RBWM Local Plan as of August 2021
RBWM has been creating their Local Development Plan for some years, and everyone has had an opportunity to comment on it. HRA has commented several times. Unfortunately for us however, RBWM does not do what we want them to do. For us in Bray Parish, the main concern is their intentions to allow building next to the Thames Hospice and in other areas along or adjacent to the A308. All such building will increase road traffic. There is already an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on the A308 near Holyport Road.
The Plan has been under review by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate and the Inspector has made comments, called Main Modifications or MMs. The Plan is now at the stage where we are again invited to comment, but only on the MMs. Coments close on 5th September.
HRA has sent an email to Theresa May asking that she will have the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government rule that we can once again comment on all aspects of the Plan.
The email has several attachments, some of which have other attachments so it is difficult to advise of all of it here.
The text of the main email is available as a PDF document at the left hand button below.
The middle button gives a JPG of a letter to the Maidenhead Advertiser.
The right button gives a PDF of a Bray Parish Council flyer urging residents to comment on the Plan.
The Plan has been under review by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate and the Inspector has made comments, called Main Modifications or MMs. The Plan is now at the stage where we are again invited to comment, but only on the MMs. Coments close on 5th September.
HRA has sent an email to Theresa May asking that she will have the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government rule that we can once again comment on all aspects of the Plan.
The email has several attachments, some of which have other attachments so it is difficult to advise of all of it here.
The text of the main email is available as a PDF document at the left hand button below.
The middle button gives a JPG of a letter to the Maidenhead Advertiser.
The right button gives a PDF of a Bray Parish Council flyer urging residents to comment on the Plan.
RBWM Local Plan as of 28th October 2019
The RBWM Local Development Plan having been on hold for some time, it has re-emerged as of week commencing 21st October 2019. Bray Parish Council have provided a copy of their comments on the plan made some time ago. That document may be downloaded from the appropriate button below.
Regarding the Bray Parish Council comments, in the second paragraph they refer to the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan - which had been sent to RBWM. Since then prior to the plan being taken to referendum stage, RBWM wanted some changes to the plan to incorporate comments made by the inspector. Bray Parish Council and RBWM had several meetings but agreement could not be reached regarding a clause in the Bray Plan protecting the “Green Gaps”. RBWM wanted it removed. Bray Parish Council refused and BPC councillors voted to not take the plan on to referendum. The Bray Plan is therefore stalled.
Also local RBWM Councillor Leo Walters provided text that he has sent to the Managing Director of RBWM, and to the Head of Planning and the Lead Member for Planning. In his text he writes strongly against one aspect of the plan - that being to develop the land known as "The Triangle", between the M4, A308(M) and the A330. His text may be downloaded from the appropriate button below.
Regarding the Bray Parish Council comments, in the second paragraph they refer to the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan - which had been sent to RBWM. Since then prior to the plan being taken to referendum stage, RBWM wanted some changes to the plan to incorporate comments made by the inspector. Bray Parish Council and RBWM had several meetings but agreement could not be reached regarding a clause in the Bray Plan protecting the “Green Gaps”. RBWM wanted it removed. Bray Parish Council refused and BPC councillors voted to not take the plan on to referendum. The Bray Plan is therefore stalled.
Also local RBWM Councillor Leo Walters provided text that he has sent to the Managing Director of RBWM, and to the Head of Planning and the Lead Member for Planning. In his text he writes strongly against one aspect of the plan - that being to develop the land known as "The Triangle", between the M4, A308(M) and the A330. His text may be downloaded from the appropriate button below.
RBWM Residents Action Group letters to Government and RBWM
The following email was received on 31st January 2018 from the RBWM Residents Action Group. (I added the * and # to indicate the buttons below the email from which the letters may be downloaded.)
QUOTE
Despite our best attempts, communication between RBWM residents & council is at its worst. Our communication is conducted either via FOI requests, legal route or through Central Government. This is not the way local government should be functioning & not the relationship we want to have!
Yesterday, we sent out two open letters;
We will keep you all posted on any response as and when we receive it.
This is absolutely not the relationship we wanted to have with our Councillors & it saddens us that it has deteriorated to this level.
Our understanding is that the Council will be making their submissions for the proposed BLP to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local government by the end of this week, we will keep you updated as things develop. Despite our efforts to sit down and resolve the serious concerns in the plan with our Council and despite DCLG offering to mediate between residents and the Council (which the Council turned down), it sadly seems that the only way we will be able to stop this plan which has no vision, no character, no proper infrastructure plan, lacks affordable housing etc is by challenging it Legally. - It seems our Councillors are quite happy for us, their residents to use their money to fight the Council (who will also be using our money!)
Kind Regards
RBWM Residents Action Group
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Despite our best attempts, communication between RBWM residents & council is at its worst. Our communication is conducted either via FOI requests, legal route or through Central Government. This is not the way local government should be functioning & not the relationship we want to have!
Yesterday, we sent out two open letters;
- The first one was to the Minister of Housing, Dominic Raab highlighting our concerns not only around affordable housing & overall proposed housing development (BLP) but also on the breakdown of trust & communication between residents & Council. A copy of that letter is *
- The second letter is a formal complaint to the Monitoring Officer against Cabinet Lead Cllr McWilliams. This open letter is also available #
We will keep you all posted on any response as and when we receive it.
This is absolutely not the relationship we wanted to have with our Councillors & it saddens us that it has deteriorated to this level.
Our understanding is that the Council will be making their submissions for the proposed BLP to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local government by the end of this week, we will keep you updated as things develop. Despite our efforts to sit down and resolve the serious concerns in the plan with our Council and despite DCLG offering to mediate between residents and the Council (which the Council turned down), it sadly seems that the only way we will be able to stop this plan which has no vision, no character, no proper infrastructure plan, lacks affordable housing etc is by challenging it Legally. - It seems our Councillors are quite happy for us, their residents to use their money to fight the Council (who will also be using our money!)
Kind Regards
RBWM Residents Action Group
UNQUOTE
Other's Comments on RBWM local Development Plan 2017 Submission Version
The RBWM Resident Action Group, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and the London Green Belt Council have each submitted comments on the RBWM Local Development Plan 2107 Submission Version.
The RBWM RAG comments are in excess of 650 pages!
The executive summary of the RBWM RAG comments and the comments of the CPRE and the LGBC are downloadable below.
The RBWM RAG comments are in excess of 650 pages!
The executive summary of the RBWM RAG comments and the comments of the CPRE and the LGBC are downloadable below.
| reg19_response_from_bpcbnphpcowpcownpassnpdgbagfraogfrarragraraspaesportsable_executive_summary.pdf |
| 2017_cpre_berkshire_rbwm_submission__1_.pdf |
| london_green_belt_council_response_to_rbwm_local_plan_27_09_17.pdf |
Comments on the RBWM Local Development Plan 2017 Submission Version
Writing on my own behalf, I, Andrew Cormie show below as a PDF file my comments on the Submission Version of the RBWM Local Development Plan - sent by email to RBWM on 26th September 2017 at 1504hrs.
If anyone wishes to make use of it, I believe this could be done by downloading it and forwarding it from your own email system, stating that you have read it and agree with all that I have said and would like to re-submit it as representative of your own views.
You would also have to give your name, address - and telephone number if any.
The email address to send to is blp@rbwm.gov.uk
Must be received by 5pm - in case of last minute rush I suggest send by 3pm.
If anyone wishes to make use of it, I believe this could be done by downloading it and forwarding it from your own email system, stating that you have read it and agree with all that I have said and would like to re-submit it as representative of your own views.
You would also have to give your name, address - and telephone number if any.
The email address to send to is blp@rbwm.gov.uk
Must be received by 5pm - in case of last minute rush I suggest send by 3pm.
| ac_comments_rbwm_2017_sub_ver_ldp.pdf |
THE PETITION TO STOP AND START THE PLAN
Thank you so much all of you who signed the petion petitions.rbwm.gov.uk/PLANSTOPANDSTART/
Writing this on 9th August 2017 it appears that RBWM Council have agreed that a meeting will take place on 15th August at 7:00 PM where certain problems about the RBWM Regulation 19 Consultation on the Local Plan will be aired.
The presentation document is Overview&ScrutinyPresentation and it has attachment documents as follows;
1 Council_News_170802.pdf
2 Council_Reg19_170804.pdf
3 RepresentationFormGuidelines.pdf
4 From_Cllr_D_Wilson_170621.pdf
5a Council_HRA_a_170627.pdf
5b Council_HRA_b_170627.pdf
There are two more documents consisting of emails between Andrew Cormie and RBWM Head of Planning, but RBWM tell me I cannot publish them.
This due to the presence of the following text;
**********************************************************************
This message is personal to and intended for the exclusive use of the named addressee only. It may contain material protected by legal or other privilege (laws restricting its use). If this message reaches you in error we apologise.
You must not save it, print it, forward it, act on it, or tell anyone anything about it. Please always tell us about this error by returning the email, then deleting the email and your reply.
All emails received and sent by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and other legislation, and may therefore be disclosed to a third party. Any views or opinions in this email are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the Royal Borough.
We also have partnerships with third parties (including Optalis, a local authority trading company part owned by and providing adult social care on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead). The content of any emails sent by employees of these partners remain their responsibility, and are not the Royal Borough's responsibility.
All emails sent by the Royal Borough are checked for viruses, but this does not constitute a guarantee that they are virus-free.
Thank you http://www.rbwm.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
The email from Cllr Wilson was not sent from his RBWM email address and did not contain the above text that RBWM relies upon to prevent publication. Further, I have deleted his email address so in my view it may be published.
There is inconsistency in RBWM's use of the above text. For instance in both of the documents 1 and 2 above, the text also appears. But Document 1 is a news release so the content is obviously meant to be read by anyone. Document 2 is an email sent to all who took part in the Consultation so it is hardly a secret. I trust that RBWM will not prosecute me for publishing these here!
RBWM need to revise their procedures.
The PDF documents shown above may be downloaded as shown below
Writing this on 9th August 2017 it appears that RBWM Council have agreed that a meeting will take place on 15th August at 7:00 PM where certain problems about the RBWM Regulation 19 Consultation on the Local Plan will be aired.
The presentation document is Overview&ScrutinyPresentation and it has attachment documents as follows;
1 Council_News_170802.pdf
2 Council_Reg19_170804.pdf
3 RepresentationFormGuidelines.pdf
4 From_Cllr_D_Wilson_170621.pdf
5a Council_HRA_a_170627.pdf
5b Council_HRA_b_170627.pdf
There are two more documents consisting of emails between Andrew Cormie and RBWM Head of Planning, but RBWM tell me I cannot publish them.
This due to the presence of the following text;
**********************************************************************
This message is personal to and intended for the exclusive use of the named addressee only. It may contain material protected by legal or other privilege (laws restricting its use). If this message reaches you in error we apologise.
You must not save it, print it, forward it, act on it, or tell anyone anything about it. Please always tell us about this error by returning the email, then deleting the email and your reply.
All emails received and sent by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and other legislation, and may therefore be disclosed to a third party. Any views or opinions in this email are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the Royal Borough.
We also have partnerships with third parties (including Optalis, a local authority trading company part owned by and providing adult social care on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead). The content of any emails sent by employees of these partners remain their responsibility, and are not the Royal Borough's responsibility.
All emails sent by the Royal Borough are checked for viruses, but this does not constitute a guarantee that they are virus-free.
Thank you http://www.rbwm.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
The email from Cllr Wilson was not sent from his RBWM email address and did not contain the above text that RBWM relies upon to prevent publication. Further, I have deleted his email address so in my view it may be published.
There is inconsistency in RBWM's use of the above text. For instance in both of the documents 1 and 2 above, the text also appears. But Document 1 is a news release so the content is obviously meant to be read by anyone. Document 2 is an email sent to all who took part in the Consultation so it is hardly a secret. I trust that RBWM will not prosecute me for publishing these here!
RBWM need to revise their procedures.
The PDF documents shown above may be downloaded as shown below
| overview_scrutinypresentation.pdf |
| council_news_170802.pdf |
| council_reg19_170804.pdf |
| representation_form_guidelines.pdf |
| from_cllr_d_wilson_170621.pdf |
| council_hra_a_170627.pdf |
| council_hra_b_170627.pdf |
THIS PAGE WILL INCLUDE NEWSPAPER CUTTINGS FROM THE MAIDENHEAD ADVERTISER AND MAYBE OTHER PAPERS - LOTS ADDED ON 20th JUNE 2017 - AND THROUGH THESE WILL SHOW A HISTORY OF THE RBWM LOCAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AS SEEN BY RESIDENTS OF THE BOROUGH - CUTTINGS ADDED IN DATE ORDER - NEWEST AT THE TOP.
See more (earlier) comment on the Borough Local Development Plan in the BLOG page.
Maidenhead Advertiser Newspaper Cuttings
Relevant Newspaper Cuttings are becoming so numerous that instead of showing them directly I append below as PDF files. The file names contain the date in reverse; i.e. 170629, means 29th June 2017, (from the 29th June issue of the Maidenhead Advertiser - or sometimes another newspaper.)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Concern about RBWM Council's attempt to limit comments on their Local Development Plan
Due to the concerns I show in the article below this one, I have written to Theresa May as shown in the PDF made available below.
| 170703ac_tm.pdf |
I have also written to the Maidenhead Advertiser as in the PDF below this note.
| 170703ac_ma.pdf |
The following document is a letter from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, replying to mine to Theresa May above "170703ac_tm.pdf" advising that there is no limitation at the second stage - (so-called Regulation 19) as to what topics of a Local Development Plan residents may comment upon. This is contrary to RBWM advice to residents. Their advice unlawfully attempts to limit Residents comments.
The PDF file of newspaper cuttings above "170713planconsulterrors.pdf" contrasts newspaper report of RBWM statements with the truth by the Secretary of State.
The PDF file of newspaper cuttings above "170713planconsulterrors.pdf" contrasts newspaper report of RBWM statements with the truth by the Secretary of State.
| 170717_ref_3413065.pdf |
On 21st July 2017 I placed a petition on the RBWM Website at the following link;
petitions.rbwm.gov.uk/PLANSTOPANDSTART/
I hope that at least 100 people will sign it, as then we will have the matter of the unlawful misdirection of the public as to what they may comment upon in the so-called Regulation 19 Consultation on the Local Development Plan discussed at an RBWM Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
petitions.rbwm.gov.uk/PLANSTOPANDSTART/
I hope that at least 100 people will sign it, as then we will have the matter of the unlawful misdirection of the public as to what they may comment upon in the so-called Regulation 19 Consultation on the Local Development Plan discussed at an RBWM Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
RBWM has invited HRA to comment on their Local Development Plan
RBWM's Local Development Plan has now moved on to the stage where it has to be presented to the public for consultation at its second stage, the so-called Regulation 19 consultation.
HRA received a letter inviting our comments. This is new as we received no such letter inviting our comments at the Regulation 18 stage (First Stage of the consultation). Of course since the first stage there has been much complaint about RBWM failing to consult with many bodies. So it appears that NOW RBWM is making an effort to consult with all such bodies including the HRA.
The letter includes the following text;
Representations may be made between Friday 30 June 2017 up to 17:00 on Friday 25 August 2017 with regard to:
All representations received will be submitted to the Secretary of State and considered as part of an independent Examination by a Planning Inspector. These must be received at our offices no later than 17:00 on Friday 25 August 2017.
Only representations received within this period have a statutory right to be considered by the Planning Inspector at the subsequent Examination in Public. Late submissions will not be accepted.
From the above, we see that RBWM wish to limit our comments, but it seems from the law on this that one is free to comment whatever one wishes at Regulation 19 and 20, the same as one could comment at Regulation 18. If you commented at Regulation 18 (the first stage) and you see that RBWM have not incorporated your comments, you should comment the same again.
Further, as RBWM say that ONLY REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED WITHIN THIS PERIOD HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING INSPECTOR AT THE SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC this is a further reason why one would wish to make full comments at this stage.
PDF copies of the RBWM letter to HRA can be downloaded from the following buttons;
HRA received a letter inviting our comments. This is new as we received no such letter inviting our comments at the Regulation 18 stage (First Stage of the consultation). Of course since the first stage there has been much complaint about RBWM failing to consult with many bodies. So it appears that NOW RBWM is making an effort to consult with all such bodies including the HRA.
The letter includes the following text;
Representations may be made between Friday 30 June 2017 up to 17:00 on Friday 25 August 2017 with regard to:
- Whether or not the plan is legally compliant (including Duty to Cooperate);
- Whether it has met the tests of soundness:
- Positively prepared - being based on a strategy that aims to meet objectively assessed needs for development and infrastructure
- Justified - being the most appropriate strategy
- Effective - being deliverable over the plan period based on effective joint working
- Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF
All representations received will be submitted to the Secretary of State and considered as part of an independent Examination by a Planning Inspector. These must be received at our offices no later than 17:00 on Friday 25 August 2017.
Only representations received within this period have a statutory right to be considered by the Planning Inspector at the subsequent Examination in Public. Late submissions will not be accepted.
From the above, we see that RBWM wish to limit our comments, but it seems from the law on this that one is free to comment whatever one wishes at Regulation 19 and 20, the same as one could comment at Regulation 18. If you commented at Regulation 18 (the first stage) and you see that RBWM have not incorporated your comments, you should comment the same again.
Further, as RBWM say that ONLY REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED WITHIN THIS PERIOD HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING INSPECTOR AT THE SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC this is a further reason why one would wish to make full comments at this stage.
PDF copies of the RBWM letter to HRA can be downloaded from the following buttons;
|
|
||||
It is interesting to note that in addition to the letter received by HRA, an email of a similar but not identical letter was received by your Chairman addressed to him as an individual who had previously responded. There was also a further such emailed letter received by the Chairman's wife because she had previously commented.
The one received by Chairman and wife as individuals additionally includes this;
Please note that representations must be attributable to named individuals or organisations. They will be available for public inspection on our Portal and Borough website and cannot be treated as confidential.
But not this, which was in the letter to HRA;
All representations received will be submitted to the Secretary of State and considered as part of an independent Examination by a Planning Inspector. These must be received at our offices no later than 17:00 on Friday 25 August 2017.
Only representations received within this period have a statutory right to be considered by the Planning Inspector at the subsequent Examination in Public. Late submissions will not be accepted.
The letter received by HRA mentions that HRA had previously commented on a consultation. That comment by HRA was for the Edge of Settlement Analysis which was part of an ongoing Local Development Plan consideration and took place in 2014. The comments of HRA together with those of the Holyport Preservation Society can be seen elsewhere on this website at the following URL www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/local-plan-2014-hra-to-rbwm.html
Our comments at that time may have contributed to RBWM's decision in February 2015 that their then Local Development Plan would not allow building on many Green Belt areas including the area between Holyport Road, Ascot Road, Aysgarth Park and old Holyport; and the "Triangle" area, between M4, A330 and A308(M). RBWM's decision on that may be seen at the following URL;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/meetings_150218_borough_local_plan_update.pdf
The above decision has of course been relegated to history as, according to RBWM's Cllr Derek Wilson;
"Government intervention will happen to those authorities that do not have a post-2004 Local Plan, if we do not submit an up to date Local Plan in 2017. The Planning Inspector stated within his report dated 3rd October 2007 on the Examination held on the last Local Plan submission that the boundaries of Green Belt should be reviewed."
Cllr Wilson's email letter to me may be seen at this URL;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/djw_ac170621.pdf
That email to me purports to be a response requested by Theresa May's office in response to my email to her shown here;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/email_t_may.pdf
And my comments to Theresa May regarding Cllr Wilson's email are shown here;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/ac_tmay170621.pdf
in which I advise that I await a response from Theresa May.
Regarding HRA comments on the current Borough Local Development Plan, HRA has insufficient resources to progress a full survey of Holyport Area residents as we did in 2014. So the Chairman made an individual response in which he referred to the survey results of 2014, claiming that the mandate provided then is still valid. (as residents feedback has always been positive in favour of Green Belt protection). That response can be seen here;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/ac_comments_rbwm_2016_local_plan.pdf
At present the current Local Development Plan still is not allowing building on the Holyport Road, Ascot Road site, and just recently has postponed any building proposals for the Triangle. It does however, propose building on the Green Belt floodplain area between the A308 and Bray Lake.
A note about RBWM recognition of HRA.
We are in the process of asking RBWM to recognize HRA as a Residents Association.
This request is partly due to the fact that we were not invited to comment at the Regulation 18 stage. We believed that maybe we could not complain about not being consulted because we knew that RBWM had not formally recognized our existence. Also - we did not know that we had to ask RBWM to recognize us. RBWM had acknowledged receipt of our 2014 Local Development Plan comments.
In the process of requesting recognition, we have been made aware of what we believe to be an incorrect stance by RBWM.
They say that even if the HRA is recognized by them, we are not allowed to speak as an organization at a RBWM Planning Management meeting unless the area in which we exist is covered by a Neighbourhood Development Plan recognized by RBWM.
Since there is no legal requirement that any area should actually have a Neighbourhood Development Plan we cannot see how this stance can be legal or correct.
Residents may know that the Bray Parish Council has created a Neighbourhood Development Plan and has submitted it to RBWM.
It has to go through a few more stages before it is established;
1. It has to be agreeable to RBWM. --- RBWM have so far (as of 30 June 2017) not agreed it.
2. It has to be accepted by a Government Inspector.
3. It has to be put to a consultation of residents of Bray Parish, at which over 50% of those who vote must be in favour of it.
(Note re point 3, that as the participation rate for public consultations is notoriously low - (of the order of 1% for the last RBWM Local Development Plan consultation), we could find that the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan is approved or defeated by a mere 0.505% of the population of Bray Parish.)
Note re Point 1 that it seems that the reason that the Bray Parish Council Neighbourhood Development Plan has not been agreed by RBWM may be because it wants to preserve as Green belt, land that RBWM wants to allow to be developed.
It is important to be aware that the law states to the effect that a Neighbourhood Development Plan may promote for development, land in addition to that promoted by a Borough Local Development Plan, but may NEVER seek to stop development required in a Borough Local Development Plan.
The one received by Chairman and wife as individuals additionally includes this;
Please note that representations must be attributable to named individuals or organisations. They will be available for public inspection on our Portal and Borough website and cannot be treated as confidential.
But not this, which was in the letter to HRA;
All representations received will be submitted to the Secretary of State and considered as part of an independent Examination by a Planning Inspector. These must be received at our offices no later than 17:00 on Friday 25 August 2017.
Only representations received within this period have a statutory right to be considered by the Planning Inspector at the subsequent Examination in Public. Late submissions will not be accepted.
The letter received by HRA mentions that HRA had previously commented on a consultation. That comment by HRA was for the Edge of Settlement Analysis which was part of an ongoing Local Development Plan consideration and took place in 2014. The comments of HRA together with those of the Holyport Preservation Society can be seen elsewhere on this website at the following URL www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/local-plan-2014-hra-to-rbwm.html
Our comments at that time may have contributed to RBWM's decision in February 2015 that their then Local Development Plan would not allow building on many Green Belt areas including the area between Holyport Road, Ascot Road, Aysgarth Park and old Holyport; and the "Triangle" area, between M4, A330 and A308(M). RBWM's decision on that may be seen at the following URL;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/meetings_150218_borough_local_plan_update.pdf
The above decision has of course been relegated to history as, according to RBWM's Cllr Derek Wilson;
"Government intervention will happen to those authorities that do not have a post-2004 Local Plan, if we do not submit an up to date Local Plan in 2017. The Planning Inspector stated within his report dated 3rd October 2007 on the Examination held on the last Local Plan submission that the boundaries of Green Belt should be reviewed."
Cllr Wilson's email letter to me may be seen at this URL;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/djw_ac170621.pdf
That email to me purports to be a response requested by Theresa May's office in response to my email to her shown here;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/email_t_may.pdf
And my comments to Theresa May regarding Cllr Wilson's email are shown here;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/ac_tmay170621.pdf
in which I advise that I await a response from Theresa May.
Regarding HRA comments on the current Borough Local Development Plan, HRA has insufficient resources to progress a full survey of Holyport Area residents as we did in 2014. So the Chairman made an individual response in which he referred to the survey results of 2014, claiming that the mandate provided then is still valid. (as residents feedback has always been positive in favour of Green Belt protection). That response can be seen here;
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/ac_comments_rbwm_2016_local_plan.pdf
At present the current Local Development Plan still is not allowing building on the Holyport Road, Ascot Road site, and just recently has postponed any building proposals for the Triangle. It does however, propose building on the Green Belt floodplain area between the A308 and Bray Lake.
A note about RBWM recognition of HRA.
We are in the process of asking RBWM to recognize HRA as a Residents Association.
This request is partly due to the fact that we were not invited to comment at the Regulation 18 stage. We believed that maybe we could not complain about not being consulted because we knew that RBWM had not formally recognized our existence. Also - we did not know that we had to ask RBWM to recognize us. RBWM had acknowledged receipt of our 2014 Local Development Plan comments.
In the process of requesting recognition, we have been made aware of what we believe to be an incorrect stance by RBWM.
They say that even if the HRA is recognized by them, we are not allowed to speak as an organization at a RBWM Planning Management meeting unless the area in which we exist is covered by a Neighbourhood Development Plan recognized by RBWM.
Since there is no legal requirement that any area should actually have a Neighbourhood Development Plan we cannot see how this stance can be legal or correct.
Residents may know that the Bray Parish Council has created a Neighbourhood Development Plan and has submitted it to RBWM.
It has to go through a few more stages before it is established;
1. It has to be agreeable to RBWM. --- RBWM have so far (as of 30 June 2017) not agreed it.
2. It has to be accepted by a Government Inspector.
3. It has to be put to a consultation of residents of Bray Parish, at which over 50% of those who vote must be in favour of it.
(Note re point 3, that as the participation rate for public consultations is notoriously low - (of the order of 1% for the last RBWM Local Development Plan consultation), we could find that the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan is approved or defeated by a mere 0.505% of the population of Bray Parish.)
Note re Point 1 that it seems that the reason that the Bray Parish Council Neighbourhood Development Plan has not been agreed by RBWM may be because it wants to preserve as Green belt, land that RBWM wants to allow to be developed.
It is important to be aware that the law states to the effect that a Neighbourhood Development Plan may promote for development, land in addition to that promoted by a Borough Local Development Plan, but may NEVER seek to stop development required in a Borough Local Development Plan.
The RBWM Local Dev. Plan Council Meeting on 19th June 2017
I attended the Council meeting on the evening of 19th June 2017 together with maybe 300 residents. The main seating area for residents was full and so was the upstairs room where I went at first. But the sound broadcast to the upper room was hopeless, so many of us went downstairs where we were barred from entry. But in a little while, for some reason many people came out, so some of us at least could get in.
Disappointingly, there was a majority of Councillors in favour of the Local Development Plan at its current stage.
There were 33 votes for it and 10 against.
For our Bray Ward, Councillor Leo Walters supported us by speaking and voting against. Thank you Leo for that. See more from Leo in his letter below - together with another from Paul Serjeant of Windsor Road
Disappointingly, there was a majority of Councillors in favour of the Local Development Plan at its current stage.
There were 33 votes for it and 10 against.
For our Bray Ward, Councillor Leo Walters supported us by speaking and voting against. Thank you Leo for that. See more from Leo in his letter below - together with another from Paul Serjeant of Windsor Road
Earlier this week
The other Bray Ward Councillors - Cllr David Coppinger did not speak and he voted for the plan.
Cllr David Burbage had declared an interest so could not vote. He did not speak - I do not know if he was present.
Whatever Cllr Burbage's interest is was not mentioned as far as I know - but one supposes he may have land that he has offered for development - if this is the case then we can see what side he would be on.
I think 30 Councillors spoke. It was difficult to hear their names as the Mayor called the names before the clapping or booing from the audience for the previous speaker had subsided.
One major event was that Cllr Stretton resigned from the Conservative whip and moved to the Independent bench. She referred to the 1500+ signature petition against the plan, and that there had been no Green Belt Review - why was this? - had they run out of time? - not so. Accused Cllr Wilson of not doing a proper job. The latter stood up and denied that. Cllr Stretton referred to a Local Plan Working Group whose review meetings had been stopped - no further debate - Cllrs told that they must accept - Highways issue is a problem - thinks that the Inspector will find the plan unsound. She referred to Sajid Javid having stated in parliament that Green Belt is sacrosanct. Asked why would the same government department that RBWM says would take over our planning if their inspector rejects the plan be currently willing to mediate between RBWM and residents groups? And this offer had been rejected. She can no longer support and will not be muzzled. Then resigned.
Earlier this week Cllr Hollingsworth resigned the Conservative whip.
The following link shows something on Sajid Javid.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4192386/Sajid-Javid-accused-failing-protect-UK-s-Green-Belt.html
The next one links to the West Windsor Residents Association website, which is far superior to this one and has great information from Cllr Wisdom DaCosta.
www.wwra.org.uk/blog-post/trouble-in-paradise-rbwm-local-plan/5286
The following remarks by the editor of the Maidenhead Advertiser are very relevant
Leaflets against the Local Development Plan
The following leaflets were received on the morning of 19th June 2017
RBWM failing to apply Green Belt protection planning guidance!!!!!!!!
For immediate release
Call 020 7981 2861 for further information
8 May 2017
Councils failing to protect countryside in growth plans
CPRE research finds Green Belt and AONB at risk from local authority growth ambitions
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) today shows that councils are failing to apply planning guidance that is designed to protect precious countryside.
Councils are expected by Government to establish and have a plan to meet an 'Objectively Assessed Need' (OAN) for housing in their area, which takes into account issues such as projected population growth and future employment opportunities. Yet planning rules also state that this number should take into account constraints such as protected countryside.
CPRE research today shows that, since 2012, 24 councils out of the 62 local authorities for which there is clear data have heeded national policy and established housing targets in approved local plans lower than their OAN, with the majority reducing their targets due to environmental or countryside constraints. These include Chichester, Lewes and Wealden. Chichester reduced its target by 23% and Lewes by 30%. Other local authorities, such as Brighton, Watford, Hastings and Crawley, have reduced their targets by 50% or more (see Fig 1 below).
Other councils, however, have pursued the full OAN despite a high proportion of their land being protected countryside. In East Devon, the planning inspector accepted the local authority’s contention that OAN of 17,100 houses should be met in full because of high expected levels of job creation in the district. In Christchurch and East Dorset, where the local plan meets the objectively assessed need for 8,490 houses over 15 years in full, 84% of the area of the plan is covered by Green Belt, AONB and nature conservation land.
CPRE finds that this approach is continuing elsewhere (see Fig 2 below). For example, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, part of which is covered by the Prime Minister's constituency, is pursuing their full OAN target of 14,000 houses over 20 years despite 84% of the land being Green Belt. In Mid Sussex, the planning inspector has been reported as forcing the council to accept a number even higher than their OAN of 876 houses per year to help Crawley meet their 'unmet need'. Mid Sussex has significant areas of precious countryside, particularly the High Weald AONB. Neighbouring authorities, particularly Wealden which has a similar proportion of protected land, have been able to reduce their housing targets. Campaigners and local MPs have long fought a consortium of developers who have argued for a still higher housing target.
CPRE's planning campaign manager Paul Miner comments:
"Government planning rules state that councils should reduce their numbers if faced with significant constraints. A number of councils around the country have done just this. One has to ask, therefore, why the Government is allowing councils to ignore national guidance in places such as Maidenhead.
"We need to build more genuinely affordable homes. But current rules promote urban sprawl and cause the unnecessary loss of countryside. A more transparent and less damaging method of planning for housing is urgently needed."
Government ministers recently pledged to create a new method for councils to calculate their Objectively Assessed Need. The proposals were expected in early summer, but the General Election is believed to have delayed their release. CPRE is calling for a method that better reflects local need, protected countryside and current building rates.
CPRE's new research follows previous work by consultants Lichfields, who in 2016 found a further seven councils that reduced OAN due to constraints or adverse impacts (p. 15: link). Added to CPRE's work, this would total more than 30 councils that have reduced their housing targets, most often on environmental grounds.
NOTE BY ANDREW CORMIE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINS HERE TWO TABLES (Figures 1 and 2) WHICH I CANNOT GET THIS WEBSITE TO DISPLAY CORRECTLY. TO READ THEM YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PDF COPY FROM THE BUTTON AFTER THE CPRE TEXT. I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE RED HIGHLIGHTING ABOVE WAS ADDED BY ME.
If you have any questions please contact Jane Seymour on 0207 981 2861.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) fights for a better future for the English countryside. We work locally and nationally to protect, shape and enhance a beautiful, thriving countryside for everyone to value and enjoy. Our members are united in their love for England’s landscapes and rural communities, and stand up for the countryside, so it can continue to sustain, enchant and inspire future generations. Founded in 1926, President: Emma Bridgewater, Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk
Call 020 7981 2861 for further information
8 May 2017
Councils failing to protect countryside in growth plans
CPRE research finds Green Belt and AONB at risk from local authority growth ambitions
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) today shows that councils are failing to apply planning guidance that is designed to protect precious countryside.
Councils are expected by Government to establish and have a plan to meet an 'Objectively Assessed Need' (OAN) for housing in their area, which takes into account issues such as projected population growth and future employment opportunities. Yet planning rules also state that this number should take into account constraints such as protected countryside.
CPRE research today shows that, since 2012, 24 councils out of the 62 local authorities for which there is clear data have heeded national policy and established housing targets in approved local plans lower than their OAN, with the majority reducing their targets due to environmental or countryside constraints. These include Chichester, Lewes and Wealden. Chichester reduced its target by 23% and Lewes by 30%. Other local authorities, such as Brighton, Watford, Hastings and Crawley, have reduced their targets by 50% or more (see Fig 1 below).
Other councils, however, have pursued the full OAN despite a high proportion of their land being protected countryside. In East Devon, the planning inspector accepted the local authority’s contention that OAN of 17,100 houses should be met in full because of high expected levels of job creation in the district. In Christchurch and East Dorset, where the local plan meets the objectively assessed need for 8,490 houses over 15 years in full, 84% of the area of the plan is covered by Green Belt, AONB and nature conservation land.
CPRE finds that this approach is continuing elsewhere (see Fig 2 below). For example, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, part of which is covered by the Prime Minister's constituency, is pursuing their full OAN target of 14,000 houses over 20 years despite 84% of the land being Green Belt. In Mid Sussex, the planning inspector has been reported as forcing the council to accept a number even higher than their OAN of 876 houses per year to help Crawley meet their 'unmet need'. Mid Sussex has significant areas of precious countryside, particularly the High Weald AONB. Neighbouring authorities, particularly Wealden which has a similar proportion of protected land, have been able to reduce their housing targets. Campaigners and local MPs have long fought a consortium of developers who have argued for a still higher housing target.
CPRE's planning campaign manager Paul Miner comments:
"Government planning rules state that councils should reduce their numbers if faced with significant constraints. A number of councils around the country have done just this. One has to ask, therefore, why the Government is allowing councils to ignore national guidance in places such as Maidenhead.
"We need to build more genuinely affordable homes. But current rules promote urban sprawl and cause the unnecessary loss of countryside. A more transparent and less damaging method of planning for housing is urgently needed."
Government ministers recently pledged to create a new method for councils to calculate their Objectively Assessed Need. The proposals were expected in early summer, but the General Election is believed to have delayed their release. CPRE is calling for a method that better reflects local need, protected countryside and current building rates.
CPRE's new research follows previous work by consultants Lichfields, who in 2016 found a further seven councils that reduced OAN due to constraints or adverse impacts (p. 15: link). Added to CPRE's work, this would total more than 30 councils that have reduced their housing targets, most often on environmental grounds.
NOTE BY ANDREW CORMIE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINS HERE TWO TABLES (Figures 1 and 2) WHICH I CANNOT GET THIS WEBSITE TO DISPLAY CORRECTLY. TO READ THEM YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PDF COPY FROM THE BUTTON AFTER THE CPRE TEXT. I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE RED HIGHLIGHTING ABOVE WAS ADDED BY ME.
If you have any questions please contact Jane Seymour on 0207 981 2861.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) fights for a better future for the English countryside. We work locally and nationally to protect, shape and enhance a beautiful, thriving countryside for everyone to value and enjoy. Our members are united in their love for England’s landscapes and rural communities, and stand up for the countryside, so it can continue to sustain, enchant and inspire future generations. Founded in 1926, President: Emma Bridgewater, Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk
Criticism of RBWM attitude in pandering to Central Government
I was delighted to read the article by Ben Webster in The Times on Monday, May 8th 2017 titled;
Councils "ignore powers to limit housebuilding on the green belt"
A copy of it follows below.
I say I am delighted, but I am saddened that activity exists such as that being performed by RBWM in their attack on green belt.
The article quotes that that some Councils such as RBWM - led by Simon Dudley are allowing and promoting the concept of meeting the full objectively assessed need (OAN) for homes by building in green belt, whereas other councils with similar green belt act properly on behalf of their residents by setting a target of half of the OAN.
Clearly Councils with green belt do not have to accept the full OAN. The article also highlights the "new homes bonus", a bribe by Central Government to pay a council about £9000 for each new home they allow.
Bray Parish is having to bear a disproportionate amount of green belt desecration, even though four of the Bray Parish Councillors are also RBWM Councillors. These four include the RBWM Council Leader and the RBWM Lead Member for Planning.
It is unfortunate that RBWM Borough Councillors are allowed to be Bray Parish Councillors. It is especially bad when the Borough Council's stance is in opposition to the Parish Council stance.
Surely a person elected to a Parish Council should have such integrity and principles as will oblige him or her to act as an individual on behalf of and in the best interests of his or her Parish electors - even when that person is also a Borough Councillor. Anyone who cannot act in that way has no business being a Bray Parish Councillor.
Even if the RBWM policy is against the best interests of the Parish electors then electors should still be able to count upon the RBWM Councillor who is also a Bray Parish Councillor, to act in the best interests of Bray Parish.
The second stage consultation on the RBWM Local Development Plan (LDP) will open in June and contrary to RBWM assertions, you may comment on any aspect of the LDP.
Councils "ignore powers to limit housebuilding on the green belt"
A copy of it follows below.
I say I am delighted, but I am saddened that activity exists such as that being performed by RBWM in their attack on green belt.
The article quotes that that some Councils such as RBWM - led by Simon Dudley are allowing and promoting the concept of meeting the full objectively assessed need (OAN) for homes by building in green belt, whereas other councils with similar green belt act properly on behalf of their residents by setting a target of half of the OAN.
Clearly Councils with green belt do not have to accept the full OAN. The article also highlights the "new homes bonus", a bribe by Central Government to pay a council about £9000 for each new home they allow.
Bray Parish is having to bear a disproportionate amount of green belt desecration, even though four of the Bray Parish Councillors are also RBWM Councillors. These four include the RBWM Council Leader and the RBWM Lead Member for Planning.
It is unfortunate that RBWM Borough Councillors are allowed to be Bray Parish Councillors. It is especially bad when the Borough Council's stance is in opposition to the Parish Council stance.
Surely a person elected to a Parish Council should have such integrity and principles as will oblige him or her to act as an individual on behalf of and in the best interests of his or her Parish electors - even when that person is also a Borough Councillor. Anyone who cannot act in that way has no business being a Bray Parish Councillor.
Even if the RBWM policy is against the best interests of the Parish electors then electors should still be able to count upon the RBWM Councillor who is also a Bray Parish Councillor, to act in the best interests of Bray Parish.
The second stage consultation on the RBWM Local Development Plan (LDP) will open in June and contrary to RBWM assertions, you may comment on any aspect of the LDP.
CPRE REPORT / COMMENTS ON THE HOUSING WHITE PAPER FEB 2017
CPRE, in case anyone is not aware is the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Periodically they issue a bulletin commenting on planning matters affecting Green Belt. There is a link to CPRE under our LINKS tab. The latest bulletin can be downloaded from the button below. Pages 9 and 10 show the proposed changes to the NPPF text re the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development and Definition of Affordable Housing.
RBWM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NEW IMPACT ON OUR GREENBELT
HRA Members and Friends of HRA who receive my periodic emails will know that on Friday 10th February 2017 evening some enthusiasts of protecting the Greenbelt, including myself, (Andrew Cormie), met to discuss what could be done to stop the "RBWM Greenbelt Destruction Juggernaut", which if allowed to continue will destroy most of the Maidenhead / Holyport Greenbelt lying between Maidenhead and Holyport, and between Fifield and Windsor.
Sadly, our discussion did not reveal any means by which we could "Stop The Juggernaut", but I still hope that some ideas will yet emerge.
In the meantime, I show below two articles from the Times of 13th February 2017.
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) forwarded these to me on 14th February 2017.
See the following link for more about CPRE;
http://www.cprelondon.org.uk/resources/item/2339-safe-under-us
I think that this following quote from RBWM Councillor Dudley in the first article below is perhaps the most telling remark and is key to the whole problem of Greenbelt Development. “Agricultural land is worth £15,000 to £20,000 an acre,” Simon Dudley, leader of Windsor and Maidenhead council, said. “Permitted development land is £4 million to £5 million an acre.”
Obviously most land owners are keen to maximize their profits, and once builders get land they keep it until its value becomes great enough for them to make sufficient profit.
Concrete skeletons rise in PM’s greenbelt heartland
Jerome Starkey, Countryside Correspondent
February 13 2017, 12:01am, The Times
Sadly, our discussion did not reveal any means by which we could "Stop The Juggernaut", but I still hope that some ideas will yet emerge.
In the meantime, I show below two articles from the Times of 13th February 2017.
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) forwarded these to me on 14th February 2017.
See the following link for more about CPRE;
http://www.cprelondon.org.uk/resources/item/2339-safe-under-us
I think that this following quote from RBWM Councillor Dudley in the first article below is perhaps the most telling remark and is key to the whole problem of Greenbelt Development. “Agricultural land is worth £15,000 to £20,000 an acre,” Simon Dudley, leader of Windsor and Maidenhead council, said. “Permitted development land is £4 million to £5 million an acre.”
Obviously most land owners are keen to maximize their profits, and once builders get land they keep it until its value becomes great enough for them to make sufficient profit.
Concrete skeletons rise in PM’s greenbelt heartland
Jerome Starkey, Countryside Correspondent
February 13 2017, 12:01am, The Times
The campaigners Pat Morrish and Ann Taylor look at development plans for a field on the outskirts of Windsor. Ms Moorish runs a psychiatric hospital near the site and said that the calm that her patients craved would be lost if 650 homes were built there RICHARD POHLE/The Times
Sandwiched between a sewage works and a supermarket on the outskirts of Maidenhead in the prime minister’s constituency sits an unlikely slab of green belt land.
A metal fence marks the field’s perimeter, where dustcarts queue to disgorge their cargo at a council tip. The grass, where cows once grazed, was turned into a car park 14 years ago. Now that has gone as well.
Rising in its place, amid the pools of freezing mud, are the reinforced concrete skeletons of 271 homes.
Sites like this, which have been safeguarded from urban sprawl for almost 80 years, will have to be built on more often, developers insist, if the government wants to solve a housing shortage with up to 275,000 new homes a year.
“We have to start looking at the bits of the green belt that are not green,” Alan Williams, head of development at the social housing company One Housing, said. Simply building on brownfield sites and increasing the density of existing settlements would not suffice, he said.
“Nobody would sensibly suggest that we should send bulldozers over the whole green belt and dig it up in its entirety, but an assessment needs to be made of whether it is all of equal value and worth saving.”
The housing white paper, published last Tuesday, promised to protect England’s 14 green belts, which were introduced in London in 1938 and extended to the rest of the country in 1955, but it also gave councils scope to redraw the boundaries when “all other reasonable options” were exhausted.
The car park, an area of 4.4 acres, was 400m from Maidenhead train station, which is due to connect to the Crossrail service in 2019, making it a valuable asset for Redrow, the developers. “Agricultural land is worth £15,000 to £20,000 an acre,” Simon Dudley, leader of Windsor and Maidenhead council, said. “Permitted development land is £4 million to £5 million an acre.”
Average house prices in the borough are more than 12 times average wages. The council wants to build 8,400 homes by 2033, to try to make homes more affordable, but at least 86 per cent of the land used will have to come from green belt fields and a golf course.
“Every house was new once,” Mr Dudley said. “Ultimately, the interests of the community are people not wanting to live with their parents when they are in their 20s and 30s, not struggling to pay their private rents. People want their own home.”
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said that there were proposals to build 360,000 homes on green belt land nationwide, which threatened its integrity.
“The crux of this is that not all the green belt is green,” said Mr Dudley in a site office overlooking the concrete pools of the water treatment plant.
“Some green belt is green belt, rolling hills, bucolic views. But some green belt has been built all over, or it’s a car park. The last thing I want to do is scythe up these beautiful fields, so what you do is use up sites like this first.”
His council’s plan suggests that there are not enough poor-quality green belt sites to meet demand. Only 8 per cent of the land earmarked for homes was classed as “previously developed” green belt land, including a train station car park in Ascot and a hospital built in 1922, before the green belt was created. In Theresa May’s constituency the figure was even lower. Only one and a quarter acres, out of 422 acres on which the council wants to build, was classed as previously developed.
Pat Morrish, who runs a psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of Windsor, said the calm that her patients craved would be lost if 650 homes were built in the fields next to her clinic, as the council plans.
Patrick Griffin, from the Berkshire branch of the CPRE, said the real risk was urban sprawl. He said Ms Morrish’s hospital could be engulfed if Slough spread into Windsor, which spread into Maidenhead.
Left unchecked London could look like Los Angeles, he said. “You can go 120 miles, from San Bernardino to Ventura, without seeing a single field.” The equivalent in the UK is going from Brighton to Cambridge.
RICHARD POHLE/The Times
Loophole opens way for green belt homes
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
February 13 2017, 12:01am, The Times
Sandwiched between a sewage works and a supermarket on the outskirts of Maidenhead in the prime minister’s constituency sits an unlikely slab of green belt land.
A metal fence marks the field’s perimeter, where dustcarts queue to disgorge their cargo at a council tip. The grass, where cows once grazed, was turned into a car park 14 years ago. Now that has gone as well.
Rising in its place, amid the pools of freezing mud, are the reinforced concrete skeletons of 271 homes.
Sites like this, which have been safeguarded from urban sprawl for almost 80 years, will have to be built on more often, developers insist, if the government wants to solve a housing shortage with up to 275,000 new homes a year.
“We have to start looking at the bits of the green belt that are not green,” Alan Williams, head of development at the social housing company One Housing, said. Simply building on brownfield sites and increasing the density of existing settlements would not suffice, he said.
“Nobody would sensibly suggest that we should send bulldozers over the whole green belt and dig it up in its entirety, but an assessment needs to be made of whether it is all of equal value and worth saving.”
The housing white paper, published last Tuesday, promised to protect England’s 14 green belts, which were introduced in London in 1938 and extended to the rest of the country in 1955, but it also gave councils scope to redraw the boundaries when “all other reasonable options” were exhausted.
The car park, an area of 4.4 acres, was 400m from Maidenhead train station, which is due to connect to the Crossrail service in 2019, making it a valuable asset for Redrow, the developers. “Agricultural land is worth £15,000 to £20,000 an acre,” Simon Dudley, leader of Windsor and Maidenhead council, said. “Permitted development land is £4 million to £5 million an acre.”
Average house prices in the borough are more than 12 times average wages. The council wants to build 8,400 homes by 2033, to try to make homes more affordable, but at least 86 per cent of the land used will have to come from green belt fields and a golf course.
“Every house was new once,” Mr Dudley said. “Ultimately, the interests of the community are people not wanting to live with their parents when they are in their 20s and 30s, not struggling to pay their private rents. People want their own home.”
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said that there were proposals to build 360,000 homes on green belt land nationwide, which threatened its integrity.
“The crux of this is that not all the green belt is green,” said Mr Dudley in a site office overlooking the concrete pools of the water treatment plant.
“Some green belt is green belt, rolling hills, bucolic views. But some green belt has been built all over, or it’s a car park. The last thing I want to do is scythe up these beautiful fields, so what you do is use up sites like this first.”
His council’s plan suggests that there are not enough poor-quality green belt sites to meet demand. Only 8 per cent of the land earmarked for homes was classed as “previously developed” green belt land, including a train station car park in Ascot and a hospital built in 1922, before the green belt was created. In Theresa May’s constituency the figure was even lower. Only one and a quarter acres, out of 422 acres on which the council wants to build, was classed as previously developed.
Pat Morrish, who runs a psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of Windsor, said the calm that her patients craved would be lost if 650 homes were built in the fields next to her clinic, as the council plans.
Patrick Griffin, from the Berkshire branch of the CPRE, said the real risk was urban sprawl. He said Ms Morrish’s hospital could be engulfed if Slough spread into Windsor, which spread into Maidenhead.
Left unchecked London could look like Los Angeles, he said. “You can go 120 miles, from San Bernardino to Ventura, without seeing a single field.” The equivalent in the UK is going from Brighton to Cambridge.
RICHARD POHLE/The Times
Loophole opens way for green belt homes
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
February 13 2017, 12:01am, The Times
Workers at a residential construction site on the outskirts of Maidenhead. The land was once part of the green belt RICHARD POHLE/The Times
Thousands more homes could be built on the green belt because of loopholes in the government’s plan to accelerate housebuilding, according to a conservation group.
Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, told MPs on Tuesday that the green belt was “safe in our hands” and that the government would keep all its “existing strong protections”.
However, the housing white paper contains a proposal for councils to review their plans in which they allocate land for housing at least every five years.
Councils that fail to allocate enough to meet their “objectively assessed housing requirement” could be stripped of their right to control where homes are built.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that councils were already under pressure to allocate green belt land for housing when they reviewed local plans and these reviews would become much more regular.
At present local plans have a life of about 15 years and are rarely reviewed more often than every ten years. Only eight local authorities with green belt land have reviewed their local plan more than once in the past ten years.
Almost 300,000 houses in the green belt are already being proposed by local authorities on land around 14 English cities where development is meant to take place only in “exceptional circumstances”. The CPRE said this could double under the white paper’s proposals. It said that a separate proposal in the document effectively encouraged local authorities to review green belt boundaries to meet housing demand. Under the proposal, councils would be under pressure to amend green belt boundaries to allocate land for homes if other “reasonable options”, such as redeveloping existing sites, were not available.
The government previously stated that housing demand alone would not lead to green belt boundaries changing.
Paul Miner, the planning campaign manager at the CPRE, said: “The effect of the two proposals will be that the number of green belt boundary alterations to accommodate housebuilding will increase massively.
“Local authorities are being required to set housing targets well in excess of current rates of delivery and they will be under even greater pressure to sacrifice the green belt.
“There need to be more explicit safeguards against regular nibbling of the green belt than the white paper offers. The government needs to state that green belt changes should be truly exceptional, both in terms of limiting the number of actual boundary changes but also in terms of the frequency with which boundaries are altered.
“If the green belt has been recently altered then significant alterations should not happen again for at least 15 years, not every five. This is critically important in terms of providing long-term certainty for the green belt to be managed for either farming, woodland or wildlife.”
The white paper proposes that when land is removed from the green belt, there should be “compensatory improvements” to remaining green belt land. It suggests these improvements could be funded by “higher contributions” from developers who build on the green belt.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said that councils were already required to review their local plans at “regular intervals”, though the minimum period is not specified.
A spokesman for the department said: “We’ve been clear that the white paper does not change our strong protections for the green belt.”
Thousands more homes could be built on the green belt because of loopholes in the government’s plan to accelerate housebuilding, according to a conservation group.
Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, told MPs on Tuesday that the green belt was “safe in our hands” and that the government would keep all its “existing strong protections”.
However, the housing white paper contains a proposal for councils to review their plans in which they allocate land for housing at least every five years.
Councils that fail to allocate enough to meet their “objectively assessed housing requirement” could be stripped of their right to control where homes are built.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that councils were already under pressure to allocate green belt land for housing when they reviewed local plans and these reviews would become much more regular.
At present local plans have a life of about 15 years and are rarely reviewed more often than every ten years. Only eight local authorities with green belt land have reviewed their local plan more than once in the past ten years.
Almost 300,000 houses in the green belt are already being proposed by local authorities on land around 14 English cities where development is meant to take place only in “exceptional circumstances”. The CPRE said this could double under the white paper’s proposals. It said that a separate proposal in the document effectively encouraged local authorities to review green belt boundaries to meet housing demand. Under the proposal, councils would be under pressure to amend green belt boundaries to allocate land for homes if other “reasonable options”, such as redeveloping existing sites, were not available.
The government previously stated that housing demand alone would not lead to green belt boundaries changing.
Paul Miner, the planning campaign manager at the CPRE, said: “The effect of the two proposals will be that the number of green belt boundary alterations to accommodate housebuilding will increase massively.
“Local authorities are being required to set housing targets well in excess of current rates of delivery and they will be under even greater pressure to sacrifice the green belt.
“There need to be more explicit safeguards against regular nibbling of the green belt than the white paper offers. The government needs to state that green belt changes should be truly exceptional, both in terms of limiting the number of actual boundary changes but also in terms of the frequency with which boundaries are altered.
“If the green belt has been recently altered then significant alterations should not happen again for at least 15 years, not every five. This is critically important in terms of providing long-term certainty for the green belt to be managed for either farming, woodland or wildlife.”
The white paper proposes that when land is removed from the green belt, there should be “compensatory improvements” to remaining green belt land. It suggests these improvements could be funded by “higher contributions” from developers who build on the green belt.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said that councils were already required to review their local plans at “regular intervals”, though the minimum period is not specified.
A spokesman for the department said: “We’ve been clear that the white paper does not change our strong protections for the green belt.”
RBWM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROBLEMS FOR GREENBELT
UPDATED TEXT AS OF 15 Feb 2017 - By Andrew Cormie
On 17th Feb 2015 our local Ward Councillors advised of welcome news published on the RBWM website.
The first button below gives access to a PDF document that told us that the Green Belt land areas identified in the Local Plan Consultation as Areas 7A and 5C had been "rejected" - meaning that they would not be built on, and would not appear in the second consultation.
This was excellent news for the 90% of Holyport Area residents who voted in the HRA consultation against development of these two areas of Green Belt.
BUT - As of mid 2016 and continuing into February 2017 it has become obvious that RBWM have now reneged on their promise and intend to change the Green Belt Status of Area 5C (now shown as HA9) - This being the area bounded by the M4, A330 and A308(M).
RBWM have also accepted that Highways England may have a works there for their M4 Smart Motorway. Such work will cause distress to local residents and will cause traffic problems not only on the A330 but on Forest Green Road, Moneyrow Green, Holyport Green and Holyport Road.
And when that work is finished (we hear that Highways want it for 10 years) RBWM intend that the area will become a business park. The Draft Local Plan also shows homes there.
As of DECEMBER 2016 I have argued to RBWM that Highways England's consultation did not include consulting on on their intended use of the land for their Main Construction Compound and thus RBWM should refuse permission for said use. I am awaiting a response from Theresa May. I have also reviewed Highways Engalnd's Consultation Report and confirmed to my satisfaction that consultation on the Construction Copmounds did not take place.
A further use for the aforementioned land (5C - HA9 - The Triangle), and for Area 7A adjacent to Holyport Road proposed in the Draft Local Plan is that these areas may be used for Wind Farms. The following pictures are clips from the RBWM Wind Farm Maps, found in the RBWM Local Plan Consultation supporting documents.
The first is for smalll installations, the second for large installations. The lighter coloured areas are those where our masters have decided that windfarms may be placed.
Both of these show that Area 7A (the land adjacent to Holyport Road) may be used for a wind farm. They also both show that Area 5C - HA9 may be used for large or small windfarms.
On 17th Feb 2015 our local Ward Councillors advised of welcome news published on the RBWM website.
The first button below gives access to a PDF document that told us that the Green Belt land areas identified in the Local Plan Consultation as Areas 7A and 5C had been "rejected" - meaning that they would not be built on, and would not appear in the second consultation.
This was excellent news for the 90% of Holyport Area residents who voted in the HRA consultation against development of these two areas of Green Belt.
BUT - As of mid 2016 and continuing into February 2017 it has become obvious that RBWM have now reneged on their promise and intend to change the Green Belt Status of Area 5C (now shown as HA9) - This being the area bounded by the M4, A330 and A308(M).
RBWM have also accepted that Highways England may have a works there for their M4 Smart Motorway. Such work will cause distress to local residents and will cause traffic problems not only on the A330 but on Forest Green Road, Moneyrow Green, Holyport Green and Holyport Road.
And when that work is finished (we hear that Highways want it for 10 years) RBWM intend that the area will become a business park. The Draft Local Plan also shows homes there.
As of DECEMBER 2016 I have argued to RBWM that Highways England's consultation did not include consulting on on their intended use of the land for their Main Construction Compound and thus RBWM should refuse permission for said use. I am awaiting a response from Theresa May. I have also reviewed Highways Engalnd's Consultation Report and confirmed to my satisfaction that consultation on the Construction Copmounds did not take place.
A further use for the aforementioned land (5C - HA9 - The Triangle), and for Area 7A adjacent to Holyport Road proposed in the Draft Local Plan is that these areas may be used for Wind Farms. The following pictures are clips from the RBWM Wind Farm Maps, found in the RBWM Local Plan Consultation supporting documents.
The first is for smalll installations, the second for large installations. The lighter coloured areas are those where our masters have decided that windfarms may be placed.
Both of these show that Area 7A (the land adjacent to Holyport Road) may be used for a wind farm. They also both show that Area 5C - HA9 may be used for large or small windfarms.
A Public Consultation on RBWM's current Draft Local Plan ran from 2nd December 2016 for six weeks, and it includes the proposal that Area 5C - HA9 will lose its Green Belt status.
This concept of continually changing plans and re-consulting on the new plan is like the old schoolboy trick of, when losing the toss, calling for it to be best of three, whereupon the gullible one agrees. In this case it seems that they hope that we have all lost the will to argue further.
Well, I do not agree and I hope that no-one reading this will agree it. Further, we all have better things to do with our lives than to respond to consultations, knowing firstly that there is little likelihood of RBWM taking much notice and that even if they do, they have no compunction about changing their minds at a later consultation.
I show below on the second button a link to the RBWM Conservative manifesto 2015 on which terms they were elected.
On page 8 we have an unequivocal promise to PROTECT THE GREEN BELT. On earlier pages we see that they claim to have previously delivered every one of their commitments, and on page 5 they say that they "AIM TO REPEAT OUR COMMITMENT TO DO AS WE PROMISE".
I consider that to change Area 5C from Green Belt to business park is wrong and that residents should vote against the change, sending a strong message to especially our Bray Ward Councillors that RESIDENTS DO NOT APPRECIATE BROKEN PROMISES.
RBWM website for commenting is accessible here; rbwm-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/blp/blp/blp
The RBWM email address for comments is blp@rbwm.gov.uk
Readers will see there that they can either comment section by section on-line or download the Draft Local Plan as a PDF document and comment on it.
I chose to download as a PDF, and I have created from that a PDF document containing sections of the Draft Local Plan with my comments adjacent. I submitted that to RBWM to their email address as above on 9th January 2017.
The third button below gives access to my PDF document. The fourth button gives access to the "Word" version.
Anyone is welcome to take parts or all of my comments to use for their own comments.