Lack of Representation by RBWM Councillors in Bray Ward

HRA is concerned about housing and other developments not supported by residents yet proposed in the Draft Local Development Plan for Bray Ward and promoted by RBWM.  This area of the website will discuss this aspect.  The following letter published in the Maidenhead Advertiser of 8th February 2018 gives an excellent summary of the situation.

The following text was sent as an email on 9th February 2018;

From: Andrew Cormie
Sent: 09 February 2018 20:44
To: Cllr Dudley
Cc: Cllr D Coppinger; Cllr L Walters; Cllr D Burbage; 'clerk'; Alison Alexander; Mary Kilner; 'Jenifer Jackson'; 'Gerry Carpenter'; 'sharkeyj@parliament.uk'; 'martint@baylismedia.co.uk'; Theresa May MP (mayt@parliament.uk)
Subject: RBWM Councillors failure to properly represent the residents of the RBWM Bray Ward

Importance: High

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 will be published on the HRA Website.
 
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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

Councillor Dudley responded as follows;

Dear Andrew - By copy of this e-mail I am asking Alison Alexander our MD (aka CEO) to respond to explain the roles and responsibilities of members and RBWM as local planning authority. Regards. Simon 

Cllr Simon Dudley, Maidenhead Riverside Ward, Leader of The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Bray Parish Council - Holyport Ward
Twitter @MrSimonDudley

Founder and Chair, Holyport College
Chair, Riverside Primary School & Nursery
Founder, Forest Bridge School
Advisory Council - The New Schools Network
Director - Homes England

Between the above and the message added below by RBWM's automatic system, was included the text of my email, (not repeated here for sake of brevity).

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 – in which case we request that you do not save it, print it, forward it, act on it, or tell anyone anything about it. 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 and Achieving for Children who provide 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 following letters show related concerns about lack of democracy in RBWM.  The right hand letter immediately below is the one referred to in the HRA email above.  It was also in the 25th Jan issue of the Advertiser.
 

When joining, Members have commented as follows;

Saving the Green Belt in Holyport - Traffic in all areas around Holyport - Developement in the area without enough consideration re the infrastructure.Protection Of Green Belt. Approval of Gateway in Holyport Road. Traffic hot spots at busy times.
Future developement and how this could affect the area and infrastructure.

Would a by-pass linking directly to J8/J9 from outside village towards Ascot be a viable option?

Unwelcome and inappropriate development of green belt and extra traffic generated by this.  Enough is enough.

Traffic congestion - road speed and safety - street lighting particularly from Langsworthy Lane to Holyport Green - road surface resulting in noise pollution - proposals in the pipeline such as Holyport College - Holyport field's gateway.

My fear is whatever we say will be ignored because the Government will encourage the Council to allow as much new development as possible to overcome the affordable housing shortage.

Speed restriction is not enforced on Ascot Road.  The amount of oversized vehicles which use the road, as well as their speed, they mount the pavement to get through! We would like Holyport to be a village and we have concerns that certain developments would completely destroy the village.

My concern is building on our greenbelt land.

Speeding Traffic on Ascot Road following Holyport College development.  Poor broadband speeds.

Building on green belt, hospital at Junc 8/9, Holyport Free School.

General increasing development plans in village.

Traffic speed on the A330 though Touchen End.

The serious road safety problems that residents living on the Ascot Road Touchen End are experiencing, need to be addressed and resolved.

Very concerned with the way everything seems to be targeting Holyport and lack of protection, for example can't believe the lawn tennis club is not protected and could be lost!

Hugely concerned about the blatant disregard of the wishes of local residents reference the new relaxed government planning proposals. Feel as though I no longer have a voice and we are not living in a democracy if proposals rejected locally can simply be overturned. We will lose our village and become a suburb of Maidenhead. Proposals for the new junction 8/9 hospital and the Holyport Academy are a nightmare in terms of development and congestion on the A330. It already becomes gridlocked when there is an accident on the M4. The noise and light pollution from a hospital is very worrying not to mention all the disruption from the build project. We have to put a stop to it.

Primarily concerned about the new junction 8/9 hospital proposal but also do not want Holyport to be sucked into becoming a suburb of Maidenhead.

I'm keen to preserve the character of the village and share the concerns of your membership.

Concerns regarding possible building on green belt in Holyport.

Very concerned about the amount of traffic coming through the village and the lack of adherence to the speed limit. Also the proposed hardstanding for caravans on Forest Green Rd.

Inappropriate development of Bray Parish Traffic congestion.

Living in Stompits Road I am very concerned about the junction with it of Stroud Farm Road by the Surgery, shops and school.   Every school day parents park ad-lib, with no seeming regard to the law or, particularly, safety of the children.    I have in the past contacted Leo Walters, David Burbage and the police regarding this as I feel, at the very least, there should be some parking restrictions ( double yellow lines on the corners).   Each responded to my messages, but, clearly, absolutely nothing has been done, so, now through this Association, maybe voices could be raised to get more leverage. I feel simply addressing the grass triangle is very limited - it needs a far more serious, professional approach to the difficulties at this junction.   Have you tried to turn right from Stompits onto Stroud Farm Road there at any time?   We all need luck as there is no sensible help for drivers.

I am very much concerned for the future of Holyport & preserving interests of residents.

The possibility of a super-hospital is a crazy idea and obviously thought up by someone who doesn't live or have to drive around this area. The traffic is already a nightmare and however many spaces they provide for this hospital parking, there will be cars parked all along the Ascot Road.
As for the thought of MORE housing estates in Holyport? People who live here have paid a premium to live in a nice area, so why put affordable housing here? If you can't afford it, then go somewhere you can afford!! Most people have had to struggle to afford to live here and now we have to deal with the council trying to turn a village into a town. As we do not have the road network or facilities to cope, more will be required, another school? more roads? Where does it end? Have any of these people tried to get out of this area between 8-9.30am? The school traffic at Stroud Farm is a joke, when permission was given for 3 more class rooms, they said they would deal with the parking problem - NOTHING has been done!! the parents park where they like, in the doctors car park, on the bends, across property driveways, in the shops, and now they are wrecking all our grass verges, turning it all into churned mud. I noticed the council levelled & reseeded two areas by the doctors and corner shop; same day, people just parked over them again. It's time the bad parkers were issued with fines, not warnings!

Our key concerns are traffic levels and any proposed large-scale developments which would further compromise Holyport's increasingly fragile rural setting.

Main concern is the speed of traffic through Holyport, and the noise it creates (particularly with HGV's travelling above the speed limit) and associated road safety issues.

Have joined as I would campaign against any speed bumps in Holyport Road. I was against them some 10 years ago and nothing has changed my view. I was also against the reduction in speed limit from 40 to 30. I have lived here for 27 years, walked both my kids to the primary school and see little wrong with the current set up. Far too much is made of speed as being the cause of accidents rather than the carelessness / inattention of the driver. Pedestrians have to take responsibility for themselves.

I echo your concerns re: traffic on the Holyport road. My cat was killed on this road and I am convinced the culprit wasn't sticking to the speed limit.  I have also become increasingly concerned in recent years about levels of ASB in Holyport.

Speeding on Holyport Road.  I have written to Theresa May MP.  I have had response from her secretary & the police.  Police say no place to put mobile speed unit or camera. We need speed bumps or chicane type bollards that only let one vehicle through at a time. I want to do whatever I can to help. Motorists driving 40-50 mph is totally unacceptable.

I have lived on Windsor Road for 53 years, since I was 2 mths old. My mother was born in a house on Windsor Rd. There are 3 generations of my family on my mothers side buried in the Windsor Road Bray cemetery. I am pleased to support any group working for the good of the area.

House building and effect on all local services; traffic and subsequent pollution on Holyport Road, drainage on the road.  These are the most pressing concerns.

I have lived in Holyport practically all of my life and I am greatly concerned about the over-development of the Green Belt which is already over-populated.

I am becoming increasingly concerned with regard to the changes planned for Holyport having lived here for over 25 years I feel that the village would  be changed but not for the better.  I don't feel that the roads or schools could cope with any major building plans as outlined in the councils plans and proposals.

I am TOTALLY  against ANY building on ANY areas of greenbelt in Holyport.  THEY ARE FLOOD PLAINS as these floods have shown all too clearly.  To build anything (INCLUDING A SUPER HOSPITAL BY THE ROUNDABOUT and HOUSING ESTATE by PHILIBERDS) is crazy. Furthermore, as reported in the press today (11/2/14), houses built on flood plains since 2009 would not be eligible for the proposed government backed insurance scheme - this is specifically to STOP developers from building on them. Re your correspondence about the flood plain planning maps being corrected - it just highlights the fact that they are weighted in favour of the planners and developers - how else can one explain the differences?