, this varies depending upon the country (see contact numbers below) and alert the local planning office."

As you know RBWM allowed the development of HA18, against the will of the Bray Parish Council as expressed in their Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The Summerleaze presentation also showed the intentions for the access from the A308 Windsor Road, an access that is shared between these 100 houses and the Thames Hospice. This it seems is the access that was to be developed as part of the condition of approval of the Thames Hospice.

The concept of 100 houses and the Thames Hospice sharing this access, with the consequent frustration to drivers both accessing or exiting Area HA18, associated increased accident potential, and the addition of congestion to the already congested A308 Windsor Road is completely and utterly wrong and I call upon you to reverse the decision to include HA18 in the RBWM Local Development Plan.

I copy this also to RBWM's Leader of the Planning Department, Jennifer Jackson, and to the RBWM trees group for their further information about my request.

I look for your assurance that HA18 will not be developed, as it appears that there is no way that development can take place without harming the bats.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
Chair, Holyport Residents Association

The following email was sent on 5th December 2017 to RBWM Head of Planning Department and Cllr Coppinger, the Lead Member for Planning.

Subject: Thames Hospice 17/00798/FULL and the proposed housing for RBWM Local Development Plan Area HA18

Dear Ms Jackson,

Further to my email of 3rd December to Cllr Coppinger copied to you, on the subject of bats in RBWM Local Plan Area HA18, I have had no response and I continue to be concerned as to whether any heed has been paid to bats in the Planning Application for the Thames Hospice.

Having now looked at the following;

http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMWGWYNI0CV00

I see that there are at least three ecology documents all apparently identical in content, but with different dates, which refer to bats and the need for appropriate surveys to take place, and conditions to be set.

Regarding bats, the documents state;

Bats

It is understood that none of the trees with the potential to support roosting bats are to be removed to facilitate development. However, if plans change and these trees are to be removed as part of the development, it is recommended that a bat survey of the trees is undertaken prior to the determination of this application. Further surveys may be required following these initial surveys and all surveys and mitigation plans should be provided prior to the determination of this application.
There was good foraging and commuting habitat within the site in the form of lines of trees, hedgerows and the lake and the site currently experiences low levels of lighting. Light spill from the proposed development has the potential to disturb roosting, commuting and foraging bats as well as other mammals and invertebrates. It is therefore recommended that a sensitive lighting strategy is prepared and implemented across the development in order to minimise the negative impacts of lighting at the site. The strategy should detail how the negative impacts of lighting will be minimised including type of lighting to be used, timing of lights, avoidance of light spillage and the use of directional lighting away from sensitive areas such as trees, hedgerows and the lake. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that this advice be incorporated into a suitably worded condition.

A further section states;

Biodiversity Enhancements

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that: “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by [...] minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”. In addition, Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states that “Every public authority must, in exercising its function, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.

The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which includes details of vegetation and habitat planting, including meadow, woodland, tree and hedgerow planting, the majority of which will be of native species. The ecology report also makes recommendations for further enhancement including the installation of bat and bird boxes (including swift boxes if appropriate) on to the new buildings or retained mature trees, the inclusion of invertebrate boxes on to trees and scrub, creation of green roofs and walls onto suitable structures, creation of ecological connectivity to the wider site, incorporation of balancing ponds and swales and creation of log piles. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that a suitably worded planning condition is included requiring a biodiversity enhancement plan detailing all enhancements within the new development. The management plan should include details of the creation, management, maintenance and monitoring of all ecological enhancements over a period of 10 years.

I attach a copy of one of these, together with another on the subject of trees. In particular I point out that the latter refers to trees of importance along the edge of the lake, and that residents have advised that many of these have recently been removed.

This appears to be contrary to the requirements of the tree report. Viz:

QUOTE: Tree Protection – Details to be submitted

Prior to any equipment, machinery or materials being brought onto the site, details of the measures to protect, during construction, the trees shown to be retained on the approved plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to any equipment, machinery or materials being brought onto the site, and thereafter maintained until the completion of all construction work and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been permanently removed from the site. These measures shall include fencing in accordance with British Standard 5837. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority
Reason: To protect trees which contribute to the visual amenities of the site and surrounding area. Relevant Policies – Local Plan DG1, N6
UNQUOTE

Has RBWM approved the removal of these trees?

To my mind, the RBWM ecologists have been too lax.

I do not recall any survey on bats being set as a condition, nor other related conditions being set for approval of the Thames Hospice.

Has a bat survey taken place and if so what was its conclusion? Such survey, I consider, would have to at least meet the methods as described in the Bat Conservation Trust’s - Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists.

Note that bat surveys are only effective within the period March to September, and that lines of trees that bats use for navigation are considered critical. This latter aspect has not been mentioned in the RBWM ecology report.

The Bat Conservation Trust has in their Planning and Development Advice Pack an Example Trigger List already copied to you in the email that I had sent to Cllr Coppinger. (The Planning and Development Advice pack is also attached thereto)

Items 4, 5 and 8 on that list are relevant to this application. These highlight; Felling, removal or lopping of woodland; field hedgerows and / or lines of trees with connectivity to woodland or water bodies; old and veteran trees that are older than 100 years; mature trees with obvious holes, cracks or cavities or ivy covered (and also large dead trees); Proposals affecting water bodies in or within 200 m of rivers, streams, canals, lakes, reedbeds or other aquatic habitats; All proposals where protected species are known to be present. This may include proposed development affecting any type of buildings, structures, feature or location.

In their Planning and Development Advice Pack the Bat Conservation Trust also highlights legal cases as follows;

A 2009 case involving granting of planning consent affecting bats without mitigation in place resulted in Cheshire East Borough Council being taken to Judicial Review. A local resident challenged the planning consent and the High Court judgement quashed the planning consent. Subject to the decision of the House of Lords in Berkeley v SSE [2001] 2 AC 603, dealing with obligations under EC law, if a permission is found to have been unlawful in any way, then it should be quashed provided that the outcome, if there had been no unlawfulness, may or might have been different.

An important judgment was handed down by His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court at the start of June 2009 in the case of R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council. The judgment clarifies for the first time the legal duty of a Local Planning Authority ("LPA") when determining a planning application for a development which may have an impact on European Protected Species ("EPS"), such as bats, great crested newts, dormice or otters. The court considered that in granting planning permission the LPA had failed in its duty under Regulation 3(4) of the 1994 Habitats Regulations by failing to give consideration to the three derogation tests contained in the species protection provisions of the Habitats Directive.

Furthermore, the Court held that a LPA cannot discharge its duty simply by adding a condition to the grant of planning permission which requires a licence from a statutory nature conservation organisation to be obtained.

The Bat Conservation Trust document describes further the relationship between licensing and planning permission; identifying ‘The three tests’ which must be satisfied before a licence can be issued.

The statutory requirements include a system of strict protection for European Protected Species (EPS), such as bats. A derogation from this strict protection - by way of a licence granted to a person under the Regulations - is only allowed in certain limited circumstances and only after three specific tests have been satisfied.

Where bats may be harmed by a development proposal (e.g. such that one or more criminal offences is reasonably likely to be committed), the LPA must have regard to the three tests required by the Regulations as well as the licensing authority (due to the duty under Regulation 7(1)).

Consequently, for all LPAs, the following are important material considerations:

• firstly, is a criminal offence likely e.g. is an applicant when implementing the proposed development reasonably likely to commit a criminal offence under the Habitats Regulations – such as causing harm to bats? and where this is the case

• can the three tests can be satisfied e.g. is the eventual granting of a licence likely - so as to permit activities which would otherwise be unlawful?

In other words, the LPA should not grant consent where they suspect a criminal offence might result and where the three licensing tests are unlikely to be satisfied.

The Three Tests

A licence cannot be granted until the licensing authority is satisfied that:

• the purpose of the intended action (development) is for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment

And as long as:

• there is no satisfactory alternative; and

• the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a Favourable Conservation Status in their natural range.

This means in proposals where bats may be affected, a planning application must provide sufficient information (in the form of a survey and a report on mitigation measures) for the LPA to consider it against the three licensing tests.

If there is no evidence that the LPA has gathered enough information, or the LPA have not referenced that an application has satisfied the three tests then an application can be subject to challenge.

The licence must be in place before commencement of any works.

In my view, for any development of Area HA18;

Is a criminal offence likely – DEFINITELY YES

Can the three tests be satisfied – ABSOLUTELY NOT

Re Test 1 - the purpose of the intended development is not for preserving public health or public safety nor for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

Re Test 2 – clearly there are alternative locations.

Re Test 3 - the development of the Thames Hospice (and the 100 houses) will be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the bats present around HA18, thus it would be a criminal offence to proceed with any development on HA18.

As there is an obligation in law for Local Authorities to ensure that bats are not harmed by development, please comment.

Should it be the case that a bat survey meeting the requirements of the Bat Conservation Trust’s - Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists has taken place would you please advise me how to see it.

For and on behalf of the Committee of the Holyport Residents Association,

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
HRA Chairman

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF THAT ADDED ON 28th July 2018 %%%%%%%%%%%%

Following published in the Maidenhead Advertiser, Bray and Holyport page in the 21st June issue.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH RBWM AND THERESA MAY ABOUT HA18 BRAY LAKE WINDSOR ROAD

Continuing from the email of 16th February shown below we have had no satisfactory answer from RBWM, so we have now written to our MP Theresa May, as shown in the two emails below.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 07 March 2018 10:02
To: Theresa May MP (mayt@parliament.uk); 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'; 'Gerry Carpenter'
Subject: Concern about a Local Government Process resulting in lack of representation.

Importance: High

Attachments: RE: Request for a Call-In - RBWM Planning Application - 17/00798/FULL - Land South of Bray Lake And East of Court Close Windsor Road Maidenhead; RE: Request for a Call-In - RBWM Planning Application - 17/00798/FULL - Land South of Bray Lake And East of Court Close Windsor Road Maidenhead; FW: Request for a Call-In - RBWM Planning Application - 17/00798/FULL - Land South of Bray Lake And East of Court Close Windsor Road Maidenhead; RBWM Councillors failure to properly represent the residents of the RBWM Bray Ward
Dear Theresa,

The Holyport Residents Association (HRA) committee has concern that some RBWM Councillors do not always follow the Government Guidelines given at the following link;

https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/councillors-guide-201718/councillors-role

We also have concern as to how to complain about this. In the case of Parish Councils it is clear that the Clerk is the "Proper Officer" whose duty it is to see that residents questions are addressed by the Parish Council. It appears that there is no such person within a Borough Council.

I attach an email which I have already copied to you for information; dated 22nd February 2018 to RBWM Cllr Dudley. It is the latest in a series that commenced on 9th February, and no reply has been received to my 22nd February email.

In the 9th February email we asked Cllr Dudley, the Leader of the Council, if he was in effect the Chief Executive. He claimed that Alison Alexander, the Managing Director of RBWM was "Also Known As" the Chief Executive. But Cllr Dudley, seemingly acting as one who could act as a superior to the Managing Director, delegated Alison to respond.

In our email to Cllr Dudley we also drew attention to our concerns about lack of representation. It is well known in our area that a majority of the residents who make their views known do not wish to have development of Green Belt land in the Parish of Bray, yet two of the RBWM Bray Ward Councillors have failed to support this view. The residents are also very concerned about flooding, traffic congestion and air quality, all of which are particularly relevant in our parish.

Residents opinions are clear from their response to an earlier survey by the HRA, and more recently in a packed Village Hall meeting where all attendees were against a Green Belt development proposal currently awaiting RBWM Planning's verdict. Cllr Dudley, who is also a Bray Parish Councillor voted against this particular application. The public view is further reflected by the Parish Council's stance against development of Green Belt land.

RBWM have set up a "Borough-wide Development Management Panel" of elected councillors.

An internet search for "Borough-wide Development Management Panel" did not find any other council using this terminology.

See Maidenhead Advertiser 13th April 2017 report at: www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/gallery/maidenhead/113802/maidenhead-planning-panel-set-for-reshuffle-after-councillors-are-removed.html?refresh_ce

From which;

"A new borough-wide development management panel has been set up to determine applications that affect the authority’s area as a whole.

Council leader Cllr Simon Dudley (Con, Riverside) said the panel, chaired by former council leader Cllr David Burbage (Con, Bray), will meet whenever such an application needed deciding on.

Whether an application affects the whole borough will be determined by Cllr Dudley. One possible example includes the redevelopment of Heatherwood Hospital, Ascot."

However, the first meeting of this panel was on 18th July 2017 and was to consider an application for development of Green Belt land for the Thames Hospice. (see http://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=572&MId=6947&Ver=4 )

The application's official status "AWAITING DECISION" is shown here;

http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OMWGWYNI0CV00

The verdict of the panel was;

"The   PANEL   VOTED   that   the   application   be   DEFERRED   AND   DELEGATED   as   per   the   officer’s   recommendation,   subject   to:

i. the   conditions   listed   in Section 10   of   this   report,   and

ii. a   legal   agreement under   section 106   of   the   Act   which   secures   the   following:

· Travel   Plan,   including monitoring   and   review
· Biodiversity Management Plan
· Securing   public   access to   lake-side   footpath in   Perpetuity

iii. referral   to the   Secretary   of   State through   the   National   Planning   Case   Work   Unit,   and   no   call   in   by   the   National Planning   Case   Work   Unit   as   a result of   that   referral.

iv. The   LLFA   raising   no   objection   to   the   proposed   surface   water   drainage scheme.

v. Permeable   parking.

vi. Head of Planning   to   negotiate   with the   Applicants   a   Right   Hand   Turning,   both   in   and   out   of   the   site."

I commented to the National Planning Casework Unit against the application, but my comments were too late, and they agreed that it can proceed. Note that the conditions mentioned in "i" above are as shown in one of the attached emails, with my comments against many of them. There are 25 conditions!!

Some of these conditions have been flouted. See www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/bray-lake-ha18-1.html and the emails attached.

Approval of this application with so many conditions is a prime example of the sort of approvals that elsewhere have resulted in disastrous situations. Even if the planners felt that ultimately they must accept, the proper initial course of action would be to refuse, because of the uncertainty due to the many matters that the applicant had not committed to. At present RBWM has no control over the site. Tree clearances have taken place, contrary to one of the conditions. Currently machinery is on site contrary to a condition.

We have concern that the "Borough-wide Development Management Panel" has been devised to enable approval of applications such as the Thames Hospice Application. If an application is of such Borough-wide importance and based on supposed Very Special Circumstances it should go to full council and not a hand picked group, nor should it be the Council Leader's decision as to what application has Borough-wide significance.

We consider that the Thames Hospice Application is not of sufficient Borough Wide status to be considered by this panel and that the actuality of the circumstances used as "Very Special Circumstances" pleaded by the applicants was exaggerated.

There is another perfectly adequate Planning Management Panel for such applications, and had the Borough-wide panel not existed, at least one of our three Bray Ward Councillors would have called-in this one.

The owner of the adjacent land site next to the Thames Hospice, who originally also owned the Thames Hospice land, wishes to build houses on that adjacent land. But as that land proposed for housing is on Green Belt (as is the Hospice) the current Local Plan will not allow such building. So, should the proposed new Local Plan not come into being - with its revocation of Green Belt status (see also below at *) for this part of the Green Belt, the housing development could not take place.

One condition for the Hospice was to do with access to the A308. We now have seen that the proposed road into the adjacent land is to be used as the route for access from the Hospice to the A308.

This appears to be an attempt to link the two developments, so that the housing development is more likely to be approved. * Clearly, development should not be taking place on this Green Belt land since (in your own words) "Councils will only be able to amend Green Belt boundaries if they can prove they have fully explored every other reasonable option for building the homes their community needs."

All councillors are obliged by the Government guidelines to act to properly represent their constituents. But it seems that if they are a member of the aforementioned panel they are expected to act on behalf of the council as whole, subsuming their obligation to the residents who elected them.

We consider that this system is wrong, and we ask that Central Government will put a stop to the mis-use of this Borough-wide Development Management Panel that RBWM has established, and retrospectively quash the approval that it has given.

We do not write this to you as a request for you to have RBWM answer us. We ask you to recognise that errors must be corrected and to intervene on our behalf to have corrections made.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie - HRA Chairman,

for and on behalf of the Committee of the Holyport Residents Association

Letter and newspaper cutting above above relate to the following email;

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 07 March 2018 17:57
To: Theresa May MP (mayt@parliament.uk); 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'
Cc: 'pcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: Additional to earlier 7 March 2018 email "Concern about a Local Government Process resulting in lack of representation."

Importance: High

Attachments: 17_04018_FULL--1835343.pdf; Roads.jpg
Dear Theresa,

Further to my earlier email today, I have now learned of your support given to the "Cox Green Says No" campaign as exhibited in the attachment.

The same problems that their campaign are concerned about and that are mentioned in your letter apply perhaps to an even greater degree in the case of the Thames Hospice application 17/00798/FULL that RBWM has permitted with many conditions, by means of their "Borough-wide Development Management Panel" as discussed in my earlier email. That application is likely to be followed by another for housing adjacent to it.

You can see concerns on this at the following; http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/bray-lake-ha18-1.html which was identified also in my earlier email.

This adjacent page http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/bray-lake-ha18-2.html shows more.

In view of your support of the "Cox Green Says No" campaign we look to you to equally support the prevention of all Green Belt development that will cause increased traffic on roads in the RBWM Bray Ward.

See attached a clip where Councillor Coppinger the Lead Member for Planning recognises the problem.

But as for the money allocated to study the A308 my comments on that as issued to residents are shown below;

_______________________________________________

RBWM has released the following information;

QUOTE

The Council has received correspondence from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) that it has been successful in securing money in this financial year and 2018/19 t assist with the delivery of the BLP and infrastructure. Four bids were made, three of them have been accepted by the MHCLG as follows:

1. A corridor study of the A308 working with Surrey CC, Bucks CC and Runnymede: £90K awarded in this year to be spent by the end of 2018/19.

2. A wider area study with Slough and South Bucks/Chiltern as part of Duty to Co-operate work: £12K awarded this year and £160K in 2018/19

3. A design quality/place making fund supporting the BLP SV: £60K awarded this year and £225K in 2018/19.

UNQUOTE

See also the newspaper clip attached.

Item 1 is perhaps relevant to our area. As you know the Thames Hospice Application on Green Belt land has been approved under "Very Special Circumstances" subject to many conditions, one of which was the access onto the A308. The latest known on this is that the access is proposed through the adjacent housing estate, for which a planning application has not been made and which under the current Local Plan could never be given planning permission. We understand that the applicant hopes that the new Local Plan will be approved, as of course it redesignates that land as being no longer Green Belt.

In the RBWM meeting at which the permission with conditions was granted to Thames Hospice there were comments about how the A308 had been considered in need of being a dual carriageway. But of course (as it seems to me) there is no way that the A308 as it goes through the housing between the Holyport Road to Fifield Road junctions could ever be widened, unless the houses gave up their front gardens, and even that is impossible for the whole stretch.

Any widening of the A308 beyond the aforementioned stretch of road would make the situation worse for residents on the side corresponding to traffic going towards Maidenhead, as there would be a build up of traffic waiting to process through that stretch. On the other side there would basically be no change.

So we believe that the Item 1 money cannot be spent to improve matters for our Windsor Road residents.

We see the money allocated under headings 2 and 3 as being money that will disappear into Local Government coffers to be used in some vague way that will end up helping no-one.

___________________________________________

In conclusion, Theresa, we wish to have equable treatment from you.

Another application where residents would benefit from your support against it is 17/03857/OUT which intends to fill in a Green Belt stretch that currently provides separation between Maidenhead and Holyport.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie Chairman Holyport Residents Association

HRA has concern that Windsor Road residents and others in our area are not being properly represented by their Borough Councillors. The following email to RBWM is part of the latest of a series. Alison Alexander had proposed a meeting, but it transpired that she could not address the matters on which we had most concern, so we cancelled the meeting.

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 16 February 2018 12:04
To: 'Alison Alexander'; 'Cllr Dudley'
Cc: 'Cllr Coppinger'; 'Cllr Walters'; 'Cllr Burbage'; 'clerk'; 'Mary Kilner'; 'Jenifer Jackson'; 'Gerry Carpenter'; 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'; 'martint@baylismedia.co.uk'; 'Theresa May MP'
Subject: RE: RBWM Councillors failure to properly represent the residents of the RBWM Bray Ward

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red

Believing this topic to be in the Public Interest, any response will be treated as public property and may be copied to Residents, Borough and / or Parish Councillors, Members of Parliament and Government agencies and / or placed on the Holyport Residents Association website. If you reply, any publication restrictions in your reply will be considered invalid. Whether or not you reply this email may be published on the HRA Website.

Dear Ms Alexander,

You asked me to explain in more detail what exactly I think the royal borough are not complying with.

Here below is the text of my email of 9th Feb to Cllr Dudley.

I have highlighted in red, and sometimes in underlining, the areas below where I indicate our concern about failure of Bray Ward Councillors to represent the views of the residents who elected them.

After that I add more from the referred government website, with text on representation highlighted, followed by further comment.

Dear Councillor Dudley,

A letter from Peter Newbound in the 25th January 2018 Maidenhead Advertiser, reproduced on the HRA website at;

http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/residents-concerns.html

claims that in the absence of a Chief Executive Officer within the RBWM personnel, you are the person who has ultimate control of RBWM Council.

As this seems likely, I write to advise you of Holyport Residents Association concern that the concept of representation of residents opinions has failed in the RBWM Bray Ward. The topic has also been raised by Bray Parish Councillor Brian Millin in his letter to the Advertiser also shown at the above link.

The following website has much about representation;

https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/councillors-guide-201718/councillors-role

including (My underlining and bold italics);

"Representing your local area A councillor's primary role is to represent their ward or division and the people who live in it. Councillors provide a bridge between the community and the council. As well as being an advocate for your local residents and signposting them to the right people at the council, you will need to keep them informed about the issues that affect them.
In order to understand and represent local views and priorities, you need to build strong relationships and encourage local people to make their views known and engage with you and the council. Good communication and engagement is central to being an effective councillor.
As a local councillor, your residents will expect you to:

respond to their queries and investigate their concerns (casework)
communicate council decisions that affect them
know your patch and be aware of any problems
know and work with representatives of local organisations, interest groups and businesses
represent their views at council meetings
lead local campaigns on their behalf."

In the past there was a stage in the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan where the latter group attempted to establish a principle that the Lodge Farm Area would be developed. At that time, RBWM supported the concept. It was as a consequence of that, that the Holyport Residents Association was established, and we have determined that there is no appetite amongst the vast majority of residents for any development in the RBWM Bray Ward. The main reasons being loss of Green Belt land and the increase of traffic that would result.
You will have received a copy of my email of 20th January 2018 addressed to RBWM Head of Planning, copied to all RBWM Councillors, where I deplored the state of affairs whereby the Thames Hospice Planning Application in Area HA18 was given the peculiar status of having Borough-wide Development Management Panel "resolution to grant planning permission", resulting in the lamentable state whereby RBWM has no control over the site.
Work has proceeded on that site to the detriment of wildlife, in my view - especially bats, and there is thus a possibility that criminal acts have occurred. I look forward to the day when RBWM will recognise their error in agreeing development of that site, and I still have hopes that its development may be prevented.
There is great concern amongst residents that the area HA18 is included in the Draft Borough Local Development Plan, and that at the Borough-wide Development Management Panel meeting Councillors gave the Hospice their peculiar "resolution to grant planning permission". This is a site that is located (at Parish Council level) within the Bray Ward, so is an area for which we understand that Cllr Burbage should provide residential representation to RBWM.
Cllr Burbage being Chair of the Development Management Panel should still have exercised his prime function of representing residents views that no such development should take place. He should have been aware of this from residents objections and the Bray Parish Council stance, but he failed to represent residents as he did not attend the meeting. At that time Cllr Coppinger was not Head of Planning, so he had no pressure upon him to not support residents. The minutes of the meeting report that "Councillor Coppinger was a Member of Bray Parish Council and was aware of residents feelings as he resides close to the application site. He was attending the meeting with an open mind." (Note though that Cllr Coppinger is not a Member of Bray Parish Council.)
However, Cllr Coppinger supported the Hospice application although it was clear that Bray Parish Council and Holyport Residents Association including a group of Windsor Road residents were against it.

At the Bray Parish Council Planning meeting to discuss the latest application from the would be Lodge Farm developers, and at the exhibition by Summerleaze for their proposals for housing in Area HA18 between Bray Lake and the Windsor Road, there was overwhelming evidence of resident's wishes that no such development should take place. Bray Parish Council themselves have supported residents by voting against the Hospice, and against the Lodge Farm proposals, whilst also deploring the addition in the LDP of HA18 and consistently rejecting applications that will cause traffic problems.

The decisions of the Bray Parish Council, in which you are also a Parish Councillor, in support of residents and against these plans should be sufficient indicators to RBWM Councillors as to what the people want, thus guiding RBWM Councillors as to the representation they are to make on the residents behalf.

We have now seen from the Summerleaze exhibition that the A308 access that was to have been from the Thames Hospice land, is currently shown as being from the adjacent housing proposed, whose planning application has not even been made, although it seems that the Legal Agreement that supposedly is holding up Hospice Planning permission proceedings was partially about a stand alone access from the Hospice Land. So at least part of the condition that was applied is not going to be met.

We residents object most strongly to the apparent change whereby the access agreement will now be between Summerleaze as promoter of the adjacent housing and RBWM, not between RBWM and the Thames Hospice. This appears to be a contrivance by which to give support to the housing.

There is no certainty that the housing will be approved. The RBWM draft Local Development Plan may never come into being as it stands. We hear that the Summerleaze housing proposal will not be made until the Local Development Plan is approved.

If the application were to be made at present, the current Local Development Plan would not support it and there are no Special Circumstances that could be used to allow it.

We therefore write to express our extreme dis-satisfaction that the residents of the RBWM Bray Ward are not being given proper representation by the elected RBWM Councillors.

By copy of this to our MP and to the Planning Casework Unit, we ask these parties to give further consideration to having the application's dubious "resolution to grant planning permission" withdrawn.

The Hospice application was made on the basis of it being for "Construction of a 28-bedroom hospice and out-patient unit with associated works and new access from Windsor Road".

Although it would be a 28-bedroom hospice it is now apparent that if it is built there will be far more to it than that. It is far larger than needed for a 28 bedroom hospice, and the traffic envisaged to visit it can be expected to be much greater than the 28 bedroom hospice description would imply.

Further, the access from Windsor Road would not be directly to the Hospice land, but would be to adjacent land (whose owner is the same as who sold the land to the Hospice), and to the houses that this same landowner wishes to build, whose planning application has not been made, and under the current Local Development Plan could not gain permission.

We deplore the relatively recent establishment by RBWM of the Borough-wide Development Management Panel. We consider that the former system was a better one, whereby matters such as this would be dealt with by a panel whose make up was more representative of local residents views. It seems clear that the Borough-wide Development Management Panel is a device whose purpose could properly apply to matters such as transport infrastructure where the whole Borough is affected, but it should not be used as it appears it was in this case to enable approval ("resolution to grant planning permission") of contentious applications.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie
Chairman Holyport Residents Association,
on behalf of and with support of the Committee of the HRA.

I now add below further text from the aforementioned government website, and have highlighted in red, and by underlining, where we have concern on Councillor representation;

Community leadership Community leadership is at the heart of modern local government. Councils work in partnership with local communities and organisations – including the public, voluntary, community and private sectors – to develop a vision for their local area, working collaboratively to improve services and quality of life for citizens. Councillors have a lead role in this process.
Developing council policy
Councils need clear strategies and policies to enable them to achieve their vision for the area, make the best use of resources and deliver services that meet the needs of local communities. As a local councillor you will contribute to the development of these policies and strategies, bringing the views and priorities of your local area to the debate. How you do this will depend on the committees and forums you are appointed to. However, the council's policy framework must be signed off by full council, on which every councillor sits.
Planning and regulation
Councils are not just service providers, they also act as regulators. As a councillor you may be appointed to sit on the planning and regulatory committee, considering issues such as planning applications and licenses for pubs and restaurants and ensuring that businesses comply with the law. In these roles, councillors are required to act independently and are not subject to the group/party whip. Most councils arrange special training for this.

Code of conduct and standards
As a councillor you will be required to adhere to your council's agreed code of conduct for elected members. Each council adopts its own code, but it must be based on the Committee on Standards in Public Life's seven principles of public life. These were developed by the Nolan Committee, which looked at how to improve ethical standards in public life, and are often referred to as the Nolan principles.
These principles apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and everyone appointed to work in the civil service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies and in the health, education and social care sectors. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to everyone in other sectors delivering public services.
All standards matters are the responsibility of individual councils, which are required to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors. You must register any disclosable pecuniary interests for yourself, your spouse or a partner you live with, within 28 days of taking up office. It is a criminal offence if you fail, without reasonable excuse, to declare or register interests to the monitoring officer.

I hope that I have clarified sufficiently. The RBWM Bray Ward has three RBWM Councillors.

Two of them have apparently ignored the wishes of residents, for instance;

as expressed by residents in comments on the Thames Hospice application;
as made known by the HRA (historical objections to building on Green Belt and to major developments in Bray Ward);
as made known by Bray Parish Council in its various pronunciations against such developments, in particular against the Thames Hospice, and latterly against the Lodge Farm proposals.

Those two Councillors are thus failing to comply with Government guidance as to representation of their constituents views.

Is this failure due to these Councillors being misguidedly obliged to follow some RBWM policy? If so such RBWM policy is in non-compliance with the Government rules on representation.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
Chairman Holyport Residents Association,
on behalf of and with support of the Committee of the HRA.

The following email was sent on 29th November 2017 to RBWM's Lead Member for Planning.

Dear Cllr Coppinger,

Further to our attendance at the presentation by Summerleaze representatives today, when they raised the topic of the presence of bats, whereupon I queried the possibility of their being disturbed by the felling of trees in which they might roost, I draw your attention and the attention of RBWM Planning to the leaflet available at the following link;

http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/publications/Bats_Trees.pdf

The document highlights various aspects, not only roosting, that may be applicable to area HA18, between Bray Lake and the A308 Windsor Road.

It is clear that bats are present, as was highlighted by the attendee from Court Close.

As you well know I am against any and all development of this site due to the traffic problems that will result. I further highlight that development here must be prevented unless it is clear that bats will not be disturbed.

Further, I ask that tree protection orders be applied to all trees in the HA 18 area that are used by bats for navigation and or roosting.

I draw your attention to points 4, 5 and 8 on the Trigger List below

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following email was sent on 3rd December 2017 to RBWM's Lead Member for Planning and to the RBWM Head of the Planning Department

Dear Clr Coppinger,

Further to my email of 29th November attached, as you know, the Holyport Residents Association is against the inclusion in the Local Development Plan of Area HA18, against it for the Thames Hospice, and against it for the 100 houses indicated in the Summerleaze meeting that you and I attended on 29th November 2017, together with other HRA representation and Bray Parish Council representation.

The reference to bats being present having been made in the Summerleaze presentation for the 100 houses, I now question whether any such consideration was identified in the planning application and public meeting concerning the Thames Hospice on the same Area HA18. If not, then I consider the conditional approval of the Thames Hospice as being invalid.

Clearly, should these developments proceed the bats will be adversely affected by both the Thames Hospice buildings and the houses.

Having read the various publications available at the following links..;

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/batsurveyguide.html

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html

http://www.bats.org.uk/tags.php?action=view&id=27

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/planning.html

http://www.berksbats.org.uk/Home

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/get_involved.html

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_planning.html#LPA

http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/publications/Bats_Trees.pdf

http://www.bats.org.uk/publications.php

http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/Amazing_Bats_2015.pdf

http://www.bats.org.uk/publications_detail.php/327/woodland_management_for_bats

...I see that damage to bats would not just result from removal of any trees in which they might roost or hibernate; damage also occurs due to the removal of trees that bats use to navigate. It is clear that a major attraction for bats in this area is the presence of Bray Lake, and that all of the trees, shrubs, hedges, bushes that exist around Area HA18 are associated with the life of these bats.

Therefore, further to my email attached, I have made a Tree Preservation Order request for all of the trees around HA18, and I attach it also.

I attach a file "Planning Advice Pack for website 2015.pdf". It includes the following text;

"What you should expect of the local authority

The planning authority has a legal obligation to consider whether bats are likely to be affected by a proposed development. If a survey has not already been undertaken to determine the potential for bats on site and/or the presence of bats, the authority should request that the developers commission an appropriate survey.
If a survey demonstrates that development is likely to affect bat foraging and/or commuting habitat then linear features such as tree lines should be retained, and compensatory planting should be considered wherever possible.
If a survey demonstrates that bats and/or a known roost are likely to be affected by the proposed development, and planning permission is to be granted, a condition should be placed on the decision notice requiring the developer to apply for, and obtain, a European Protected Species Licence before work commences.
The licence will specify planning conditions such as timing of works and mitigation to lessen impacts. If you later suspect that a developer is contravening the conditions of their licence try to check the conditions of the licence with the authority that issued it, this varies depending upon the country (see contact numbers below) and alert the local planning office."

As you know RBWM allowed the development of HA18, against the will of the Bray Parish Council as expressed in their Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The Summerleaze presentation also showed the intentions for the access from the A308 Windsor Road, an access that is shared between these 100 houses and the Thames Hospice. This it seems is the access that was to be developed as part of the condition of approval of the Thames Hospice.

The concept of 100 houses and the Thames Hospice sharing this access, with the consequent frustration to drivers both accessing or exiting Area HA18, associated increased accident potential, and the addition of congestion to the already congested A308 Windsor Road is completely and utterly wrong and I call upon you to reverse the decision to include HA18 in the RBWM Local Development Plan.

I copy this also to RBWM's Leader of the Planning Department, Jennifer Jackson, and to the RBWM trees group for their further information about my request.

I look for your assurance that HA18 will not be developed, as it appears that there is no way that development can take place without harming the bats.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
Chair, Holyport Residents Association

The following email was sent on 5th December 2017 to RBWM Head of Planning Department and Cllr Coppinger, the Lead Member for Planning.

Subject: Thames Hospice 17/00798/FULL and the proposed housing for RBWM Local Development Plan Area HA18

Dear Ms Jackson,

Further to my email of 3rd December to Cllr Coppinger copied to you, on the subject of bats in RBWM Local Plan Area HA18, I have had no response and I continue to be concerned as to whether any heed has been paid to bats in the Planning Application for the Thames Hospice.

Having now looked at the following;

http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMWGWYNI0CV00

I see that there are at least three ecology documents all apparently identical in content, but with different dates, which refer to bats and the need for appropriate surveys to take place, and conditions to be set.

Regarding bats, the documents state;

Bats

It is understood that none of the trees with the potential to support roosting bats are to be removed to facilitate development. However, if plans change and these trees are to be removed as part of the development, it is recommended that a bat survey of the trees is undertaken prior to the determination of this application. Further surveys may be required following these initial surveys and all surveys and mitigation plans should be provided prior to the determination of this application.
There was good foraging and commuting habitat within the site in the form of lines of trees, hedgerows and the lake and the site currently experiences low levels of lighting. Light spill from the proposed development has the potential to disturb roosting, commuting and foraging bats as well as other mammals and invertebrates. It is therefore recommended that a sensitive lighting strategy is prepared and implemented across the development in order to minimise the negative impacts of lighting at the site. The strategy should detail how the negative impacts of lighting will be minimised including type of lighting to be used, timing of lights, avoidance of light spillage and the use of directional lighting away from sensitive areas such as trees, hedgerows and the lake. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that this advice be incorporated into a suitably worded condition.

A further section states;

Biodiversity Enhancements

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that: “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by [...] minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”. In addition, Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states that “Every public authority must, in exercising its function, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.

The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which includes details of vegetation and habitat planting, including meadow, woodland, tree and hedgerow planting, the majority of which will be of native species. The ecology report also makes recommendations for further enhancement including the installation of bat and bird boxes (including swift boxes if appropriate) on to the new buildings or retained mature trees, the inclusion of invertebrate boxes on to trees and scrub, creation of green roofs and walls onto suitable structures, creation of ecological connectivity to the wider site, incorporation of balancing ponds and swales and creation of log piles. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that a suitably worded planning condition is included requiring a biodiversity enhancement plan detailing all enhancements within the new development. The management plan should include details of the creation, management, maintenance and monitoring of all ecological enhancements over a period of 10 years.

I attach a copy of one of these, together with another on the subject of trees. In particular I point out that the latter refers to trees of importance along the edge of the lake, and that residents have advised that many of these have recently been removed.

This appears to be contrary to the requirements of the tree report. Viz:

QUOTE: Tree Protection – Details to be submitted

Prior to any equipment, machinery or materials being brought onto the site, details of the measures to protect, during construction, the trees shown to be retained on the approved plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to any equipment, machinery or materials being brought onto the site, and thereafter maintained until the completion of all construction work and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been permanently removed from the site. These measures shall include fencing in accordance with British Standard 5837. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority
Reason: To protect trees which contribute to the visual amenities of the site and surrounding area. Relevant Policies – Local Plan DG1, N6
UNQUOTE

Has RBWM approved the removal of these trees?

To my mind, the RBWM ecologists have been too lax.

I do not recall any survey on bats being set as a condition, nor other related conditions being set for approval of the Thames Hospice.

Has a bat survey taken place and if so what was its conclusion? Such survey, I consider, would have to at least meet the methods as described in the Bat Conservation Trust’s - Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists.

Note that bat surveys are only effective within the period March to September, and that lines of trees that bats use for navigation are considered critical. This latter aspect has not been mentioned in the RBWM ecology report.

The Bat Conservation Trust has in their Planning and Development Advice Pack an Example Trigger List already copied to you in the email that I had sent to Cllr Coppinger. (The Planning and Development Advice pack is also attached thereto)

Items 4, 5 and 8 on that list are relevant to this application. These highlight; Felling, removal or lopping of woodland; field hedgerows and / or lines of trees with connectivity to woodland or water bodies; old and veteran trees that are older than 100 years; mature trees with obvious holes, cracks or cavities or ivy covered (and also large dead trees); Proposals affecting water bodies in or within 200 m of rivers, streams, canals, lakes, reedbeds or other aquatic habitats; All proposals where protected species are known to be present. This may include proposed development affecting any type of buildings, structures, feature or location.

In their Planning and Development Advice Pack the Bat Conservation Trust also highlights legal cases as follows;

A 2009 case involving granting of planning consent affecting bats without mitigation in place resulted in Cheshire East Borough Council being taken to Judicial Review. A local resident challenged the planning consent and the High Court judgement quashed the planning consent. Subject to the decision of the House of Lords in Berkeley v SSE [2001] 2 AC 603, dealing with obligations under EC law, if a permission is found to have been unlawful in any way, then it should be quashed provided that the outcome, if there had been no unlawfulness, may or might have been different.

An important judgment was handed down by His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court at the start of June 2009 in the case of R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council. The judgment clarifies for the first time the legal duty of a Local Planning Authority ("LPA") when determining a planning application for a development which may have an impact on European Protected Species ("EPS"), such as bats, great crested newts, dormice or otters. The court considered that in granting planning permission the LPA had failed in its duty under Regulation 3(4) of the 1994 Habitats Regulations by failing to give consideration to the three derogation tests contained in the species protection provisions of the Habitats Directive.

Furthermore, the Court held that a LPA cannot discharge its duty simply by adding a condition to the grant of planning permission which requires a licence from a statutory nature conservation organisation to be obtained.

The Bat Conservation Trust document describes further the relationship between licensing and planning permission; identifying ‘The three tests’ which must be satisfied before a licence can be issued.

The statutory requirements include a system of strict protection for European Protected Species (EPS), such as bats. A derogation from this strict protection - by way of a licence granted to a person under the Regulations - is only allowed in certain limited circumstances and only after three specific tests have been satisfied.

Where bats may be harmed by a development proposal (e.g. such that one or more criminal offences is reasonably likely to be committed), the LPA must have regard to the three tests required by the Regulations as well as the licensing authority (due to the duty under Regulation 7(1)).

Consequently, for all LPAs, the following are important material considerations:

• firstly, is a criminal offence likely e.g. is an applicant when implementing the proposed development reasonably likely to commit a criminal offence under the Habitats Regulations – such as causing harm to bats? and where this is the case

• can the three tests can be satisfied e.g. is the eventual granting of a licence likely - so as to permit activities which would otherwise be unlawful?

In other words, the LPA should not grant consent where they suspect a criminal offence might result and where the three licensing tests are unlikely to be satisfied.

The Three Tests

A licence cannot be granted until the licensing authority is satisfied that:

• the purpose of the intended action (development) is for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment

And as long as:

• there is no satisfactory alternative; and

• the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a Favourable Conservation Status in their natural range.

This means in proposals where bats may be affected, a planning application must provide sufficient information (in the form of a survey and a report on mitigation measures) for the LPA to consider it against the three licensing tests.

If there is no evidence that the LPA has gathered enough information, or the LPA have not referenced that an application has satisfied the three tests then an application can be subject to challenge.

The licence must be in place before commencement of any works.

In my view, for any development of Area HA18;

Is a criminal offence likely – DEFINITELY YES

Can the three tests be satisfied – ABSOLUTELY NOT

Re Test 1 - the purpose of the intended development is not for preserving public health or public safety nor for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

Re Test 2 – clearly there are alternative locations.

Re Test 3 - the development of the Thames Hospice (and the 100 houses) will be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the bats present around HA18, thus it would be a criminal offence to proceed with any development on HA18.

As there is an obligation in law for Local Authorities to ensure that bats are not harmed by development, please comment.

Should it be the case that a bat survey meeting the requirements of the Bat Conservation Trust’s - Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists has taken place would you please advise me how to see it.

For and on behalf of the Committee of the Holyport Residents Association,

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie,
HRA Chairman