In 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.
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.
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.
RSS Feed
