This text was first published in this website as a Blog. It is repeated here with some further clarification.
When the HRA was first begun, it was due to the prospect of development in the land bounded by the Ascot Road, Aysgarth Park, Holyport Road and old Holyport. Many residents were enthusiastic to stop it. Not long after that we had a struggle against the RBWM 2014 Edge of Settlement Analysis for their Borough Local Development Plan (BLDP) so as to stop the same area of land and the "Triangle" between the M4, A308(M) and A330 from being scheduled for development. Again we had enthusiasm from residents.
We now see in the proposed BLDP that it intends houses etc and business premises on the "Triangle"; meantime the Borough has allowed Highways England to use part of it as their main depot for the M4 Smart Motorway. Further, the proposed BLDP intends that building may take place on the area between the A308 and Bray Lake (currently Planning Permission is requested by Thames Hospice).
Also, despite it being included in the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (BPNDP) to be a "Green Gap" not to be developed, the area of Green Belt between Fifield and Windsor is shown as a development area in the BLDP.
There has been a general objection from me (the Chairman) to the concept of Neighbourhood Development Planning - because there is a fundamental clause in the law on Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP); that they may not promote less development than that promoted by the Borough Local Development Plan (BLDP). It seems that, in line with the law, in the matter of the "Green Gap" the BLDP is imposing RBWM and Government will upon the wishes of the Bray Parish Council as expressed in its BPNDP.
To me, the HRA Chairman, it seems that there is little point in having a Neighbourhood Development Plan UNLESS YOU WANT DEVELOPMENT.
The BPNDP currently awaits its progress through the approval process involving the RBWM and Government Inspection and subsequent public referendum where all Bray Parish residents may vote as to whether or not it be adopted.
The current Borough Local Development Plan has had its first stage of public consultation (so-called Schedule 18) and will soon be available for its second stage (so-called Schedule19). RBWM say that for the second stage our comments are to be limited to "legal and technical soundness".
It is my opinion that the law does not limit our comments - and my comments will be at least the same as they were for the first stage. Whatever comments are made at the second stage will be sent to the Government Inspector.
A representative of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has also advised in response to my question at a Bray Parish Council public meeting that there is no limit as to what comments we may make at the second consultation.
The HRA has 289 members. Out of those, 94 have from time to time responded to me, but not on every topic. For the others, I have no way of knowing whether or not my emails are read or what their opinions are.
In addition to members we have a further 89 who I call "Friends of HRA". I have had responses from some of those.
I recently raised by email to HRA members and friends of HRA in an earlier blog below, the issue of the Planning Application by Thames Hospice to build on the Green belt floodplain between Bray Lake and the A308.
I had thought that many members who joined the HRA having concern that Green belt land should not be built upon would have objected to that application.
But I was very disappointed to see that only nine HRA members and one "Friend of HRA" objected. One member was myself and another was a member who recently joined because of that Planning Application.
My objection to the Hospice could not be done in the name of the HRA - I cannot state as an HRA representative that the HRA is for or against any particular development proposal if I get hardly any feed back as to what residents want.
I am told that RBWM has rules regarding residents associations as follows;
A residents association must;
1. Have a website
2. Have regular meetings for which agenda and minutes are available on the website.
3. Be able to show that key officers have been elected in an open democratic process.
Commenting on the above - we satisfy point 1.
For point 2, we have no regular meetings but I regularly send out emails on various topics and do receive replies, almost entirely supportive. The emails I send out are copied to the Proper Officer of Bray Parish Council; The Council Leader of RBWM; The three Bray Parish Ward Councillors; the Maidenhead Advertiser's Holyport Reporter. I mention all that as an example of communication that could perhaps take the place of "regular meetings"
For Point 3 - Elsewhere on this website; (in the forum and in the section about the Holyport Residents Association) you will find that it was part of our constitution and founding statement that the committee would stand down after a year so that others could have a chance to take their place. But after a year, as shown in the forum, and as indicated to members at the time by email from me; no-one volunteered to stand for committee membership. We therefore concluded and advised to all that the committee was duly elected by default and would continue until further notice. Since then we have lost some members as they moved away.
Having asked for volunteers as Committee members we have as of 2nd May 2017 held a Committee meeting at which we re-established it with six members as identified in this website.
When the HRA was first begun, it was due to the prospect of development in the land bounded by the Ascot Road, Aysgarth Park, Holyport Road and old Holyport. Many residents were enthusiastic to stop it. Not long after that we had a struggle against the RBWM 2014 Edge of Settlement Analysis for their Borough Local Development Plan (BLDP) so as to stop the same area of land and the "Triangle" between the M4, A308(M) and A330 from being scheduled for development. Again we had enthusiasm from residents.
We now see in the proposed BLDP that it intends houses etc and business premises on the "Triangle"; meantime the Borough has allowed Highways England to use part of it as their main depot for the M4 Smart Motorway. Further, the proposed BLDP intends that building may take place on the area between the A308 and Bray Lake (currently Planning Permission is requested by Thames Hospice).
Also, despite it being included in the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (BPNDP) to be a "Green Gap" not to be developed, the area of Green Belt between Fifield and Windsor is shown as a development area in the BLDP.
There has been a general objection from me (the Chairman) to the concept of Neighbourhood Development Planning - because there is a fundamental clause in the law on Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP); that they may not promote less development than that promoted by the Borough Local Development Plan (BLDP). It seems that, in line with the law, in the matter of the "Green Gap" the BLDP is imposing RBWM and Government will upon the wishes of the Bray Parish Council as expressed in its BPNDP.
To me, the HRA Chairman, it seems that there is little point in having a Neighbourhood Development Plan UNLESS YOU WANT DEVELOPMENT.
The BPNDP currently awaits its progress through the approval process involving the RBWM and Government Inspection and subsequent public referendum where all Bray Parish residents may vote as to whether or not it be adopted.
The current Borough Local Development Plan has had its first stage of public consultation (so-called Schedule 18) and will soon be available for its second stage (so-called Schedule19). RBWM say that for the second stage our comments are to be limited to "legal and technical soundness".
It is my opinion that the law does not limit our comments - and my comments will be at least the same as they were for the first stage. Whatever comments are made at the second stage will be sent to the Government Inspector.
A representative of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has also advised in response to my question at a Bray Parish Council public meeting that there is no limit as to what comments we may make at the second consultation.
The HRA has 289 members. Out of those, 94 have from time to time responded to me, but not on every topic. For the others, I have no way of knowing whether or not my emails are read or what their opinions are.
In addition to members we have a further 89 who I call "Friends of HRA". I have had responses from some of those.
I recently raised by email to HRA members and friends of HRA in an earlier blog below, the issue of the Planning Application by Thames Hospice to build on the Green belt floodplain between Bray Lake and the A308.
I had thought that many members who joined the HRA having concern that Green belt land should not be built upon would have objected to that application.
But I was very disappointed to see that only nine HRA members and one "Friend of HRA" objected. One member was myself and another was a member who recently joined because of that Planning Application.
My objection to the Hospice could not be done in the name of the HRA - I cannot state as an HRA representative that the HRA is for or against any particular development proposal if I get hardly any feed back as to what residents want.
I am told that RBWM has rules regarding residents associations as follows;
A residents association must;
1. Have a website
2. Have regular meetings for which agenda and minutes are available on the website.
3. Be able to show that key officers have been elected in an open democratic process.
Commenting on the above - we satisfy point 1.
For point 2, we have no regular meetings but I regularly send out emails on various topics and do receive replies, almost entirely supportive. The emails I send out are copied to the Proper Officer of Bray Parish Council; The Council Leader of RBWM; The three Bray Parish Ward Councillors; the Maidenhead Advertiser's Holyport Reporter. I mention all that as an example of communication that could perhaps take the place of "regular meetings"
For Point 3 - Elsewhere on this website; (in the forum and in the section about the Holyport Residents Association) you will find that it was part of our constitution and founding statement that the committee would stand down after a year so that others could have a chance to take their place. But after a year, as shown in the forum, and as indicated to members at the time by email from me; no-one volunteered to stand for committee membership. We therefore concluded and advised to all that the committee was duly elected by default and would continue until further notice. Since then we have lost some members as they moved away.
Having asked for volunteers as Committee members we have as of 2nd May 2017 held a Committee meeting at which we re-established it with six members as identified in this website.