All Categories

RBWM Local Plan Developments

29/1/2017

Not long ago (16th Dec 2016) I wrote to HRA Members, forwarding the text of a letter that I had
written to the Maidenhead Advertiser (MA) that same day, a letter which MA did not publish.

The text of that letter follows;

Local Plan and Bray Ward / Parish

Sir,

RBWM council is 94.7% Conservative (54 councillors). The 2015 Conservative manifesto stated they would PROTECT THE GREEN BELT. They claimed to have delivered every one of their commitments, saying that they "AIM TO REPEAT OUR COMMITMENT TO DO AS WE PROMISE".

Bray Parish Council (BPC) has fifteen Councillors, five being RBWM Conservative Councillors, one
of whom is RBWM Council Leader, another the Lead Councillor for Planning – the latter in charge of the Local Plan.

We now see in their Local Plan that RBWM propose to build on Green Belt, a disproportionate
amount of which is in Bray Parish / Bray Ward.

The agenda for a BPC meeting on 12th December conveyed that during discussion on a BPC
response to the Local Plan, understood to be critical of the use of Green Belt land, the RBWM
Councillors would not take part.

Residents elect Councillors to act in Residents best interests.

It should be a Parish Council principle that a Parish Councillor cannot also be a Borough Councillor.

Bray Parish Council has recently submitted to RBWM its Neighbourhood Plan, documenting its
demand that Local Plan Area HA11 to the South East of Fifield is a "Green Gap" that must remain
as Green Belt.

Bray Parish Council would not include my claim that Green Belt to the North West of Holyport (HA9, HA8, HA7 (and HA6) a combined area of 104 Hectares) is also a "Green Gap" between Holyport and Maidenhead.

Now we see that RBWM ignore BPC and will build on all of these areas.

In 2014 HRA and the Holyport Preservation Society submitted resident backed, still valid,
justification to RBWM showing that Area HA9 (known then as Area 5C) and Area 7A had to remain as Green Belt. RBWM accepted that, but for HA9 have since reneged on their promise.

My draft comments on the Local Plan and our 2014 submission can be found on the Holyport
Residents Association (HRA) website under general heading Local Problems.

Only one Bray Ward RBWM Councillor (Walters) has shown any willingness to fight this RBWM
Green Belt decimation.

I advise all other Conservative Councillors that I will not vote for them again.

Sincerely
Andrew Cormie,
Chairman, Holyport Residents Association

Since then the Local Plan Consultation has taken place with many complaints from the public about the short time span of the consultation and the difficulties in making comments on the RBWM website.

Now, in the Maidenhead Advertiser of 26th January 2017 we see on their NEWS page (page 5) that the Council Leader Simon Dudley has removed Cllr Leo Walters, not only from Chairmanship of the panel but entirely from the RBWM Planning and Housing Overview Panel. This is apparently due to Cllr Walters having sent an email to his panel members advising what a member of the public had extracted from RBWM and advised to Cllr Walters as leader of said panel; this being that 86% of total land proposed to be allocated for housing and new development would be in the greenbelt.

The news item is shown below;

It is not long ago that the former leader of RBWM Council, having been accused of bullying, was
replaced by Cllr Dudley, who we now see might be exhibiting that same undesirable quality.

In the same MA issue on page 18 we see a letter from Cllr Walters, A letter that I imagine contains
much of what was said in Cllr Walters's email to panel members. I show that letter below;

My own comments to RBWM on their local plan are accessible elsewhere on this website, and in
these comments I made much of the fact that in our past consultation of Holyport Residents,
approximately 90% were in favour of protection of Green Belt.

It is sad indeed that apart from Cllr Walters, no RBWM Bray Ward Councillor or RBWM Councillor
sitting as a Bray Parish Councillor (all Conservative Councillors whose manifesto on which they
were elected stated that they would protect the greenbelt), has found it possible to prevent the
scenario disastrous for Green Belt presented by RBWM Planning Department under the leadership
of Cllr Derek Wilson, who is also a Bray Parish Councillor.

Could it be that this lack of support for greenbelt is also due to bullying tactics?

I highlight again the ludicrous situation whereby Bray Parish Council, due to one third of its Councillors being also RBWM Councillors, fails to act as a united body to support the interests of Bray Parish.

Further, the focus in BPC has been more about protecting HA11 and HA18, the "Green Gap" of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, which lie between Fifield and Windsor. But despite that, RBWM are still promoting these areas for development, as well as all areas to the North East of Holyport.

Their development would join Maidenhead to Holyport. This is counter to four of the five purposes of the NPPF i.e;

1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of history towns;

We know of course that Central Government's policies are the main reason why RBWM has to be
seen to consider development on Green Belt, and it may be that having considered comments from the public, RBWM may feel justified in fighting back against Central Government. That will depend on whether or not sufficient strength of feeling has been conveyed from the public to RBWM.

We will have yet another chance to comment later this year.

0 Comments

Thames Hospice - possible move to our area.

20/1/2017

0 Comments

I am editing this blog as of 12th April 2017, and show additions in red.

As you know our measure of residents opinions in 2014 concluded that 90% of residents are against building in Green Belt.

Also we have concern over building in flood danger areas.

You may have noted that the Green Belt area HA18 between the A308 and Bray Lake has been indicated in the draft Local Plan for both houses and the Thames Hospice.

Bray Parish Council put the Thames Hospice in touch with me. They wished to make themselves known to Residents and to advise of their plans.

I visited Thames Hospice and met with their CEO Debbie Raven, and she gave me a copy of plans that can be accessed below. She tells me that these are subject to change and already they intend only one entrance from the A308, not the two shown.

Debbie also advised that they have not yet made a planning application. The planning application has now been made - its reference number is 17/00798/FULL.

I have advised Debbie that I am concerned about that location due to its being on flood plain, however she tells me that their architect can take this into account.

I consider that if RBWM is determined that the area be built upon, then it is better for us that the Hospice be there, in part of the area, than if it is all houses.

I believe that only houses would generate more road traffic than would houses and the Hospice. Also I think that the view from homes on the A308 opposite would be better with the Hospice than with houses.

Further, some of us may need the hospice some day!

If any of you wish to contact Thames Hospice please email tara.biddle@thameshospice.org.uk

Their website is www.thameshospice.org.uk

My blog above may lead some to think that I am in favour of the Thames Hospice being built. This is not the case. I prefer that the land remains as Green Belt without any building.

For this reason I objected to the Thames Hospice Planning application on 11th April 2017. My objection was as follows;

Planning Application 17/00798

I object to this proposal.

The land is Green belt and on a flood plain.

See report "The Assessment of Flood Risk for Proposed Development Sites at Holyport, by Dr Harvey J.E. Rodda FRGS March 2014" at;

http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/hps_rbwm_hydrology.pdf which on page 6 shows the area to be "Major aquifer intermediate vulnerability". On page 9 we see that the land is flood risk 3 and 2.

This can also be seen directly on the Environment Agency map at;

http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?value=SL6+2DN&submit.x=12&submit.y=10&lang=_e&ep=map&topic=floodmap&layerGroups=default&scale=9&textonly=off

It is on the busy A308, which due to presence of street lighting should be a restricted road with a 30 mph speed limit. However for reasons that have not been revealed to me by RBWM the speed limit is currently 40mph.

This road is already far too busy. Residents who live on it find it extremely difficult to drive out of their properties.

The parking space to be provided within the Hospice area is over 200. This is an indication of too much new traffic that would arise from this proposed development.

Main Plan

Ground Floor

Upper Floor

0 Comments

Dissatisfaction with Bray Parish Council and RBWM Planning Department

2/2/2016

4 Comments

I write the following to draw attention to a state of affairs that I consider wrong.

This has arisen partly because of Central Government’s introduction of their National Planning Policy Framework, a document which is GUIDANCE not LAW, but which is a document that Bray Parish Council and RBWM is apparently afraid to treat as guidance, being more inclined to slavishly follow it.

Further, although anyone applying for planning permission, who has had such permission refused, has a right of appeal to the Central Government Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol; a resident badly affected by new building approved by a bad planning approval decision has no right of appeal, neither to the Planning Inspectorate, nor to the Local Authority.

In these modern days where Central Government has set the Planning Appraisal System to be biased in favour of development I consider that there is a need for an appeal system for those badly affected by impositions approved by a Local Authority.

I would be interested to hear from any residents who have had problems with Bray Parish Council and / or RBWM on Planning matters, whether these are problems due to planning permission being refused, or bad feelings about Planning Permission being given, resulting in the building of unsightly structures or impositions of any nature.

A resident who we shall refer to as “Resident A” has a problem; firstly in that a neighbour “Resident B” wishing to have a ground floor rear extension to replace an existing conservatory has included in their plan - side windows from which they could look into a rear patio door window on Resident A’s house.

The second problem is that when Resident A commented to Bray Parish Council and to RBWM Planning that the side windows could be acceptable but only if they would be glazed in densely occluded glass, neither BPC nor RBWM agreed with that, and gave permission to build and install the windows with plain glass.

Note at this point that when RBWM made their site visit they only visited the applicant (Resident B). RBWM Planning did not visit resident A, or set foot on Resident A’s property, so there is no way that they could fully appreciate the problem that will arise.

I consider that the fact that the site visit did not include a visit to Resident A's property makes this Planning Assessment null and void.

At this point I include the button below that will download a PDF of the North Somerset Council’s Supplementary Planning Document - Residential Design Guide – section 1 - Protecting living conditions of neighbours.

NSC Supp. Plan. Doc.

This document clearly recommends the use of densely occluded glass for windows that would impose such effects as will pertain in this case. Why has RBWM not included such wording in their Local Plan?

RBWM Planning explained as follows as to why they gave permission without requiring occluded glass;

“Applications for domestic extensions are assessed against the requirements of Policy H14 and sub-paragraph (2) requires that extensions should not cause an unacceptable loss of light of privacy to adjacent properties or significantly affect their amenities. The application proposes the replacement of the existing extension with one of a slightly larger footprint, due to the squaring-off of the south-west corner. Turning to how the Planning Authority assess whether development would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy we would take into consideration matters such as the following:-

The existing development has side-facing windows; shown on plan as having an uppermost height of 2m above internal finished floor level.

The proposed development would only extend closer to the adjacent dwelling for the rearmost 2m.

The proposed development has side-facing windows; shown on plan as having an uppermost height 2.05m above internal finished floor level.

Planning permission is not required for the insertion of any ground floor windows.

Turning to the matter of imposing conditions. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) requires under paragraph 206 that “Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.” As planning permission is not required for the insertion of any ground floor windows under any circumstances, the Local Planning Authority would be acting unreasonably to impose conditions relating to such.

I’m sorry that, in this instance, your concern regarding the impact of the proposed windows in the development can be afforded little-weight as a material consideration.”

Resident A responded to RBWM Planning as follows (paraphrased slightly to make anonymous);

YOU SAY;

"Applications for domestic extensions are assessed against the requirements of Policy H14 and sub-paragraph (2) requires that extensions should not cause an unacceptable loss of light of (IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE PREVIOUS WORD SHOULD BE "OR") privacy to adjacent properties or significantly affect their amenities."

I SAY;

I already sent you by email an electronic copy of a plan hand drawn by me on top of an extract from Resident B's plans. That plan clearly demonstrates the UNACCEPTABLE LOSS OF PRIVACY that will arise from the inclusion of side windows without occluded glass. It is clear that such an imposition will SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT MY AMENITIES.

Any reasonable person would understand this, and I would expect someone who is a professional planner to be able to recognise this as an UNACCEPTABLE IMPOSITION.

What is more, any person who might otherwise buy my house will clearly be made less likely to do so because his neighbour would be able to look into his rear patio door windows and onto his rear patio. Alternatively the buyer will use the fact as justification for reducing the price he is willing to pay.

NEXT YOU SAY;

"The application proposes the replacement of the existing extension with one of a SLIGHTLY LARGER FOOTPRINT, due to the squaring-off of the south-west corner."

I SAY;

This is a GROSSLY INCORRECT SIMPLIFICATION - the application not only squares off the corner, it extends the plot by a further 940 mm (almost 1 metre). When the existing conservatory was installed many years ago the then owner had the courtesy to include the angled corner and not extend so far, (he mentioned it to me at the time) so that there would be firstly no imposition of overlooking of the nature that the current proposals will facilitate, and secondly - the inclusion of the 45 degree angled part reduced the amount by which the view from our windows was affected by the close wall of the conservatory.

NEXT YOU SAY;

Turning to how the Planning Authority assess whether development would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy we would take into consideration matters such as the following:-

The existing development has side-facing windows; shown on plan as having an uppermost height of 2m above internal finished floor level.

The proposed development would only extend closer to the adjacent dwelling for the rearmost 2m.

The proposed development has side-facing windows; shown on plan as having an uppermost height 2.05m above internal finished floor level.

Planning permission is not required for the insertion of any ground floor windows.

I SAY;

This is inaccurate as follows;

The existing development in the conservatory has side facing windows, BUT they are closer to the main house and so the angle of view onto my property is less direct. Note also that the current owner keeps these covered by closed venetian blinds. When the conservatory was originally built, a shrub on my side of the fence hid my house from those windows. From the plan I attach you will see how the new windows, especially the outer one, will facilitate a much more extensive and direct view into my home.

You say that the proposed development will only extend closer for the rearmost 2 metres, but it is that same 2 metres with associated window that makes the imposition that much greater.

You say that the new windows will be higher than the existing ones by 50 mm as if this is acceptable, but why should ANY increase in height be acceptable? In my plan attached I state that the window height above the fence will be 310 mm (1 foot). More than ample as a view point; and it now seems that as you say the new ones will be higher by 50 mm than the existing, this will actually mean about 457 mm (1.5 ft) of window above the fence top

You state that planning permission is not required for the insertion of any ground floor windows, but the word "window" does not define the nature of the window. I maintain that it remains open to you the planning authority to decide whether the glass in that window be occluded or not. I have a dictionary that defines a window as "Opening in wall to admit air and light, usually covered with glass." A window fitted with occluded glass meets that definition perfectly well.

NEXT YOU SAY;

Turning to the matter of imposing conditions. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) requires under paragraph 206 that “Planning conditions SHOULD only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.” As planning permission is not required for the insertion of any ground floor windows under any circumstances, the Local Planning Authority would be acting unreasonably to impose conditions relating to such.

I SAY;

Firstly the NPPF in its Introduction Paragraph 13 states "The National Planning Policy Framework constitutes GUIDANCE for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications."

Secondly you must note the use of the word "should". "Should" is not mandatory; it allows you to use your common sense and gives you the freedom to make good decisions.

Further the full text of the NPPF section to which you refer is shown below;

“Planning conditions and obligations

203. Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.

204. Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:

● necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

● directly related to the development; and

● fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

205. Where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.

206. Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary,
relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable,
precise and reasonable in all other respects.”

So I refer to paragraph 203 where you are advised to consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made more acceptable through the use of planning conditions.

I consider that the planning condition I request IS MOST DEFINITELY NECESSARY as otherwise the resulting new ability of my neighbour or future unknown neighbours to look into my home is UNREASONABLE, AN IMPOSITION, A TORT UPON ME.

I say that you must consider whether planning permission is reasonable for the persons affected by the new works, NOT consider whether reasonable for the applicant who wishes to impose the tort.

Why, I ask myself should anyone wish to install a window that can facilitate a view into a neighbour’s house, and why is planning law not written to prevent that happening?

By copy of this to the Councillor responsible for Planning I ask him for his support.

I continue in my request that a condition be applied that the two proposed side windows in the extension be glazed in densely occluded glass, and I ask you what possible reason can there be for anyone to wish to have clear glazed windows on the side of their house through the upper 457 mm (1.5 ft) of which they can look into their neighbour's house and onto their patio. And I may add, through the lower part of which they can see only their own fence just over 1.1 metres distant.

I consider that my criticism of your statements has revealed many errors, and that you have failed in your duty of care to residents to ensure that plans you approve do not inflict unnecessary problems for those whom the proposals will affect. Further, these errors formed the basis of your persuasion of Cllr Walters to withdraw his call for this application to be considered by Development Control Panel, and I believe that you have incorrectly persuaded him to withdraw that application. Further I wonder if there is actually any established procedural basis within RBWM for a request for panel to be stopped.

I consider that my logic above is sufficient to support my request for densely occluded glass in the side windows proposed for the new extension. If you will not make that a condition of approval, then please advise me what is open to me by way of appeal against your decision.

RBWM responded by classing Resident A’s request as a complaint. But subsequently RBWM responded as shown below in red, with Resident A's comments in green;

I refer to your email dated 15th January. This email has been forwarded to me in order to try and address your concerns.

As detailed in the officers delegated report the planning officer carried out an assessment and did not consider that the proposal resulted in an unacceptable loss of privacy. The assessment took into account a site visit, development plan policies and knowledge of planning law.

The site visit was incomplete as it did not include a visit to my property.

The decision that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking was based upon the position and size of the proposed windows and account taken of the glazed side elevation of the existing conservatory.

This does not take account of the fact that the most offending of the new windows is further out from the existing windows and so gives a more extensive view into my home.

The case officer’s recommendation was checked by a Team Manager of considerable experience who agreed with the case officer’s assessment and their interpretation of policy.

Secondly, I can confirm that any loss of value in the property is I am afraid not a material planning consideration.

The increase in length of the extension by 94mm over the existing conservatory was assessed and was found not to harm your amenities through overbearing impact or loss of light and I do not consider that the matter has been over simplified.

The increase is 940mm not 94mm.

Officers cannot take into account whether existing windows are covered by blinds as it would be unreasonable to condition this and unenforceable. Any loss of privacy from the side windows was not considered so harmful to warrant refusal of the application.

It is subjective as to whether a loss of privacy is harmful. I consider it is harmful and I am best placed to judge especially as your planners in their site visit did not view the matter from my property.

The increase in height of the windows does not render the scheme unacceptable. Furthermore, it would have been unreasonable to have required the windows to have been obscured glazed as the level of overlooking was not considered unacceptable.

As mentioned above, your planners cannot judge whether or not the level of overlooking will be unacceptable because they did not view the matter from my property.

The imposition of a condition would not have been necessary or reasonable and would be considered ultra vires.

"Ultra vires" meaning "beyond your powers" is a nonsensical statement. Clearly the North Somerset Council does not consider it beyond their powers to require occluded glass and neither should RBWM.

The decision has now been issued and for the above reasons and the reasons contained within the officer’s report it is not considered necessary or reasonable to condition that the side windows are obscure glazed.

The decision has been wrongly issued and RBWM should recognise this and change their decision.

In assessing the case I do not agree with your statement that errors were made or that the local planning authority has failed in its duty of care to residents. Your concerns were professionally assessed in the determination of the application.

The lack of a proper site visit proves your assertion that the case was professionally assessed to be nonsense.

I can confirm that there is no procedure in place to prevent a Councillor changing their mind regarding the call in of an application to panel.

You have not addressed my complaint that you incorrectly persuaded Councillor Walters to "change his mind" and withdraw his call in of the application to panel. He was incorrectly persuaded through RBWM use of NPPF wording selectively favourable to RBWM cause; whereas as I have pointed out - other NPPF wording requires that in cases of unacceptable loss of privacy conditions are to be applied.

Lastly, I can confirm that there is no right of appeal for third parties. If you feel that you still have outstanding issues then you need to pursue these under the Council’s complaint procedure.

Details of the Councils complaint procedure can be found on our Web Site using the following link

http://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200407/complaints_procedure/898/complaints_policy_and_procedure. However, I believe you have already embarked upon this procedure.

Resident A has now made a formal complaint against both RBWM and Bray Parish Council.

I conclude as follows;

The Localism Act and the NPPF combine to make Local Authorities more likely approve Planning Applications. This is because to disallow or to impose conditions sets the scene for the applicant to appeal, causing more expense for the Local Authority. Conversely, the neighbour who is inconvenienced by the new works has no right of appeal, so to always approve is the cheaper option for the Local Authority. Further, a Planning Officer who has a record of no appeals against their decisions, saving money for the Local Authority, becomes (incorrectly) a good employee, and enables the writing of a seemingly good CV.

I have asked Theresa May to press for a change in the Planning process so that anyone affected by a development approved by a Local Authority may appeal against it.

I consider that RBWM’s failure to perform a site visit to the neighbours property to properly assess the effect of the proposed extension’s windows is a sufficient omission to make RBWM’s approval invalid.

RBWM have incorrectly treated the NPPF as law not guidance.

RBWM have selectively quoted from the NPPF in an attempt to justify their wish to approve with no conditions.

RBWM used the selective quotes from the NPPF to gull the Councillor who had agreed to call in the application for consideration by panel, into withdrawing his application.

This blog is open to comments from anyone.

Subsequent to this post, a gentleman who has been similarly affected added a post below.

To make it easier to see the situation into which RBWM have placed him I make a PDF of the description available through clicking the button "Former Bricklayers Arms".

The link below gives an interesting insight into the behaviour of RBWM Councillors.

http://m.windsorobserver.co.uk/news/13781380.Planning_permission_given_to_flatten_old_Windsor_pub/

Former Bricklayers Arms

4 Comments

Homeshare

17/1/2016

0 Comments

A charity named Ategi approached me and asked if I would give publicity to their organization. They said that they worked in association with RBWM, and I have had conformation from RBWM that this is the case.

In summary Ategi brings together people who want or need company in their homes with those who are looking for accommodation and can provide some care and companionship.

The service is not free however, and I think it is quite expensive.

The following links provide information;

http://search3.openobjects.com/kb5/rbwm/directory/site.page?id=lWpEw1CqtJk

and

http://www.ategi.org.uk/

The following button will download an ategi leaflet;

ATEGI LEAFLET

0 Comments

Concern on EU intentions on Trade Agreements with USA and Canada

8/6/2015

0 Comments

The following is copied from this https://stop-ttip.org/ website.

QUOTE
The EU soon intends to sign two far-reaching trade agreements: one with Canada (CETA = Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) and one with the USA (TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). The official line is that this will create jobs and increase economic growth. However, the beneficiaries of these agreements are not in fact citizens, but big corporations:

Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement (ISDS): Foreign investors (i.e. Canadian and US companies) receive the right to sue for damages if they believe that they have suffered losses because of laws or measures of the EU or of individual EU member states. This can also affect laws which were enacted in the interest of the common good, such as environmental and consumer protection.

Groups of companies are intended to be included even during the elaboration of new regulations and laws if their trade interests could be affected. The name for this is: “regulatory cooperation”. It means that representatives of big business are invited to participate in expert groups to influence new draft laws, even before these are discussed in the elected parliaments. This undermines democracy!

Big business had, and still has, excessive influence on the secret negotiations relating to CETA and TTIP. Alone in the preparatory phase for TTIP, 590 meetings took place between the EU Commission and lobby representatives, according to official statements. 92% of these meetings were with representatives of companies, while only in a few cases there were discussions with consumer and trade union representatives. And also during the negotiations, representatives of industry are exercising influence. Some formulations in draft texts which have filtered through to the public originate directly from the pens of company lobbyists.

The negotiations are conducted in secret. Even our public representatives know little if anything about their progress. They receive the results in the form of long agreements (the CETA agreement, for example, has about 1,500 pages) only after conclusion of the negotiations, and are therefore able only to either accept or reject the whole agreement without being able to ask for amendments.

Employee rights are coming under pressure, and jobs in numerous industries are endangered. In the USA, only a few basic rights for employees are recognised (only two out of the eight ILO core labour standards). In agriculture and in the electrical industry, massive job losses could occur because of the tougher competition from abroad.

Liberalisation and privatisation are intended to become one-way streets. The return of public utilities, hospitals, or waste collection to the public sector once they have been privatised would be made more difficult or even impossible through CETA and TTIP.

The EU and its member states are falling under pressure to allow risky technologies such as fracking or GM technology.

Foodstuff standards and consumer protection for cosmetics and medical products threaten to be set at the same levels as US standards. However, we need higher rather than lower standards of protection, whether they apply to the use of pesticides, factory farming, or clean sources of energy. Regulatory cooperation and ISDS would make this more difficult or impossible.
UNQUOTE

I have long had concern on this and have written to our MP and also to MEP's In the main the MEP's are against it, but our MP is happy about it. I hope this persuades readers to act by signing the petition on the aforementioned site.

See also http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/01/23/ttip-more-foreign-judges-criticising-our-laws/ and see this https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_loc_2/?bvuKbbb&v=56805 for an example of the sort of thing that the ISDS allows.

0 Comments

Bray Parish Council's Neighbourhood Development Plan

27/5/2015

2 Comments

Further to my blog dated 23rd May 2105, I must now add that I would vote against the Plan in its present form. Residents can comment on the Draft Plan until the extended date of Friday 24th July 2015.

I have not been involved in the Bray Parish Council Neighbourhood Development Planning process except to criticise it. This is because I wish to be free to object if I think it necessary.

Why do I not like it - as explained in the home page of this website - the way it has been established by government to allow a Neighbourhood to promote MORE development than the Borough Local Plan but never LESS development. I recently learned that the proper legal title for a Neighbourhood Plan is a "Neighbourhood Development Plan". So why are these mostly called "Neighbourhood Plans"? I suppose because the latter seems more innocuous.

Although it is legally established that Neighbourhood Development Plans may promote MORE development than does the Borough Local Plan, it is only an option that the Plan could promote more development, it is not a requirement that it do so. Thus, it could be acceptable to me if the Bray Parish Council's Neighbourhood Planners would pay attention to what residents have indicated they want, and ensure that the Plan DOES NOT ALLOW development on the Local Plan identified areas 7A and 5C. As we know, there was a clear indication from 88% to 97% of residents who responded to the HRA survey for the Local Plan, that these two areas must not be built on, and we know from the RBWM that their Local Plan intends that these areas will remain as Green Belt, not to be developed.

The RBWM statement of 26th February 2015 in connection with the Local Plan, rules out any development on all of the Bray Parish Green Belt, and this decision was supported by the three RBWM Bray Ward Councillors, and these councillors are still in place. Perhaps part of the reason that residents voted for them was that these councillors had heeded Residents wishes regarding Areas 7A and 5C. The reporting RBWM Councillor for the Local Plan (not an RBWM Bray Ward Councillor) is also a Bray Parish Councillor. Two of the three RBWM Bray Ward Councillors are members of the Steering Committee for the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan and one of those is a Bray Parish Councillor. As of the recent election, the third RBWM Bray Ward Councillor (the leader of the RBWM council) is now also a Bray Parish Councillor. This being the case it is difficult to understand why the BPNDP as currently written still allows development on Bray Parish Greenbelt, especially on areas 7A and 5C.

The document issued to residents for comments by Bray Parish Council on 18th May 2015 (the "SHARE YOUR VIEWS" (SYV) document), states that "The Plan therefore does not propose any further housing development within Bray Parish", (also published on 21st May by the Maidenhead Advertiser) but the effect of this statement is only for the immediate future, it is not a permanent rule. It does not align with the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan Vision Statement second sentence shown in the SYV and in the Draft Plan "We will respond to the housing needs of our communities with sympathetic development". Further, it conflicts with the SYV Objective Number 7 "To ensure that housing changes maintain, and where possible enhance, the quality and character of the Parish so that future generations can enjoy the same or a better living and working environment." In addition, this concept of allowing housing development in the future is established by 11 of the Plan's policies BNP – GB1, GB2, BE1, BE2, BE3, BE4, BE5, BE6, BE8, TI1 and TI4. Well, after all it is a NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN!

Regarding the Plan statement mentioned above "We will respond to the housing needs of our communities with sympathetic development", I ask how can the housing needs of our communities be differentiated from the housing needs of incomers? If housing is built for people who live here, there is no restriction on these same people soon selling to incomers. Then there could be further pressure from residents for houses for them and this process of residents getting homes and selling to incomers, with subsequent residents pressure for more homes, would gradually fill our area with homes for incomers, whilst always increasing profits for developers. This in Violet added 31 May 2015 - A comment has been raised about my remarks above re incomers. My concern is not about incomers as such, it is just that I think it impossible not to have the situation I described above, so I feel that the phraseology used by BPNDP is disingenuous.

There is no policy statement that protects areas 7A and 5C, so I have suggested that the following be included as the first policy;

"This Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan excludes from any possibility of development the areas identified in the RBWM First Preferred Options Consultation as Area 5C and Area 7A."

Reason for above policy - The RBWM’s conclusions on their First Preferred Options Consultation include that Areas 7A and 5C are Green Belt not for development, and this is supported by the HRA opinion survey for the RBWM Consultation, which found that 96.9% of Residents who responded said that they do not want any development on Area 7A, and 88.1% said they do not want it on Area 5C.

____________________________________________

Another topic that has caused me concern is expressed in the Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan as follows;

"The Plan supports the planning and construction of a link road to the south of the M4 to alleviate passing traffic problems on the A330. The planned-for increase in traffic on the 'widened' M4 together with the substantial population increase resulting from housing development in the Royal Borough and in the adjacent areas North of Bracknell/Binfield are the main contributors to the issues, as well as commercial traffic passing though the Parish. A southbound link road would complement the busy A404(M) thus linking the M40 to the A4 and M4 and through towards the M3. The Plan supports the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership which has identified the need for a North-South link between the M40/M4 corridor and the M4/M3 area as a strategic priority to promote economic development in the region. Similarly the Plan sees this link as a main priority in securing a solution to the increasing Parish traffic problem and the method for improving intra Borough traffic flow. The link through the M4 should serve the A404M to encourage through traffic usage. It is noted that there are only two southerly exits on the M4 between Junction 4b (M25) and Junction 10 (A329M). The Plan supports the Highways Agency M4 SMART scheme currently under consultation."

You may have seen that no mention of the above appears in the SYV document. It only contains a policy as follows;

BNP TI1 "As an objective of the Plan is the free flow of safe traffic throughout the Parish, any developments that have an impact on traffic movements in the Parish must provide a road infrastructure that is appropriate for all forms of transport allowing for regulatory requirements and forecasted increases in such movements."

It is clear to me that the aforementioned policy as written would allow the aforementioned link road. But there is no place in Bray Parish to put a link road from M4 J8/9 that would not cause great disruption to existing homes, and / or would cause extreme noise pollution and further gaseous pollution, especially if the said link road were to become a link to the M3.

I have therefore suggested a change to the Plan text as follows;

"The Plan supports the planning and construction of a new M4 motorway junction approximately mid-way between the existing M4 J8/9 and J10 with associated new North and South feeder roads. This would encourage M4 traffic originating or terminating in these catchment areas, (in particular the Bracknell / Binfield areas), to avoid J 8/9 and the Bray Parish Area as a whole. This would alleviate passing through traffic problems in the Bray Parish Area. The planned-for increase in traffic on the 'widened' M4 together with the substantial population increase resulting from housing development in the Royal Borough and in the adjacent areas North of Bracknell / Binfield are the main contributors to the need for such roads, as well as commercial traffic passing through the Parish. The Plan supports the concept expressed by the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership in so far as a North-South link between the M4 and the M3 would improve traffic flow. The new motorway junction and associated feeder roads we suggest here would assist in this regard."

And suggested a change to the BNP TI1 policy thus;

"BNP-TI1: As an objective of the Plan is the free flow of safe traffic throughout the Parish, any developments that have an impact on traffic movements in the Parish must provide an access road infrastructure to the satisfaction of Bray Parish Council and that is appropriate for all forms of transport allowing for regulatory requirements and forecasted predicted increases in such movements. This policy does not advocate the building of any new major roads or modifications to the M4 8/9 junction."

__________________________________________

There are other areas of concern to me, but the aforementioned are the most important. Residents are invited to add their comments here, or in the Forum.

2 Comments

Bray Parish Council's Neighbourhood Development Plan

23/5/2015

0 Comments

The Bray Plan Steering Group whose website is www.brayplan.com is preparing, on Bray Parish Council's behalf, the Bray Parish NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (NDP) commonly known as Bray Plan or Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan.

The following links give further information about the development of such plans;

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/inyourarea/neighbourhood/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/who-leads-neighbourhood-planning-in-an-area/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/key-stages-in-neighbourhood-planning/

Note that the Bray Plan Steering group is not a Neighbourhood Forum, as such groups are only valid in areas not covered by a Parish Council. Where there is a Parish Council, should residents wish to have a NDP, it is the Parish Council that is accountable to residents for the proper development of such a NDP; such development to include obtaining the approval of residents.

Residents will know from the home page of this website that I have long had concerns about Neighbourhood Development Plans because the law allows such plans to promote MORE development but NOT LESS development than does the Borough Local Plan. As it is, at this time, the new Borough Local Plan does not exist, however we have been told by RBWM's Bray Ward Councillors that the new Borough Local Plan will designate our local Green Belt Areas 7A and 5C as Green Belt not for development.

My concern on the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan is justified by the fact that one of the first things proposed to RBWM Planning by the Bray Plan Steering Group was that Area 7A be developed. That proposal has since been withdrawn, but I remain concerned that some unacceptable loophole may be included in the Neighbourhood Development Plan. (Area 7A is the land bounded by Holyport Road, Aysgarth Park, Ascot Road and Old Holyport.)

Legally it is the Bray Parish Council that is accountable to residents for the Bray Parish NDP, and it is clear from the Bray Parish Council minutes of meeting at the following link that Bray Parish Council has authorised or delegated the Bray Plan organisation to operate on their behalf.

http://www.brayparishcouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/EO-Minutes-020215.pdf

It should be recognised though that the Bray Parish Council's ACCOUNTABILITY CANNOT BE DELEGATED.

The pdf downloadable from the button below is a copy of the information from the link on "Key stages in Neighbourhood Planning" and lists the main events and the order in which they must be carried out.

In the Bray plan website at http://www.brayplan.com/2015/05/08/chairmans-chat-may-2015/ we read that the draft plan is to be made available to residents from 18th May 2015.

This stage will be Step 3 in the "Key Stages" document "Pre-submission publicity and consultation".

Update as of 23rd May 2015 - The Draft Plan as at Stage 3 was issued on 18th May 2105 and my comments are available for download as a marked up copy extracted from the PDF document that Bray Parish Council issued. These are on this website page "Local Items" "Bray Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan"

Key Stages in NDP development

0 Comments

Summary of Recent Activity 22 Sept 2014

22/9/2014

0 Comments

Here is a summary of recent happenings of which I am aware. Anyone wishing to comment either email me or put it on the forum or respond to this blog.

1.         More than a year ago one concerned member and I held a petition requesting RBWM to hold a public consultation about traffic management on the roads through the Holyport area. We have met twice with RBWM and await a further meeting at which we hope that traffic calming measures to be offered for consultation will be agreed.

2.         During the summer of 2014 RBWM and Legoland held traffic trials for Legoland Traffic. For our area this entailed traffic signs directing traffic along the A330, and M4 motorway electronic signs were supposed to direct traffic to use J8/9. There is evidence to suggest that the motorway signs were not used as was intended, so I and others dispute whether the trials were successful. In other words, if the traffic was not directed to use our roads, how could it be judged that the extra traffic (if any) directed along our roads was acceptable?   Also there is now a proposal from Legoland that they buy some land from Crown Estates in order to enable Legoland to have a second exit. This would mean that much Legoland traffic would travel along the Drift Road and likely travel along the A330. I continue to communicate on this with our RBWM Ward Councillors and Bray Parish Council. I am advised that this would be subject to planning approval so residents could object. I will advise details as they are made known to me.

3.         During September 2014 I have heard from a few residents that they are concerned about increased aeroplane traffic over the Holyport area. Some background information follows;

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?cat=84

The web site above explains why there has been a increase in flights over the Holyport area in the last few months.

See also;

http://www.windsorobserver.co.uk/news/windsor/articles/2014/09/18/103745-datchet-and-old-windsor-villagers-to-get-a-chance-to-have-their-say-over-heathrow-noise/

extract below:-

The Royal Borough has written to the CAA demanding to know why it was not consulted before the trial route was devised, which would have given the council the chance to highlight the impact the new route would have on these communities.

The trial started last month and is due to operate until January 26, 2015. Any residents who have been affected by the noise can contact the airport directly by e-mail at noise_complaints@heathrow.com or by telephone on 0800 344 844.

See also;

http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/noise-in-your-area/track-flights-near-you

0 Comments

Legoland Traffic Trials

15/8/2014

2 Comments

Traffic Trials have been ongoing, experimenting with redirecting Legoland traffic to use roads in the Holyport Area.

Currently it seems there is an intention to add road signage to indicate a redirection to use either the A308 or the A330. As of 15th August there is a sign at the Braywick Roundabout, directing Legoland Traffic to use the A330 through Holyport.

I have been in touch with RBWM Councillors about this as I consider we already have too much traffic in this area. Today I sent an email to our three Ward Councillors asking them not to give their agreement.

Cllr Walters has already commented that Legoland traffic (which will include coaches) should not be directed through already very congested Holyport.

2 Comments

Meeting with RBWM about Traffic Calming in Holyport

17/6/2014

2 Comments

As many of you will know, especially those who responded to it, a petition was raised last year and submitted via Bray Parish Council to RBWM. It was submitted to BPC on 25th July 2013. Later it was supported by BPC and submitted to RBWM by Cllr David Coppinger.

The text and comments of those who signed are shown on this website under Topic - Speeding on Holyport Road and can also be accessed here:

http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/speeding-on-holyport-road.html

The following was the introduction on the online petition;

Petition Background (Preamble): We at the HRA believe that the speed and volume of traffic on Holyport Road has reached a level which makes it very dangerous to other drivers as well as to pedestrians and we are calling on the appropriate authorities (Highway Dept, Parish Council and Thames Valley police) to study the situation together with representatives of the HRA and come up with a solution that will benefit the residents of Holyport.

Petition: We the undersigned wish to complain most strongly about the constant abuse of the speed limit on the Holyport Road and the fact that the measures in place do nothing to curb the speed or reduce the amount of traffic.

We call on the appropriate authorities to meet with representatives of the HRA and discuss ways of improving the situation.

NOW - as of a few days ago RBWM proposes to meet with me to discuss this.

This will be advised to members and friends of HRA by email, and comments are invited.

A further petition was created by others regarding Ascot Road traffic. Comments are invited regarding progress on that one.

2 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Author

Andrew Cormie is concerned about the possibility of adverse change occurring in the Holyport Area. He is particularly concerned about the steady increase in traffic in this area, and the consequences of this - (noise, pollution, delays).
He is concerned about the imposition on local residents of developments that will cause increases in traffic.
He sees the HRA as a possible means to garner local opinion for all mattters that give concern to local residents.

RSS Feed

Categories

Archives

Author