<![CDATA[Holyport Residents Association

<![CDATA[Holyport Residents Association - Chairman\'s Blog]]>Sat, 14 Aug 2021 10:00:53 +0000Weebly<![CDATA[RBWM Non-Recognition of the Holyport Residents Association]]>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:09:05 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/rbwm-non-recognition-of-the-holyport-residents-associationThis post is dated 1st September 2017.

Sixty years ago in my home town of Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland, the "Fife Free Press" newspaper was published - it has now a part of "Fife Today" www.fifetoday.co.uk/

The Fife Free Press had a motto - "Frank, Fearless, Free"

Frank - meaning Open, Honest, Direct, Forthright, Outspoken.

Fearless - meaning that it was unafraid to be frank and tell the truth.

Free - meaning that as an organisation it was free from being influenced by anyone or any other organisation.

In my actions in establishing, promoting and publicising the HRA I strive to emulate these principles as set out by the Fife Free Press.

In recent months with committee support, I asked RBWM to recognise us as a Residents Association.

The reason for this was that we had been aware of not being consulted on matters such as the Borough Local Development Plan, and we were not listed on the only list of organisations that we could find in the RBWM website that showed whom RBWM would consult.

We also wished to be allowed to speak at Planning Meetings.

I applied first to the Managing Director of RBWM, who advised we should consult RBWM Democratic Services.

So I applied to the latter who subsequently advised that the Head of Planning was dealing with it.

I objected to that as we often have to act in opposition to RBWM Planning.

During RBWM's consideration process the RBWM Head of Law and Governance advised that RBWM would not allow a Residents Association to speak at a Planning Meeting unless the RA existed in an area in which a Neighbourhood Development Plan had been established and been approved by RBWM.

I cannot see how that demand can be lawful, and have advised RBWM of my view. As there is no legal requirement that any area must have a Neighbourhood Development Plan how can the non-existence of the latter be a block to participation of a Residents Association?

Be that as it may, we have now had a response to our request, and I show it below this blog.

My comments are;

In Section 1 first paragraph;

It appears that RBWM think that those who are not members are being encouraged to become members. How is that a problem? It is clear that more members would be better. In our consultation in 2014 (by door to door leaflet drop) about the RBWM Consultation on Edge of Settlement Analysis we asked people to indicate if they wished to be emailed, and if they wished to be members. Those who indicated they wished to be members are HRA Members. Others who asked only to be emailed are Friends of HRA. Since then others have contacted me asking to be members, and all who have done so are now members.

Next, reference is made to my mention on the website of "294 members distributed" The number is now 295, and the actual line continues "distributed as follows;" then shows the street names and numbers of people from each street. How is that a problem? (See this website in the NEWS section)

Section 1 second paragraph;

We are told that there is no clarity on membership - what is expected I wonder? What is wrong with membership being free? Or that I indicate that it might not always be free? The other items mentioned here are irrelevant.

Moving on to page 2 - still Section 1;

The third paragraph states (as I did say to RBWM) that if RBWM required members names I would have to ask members permission. RBWM goes on to say I have not said that I maintain a membership register. Well, RBWM did not ask me if I maintained a register! I do maintain a register. RBWM gave me no list of what I should submit to them.

Then something is mentioned about our aim, but nothing is said as to whether it is a good aim or bad.

Page 2 - Section 2 Constitution;

Reference is made to our constitution being uploaded after the meeting of 2nd May 2107. But I had already advised in my submission that the constitution had been on the website from the outset in 2014, although it has been subject to revision - as is, and has always been, clearly stated in the constitution itself.

Page 2 - Meetings of the HRA;

It is true that there has been no full physical meeting of the membership. Also true that only one physical Committee Meeting has been minuted, although there has been one other earlier physical committee meeting that was not minuted. Further, the committee members are in touch by email.

Our approach is based on emails to members and others who want these emails. If any do not agree with what I say, they are free to advise me. In all of the time that the HRA has been in existence there have been less than 5 objections, and a huge amount of support.

I am accused of being the prime mover and controlling mind behind the HRA - that seems to me to be a compliment. Further, as I have said, members are free to advise their opinions and guide me and committee as to how we should behave. We have on the website a means to communicate in public - the Forum - and there are polls and surveys to garner opinions. In addition as I have pointed out in other blogs here, and mention again now, anyone is able to respond to my blogs.

As the HRA is free, there is no money available to hire a hall for meetings.

We are accused of not being a vibrant, representative residents association. Would anyone care to comment?

What is said in the rest of the letter by way of quotations from me is true, but regarding the last few words of the second page and beginning of the third, RBWM infer that because only six persons could attend the committee meeting, their election as a committee, and the positions of those within that committee is not democratic.

This is nonsense, as the entire membership was invited by email to volunteer to be committee members.

Few applied, and of those who did, some, on the day of the meeting found that they were unable to make it. Therefore, those who attended became the committee. At the meeting we democratically decided on who would occupy the Committee positions. This is the same as in for instance a Parish Council. They are elected by the residents, and the elected Councillors then decide amongst themselves who will occupy the positions.   In our case, we could not have an election from a number of volunteers as the applicants who attended were just sufficient for the number of committee members defined in the constitution.

I particularly refer to the last quoted paragraph, where I claim in the first three sentences to the effect that our email correspondence has similarities to meetings, all can contact me to object, and the forum is available for exchange of views. It seems to me that the lack of discussion means that people are generally happy with the approach of the HRA Committee.

In conclusion - HRA is now currently receiving from RBWM invitations to comment on Consultation, so the initial problem has apparently been corrected.

As to whether or not RBWM recognise us as a "bona fide Residents Association", as long as they continue to invite us to take part in consultations this is no longer of any interest.

The text of the RBWM letter is shown below;

                                                                                                            09 August 2017
Dear Mr Cormie

Recognition of the Holyport Residents Association (HRA)

I have been asked by our Democratic Services Team to consider and review whether the Holyport Residents Association fulfils the requirements to be recognised as a bona fide residents association.

I have reviewed your website, the Constitution of the HRA, membership of the HRA, its meetings in the context of recent correspondence and had discussions with the planning department following this review. I remain unconvinced that the HRA meets the requirements of a bona fide residents association for a number of reasons, which I set out in the rest of this letter.

1.         The website

While I acknowledge that the website has been developed and updated in recent months, it supports my present view that it is a "blogging" website or "forum" for attracting membership by virtue of its email distribution list which you designate as forming your "members" apart from "friends" of the HRA. Your website states that you have "294 members distributed".

There is no clarity on membership of the HRA which I see is free (but "could change depending upon experience(?) and amount of expenditure"). Interestingly the website emphasises "members are important" but for your first (and apparently only meeting) of the HRA on 2nd May 2017, it failed to attract sufficient interest from "the membership". I refer to paragraph 1 of the Minutes headed "Introduce new members".

I also quote from your email correspondence to me of 16 June 2017:

"Until recently we had no formal meetings, and for some time we did not have a full committee, but as of end of April we asked all of our members and also non-members to apply to be Committee members.

We received applications and set a meeting date of 2nd May 2017. All stated they would come, but in the end for our first meeting we had just sufficient to establish a committee of six.

So we minuted our meeting, (at which the committee themselves democratically elected our key officers) and the minutes are on the website. The website has run for 3 or four years already."

You have stated that if we require members' names you will have to ask for their permission but equally you have not stated that you retain a membership register.

I have noted in your Constitution the aim of the HRA whose mode of working as a website:

to collect and provide information to members and other interested groups through a web site and any other helpful means agreed by the committee.

to publicize achievements and problems of members and the Association through the media.

to garner information and support by working in close contact with other organisations with complementary interests.

2. Constitution

I believe this document was uploaded after your meeting on 2nd May 2017 and would refer to paragraph 2 of these Minutes headed the "Legitimacy of the HRA" and note that following advice by the Royal Borough it is acknowledged in the Minutes that "a draft revised Constitution and a new Home Page for the HRA were considered, revised and agreed and are to be published on the HRA website", following which "the Chairman to ask RBWM to formally recognise the HRA". This does not evidence or support an established resident association since 2013.

3. Meetings of the HRA

Your website reveals only one meeting of the HRA since its inception or existence from March 2013 (notwithstanding your assertion of its existence as far back as RBWM correspondence since 2014). I have concluded, based on the evidence available, that this is personal correspondence from yourself as the prime mover and controlling mind behind the HRA. Had the HRA been the bona fide residents association supported by the residents eligible for membership then I would expect that there would be documented evidence on the website of meetings held by the HRA since 2013/14. The website cites only one meeting which you admit in correspondence of 15th May 2017 to Alison Alexander:

"Until recently we had not formed meetings and for some time we did not have a full committee". You further state; "we received applications and set a meeting date of 2nd May 2017. All stated they would come but in the end, for our first meeting we had just sufficient to establish a committee of six." I also refer you to evidence of the Minutes of the meeting of 2nd May 2017 published on the website, in particular, paragraph 1. This is not evidence of a vibrant, representative, residents association in the Holyport geographical area (as defined), but of a self styled individuals group meeting that is forced to rely on a fall back attendance to make up its Committee ("openly and democratically" elected by the six "members" present).

I further note from the Minutes of the meeting of 2nd May 2017 (paragraph 3.4) dealing with HRA publicity: "James Rendell and Andrew Cormie to liaise on how best to raise the level of awareness of the HRA. Also other committee members to advise any thoughts on this". The evidence does not satisfy me that regular meetings of members have been held by the HRA for which an agenda and minutes are available on the website. "Key Officers" have not been elected from a thriving membership in an open democratic process but by default.

In conclusion, and for the above reasons (I have fully set out above), I am not satisfied that the HRA fulfils the requirements of being a bona fide residents association that can be recognised by the Royal Borough. I believe the HRA is a "blogging" website association relying on a "virtual membership" through its email list which is supported by your email to Karen Shepherd on 2nd July and I quote:

"There have been no meetings of the entire group except by email and in our forum, that is they get emails from me and sometimes people response, sometimes not, just as they would in a meeting. All members have a copy of my name and address and email address. In the forum people respond or query and are answered by me or by others in the group. For some reasons though there has latterly been little action on the forum. Further Polls and Surveys have been placed on our website to assess members views. Committee Members have also emailed amongst ourselves. We had a Committee meeting in 2014 to decide on action for the response to the RBWM Edge of Settlement Analysis / Borough Plan, but since then have met only through emails except for the meeting whose minutes are on the website at; hhtp://www. holyportresidentsassociation. org/minutes-of-meetings. html

Yours sincerely

Mary Kilner
Head of Law and Governance

Cc: Alison Alexander, Managing Director Cllr Simon Dudley, Leader
]]><![CDATA[Number of people who can be bothered to take part in Local Development Plan Consultations!!!! - 1.52%]]>Fri, 12 May 2017 17:01:02 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/number-of-people-who-can-be-bothered-to-take-part-in-local-development-plan-consultations-152I wrote the letter shown below to the Maidenhead Advertiser and they published it on 4th May 2107.

Subsequently the Advertiser contacted me to ask for details about the FOI request I had made and we discussed the problem. The problem being that there has been confusion in the terms "Responses" and "Representations" and the fact that RBWM has been accepting of the misconception apparent in the Maidenhead Advertiser's report of 19th January 2017 where they reported that "About 7000 replies were received..."

The Advertiser reported on page 3 of their 11th May 2017 issue as follows;

So, was there an attempt to mislead - there certainly was no attempt by RBWM to correct the misinformation that had got into the public domain. If their news release had said 7000 representations - it was reported by the Advertiser as 7000 "replies", this being wrong as an indication of the number of people (only 2148 out of a possible 141600) who took an interest in responding.

Comments Welcome!!!

]]><![CDATA[May 08th, 2017]]>Mon, 08 May 2017 19:12:14 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/protect-green-belt-land-between-a308-and-bray-lake<![CDATA[May 08th, 2017]]>Mon, 08 May 2017 13:46:39 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/petition-to-protect-green-belt-between-a308-and-bray-lake<![CDATA[The UK would be CRAZY to expand Heathrow]]>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:55:27 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/the-uk-would-be-crazy-to-expand-heathrowI show below in blue my email to our MP Theresa May regarding the extra build cost for roads as as estimated by Highways England if Heathrow is chosen for expansion rather than Gatwick.

Heathrow road build cost would be £3271 million - yes!! £3,271,000,000 more than for Gatwick.

Over 60 years, Heathrow Operations and Maintenance costs would be £598,297,016 more than for Gatwick.

I believe that all of the cost would have to be borne by the taxpayers.

It is surely clear that Gatwick is the Airport to be expanded NOT HEATHROW.

Dear Theresa,

An internet search for "government airports-commission road network costs Heathrow" revealed this;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/562063/airports-commission-surface-access-works-strategic-road-network-proposals-validation-of-costs-and-delivery-assumptions.pdf

It is a Highways England estimate of road costs for expansion of Gatwick and for Heathrow.

In that document;
On Page 20 Table 2 Gatwick build cost:
Max estimate £300 million
On Page 21 Table 3 Gatwick Operation and Maintenance cost over 60 years:
Estimate £58,585,904.

On Page 22 Table 4 Heathrow build cost:
Max estimate £3,571 million (nearly 12 times as much as Gatwick)!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Page 24 Table 5 Heathrow Operation and Maintenance cost over 60 years:
£656,882,920 over 60 years (11.2 times as much as Gatwick)!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clearly Gatwick development is far far cheaper than Heathrow.

How much of this is to be paid for by taxpayers?

Clearly the Gatwick option is so much cheaper that the answer to the question of whether or not to expand Heathrow must be a resounding NO!!

Please let me know what you will do about this.

By copy of this to the Heathrow Expansion Independent Adviser Sir Jeremy Sullivan I also ask for his comments.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie
]]><![CDATA[RBWM Local Development Plan and its attacks on the Metropolitan Green Belt]]>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:51:02 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/rbwm-local-development-plan-and-its-attacks-on-the-metropolitan-green-beltGreen Belt Land around our area is Metropolitan Green Belt and is subject to pressure from Central Government's incessant demand for homes and business premises.

RBWM has to create a Local Development Plan, and all who have followed its progress will know that it proposes building on a disproportionate amount of Green Belt close to or within the Parish of Bray.

Holyport Residents Association polled members and other Holyport Residents in 2014 and found that over 90% of those who responded were in favour of protecting our Green Belt land.

Many residents and the HRA commented on the RBWM Local Plan proposals in 2014 and succeeded in persuading RBWM that the two areas close to Holyport under attack at at that time would not be built upon.

However, the new Local Development Plan proposes that one of these areas - the triangle bounded by the M4 the A308(M) and the A330 will be built on. Also the area across the A308(M) from there and the Golf Course.

Over Christmas 2016 we had an opportunity to comment on the RBWM Local Development Plan. There will soon be a second consultation opportunity. RBWM is on record saying that our comments on the second consultation are to be limited to whether the plan is sound and the process of its creation legal (or something like that). I have read the legislation and I do not believe that we are limited in our comments. I attended a Bray Parish Council meeting on 10th April 2017 at which a CPRE representative confirmed in answer to my question, that for this second consultation we should comment as much as for the previous with no limitation on what we may say against it.

SO PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU COMMENT AND BE AS FORTHRIGHT AS YOU LIKE IN PROTECTING OUR GREENBELT LAND.

Please also be aware that if Heathrow Airport gets its third runway there will be further pressure for new homes to be built.

The most immediate attack is an actual planning application by the Thames Hospice - Planning reference 17/00798/FULL, this being for land between the A308 (Windsor Road) and Bray Lake. I have objected to that, and there is further information on this under tab "Local Problems - WINDSOR ROAD"
]]><![CDATA[Letter sent to the Maidenhead Advertiser for 2/3/17 issue.]]>Sat, 04 Mar 2017 17:02:42 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/letter-sent-to-the-maidenhead-advertiser-for-2317-issueI wrote the following letter to the Maidenhead Advertiser for their 2nd March issue. The parts highlighted in red were not published and those in green were added. There were a few other minor changes.

Sir,

Congratulations to all who wrote supporting Cllr Leo Walters and condemning RBWM for its anti-greenbelt policies.

In "The Times" of 22nd February we saw that I see RBWM leader Cllr Dudley is to become a Director of "Homes England".

The Times article, and my further comments, can be read at the following Holyport Residents Association (HRA) website.

http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/blog

I noted a great letter on 9th February from Ken Elvin the Leader of Bray Parish Council (BPC), where he asked the RBWM Councillors who are also BPC Councillors to explain why they no longer support the Conservative Manifesto upon which they were elected as RBWM Councillors. In electing them as BPC Councillors, residents perhaps had in mind the belief that these persons would support Green Belt as their Manifesto declares.

I run a website for the HRA and have placed my views there, with a poll asking whether residents support the concept that, other than Cllr Walters, all RBWM Councillors who are also BPC Councillors should resign from BPC - the reason being that their RBWM Green Belt views are incompatible with the established policy of BPC as expressed in its Neighbourhood Development Plan.

At the time of writing 22 people have responded to a poll on the Holyport Residents Association website agreeing that they should resign, and no-one has voted that they should stay.

I note that the only joint RBWM and BPC Councillor who voted in a BPC meeting one year ago to adopt the BPC Neighbourhood Plan has recently resigned from BPC. The other BPC RBWM Councillors did not attend the meeting.

I think it deplorable that due to being a RBWM Councillor, a BPC Councillor cannot take full part in BPC business where the BPC policy differs from the RBWM policy.

I therefore recommend that no-one ever again votes an RBWM Councillor onto a Parish Council.

Sincerely,

Andrew Cormie
]]><![CDATA[RBWM Leader's career and the RBWM Local Plan]]>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:33:07 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/rbwm-leaders-career-and-the-rbwm-local-planThe article below my red text is from the Times of February 22nd 2107.

Here we have a further episode in the saga of RBWM's Local Development Plan, a saga that includes that RBWM and Bray Parish Councillor Cllr Walters, highlighted the information given by RBWM to a resident in a response to a freedom of information request, and was then sacked from a position in a housing review panel by the Council Leader Simon Dudley. Now we see that Cllr Dudley is to be the Director of the Homes and Community Agency, soon to be renamed "Homes England"
Cllr Walters lived up to the Conservative party manifesto on which he and Cllr Dudley were elected. Sadly Cllr Dudley has acted against the manifesto.
Cllr Dudley and three other RBWM Councillors, one of whom is Cllr Walters are also Bray Parish Councillors. Until very recently there was a fifth RBWM Councillor who was a Bray Parish Councillor, but he has recently resigned from the Parish Council. See following;
http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/gallery/bray-holyport-fifield/111567/borough-councillor-resigns-from-bray-parish-council-role.html

Note that the Parish Council is seeking a new applicant. Please do not apply if you are an RBWM Councillor!
So one third of Bray Parish Councillors were also RBWM Councillors. The Bray Parish Council has a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), currently submitted to RBWM for their consideration as part of the NDP development process. In that NDP, Bray Parish Council state their concern for protection of Green Belt land, especially an area of Green Belt land between Fifield and Windsor. The RBWM Councillors who are also Bray Parish Councillors had supported the Bray Parish NDP, yet we find that when acting as RBWM Councillors they take the opposite view that the Green Belt must be built on.
Of all RBWM Green Belt land, that which surrounds Holyport and Fifield, and that lying between Holyport and Maidenhead, this being Bray Parish land, is suffering the most from RBWM's attack on Green belt Land.

In Bray Parish Council Meetings at present, when the Green Belt is to be discussed, the Bray Parish Councillors who are also Borough Councillors have to leave the room. This is ridiculous - these RBWM Councillors are in the Bray Parish Council meeting as Bray Parish Councillors - so should take part and should act in the interests of Bray Parish Residents, not in the interests of the careers of Leader of RBWM Council Simon Dudley and his appointee, Derek Wilson, the Lead member for Planning - who is responsible for the RBWM Local Development Plan.

I would think that those Bray Parish Councillors who are also RBWM Councillors could demand not to be excluded. In fact it could be argued that they are failing in their duty to Bray Parish Residents by not taking part, so as to support Green Belt as they should know that their parishioners want.

This leads me to say again that the rules of Parish Councils should exclude from membership all associated Borough Councillors.

Enough is enough, I say - I call upon all Bray Parish Councillors who are also RBWM Councillors - except Cllr Walters - to immediately resign from Bray Parish Council; the grounds for resignation should be that the interests of RBWM, especially its council leader, who it appears all must obey, are incompatible with the interests of Bray Parish Council and the residents of the Parish of Bray.

I well remember parts of the old song - "The Vicar of Bray" - the vicar who would change his views with each change of monarch so as to keep his job and further his own self interest. History repeats itself sure enough!!
For "The Vicar of Bray" see;
berkshirehistory.com/legends/vicarofbray_bal.html

Councillor who approved green-belt sell-off to head homes agency
Jerome Starkey, Countryside Correspondent
February 22 2017, 5:00pm, The Times

As a councillor in Theresa May’s constituency, Simon Dudley approved 6,000 homes on green-belt land

A "gung-ho" council leader planning thousands of new homes in the prime minister’s green-belt constituency has been rewarded with a top job in central government.
Simon Dudley was confirmed as a director of the Homes and Community Agency (HCA) today (Wednesday) after approving plans to build 14,000 homes in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, including almost 6,000 on green-belt land.
Critics claim the career banker wants to plough up fields and a golf course, which have been protected from development for more than 80 years, in excess of the borough's needs.
“Windsor and Maidenhead council has been gung-ho about allocating green-belt land for development,” said Paul Miner, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). “It would be very concerning if the new board began to take more of an interest in supporting the kind of poor-quality development that we have seen on protected land and other greenfield sites.”
Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, said the HCA was vital for “speeding up the delivery of new homes”. He said the appointment of Mr Dudley and three others to the agency's board would bring “new skills, knowledge and considerable experience”.
A housing white paper, published this month, promised to protect England’s 14 green belts, despite plans to solve a housing crisis by building 275,000 new homes a year. However, the document also gave councils scope to redraw their green-belt boundaries when “all other reasonable options” had been exhausted.
“At the end of the day, we need to help the creation of more homes in this country,” Mr Dudley said. “We need to be respectful of the green belt and maximise the use of sites other than the green belt. We live in a beautiful country but we do need new homes.”
The first green belt was introduced in London in 1938 and rolled out to the rest of the country in 1955 to preserve the characters of towns and prevent urban sprawl. Without them, campaigners claim, London could look like Los Angeles with a corridor of concrete and development stretching 120 miles from Brighton to Cambridge.
Mr Dudley said his plans would only reduce his borough’s green-belt land by 1.7 per cent. He said Windsor and Maidenhead was facing “a particular and acute problem” because 83 per cent is classed as green-belt land.
Patrick Griffin, from the Berkshire branch of the CPRE, said 262 hectares of the land earmarked for new homes in Maidenhead and Windsor was in the green belt. Nationwide, the CPRE said there were plans for 360,000 homes on protected land.
The HCA — which is due to change its name to Homes England — controls a £3 billion Home Building Fund, to help finance building projects.
“I understand the pressure and demands there are on local authorities,” Mr Dudley said, but added that he also understood finance.
“In reality, the HCA is a house finance bank so it has got to have people who understand finance on its board. I am a career banker and I am someone who brings a lot of experience in finance, risk and lending.”

]]><![CDATA[Third Week of Local Plan Comments]]>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:20:25 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/third-week-of-local-plan-commentsReporting further here, the ongoing comments of dissatisfaction with RBWM Local Plan Consultation and RBWM's unsatisfactory actions in that regard.

Members and Friends of HRA who receive my periodic emails and prompts to read this website will know of my strong opposition to development on Green Belt land. Some may recall that in 2015, having had a good experience of help from Conservative Ward Councillors, and being aware of their Manifesto promises about Green Belt land, I was so bold as to recommend that our three ward Councillors be re-elected to the Borough Council.

Since then, Councillor Walters has lived up to expectations, but the others have not. I have further been disappointed with the fact that the Bray Parish Council has been burdened by having to accept onto their membership, five Borough Councillors. I should say here that Cllr Walters has been a long-standing Councillor in both Bray Parish Council and RBWM Council, and there have been times in the past when I have not thought well of this. Moving on - now 33.3% of Bray Parish Council has been made up of Borough Councillors. This, of course, is down to us the residents who voted them onto the Parish Council. But I for one did not vote for them. I think it is bad practice that a Parish Council should have to accept a Borough Councillor, who periodically, depending on the topic, has to withdraw or be excluded from decision making for the Parish Council.

After all - surely it is reasonable to expect that a Bray Parish Councillor, no matter what his or her other affiliations, should always act in the best interests of Bray Parish, not in the interests, as we have here, of RBWM and their Local Development Plan. A plan that is being tailored to satisfy the demands of Central Government, so that the latter's Planning Inspectorate will accept the plan.

In my opinion, any Bray Parish Councillor who cannot or will not act in the best interests of Bray Parishioners must resign from the Parish Council.

Now - this week's letters in the Maidenhead Advertiser!!!

First a letter of response from Cll Walters in the Maidenhead Advertiser of 9th February 2017, to the comments last week from the Lead Member for Planning Cllr Derek Wilson. I show that immediately below with, below that, a further letter of complaint about the RBWM's treatment of Cllr Walters.

Next we have from the same issue of the Advertiser, a letter from Ken Elvin the leader of Bray Parish Council. I congratulate Cllr Elvin on his forthright comments. His letter is followed by a further short letter of complaint.

And finally this week, a letter from the Chairman and Committee of the Oakley Green and Fifield Residents Association. I congratulate them on their stance and their organization of the public meeting to which they refer.

I would mention here that it is possible for anyone to comment on this blog.

]]><![CDATA[Further RBWM Local Plan Developments]]>Sat, 04 Feb 2017 14:17:56 GMThttp://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/chairmans-blog/further-rbwm-local-plan-developmentsIn the Maidenhead Advertiser of 2nd February 2017, RBWM Councillor Derek Wilson the Lead member for planning responded to Clllr Leo Walter's letter as shown below. I note the Maidenhead Advertiser Editor's comment "Eh?" and feel somewhat the same. Perhaps I would say, "So what" as the fact surely remains that RBWM's Conservative Councillors who in their 2015 manifesto stated that they would PROTECT THE GREEN BELT, and claimed to have delivered every one of their commitments, saying that they "AIM TO REPEAT OUR COMMITMENT TO DO AS WE PROMISE", have failed to repeat their commitment and have not done as promised.

Further to the letter from Cllr Wilson, he remarks that the Green Belt sites would not be fully built out as there has to be provision for open space - he does not say what proportion has to be left as open space. I think this is of little comfort. Is the garden of a house "Open Space"? Cllr Wilson says that 41.5% of the units (by which I believe he means dwellings) will be on Green belt sites. But this does not alter Cllr Walters statement that was provided by RBWM as their response to a Freedom of Information request. According to Cllr Walters, RBWM stated that 86% of the area allocated for housing is from Green belt. It would seem then, that Cllr Wilson's last paragraph is incorrect as 86% of the total land to be built on will come from Green Belt. Further, as I have said before now, a disproportionately large amount is from Bray Ward or Bray Parish, or adjacent to it.

The fact of the extra traffic arising from the new dwellings is one of the most disturbing factors in this.

I further show below a clip from the Times of 3rd February 2017, where the Campaign to Protect Rural England has given support to Cllr Walters.

In my previous post, at the end, I said that we will have yet another chance to comment later this year. Since then I have been asked what form that further consultation will take. I asked Cllr Wilson, but have had no response.

I therefore show below an excerpt from the appropriate Statutory Instrument. The Consultation that has just been completed was under Regulation 18 of that SI. It seems that RBWM have next to show that they have considered our comments, incorporating or not, as they decide, and are then to produce their Plan for submission to Central Government's Planning Inspectorate. At that stage they have to invite our further comments, this being under Regulation 19. Regulation 20 gives us the right to comment. I have been unable to find in the legislation anything to say that RBWM must submit to the Planning Inspectorate any of the comments made under Regulations 19 and 20. However, I believe that that is the RBWM intention.

]]>