PLANNING APPLICATION FOR "LODGE FARM"
- UPDATE -
JANUARY 2021 - RBW Planning Ref 20/03371
In December 2020 Beaulieu Homes again submitted a Planning Application, seeking access to Lodge Farm from Holyport Road for 124 dwellings. This is an application for access only, which means that we do not really know what would occur should access be granted.
Holyport Residents Association has objected on 4th January 2021.
Our objection has a main document responding to the applicant's Planning Statement, together with 7 Appendices.
These eight documents are listed below;
Main - Holyport Residents Association (HRA) to RBWM -
Objection to Beaulieu Homes Planning Application - RBWM Ref 20/03371/OUT
HRA to RBWM – Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Main.pdf
Appendix 1 - NO POSSIBILITY OF ACCESS TO HOLYPORT ROAD
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 1.pdf
Appendix 2 - Map Showing Maidenhead relative to Holyport and Bray
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 2.pdf
Appendix 3 - Appeal Ref:: APP//JJ0405//WW//116//33147513 Aston Clinton - excerpts.
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 3.pdf
Appendix 4 - Photographs
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 4.pdf
Appendix 5 - Holyport Residents Association Survey Results.
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 5.pdf
Appendix 6 - Evidence by Professor Stephen Peckam
CPRE-Kent-4-Air-Quality.pdf
Appendix 7 - Pond Farm Judgement – Court of Appeal
Pond-Farm-Court-of-Appeal.pdf
The objection documents can be seen on the RBWM website or by downloading from the buttons below.
Holyport Residents Association has objected on 4th January 2021.
Our objection has a main document responding to the applicant's Planning Statement, together with 7 Appendices.
These eight documents are listed below;
Main - Holyport Residents Association (HRA) to RBWM -
Objection to Beaulieu Homes Planning Application - RBWM Ref 20/03371/OUT
HRA to RBWM – Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Main.pdf
Appendix 1 - NO POSSIBILITY OF ACCESS TO HOLYPORT ROAD
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 1.pdf
Appendix 2 - Map Showing Maidenhead relative to Holyport and Bray
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 2.pdf
Appendix 3 - Appeal Ref:: APP//JJ0405//WW//116//33147513 Aston Clinton - excerpts.
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 3.pdf
Appendix 4 - Photographs
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 4.pdf
Appendix 5 - Holyport Residents Association Survey Results.
HRA to RBWM - Lodge Farm Dec 2020 Appx 5.pdf
Appendix 6 - Evidence by Professor Stephen Peckam
CPRE-Kent-4-Air-Quality.pdf
Appendix 7 - Pond Farm Judgement – Court of Appeal
Pond-Farm-Court-of-Appeal.pdf
The objection documents can be seen on the RBWM website or by downloading from the buttons below.
An excellent representation on the poor Air Quality in the area has been submitted to RBWM and it is made available here with the author's permission at the button below.
I suggest that this document alone should be sufficient to oblige RBWM to quash the Lodge Farm Application and also to remove Area AL26 (between Windsor Road and Bray Lake) from the RBWM Local Development Plan.
I suggest that this document alone should be sufficient to oblige RBWM to quash the Lodge Farm Application and also to remove Area AL26 (between Windsor Road and Bray Lake) from the RBWM Local Development Plan.
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR "LODGE FARM" - UPDATE
- DECEMBER 2019 - 17/03857/OUT - PINS Ref: APP/T0355/W/19/3225689
As we had hoped, the Planning Inspectorate announced their dismissal of the Beaulieu Homes appeal and their refusal of planning permission; delaying their announcement until the day on which it had been promised; the 16th of December 2019.
The newspaper cuttings below are from the Maidenhead Advertiserof December 19th 2019.
Note that the Developer has stated that he is taking legal advice regarding the decision, so we may not yet be safe from this proposal.
The Planning Inspectorate's decision is available by clicking on the button below. We are disappointed that the Inspector chose to say as much as he has. We feel that by doing so he may have given too much waffle that the Developer may try to use to his advantage.
The newspaper cuttings below are from the Maidenhead Advertiserof December 19th 2019.
Note that the Developer has stated that he is taking legal advice regarding the decision, so we may not yet be safe from this proposal.
The Planning Inspectorate's decision is available by clicking on the button below. We are disappointed that the Inspector chose to say as much as he has. We feel that by doing so he may have given too much waffle that the Developer may try to use to his advantage.
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR "LODGE FARM" - UPDATE
- OCTOBER 2019 - 17/03857/OUT - PINS Ref: APP/T0355/W/19/3225689
- OCTOBER 2019 - 17/03857/OUT - PINS Ref: APP/T0355/W/19/3225689
The Planning Inspectorate Public Inquiry took place from 22nd to 25th October 2019 and we await the inspectors verdict - expected by December 16th. RBWM and Bray Parish Council advocates did well in their struggle against the Lodge Farm advocate. Personally, I hope that the Inspector will take especial note of the BPC and RBWM closing statements and all of the written submissions. I feel that if the Planning Inspectorate rule in favour of this application it will be a very sad day for democracy and the integrity of the English Housing Planning System.
Bray Parish Council have provided a copy of the closing statement made by Peter Lerner on behalf of Bray Parish Council and Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). It can be seen by clicking on the button below left.
The Opening and closing statements by Guy Williams, barrister on behalf of RBWM can be obtained from the RBWM Planning website under reference 17/03857/OUT, and are also repeated here at the middle and right hand buttons below.
As written further down this page - the HRA submission can be seen, together with reasons why I did not speak at the inquiry - except to complain that the Appellant's Counsel did not speak loudly enough!
Bray Parish Council have provided a copy of the closing statement made by Peter Lerner on behalf of Bray Parish Council and Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). It can be seen by clicking on the button below left.
The Opening and closing statements by Guy Williams, barrister on behalf of RBWM can be obtained from the RBWM Planning website under reference 17/03857/OUT, and are also repeated here at the middle and right hand buttons below.
As written further down this page - the HRA submission can be seen, together with reasons why I did not speak at the inquiry - except to complain that the Appellant's Counsel did not speak loudly enough!
Summary of the RBWM Planning Meeting where the Application was rejected using the words "WOULD HAVE REFUSED"
Both Bray Parish Council and RBWM had rejected the application; in RBWM's case, their Maidenhead Area Development Management Panel considered a report produced by the RBWM Planning Authority, which recommended refusal. The panel unanimously supported the Planning Authority recomendation, the vedict being that they "WOULD HAVE REFUSED" the application. The RBWM Report may be downloaded from the following link.
rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s27232/190806_MADMP_Agenda_Full.pdf
David Howells of the Holyport Preservation Society spoke against it, saying;
"My name is David Howells and I live in Holyport. I am opposed to this development.
There is overwhelming local opposition. It’s been debated twice and rejected by Bray Council, with the village hall packed with people against the plan. As are the vast majority of comments on the borough website
If someone asks me where I live, I say in a village near Maidenhead. If the developers plans come to fruition the answer will become a suburb of Maidenhead. If Lodge Farm becomes a housing estate it will become more urban sprawl and our village will be lost.
This is the Green Belt which should be sacrosanct. There is a reason why there is this settlement gap between Holyport and Maidenhead. It’s because it separates and defines the two communities.
The main roads through Holyport – Ascot Road and Holyport Road are already extremely busy – at peak times stationary traffic stretches back from the Braywick roundabout beyond the village green. The developers are proposing one access road to their new estate exiting onto Holyport Road – a residential street that can’t cope with existing traffic. This is simply unmanageable.
The developers have dramatically understated the extra traffic they will generate. Add commercial traffic to these new residents – Amazon deliveries, post, utility vehicles, builders, refuse collection, emergency services and you’ll have gridlock.
The developers offer fine words about a gifted community park and football pitches on land that is regularly flooded. Please ignore this as cynical window dressing.
The developers don’t care for the future of the village of Holyport, but we the villagers do and we say loudly and clearly to you: Please reject this application and save our village.
Another resident spoke - mentioning the possibility that in his opinion the developer might, before building, extract gravel from the site, as otherwise the build would not be financially viable. If this were to happen then the consequencies for local residents would be even worse, especially if access were to be agreed onto Holyport Road.
Cllr Louvaine Kneen, the Chair of Bray Parish Council Planning Committee spoke against it. Later, Bray Parish Council submitted a comment against the development. It can be viewed by clicking the following button;
Councillor Coppinger spoke against the development, also reading out part of a letter which our MP Theresa May had sent to the Planning Inspectorate opposing the development. The letter is shown below;
|
|
HRA did not speak at the meeting as there was a time limit (as usual) and we considered that the other two residents should have a chance to say as much as possible.
On 8th August 2019 HRA sent its submission to the Planning Inspectorate - being a rebuttal to the STATEMENT OF CASE etc that Beaulieu / Bell Cornwell have submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. These seven documents can be downloaded from the buttons below. We identify also that all of our previous comments against Lodge Farm still apply, together with our response to the RBWM Edge of Settlement Analysis.
On 8th August 2019 HRA sent its submission to the Planning Inspectorate - being a rebuttal to the STATEMENT OF CASE etc that Beaulieu / Bell Cornwell have submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. These seven documents can be downloaded from the buttons below. We identify also that all of our previous comments against Lodge Farm still apply, together with our response to the RBWM Edge of Settlement Analysis.
The following two buttons will display separate comments sent to the Inquiry by the Claremont & Holyport Medical Practice and by the Holyport Football Club. These disagree with statements made in the Bell Cornwell / Beaulieu submission.
The Planning Inspectorate Inquiry took place from 22nd to 25th October 2019 at Berkshire Suites 3 and 4, Holiday Inn, Manor Lane, Maidenhead, SL6 2RA. Commencement time 10:00 am.
Text of two emails below - the first is my reply to the second - being a question as to whether or not I would speak at the Planning Inspectorate's Inquiry re Lodge Farm.
Dear Helen,
I had thought I would not speak, for the following reasons;
I would expect that I could not have enough time to go into all of the detail that is included in the HRA submission.
This also, due to it referring to all previous HRA submissions to RBWM Borough Council re Lodge Farm, and to the HRA submission to RBWM on their Edge of Settlement Analysis.
To do a verbal summary might divert attention from points missed in such summary.
It could lead to the opposition wasting time by focussing on any less relevant points, avoiding the more important aspects.
I have spoken at an inquiry before - at Windsor race course about Legoland - and felt that my verbal input was of little use.
Being confident that the inspector reads and takes account of all submissions, I see no point in wasting either my time or the inquiry time.
I am fearful of having costs awarded against me / HRA.
I do intend to attend, and if the Inspector wishes to ask questions of me, I would be willing to respond.
Best wishes
Andrew Cormie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Skinner, Helen
Sent: 12 August 2019 08:49
To: Andrew Cormie
Subject: RE: Pins Case Ref.: APP/T0355/W/19/3225689 RBWM Ref.: 17/03857/OUT
Dear Mr Cormie,
Thank you for your submission.
The Inspector has asked if the Residents’ Association will be coming to the inquiry to speak? I’d be grateful if you could let me know asap.
Many thanks
Helen
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR "LODGE FARM"
- DECEMBER 2018 - 17/03857/OUT
True to what we have come to expect, we received on 13th December 2018, just before Christmas, another piece of pressure from the Lodge Farm owner or developer, in the form of a further addition to the description of the proposed development.
It is mainly to emphasize that the traffic entry and exit to the 150 houses currently proposed is intended to be on Holyport Road. It includes updated layout and a traffic assessment.
HRA has objected previously to this attempted housing and associated traffic imposition, so I have updated our opposition submitting a new objection to RBWM, and it can be seen as a PDF by clicking on the button below.
It is mainly to emphasize that the traffic entry and exit to the 150 houses currently proposed is intended to be on Holyport Road. It includes updated layout and a traffic assessment.
HRA has objected previously to this attempted housing and associated traffic imposition, so I have updated our opposition submitting a new objection to RBWM, and it can be seen as a PDF by clicking on the button below.
Following is a copy of a notice I placed on the Holyport Notice Board at the corner shop Stroud Farm Road / Holyport Road.
| lodge_farm_notice.pdf |
The documents that I state are attached may be seen and downloaded from this website from these links;
Traffic
http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/hps_rbwm_lp_highways_and_transportation.pdf
Flooding
http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/hps_rbwm_hydrology.pdf
I made the Word document available so that you can use any of the text in your own objection, either as a full copy or amended as you prefer.
Of course you may prefer to make an objection entirely from your own thoughts - I merely make mine available to assist.
Alternatively - if you read mine and are content with it you can just write to RBWM Planning that you adopt my objection and wish to support it.
The address to write to is planning@rbwm.gov.uk
RBWM want to avoid publishing your email address so they recommend that what you send should be as an attachment.
Your complaint attachment should include your name and address, but not your email address.
Bray Parish Council have advised that this further detail on this application will be discussed by them on 7th January 2019 in the Memorial Hall on Moneyrow Green, I think at 7:30 pm and as is usual the public are invited.
RBWM have stated that comments on this application should be received by them by 4th January 2019.
They have also advised that it is likely that this application will eventually be decided at a Planning Meeting to which the public may attend, and in such event comments are accepted by RBWM up to the date of the meeting.
Amongst the points we advise regarding traffic, which we trust that RBWM will take on board to reject the application, we state as follows;
The Applicant states; “All matters reserved except for access”. "All matters reserved" means that the applicant is committed to nothing. - "except for access" means that gaining access in connection with the principle of residential development is the only reason for the application. Only if access is approved would the applicant make a full application and the result could be even more development.
The additional information provided by the applicant in December 2018 is mainly to do with establishing that the vehicular access he requests is onto Holyport Road, with pedestrian and perhaps cycling access to the Aysgarth Park and Byland Drive area.
The applicant's Supporting Information - General - 21415-lvia-figures 3 of 3 is a map which has a note referring to the proposed new road junction on Holyport Road. The note states "Existing approval for vehicular access into site from Holyport Road". This statement is wrong and RBWM must act accordingly.
A previous owner had requested a gateway for agricultural purposes. He claimed it was needed as the farmer was having to drive from Stroud Farm around to the Ascot Road entry. The Bray Parish Council and the Borough Council refused it but on appeal the Government's Planning Inspectorate accepted, stating;
"Finally, a condition is required to prevent the access from being used for any purpose other than in connection with the agricultural use of the land, in the interests of highway safety and having regard to the justification for the access and its Green Belt location."
The application for the gateway had the reference 11/03534/FULL dated 22/12/2011, and the appeal decision had reference APP/T0355/A/12/2178113 decision date 30/11/2012.
Note the Government Inspector's reference to;
"in the interests of highway safety" - which would also apply should there be any access of any sort for any purpose. (Holyport Road carries more than 7000 vehicles per day, and is narrower than is required for such roads by the RBWM Highways Design Guide, its speed limit is regularly and consistently flouted, and its narrow sidewalks put pedestrians including school children at risk) Giving permission for a new entry / exit for 300 vehicles (supposing each of the 150 homes has two cars) would be contrary to the Government Inspectors condition.
"having regard to the justification for the access" - highlighting that access could only be given because it was for agricultural access.
"and its Green Belt location" in recognition that the land will continue as Green Belt land.
Obviously "agricultural access" was not what the applicant actually wanted as the gateway was not made and the farmer still has to access the land via Ascot Road. Permission for that "agricultural access" has long ago expired.
We assert that the Government's Inspector has established a principle that no new entries are to be created in Populated Green Belt Areas unless they are to be only for Agricultural Purposes.
In assessing this application take note that the RBWM Highways Design Guide defines roads such as Holyport Road as either District Distributor Roads or Local Distributor Roads. Local Distributors are sub-divided into two groups one being for "residential areas", the other shown as "elsewhere". For residential the roads must be 6 metres wide and for elsewhere 7.3 metres wide. Holyport Road although partly residential is also what Police have described as a Strategic Route, which really should be classified either as an "elsewhere" Local Distributor, or as a District Distributor. We claim that its use by drivers from outside the area makes Holyport Road a District Distributor. Further the guide requires that footways be 2 metres wide and be separated from the road by a 2.4 metre verge. Holyport road has one 1.5 metre wide footway, the other being 1.4 metres, both being immediately adjacent to the road.
We assert therefore that for its current use, Holyport Road should be 7.3 metres wide and have footways meeting the guide requirements. However it is only 5.5 metres wide and has very dangerous footways so this is another restriction which prohibits the addition of any further accesses on Holyport Road.
In the applicant's new information of 13th December 2018, he presents detailed traffic information, which in our view merely makes it difficult to assess the true situation. In my old work environment we had a saying "Bullshit baffles brains"
However, it should be clear to anyone that to place 150 houses in a field giving them only one entry / exit, and that onto a road that carries more than 7000 vehicles per day; a road that is 1.8 metres narrower than is required by the RBWM Highways Design Guide; and placing that entry only 115 metres from the existing Stroud Farm Road; and further, placing a pedestrian crossing between the two entries is creating a dangerous situation.
The applicant's plan shows the splayed entry for the proposed road to extend over the frontage of three Holyport Road houses. The occupants of these houses, who wish to enter and exit their vehicles from their drives, would be severely adversely and dangerously affected by traffic associated with the proposed entry just across the narrow Holyport Road from these houses.
Pedestrians on the West side of the road would have a distance of approximately 18 metres to walk on the road as they pass across the proposed new entry. This is more than three times the width of Holyport Road, that being 5.5 metres. The applicant's proposed pedestrian crossing across Holyport Road would not assist with this problem.
Regarding pedestrian crossings - RBWM has already refused on many occasions to install a pedestrian crossing on Holyport Road, presumably because it is a Strategic Route.
Stroud Farm Road leads to a great number of homes and to shops, school and Doctors Surgery. Traffic enters and leaves it via Holyport Road from both directions. The applicant's proposal will cause chaos as each of the proposed new homes is likely to have two cars, so we have a further 300 vehicle movements, maybe 600 per day, if out and in.
As these vehicles attempt to emerge from the new entry - if turning right they will often have to wait to cross the nearside lane. There would likely be a great deal of frustration amongst residents of the new homes, being stuck in a queue to get out. If turning from Holyport road into the new entry, if travelling South, they will often have to wait to cross the lane on their right. All of this would cause delays on Holyport Road.
Police, Ambulance Services and Fire Brigade have objected in the past to any traffic calming on this Holyport Road Strategic Route as it would cause them to be delayed. This new entry would cause delay.
The Applicant claims that the accident rate on Holyport Road is very low. I can advise from personal experience that not all accidents that occur are recorded in the accident database. I know of one where a car parked at night outside the house next door to mine was struck by a car travelling South. This was at 11:50 pm on 10th November 2004. The parked car was turned through 180 degrees and the other car ended up in the ditch across the road. Police and ambulance were called by me and both turned up. One person was hospitalised and both cars were written off, but that accident never appeared in the Police or any other accident database. Consequently, I claim that the accident database is severely unreliable and its use is inadmissible. I have exchanged emails with Police and RBWM on this matter and had no satisfactory answer.
We understand from discussion with RBWM Councillors that any traffic calming proposals have to be put to a consultation, not only of local residents but of drivers transiting the road. We submit therefore, that a change of this nature would have obstructive effects similar to traffic calming - so we would expect that RBWM approval would require a consultation with all Holyport area residents and with drivers transiting Holyport Road.
A change such as that which is proposed by the applicant will also affect traffic on the A308 and the A330, so drivers on those roads should also be consulted.
There is an AQMA on the A308 at the end of Holyport Road. The effects could be worsened if any traffic delays occur due to the proposed access onto Holyport Road. Further, should this application be permitted it is very likely that a new AQMA would form centred on the area including this entry and the Stroud Farm Road entry, and might extend for the entire length of Holyport Road, extending into homes on Holyport Road and into the proposed new homes.
We include other items
1. Regarding a Planning Inspectorate ruling for a similar area -
Appeal Ref:: APP//JJ0405//WW//116//33147513
Land west of College Road South, Aston Clinton
Decision dated 18th April 2017
that it could not be developed because to do so would join one settlement to another, (as would occur here in joining the settlement of Maidenhead to that of Holyport).
2. On the concept of openness as applied to Green Belt land, referring to a High Court Judgement as shown here;
www.brownejacobson.com/training-and-resources/resources/legal-updates/2017/02/high-court-clarification-on-nppf-green-belt-policy
Our Comment:
In the case of the Green Belt land between Holyport Road and Ascot Road, RBWM Council have decided, by analysis in accordance with NPPF Paragraphs 79 and 80, and have defined in their Local Plan, that this Green Belt land is to remain as Green Belt. This accords with Paragraph 83 of the NPPF.
NPPF Paragraphs 87 to 89 are relevant, and the question of "openness" arises due to the legal case mentioned above.
We argue that in the NPPF Paragraph 79 the concept of "openness", being introduced at the outset as a key concept is then mentioned in Paragraph 89, in passing in connection with sporting facilities, is actually a concept that applies to the whole of paragraph 89. So inasmuch as the introductory words of Paragraph 89 are "A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt.", it is clear that where such buildings would damage the openness of the Green Belt, as any housing development would, the Green Belt land in question may not ever be developed.
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR "LODGE FARM"
- DECEMBER 2017 - 17/03857/OUT
UPDATE 25th August 2108
Thanks very much to all who attended the BPC meeting on 6th August, and to all who have written to RBWM Planning to object.
According to the RBWM website;
publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=P0VYRGNIKKO00
Below I show text of an email from RBWM advising that the Lodge Farm application 17/03857/OUT remains open for comments until a decision is made.
I have already objected on behalf of the HRA and also sent substantially the same on behalf of my wife and myself.
If you wish to object by email ( planning@rbwm.gov.uk) your objection would be best in an attachment which has to include application number, name and address and ref 17/03857/OUT.
My objection can be downloaded at the following button;
Thanks very much to all who attended the BPC meeting on 6th August, and to all who have written to RBWM Planning to object.
According to the RBWM website;
publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=P0VYRGNIKKO00
Below I show text of an email from RBWM advising that the Lodge Farm application 17/03857/OUT remains open for comments until a decision is made.
I have already objected on behalf of the HRA and also sent substantially the same on behalf of my wife and myself.
If you wish to object by email ( planning@rbwm.gov.uk) your objection would be best in an attachment which has to include application number, name and address and ref 17/03857/OUT.
My objection can be downloaded at the following button;
From: Tony Franklin [Tony.Franklin@RBWM.gov.uk]
Sent: 23 August 2018 13:18
To: Andrew Cormie
Subject: 17/03857/OUT
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Dear Andrew Cormie,
Further to your e-mail of 15th August, I can confirm that the Council will continue to consider and take into account all representations received on this application up until a decision has been made.
In the mean-time I can advise you that our Planning Technical Team are looking into this discrepancy over the dates.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the Council’s attention.
Kind Regards,
Tony Franklin MRTPI
Development Management Team Manager
Place Directorate
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead SL6 1RF
01628 79 6155
Website: www.rbwm.gov.uk
Sent: 23 August 2018 13:18
To: Andrew Cormie
Subject: 17/03857/OUT
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Dear Andrew Cormie,
Further to your e-mail of 15th August, I can confirm that the Council will continue to consider and take into account all representations received on this application up until a decision has been made.
In the mean-time I can advise you that our Planning Technical Team are looking into this discrepancy over the dates.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the Council’s attention.
Kind Regards,
Tony Franklin MRTPI
Development Management Team Manager
Place Directorate
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead SL6 1RF
01628 79 6155
Website: www.rbwm.gov.uk
Newspaper Cutting below from the Maidenead Advertiser of 9th August reporting the BPC 6th August meeting
UPDATE 30th July 2018
The following text was sent by email today 30th July 2018.
Dear HRA Member or Friend of HRA,
As all will know who read my mails, Beaulieu Homes are determined to get planning permission to build on Lodge Farm, the land between Holyport Road and Ascot Road.
I have heard that at the Planning Inspectorate's recent RBWM Local Development Plan review meetings in Maidenhead, Beaulieu Homes were very active in their complaints against RBWM, employing a highly qualified legal personage to make their case.
They made this particular planning application in December 2017, and Bray Parish Council, supported by residents who filled the Memorial Hall on Moneyrow Green rejected the application in January 2018. Since then RBWM have made no decision, and have received comments on the application from various bodies, none of whom seem particularly helpful to those who do not want this development.
Holyport residents have fought against development of Green Belt land between Holyport Road and Ascot Road for years and we now look for everyone who receives this to write to the RBWM Planning Authority to object. If by email ( planning@rbwm.gov.uk) your objection would be best in an attachment which has to include application number, name and address and ref 17/03857/OUT. You have until 23rd August 2018 to object.
On 6th August evening Bray Parish Council will hold a Planning meeting in the Memorial Hall, Moneyrow Green to discuss this latest proposal. When it was discussed in January 2018, the hall was filled with concerned residents. It would be good if it could again be filled. Unfortunately I have to be elsewhere.
In a local public consultation that the HRA held some years ago on the RBWM intentions for Local Planning, 92% of those who responded said they did not want any development of Lodge Farm.
Perhaps as a consequence of the Holyport Residents Association and Holyport Preservation Society arguments at that time, including flood and traffic reports in their submissions, RBWM concluded, in their Edge of Settlement Analysis that this area must not be developed.
The applicant now states that he has agreement from the management of the Holyport Surgery to occupy new surgery premises he proposes in addition to the houses he intends to build, and by offering this facility he claims "Very Special Circumstances". "Very Special Circumstances" is one loophole in the National Planning Policy Framework that makes it almost impossible for a Local Authority to refuse.
Why is this you may ask? Because if there really are such very special circumstances and the Local Authority rejects the application, the applicant may take it to appeal at the Government's Planning Inspectorate. If the latter were to allow the development, the applicant may sue the Local Authority.
The "Access" applied for includes a road from Holyport Road to the Ascot Road, and access from Aysgarth Park and Holyport Street.
Suggested grounds for objection;
The following is quoted from the applicant's agent's letter to RBWM; "Further to our recent discussions, we are pleased to inform you that we have now reached agreement with the Claremont and Holyport Medical Practice to provide a new build Holyport Surgery Building on the application site. The proposals were presented to, and approved by the Practice Partners on 1 July 2018."
According to verbal advice received by me today 30th July 2018 from a Claremont representative, there is no written or contractual agreement between them and the applicant. From the conversation I had with Claremont, my understanding is that if the applicant were to make land available Claremont would consider having a surgery built. I believe that does not give the current application any special status, as it would be for Claremont to make a planning application, not Beaulieu Homes. Claremont's representative also told me that there is no intention to close the existing surgery.
Further, the fact that more houses are proposed means that there would of course be more patients in this area. I therefore claim that "Very Special Circumstances" does not apply.
The applicant has asked for OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION and has stated "ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT FOR ACCESS". This means that there is no commitment as to the actual content of the development. Should permission be given for access, the rest of the plan could completely change. For instance if, despite my arguments, the spurious indication of agreement with Claremont achieves outline planning permission, the applicant could fill the whole area with housing, creating even more potential patients and more traffic, although he would have to make the surgery land available. But even in that case Claremont need not take part, as they have no legal agreement with the applicant.
The land is close to the M4 motorway and the A330 Ascot Road and is already subject to much traffic noise; noise which will increase when the M4 becomes "Smart" with consequent increase of traffic from six to eight lanes - an increase of 33%. The "Smart" motorway, and other developments already agreed around here will also increase traffic in this area. Building houses on Lodge Farm would create even more traffic.
In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework this land fulfils the following functions;
Checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
Prevents neighbouring towns merging into one another;
Assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
Preserves the setting and special character of historic towns.
These latter reasons are, I believe, what RBWM applied in their Edge of Settlement Analysis, resulting in the area being excluded from the proposed RBWM Local Development Plan. The area is a gap between the Maidenhead and Holyport settlements. Note that the Settlement of Maidenhead includes Aysgarth Park and all to the South East of Holyport Road.
Also see below where you can download a copy in PDF or Word of the HRA objection made in January 2018. In particular there you can see a table showing how the applicant has argued against the RBWM decision to exclude the land from the Local Development Plan; together with my arguments as to why he is wrong.
From what I have gathered over the years - planning applications are never decided on the number of people objecting. For a rejection, the Planning Authority needs to have reasoned logical or technical arguments against, and has to take account of what the National Planning Policy Framework allows.
Please object, but bear in mind that a simple "I object" is not enough. You may use any text from this email or from my objection already made, shown on the HRA website.
Sincerely,
Andrew Cormie
Chair, Holyport Residents Association
The following text was sent by email today 30th July 2018.
Dear HRA Member or Friend of HRA,
As all will know who read my mails, Beaulieu Homes are determined to get planning permission to build on Lodge Farm, the land between Holyport Road and Ascot Road.
I have heard that at the Planning Inspectorate's recent RBWM Local Development Plan review meetings in Maidenhead, Beaulieu Homes were very active in their complaints against RBWM, employing a highly qualified legal personage to make their case.
They made this particular planning application in December 2017, and Bray Parish Council, supported by residents who filled the Memorial Hall on Moneyrow Green rejected the application in January 2018. Since then RBWM have made no decision, and have received comments on the application from various bodies, none of whom seem particularly helpful to those who do not want this development.
Holyport residents have fought against development of Green Belt land between Holyport Road and Ascot Road for years and we now look for everyone who receives this to write to the RBWM Planning Authority to object. If by email ( planning@rbwm.gov.uk) your objection would be best in an attachment which has to include application number, name and address and ref 17/03857/OUT. You have until 23rd August 2018 to object.
On 6th August evening Bray Parish Council will hold a Planning meeting in the Memorial Hall, Moneyrow Green to discuss this latest proposal. When it was discussed in January 2018, the hall was filled with concerned residents. It would be good if it could again be filled. Unfortunately I have to be elsewhere.
In a local public consultation that the HRA held some years ago on the RBWM intentions for Local Planning, 92% of those who responded said they did not want any development of Lodge Farm.
Perhaps as a consequence of the Holyport Residents Association and Holyport Preservation Society arguments at that time, including flood and traffic reports in their submissions, RBWM concluded, in their Edge of Settlement Analysis that this area must not be developed.
The applicant now states that he has agreement from the management of the Holyport Surgery to occupy new surgery premises he proposes in addition to the houses he intends to build, and by offering this facility he claims "Very Special Circumstances". "Very Special Circumstances" is one loophole in the National Planning Policy Framework that makes it almost impossible for a Local Authority to refuse.
Why is this you may ask? Because if there really are such very special circumstances and the Local Authority rejects the application, the applicant may take it to appeal at the Government's Planning Inspectorate. If the latter were to allow the development, the applicant may sue the Local Authority.
The "Access" applied for includes a road from Holyport Road to the Ascot Road, and access from Aysgarth Park and Holyport Street.
Suggested grounds for objection;
The following is quoted from the applicant's agent's letter to RBWM; "Further to our recent discussions, we are pleased to inform you that we have now reached agreement with the Claremont and Holyport Medical Practice to provide a new build Holyport Surgery Building on the application site. The proposals were presented to, and approved by the Practice Partners on 1 July 2018."
According to verbal advice received by me today 30th July 2018 from a Claremont representative, there is no written or contractual agreement between them and the applicant. From the conversation I had with Claremont, my understanding is that if the applicant were to make land available Claremont would consider having a surgery built. I believe that does not give the current application any special status, as it would be for Claremont to make a planning application, not Beaulieu Homes. Claremont's representative also told me that there is no intention to close the existing surgery.
Further, the fact that more houses are proposed means that there would of course be more patients in this area. I therefore claim that "Very Special Circumstances" does not apply.
The applicant has asked for OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION and has stated "ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT FOR ACCESS". This means that there is no commitment as to the actual content of the development. Should permission be given for access, the rest of the plan could completely change. For instance if, despite my arguments, the spurious indication of agreement with Claremont achieves outline planning permission, the applicant could fill the whole area with housing, creating even more potential patients and more traffic, although he would have to make the surgery land available. But even in that case Claremont need not take part, as they have no legal agreement with the applicant.
The land is close to the M4 motorway and the A330 Ascot Road and is already subject to much traffic noise; noise which will increase when the M4 becomes "Smart" with consequent increase of traffic from six to eight lanes - an increase of 33%. The "Smart" motorway, and other developments already agreed around here will also increase traffic in this area. Building houses on Lodge Farm would create even more traffic.
In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework this land fulfils the following functions;
Checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
Prevents neighbouring towns merging into one another;
Assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
Preserves the setting and special character of historic towns.
These latter reasons are, I believe, what RBWM applied in their Edge of Settlement Analysis, resulting in the area being excluded from the proposed RBWM Local Development Plan. The area is a gap between the Maidenhead and Holyport settlements. Note that the Settlement of Maidenhead includes Aysgarth Park and all to the South East of Holyport Road.
Also see below where you can download a copy in PDF or Word of the HRA objection made in January 2018. In particular there you can see a table showing how the applicant has argued against the RBWM decision to exclude the land from the Local Development Plan; together with my arguments as to why he is wrong.
From what I have gathered over the years - planning applications are never decided on the number of people objecting. For a rejection, the Planning Authority needs to have reasoned logical or technical arguments against, and has to take account of what the National Planning Policy Framework allows.
Please object, but bear in mind that a simple "I object" is not enough. You may use any text from this email or from my objection already made, shown on the HRA website.
Sincerely,
Andrew Cormie
Chair, Holyport Residents Association
UPDATE as of 13th January 2018
As those of you will know who attended the Bray Parish Council Meeting in the Holyport War Memorial Hall on Moneyrow Green yesterday evening, the Bray Parish Council, with one abstention, unanimously voted that the development should not take place.
BPC will make appropriate submission to RBWM Planning to that effect.
The hall was full of concerned residents - many had to stand. Thank you all for your enthusiasm!
Having delayed the HRA objection until after the meeting, I have now submitted it to RBWM Planning and make it available below as a PDF document and as a Word document.
I have submitted almost the same objection on behalf of my wife and myself.
Residents still have at least until the 24th January 2018 to object to the application.
I have been made aware of a further application on Lodge Farm this being 17/03934/EIASCR.
No closing date for comments is shown for the latter on the RBWM Planning website. I am not sure whether or not it is necessary to object to that application, but I have today sent the same objection to this further application (with the reference number changed). I note that some residents have already objected to this latter application - good.
I await advice on this and will advise in due course.
As those of you will know who attended the Bray Parish Council Meeting in the Holyport War Memorial Hall on Moneyrow Green yesterday evening, the Bray Parish Council, with one abstention, unanimously voted that the development should not take place.
BPC will make appropriate submission to RBWM Planning to that effect.
The hall was full of concerned residents - many had to stand. Thank you all for your enthusiasm!
Having delayed the HRA objection until after the meeting, I have now submitted it to RBWM Planning and make it available below as a PDF document and as a Word document.
I have submitted almost the same objection on behalf of my wife and myself.
Residents still have at least until the 24th January 2018 to object to the application.
I have been made aware of a further application on Lodge Farm this being 17/03934/EIASCR.
No closing date for comments is shown for the latter on the RBWM Planning website. I am not sure whether or not it is necessary to object to that application, but I have today sent the same objection to this further application (with the reference number changed). I note that some residents have already objected to this latter application - good.
I await advice on this and will advise in due course.
The following is part of an email sent to HRA Members and Friends of HRA on 29 Dec 2017.
I'm sure most of you will have received the latest brochure from Beaulieu Homes on their plans for building 150 houses on the site of Lodge Farm. Smoke and mirrors would be a polite response.
You can object to this proposal via the RBWM website until January 24th so we are urging as many people as possible to do that.
Also, you can object by emailing planning@rbwm.gov.uk quoting reference 17/03857/OUT.
Guidance for objections is below.
Bray Parish Council will be holding an Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting at Holyport Memorial Hall at 7.30 on Friday 12 January, which is open to the public. The developer has been invited to this meeting and both David Howells from Holyport Preservation Society and Andrew Cormie of HRA will speak in opposition to the plan.
Anyone wishing to ask a question should email it in advance to
clerk@brayparishcouncil.gov.uk .
It's really important that both the councils (RBWM and Bray) and the developer understand the strength of local feeling against this proposal. Spread the word!
Some further information about the application as apparent to me:
The planning application is an outline application, referring to “All matters reserved except for access” so that means that if he gets the access approved he can later change everything else.
Approval of the access, from Ascot Road and from Holyport Road (giving a through road) would imply that the approval was for the purpose of the housing development. Having received such approval, the applicant could later change the plans to e.g. use all of the land for housing even though at present he says not.
The main grounds for refusal as we HRA and HPS (Holyport Preservation Society) see it are:
As part of the HRA comment against the proposal I will set out in some detail why the RBWM decision is correct and that the applicant’s is wrong. The applicant or his agent claims that Maidenhead does not exist south of the M4, considering it all as Holyport. It is essential that this latter concept is quashed.
All, please recognise that Aysgarth Park, Springfield Park, and all of the houses South East of Holyport Road, Stompits Road, Trenchards, Lindores, and Reeve Roads are all part of the Maidenhead settlement. The Holyport settlement begins at the junction of Holyport Road with Stroud Farm Road. The word “Holyport” should not exist in addresses existing in the Maidenhead settlement.
I'm sure most of you will have received the latest brochure from Beaulieu Homes on their plans for building 150 houses on the site of Lodge Farm. Smoke and mirrors would be a polite response.
You can object to this proposal via the RBWM website until January 24th so we are urging as many people as possible to do that.
Also, you can object by emailing planning@rbwm.gov.uk quoting reference 17/03857/OUT.
Guidance for objections is below.
Bray Parish Council will be holding an Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting at Holyport Memorial Hall at 7.30 on Friday 12 January, which is open to the public. The developer has been invited to this meeting and both David Howells from Holyport Preservation Society and Andrew Cormie of HRA will speak in opposition to the plan.
Anyone wishing to ask a question should email it in advance to
clerk@brayparishcouncil.gov.uk .
It's really important that both the councils (RBWM and Bray) and the developer understand the strength of local feeling against this proposal. Spread the word!
Some further information about the application as apparent to me:
The planning application is an outline application, referring to “All matters reserved except for access” so that means that if he gets the access approved he can later change everything else.
Approval of the access, from Ascot Road and from Holyport Road (giving a through road) would imply that the approval was for the purpose of the housing development. Having received such approval, the applicant could later change the plans to e.g. use all of the land for housing even though at present he says not.
The main grounds for refusal as we HRA and HPS (Holyport Preservation Society) see it are:
- The land is Metropolitan Green Belt and RBWM Council have already assessed it against the five purposes of Green Belt and found that it should remain as Green Belt because it is a gap between the settlement of Maidenhead and the settlement of Holyport.
- There is no approved access from Holyport Road. The previous owner had already applied for that for “agricultural purposes”. He was refused by RBWM, but went to appeal and it was permitted by the Planning Inspectorate, but with condition that it would be for agricultural purposes only. Also, the Planning Inspectorate expressed concern re road safety; and work was to be commenced within three years. Nothing was ever done (despite the tone of the owner's application that it was essential to get this access, as the tenant farmer was wasting money traveling around to the Ascot Road access), and more than three years have elapsed, so there is no current permission. But the current applicant or his agent pretends that there is permission for the Holyport Road access.
As part of the HRA comment against the proposal I will set out in some detail why the RBWM decision is correct and that the applicant’s is wrong. The applicant or his agent claims that Maidenhead does not exist south of the M4, considering it all as Holyport. It is essential that this latter concept is quashed.
All, please recognise that Aysgarth Park, Springfield Park, and all of the houses South East of Holyport Road, Stompits Road, Trenchards, Lindores, and Reeve Roads are all part of the Maidenhead settlement. The Holyport settlement begins at the junction of Holyport Road with Stroud Farm Road. The word “Holyport” should not exist in addresses existing in the Maidenhead settlement.
The following text was sent on 23rd December 2017 as an email to Members and Friends of HRA. Part of it - the RBWM document - M34 - Land between Ascot Road and Holyport Road, south west of Aysgarth Park has been displayed differently here due to website limitations.
Dear HRA Member or Friend of HRA,
Further to my earlier email about the application to build on the land between Holyport Road and Ascot Road, I had promised some guidance on grounds for complaint.
Before elaborating on that I have more news.
1. The closing date for comments to RBWM Planning has been extended to 24th January 2018.
2. Bray Parish Council will be holding an extraordinary planning committee meeting on Friday 12th January at Holyport War Memorial Hall in Holyport at 7:30pm to discuss the application before making a recommendation on the application to RBWM. The agenda for this application will be published on 4th January. I and the Chair of the Holyport Preservation Society will speak against it. Bray Parish Council will also be inviting residents to send them their questions for the applicant to answer on the evening. The closing date for requests to speak will be close of business on Tuesday 9th January 2018.
3. The application has been "Called-In" by Cllr Leo Walters, so if the RBWM Planners are minded to accept, there will have to be a public meeting.
______________________________________________________________________
The easiest way to complain is by email to planning@rbwm.gov.uk quoting reference 17/03857/OUT
The documents may be seen at;
http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0VYRGNIKKO00
RBWM suggest that you send comments as attachments to an email, and that the attachment should not include your email address or telephone number. But your postal address must be included.
If you send your text in an email not as an attachment, RBWM will attempt to protect your privacy by removing email addresses and phone numbers.
You can also send by post to;
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,
Town Hall,
St Ives Road,
Maidenhead
SL6 1RF
Notes for your consideration and use as you wish.
RBWM Council have already considered this land in their Edge of Settlement Analysis, that began in 2014. HRA asked you all for comments and made a submission on behalf of those who wished it.
For more on this see;
http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/local-plan-2014-hra-to-rbwm.html
And; http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/lodge-farm-2017-attack.html
Also, many of you made your individual comments.
Public comments made to HRA, and a report of numbers of comments for and against are shown in Document 1a downloadable from the first link above.
It shows the numbers and percentages of people who responded, and the way they responded; and at the end we show all of the comments that people made.
513 people responded of whom 497 stated that they do not want any development on Area 7a, which was the RBWM designation in 2014 for the subject area. This is 96.9% wishing that the land remain undeveloped.
Contrast this with the applicant's report of his consultation in 2017, "Statement of Community Involvement", where we see no figures for the numbers of people who commented. We see from his report, only what his agent has chosen to write. No evidence of the actuality of community responses. We suggest therefore that the applicant's document is spurious and irrelevant and must be ignored.
The applicant's "Statement of Community Involvement v3" is available at;
http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0VYRGNIKKO00
At this point I would draw attention to the applicant's Supporting Information - General 21415-lvia-figures 3 of 3. This is a map which has a note referring to the proposed new road junction on Holyport Road.
The note states "Existing approval for vehicular access into site from Holyport Road". This statement is absolutely and decisively wrong.
RBWM had refused the application. The applicant * appealed and in the following;
Agricultural Gateway proposal for Holyport Road (Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/A/12/2178113)
Approval was given by the Government's Bristol based Planning Inspectorate but it was conditional that the gateway "shall only be used in connection with the agricultural use of the adjoining land". The Inspector stated further "Finally, a condition is required to prevent the access from being used for any purpose other than in connection with the agricultural use of the land, in the interests of highway safety and having regard to the justification for the access and its Green Belt location."
We therefore consider that the traffic concerns of the Planning Inspectorate will also apply to any proposal, for whatever purpose, to create a traffic entry and / or exit junction on Holyport Road.
Further I am certain that the past approval for agricultural purposes only will have lapsed.
* Note added 29/12/17 - the applicant for the agricultural gateway was Neil Burgess. The original application reference number is 11/03534/FULL dated 22 November 2011.
Another note on the applicant's Supporting Information - General 21415-lvia-figures 3 of 3 refers to "Well maintained hedgerow screens views into site from pavement along Holyport Road. Adjacent housing has clear views into site from bedrooms"
The "Well maintained hedgerow" is a misnomer - it is not at all well maintained - only being cut at our expense by Bray Parish Council, whilst the responsibility for the hedge is actually the applicant's.
Definite Grounds for Objection
1. RBWM Council considered this land in their Edge of Settlement Analysis, which began in 2014.
RBWM assessed it against the five purposes of Green Belt as defined in the NPPF. i.e;
80. Green Belt serves five purposes:
in 2016, RBWM reported their conclusion on the matter, showing it in the following document;
Edge of Settlement Analysis Part 1: Green Belt Purpose Assessment (section 4): July 2016.
This document can be downloaded from here;
https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/downloads/200415/local_plans
It is the fourth document in the section headed "Green Belt".
Within the document the discussion on Lodge farm commences on page 370.
This document states as follows;
M34 - Land between Ascot Road and Holyport Road, south west of Aysgarth Park
Dear HRA Member or Friend of HRA,
Further to my earlier email about the application to build on the land between Holyport Road and Ascot Road, I had promised some guidance on grounds for complaint.
Before elaborating on that I have more news.
1. The closing date for comments to RBWM Planning has been extended to 24th January 2018.
2. Bray Parish Council will be holding an extraordinary planning committee meeting on Friday 12th January at Holyport War Memorial Hall in Holyport at 7:30pm to discuss the application before making a recommendation on the application to RBWM. The agenda for this application will be published on 4th January. I and the Chair of the Holyport Preservation Society will speak against it. Bray Parish Council will also be inviting residents to send them their questions for the applicant to answer on the evening. The closing date for requests to speak will be close of business on Tuesday 9th January 2018.
3. The application has been "Called-In" by Cllr Leo Walters, so if the RBWM Planners are minded to accept, there will have to be a public meeting.
______________________________________________________________________
The easiest way to complain is by email to planning@rbwm.gov.uk quoting reference 17/03857/OUT
The documents may be seen at;
http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0VYRGNIKKO00
RBWM suggest that you send comments as attachments to an email, and that the attachment should not include your email address or telephone number. But your postal address must be included.
If you send your text in an email not as an attachment, RBWM will attempt to protect your privacy by removing email addresses and phone numbers.
You can also send by post to;
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,
Town Hall,
St Ives Road,
Maidenhead
SL6 1RF
Notes for your consideration and use as you wish.
RBWM Council have already considered this land in their Edge of Settlement Analysis, that began in 2014. HRA asked you all for comments and made a submission on behalf of those who wished it.
For more on this see;
http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/local-plan-2014-hra-to-rbwm.html
And; http://www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/lodge-farm-2017-attack.html
Also, many of you made your individual comments.
Public comments made to HRA, and a report of numbers of comments for and against are shown in Document 1a downloadable from the first link above.
It shows the numbers and percentages of people who responded, and the way they responded; and at the end we show all of the comments that people made.
513 people responded of whom 497 stated that they do not want any development on Area 7a, which was the RBWM designation in 2014 for the subject area. This is 96.9% wishing that the land remain undeveloped.
Contrast this with the applicant's report of his consultation in 2017, "Statement of Community Involvement", where we see no figures for the numbers of people who commented. We see from his report, only what his agent has chosen to write. No evidence of the actuality of community responses. We suggest therefore that the applicant's document is spurious and irrelevant and must be ignored.
The applicant's "Statement of Community Involvement v3" is available at;
http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0VYRGNIKKO00
At this point I would draw attention to the applicant's Supporting Information - General 21415-lvia-figures 3 of 3. This is a map which has a note referring to the proposed new road junction on Holyport Road.
The note states "Existing approval for vehicular access into site from Holyport Road". This statement is absolutely and decisively wrong.
RBWM had refused the application. The applicant * appealed and in the following;
Agricultural Gateway proposal for Holyport Road (Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/A/12/2178113)
Approval was given by the Government's Bristol based Planning Inspectorate but it was conditional that the gateway "shall only be used in connection with the agricultural use of the adjoining land". The Inspector stated further "Finally, a condition is required to prevent the access from being used for any purpose other than in connection with the agricultural use of the land, in the interests of highway safety and having regard to the justification for the access and its Green Belt location."
We therefore consider that the traffic concerns of the Planning Inspectorate will also apply to any proposal, for whatever purpose, to create a traffic entry and / or exit junction on Holyport Road.
Further I am certain that the past approval for agricultural purposes only will have lapsed.
* Note added 29/12/17 - the applicant for the agricultural gateway was Neil Burgess. The original application reference number is 11/03534/FULL dated 22 November 2011.
Another note on the applicant's Supporting Information - General 21415-lvia-figures 3 of 3 refers to "Well maintained hedgerow screens views into site from pavement along Holyport Road. Adjacent housing has clear views into site from bedrooms"
The "Well maintained hedgerow" is a misnomer - it is not at all well maintained - only being cut at our expense by Bray Parish Council, whilst the responsibility for the hedge is actually the applicant's.
Definite Grounds for Objection
1. RBWM Council considered this land in their Edge of Settlement Analysis, which began in 2014.
RBWM assessed it against the five purposes of Green Belt as defined in the NPPF. i.e;
80. Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
in 2016, RBWM reported their conclusion on the matter, showing it in the following document;
Edge of Settlement Analysis Part 1: Green Belt Purpose Assessment (section 4): July 2016.
This document can be downloaded from here;
https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/downloads/200415/local_plans
It is the fourth document in the section headed "Green Belt".
Within the document the discussion on Lodge farm commences on page 370.
This document states as follows;
M34 - Land between Ascot Road and Holyport Road, south west of Aysgarth Park
From the above we can clearly see the reasoning as to why RBWM decided that this land is not suitable for development, and has been excluded from the RBWM Local Development Plan.
You may wish to quote from the above e.g those which I have underlined.
In addition, there is no pressure on RBWM to use this land as their Local Development Plan currently will provide 100% of the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for houses and has 5.1 years worth of housing supply.
So all of the above constitutes the first logical objection, this being that RBWM themselves have performed a rigorous assessment and have concluded that the land will not be developed, that the OAN is satisfied without use of this land, and that RBWM has a 5.1 year housing supply.
2. The land is Green Belt, and some of it is subject to flooding. See the applicant's own report at;
http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0VYRGNIKKO00
- Supporting Information - General 21415-lvia-appendices
3. The traffic problems in this area are already severe, and the addition of more homes and cars will make the situation worse. This area is already subject to increases of traffic from other developments already approved, and from others that are likely to be approved. Holyport Road currently has around 8000 vehicles per day. Ascot Road has more. The concept of a new link road between these two roads makes no sense.
4. In support of the concept of this area not being allowed for development due to it being a gap between settlements, there is already a Government Planning Inspectorate's dismissal of an appeal against refusal of planning permission, where the dismissal was mainly due to the fact of an area being a gap between settlements. So this decision reference may be quoted in support of our wish to retain Lodge Farm as undeveloped Green Belt.
The following is quoted from that appeal dismissal;
Appeal Ref:: APP//JJ0405//WW//116//33147513
Land west of College Road South, Aston Clinton
Decision dated 18th April 2017
Decision
1. For the reasons that follow the appeal is dismissed.
13. Whilst the Council accepted that the landscape here is of medium sensitivity, it nevertheless sought to argue that the appeal site forms part of a ‘valued’ landscape, which landscapes paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework ) seeks to protect and enhance. The Council’s case was promoted on the grounds that the narrow gap within which the appeal site lies, between Aston Clinton and Aylesbury, prevents coalescence and is important to the setting and identity of the village. Attention was drawn, in this regard, to policy RA.22 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan, which seeks to ensure that new development in the countryside avoids reducing open land that contributes to the form and character of rural settlements, with regard to be had to maintaining the individual identity of villages and avoiding extensions to built - up areas that might lead to coalescence between settlements.
16. All in all, I am of the view that the appeal site does not form part of a ‘valued’ landscape in the terms of the Framework. That said, whilst noting that the gap is not specifically identified in the current development plan or the emerging Local Plan, that does not mean the role it plays in helping prevent coalescence, and its contribution to the form and character of this rural settlement, should be underrated. I am mindful in this regard that, among other things, paragraph 58 of the Framework requires that decisions should aim to ensure that developments respond to local character and history, reflecting the identity of local surroundings.
17. Aylesbury and Aston Clinton each have a very different form and character. Aylesbury is a large and growing town. As graphically demonstrated by the evidence of the Council, the built up edge of the eastern side of Aylesbury is planned to extend out along the northern side of the bypass, including the Woodlands Enterprise Zone, to link in with the Arla super dairy, which lies to the north - east of the appeal site on the far side of the bypass. In essence, the bypass here contains and defines the edge of this part of Aylesbury. Although Aston Clinton has expanded over the years, initially as ribbon development but more recently with infill development both implemented and planned, it remains as a modestly sized village that is clearly distinct from the town. It is separated from the edge of Aylesbury (as defined here by the bypass and its associated bunding and elevated slip road junction) by open fields , including the appeal site. To my mind, that ‘gap’ has a very important role in preserving the separate and very different function, character and identity of each settlement.
19. The appeal site lies within what is already the narrowest part of the gap between the settlements, making it particularly vulnerable to development. The development proposed would project out into the open countryside and would significantly reduce what remains of the gap here: the northern edge of the site lies within approximately 300 metres of the bypass, with just some 120 metres between the appeal site and the slip road junction that projects out from the southern side of the bypass on an elevated embankment.
20. When heading north along College Road South, the ‘gap’ is clearly perceived. There is a clear sense of leaving Aston Clinton, which will become more pronounced when the Brook Farm scheme is built out, with fields spreading out on both sides of the road and with the bypass bunding and embanked slip road junction just ahead.
22. The gap is also readily apparent in views south towards the village from the elevated slip road junction. The northernmost houses on College Road South are glimpsed from that vantage point, as is housing further away on Brook Street.. The approved developments referred to will, notwithstanding proposed landscaping and planting, bring a more obvious built - up edge to the settlement closer to the bypass, bringing the importance of the gap as a buffer between the two settlements into sharper focus.
23. The appeal scheme would lie within some 140-300 metres of the bypass that contains the nearest edge of Aylesbury. I am in no doubt, in this regard, that whilst not resulting in coalescence per se, if the scheme were to proceed the sense of separation between the two settlements would be all but lost, with consequent harm to the form and identity of the village of Aston Clinton.
32. To conclude, I can appreciate that views of the development proposed would be restricted in the wider landscape, due largely to the generally flat topography and intervening vegetation. However, it would markedly change the character and appearance of the area in shorter distance views and would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the setting and individual identity of Aston Clinton. That impact would not be mitigated by the planting and green infrastructure proposed. There would be conflict, in this regard, with Local Plan policies RA.2 and GP.35 and with paragraphs 17 and 58 of the Framework.
45. I have found that there would be substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area, largely as a consequence of the erosion of the narrow gap that remains as a buffer between Aston Clinton and the edge of Aylesbury as defined by the bypass at this point. There is also harm in terms of highway safety. Those harms bring the development proposed into material conflict with the development plan as a whole.
47. Even had I found, in light of the unmet need from adjacent authorities, that policy RA.2 was out of date with regard to paragraph 49 of the Framework, it would still attract significant weight since it is not a policy that seeks to protect all countryside from development. Rather, it seeks to prevent development in specific parts of the countryside, namely those that contribute to the form and character of rural settlements and which prevent coalescence between settlements. On that basis, even had the tilted balance prescribed by paragraph 14 of the Framework applied, the nature of the harm that I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the combined benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. As a consequence, the proposal would not be sustainable development and the presumption in favour of such would not be engaged. The appeal would fail.
I hope that the foregoing will help in your objections.
I note that many have already objected. It is permissible to object as many times as you like!
HRA NOTES ABOUT THE RBWM ASSESSMENT
(i) "excluded settlement of Maidenhead" This term is used because Maidenhead is excluded from the Green Belt.
(ii) "Green Belt settlement of Holyport" This term is used because Holyport is included in Green Belt.
(iii) "The parcel forms part of a gap between the excluded settlements of Maidenhead and the Green Belt settlement of Holyport. The excluded settlement of Maidenhead extends along the south eastern side of Holyport Road to the edge of Holyport." This recognises the fact that Holyport does not begin at the junction of the A308 with Holyport Road. Holyport begins at the junction with Stroud Farm Road. Aysgarth Park, Holyport Road as far as Stroud Farm Road, Springfield Park, Stompits Road, Trenchards, Lindores and Reeve Roads, are all part of the Maidenhead settlement. The "Edge of Settlement Analysis" was the "Edge of Maidenhead Settlement Analysis"
Regards,
Andrew Cormie, Chairman HRA
ATTACK ON HOLYPORT AREA - LODGE FARM
BY BEAULIEU HOMES JULY 2017
On 18th July I sent an email to all Holyport Area Residents and Friends of HRA referring to the leaflet that had been circulated advertising news of the forthcoming drop-in session attempt to develop a large area between Maidenhead and old Holyport.
On 27th July the drop-in session took place and we now see the intentions of those behind the following website;
www.lodgefarmholyport.co.uk
That website has been in existence since 2014 but has now been updated; It previously contained the following in its heading;
They remarked upon how Lodge Farm is the last of rolling farmland surrounded on three sides by housing and on the fourth by a major road. WELL LONG MAY IT REMAIN SO SAY I. It would seem that telling it that way is more of an argument to retain it as is, rather than developing it, and this may be why their website no longer contains it.
Many people joined the HRA because of RBWM's attempt during the Edge of Settlement Analysis that formed part of RBWM's aborted 2014 Local Plan, to have Lodge Farm included as an area to be developed.
The HRA, supported by most of you, together with the Holyport Preservation Society and with support of Bray Parish Council argued against it and RBWM removed the area from their development plan.
In the current development plan the area is still NOT allowed for development.
One of the main reasons that RBWM removed it was because it is an area separating the settlements of Maidenhead and Holyport. As the Lodge Farm people say "it is the last of rolling farmland surrounded on three sides by housing and on the fourth by a major road"
The National Planning Policy Framework includes to the effect that areas separating settlements are sacrosanct. It is what is called a "Settlement Gap", between Maidenhead and old Holyport.
Contrary to popular opinion, Holyport does not begin at the junction of the A308 with Holyport Road. Old Holyport begins at the junction with Stroud Farm Road.
Aysgarth Park, Springfield Park, Stompits Road etc are all part of the Maidenhead settlement. The "Edge of Settlement Analysis" was the "Edge of Maidenhead Settlement Analysis"
Those promoting Lodge Farm some years ago held a meeting to encourage residents to favour their plans but they met with almost 100% opposition.
I hope that residents now in 2017, will treat the Lodge Farm owners / developers with the same derision and disdain as they did in 2014.
There is a survey on the aforementioned website.
Following are my responses to it;
These developers intend to take advantage of the Central Government Local Plan Consultation arrangements, whereby they can comment at this Regulation 19 stage to propose their land to be included in the Local Plan. The RBWM Council have recently compounded this by issuing a new "Call for Sites" where they invite anyone to submit to RBWM Council any ideas of places to be developed. The Lodge Farm owners attempt on their website to get public opinion on their side so as to develop their land in place of the other areas that they contrast it with. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE - agreeing with them will not mean that the other areas will not be developed! It will mean that ALL OF these areas areas WILL BE developed. KEEP THE FAITH as they say - if you do not want more traffic in this area do not support any development.
Turning to the leaflets issued at the Lodge Farm drop-in on 27th July 2017, they refer to;
NEW ACCESS
This is on Holyport Road - no other vehicular access, for 150 houses. You can guess that each will have at least two cars, so 300 more traffic movements per day. As you will see below, when a "Gateway" was applied for in the past, a condition was set that it would be for agricultural purposes only. We consider that the principle has thus been set that there can be no new access on Holyport Road unless only for agricultural purposes.
SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
It has not been proven to my satisfaction that these are a good idea. Creating tanks underground to accept roof water from particular dwellings reduces the volume of ground that would otherwise provide natural soak-away for the whole area.
PHILBERDS BUILDING
They say to be converted to apartments - it is already apartments.
BUILDING IN GREEN BELT
They say that this principle is established in the Local Development Plan. It appears that RBWM Council, apart from 11 stalwart Councillors do believe so, much to my dissatisfaction. But the NPPF and many Government documents and statements say otherwise.
LOCATED IN THE CENTRE OF HOLYPORT
This is not the case; the land is a "Settlement Gap" between the settlement of Maidenhead and that of old Holyport. Houses on and to the South East of Holyport Road are in Maidenhead. Aysgarth Park is Maidenhead. Holyport begins at Stroud Farm road, going towards Holyport Green. Holyport Road itself, has around 8,000 vehicles per day, yet this Lodge Farm organisation thinks it safe to have children crossing back and forth from school to their play area situated close to an electrical transformer. They propose a pedestrian crossing - this has been rejected time and time again because it would be unsafe for children to use on their own. Instead, we currently have a lollipop person.
PARKING / DROP-OFF FOR HOLYPORT PRIMARY SCHOOL.
I cannot see where this would be. No-one is going to drive into a new road off Holyport Road leading to houses to drop off their children.
LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
No way does this provide any such - it adds more traffic and does nothing to help such traffic. All of the traffic too and from this site, and all of its construction traffic is constrained to enter and leave by a currently non-existing entry from Holyport Road. A previous planning application set a condition at appeal that if created that access would have to be for agricultural purposes only. We consider that a principle has been established that no access is permitted from Holyport road unless for agricultural purposes.
GIFTED LAND
I have added to the following clip from the Lodge Farm publicity to show in red the areas that have in the past been seen to be flooded. Below the "Masterplan" are some photos of the floods. The waterlogging along the existing pathway in Aysgarth just outside the boundary is due to the water from the higher ground seeping down to the pathway. The first and second photos are of the red area shown as 10.
The following link is to a PDF document;
The Assessment of Flood Risk for Proposed
Development Sites at Holyport
Dr Harvey J.E. Rodda FRGS
March 2014
available on this website as part of our submission to RBWM in 2014. It is a flood Report commissioned by the Holyport Preservation Society. It concludes that the site should be rejected as a potential development area.
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/hps_rbwm_hydrology.pdf
Turning to the leaflets issued at the Lodge Farm drop-in on 27th July 2017, they refer to;
NEW ACCESS
This is on Holyport Road - no other vehicular access, for 150 houses. You can guess that each will have at least two cars, so 300 more traffic movements per day. As you will see below, when a "Gateway" was applied for in the past, a condition was set that it would be for agricultural purposes only. We consider that the principle has thus been set that there can be no new access on Holyport Road unless only for agricultural purposes.
SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
It has not been proven to my satisfaction that these are a good idea. Creating tanks underground to accept roof water from particular dwellings reduces the volume of ground that would otherwise provide natural soak-away for the whole area.
PHILBERDS BUILDING
They say to be converted to apartments - it is already apartments.
BUILDING IN GREEN BELT
They say that this principle is established in the Local Development Plan. It appears that RBWM Council, apart from 11 stalwart Councillors do believe so, much to my dissatisfaction. But the NPPF and many Government documents and statements say otherwise.
LOCATED IN THE CENTRE OF HOLYPORT
This is not the case; the land is a "Settlement Gap" between the settlement of Maidenhead and that of old Holyport. Houses on and to the South East of Holyport Road are in Maidenhead. Aysgarth Park is Maidenhead. Holyport begins at Stroud Farm road, going towards Holyport Green. Holyport Road itself, has around 8,000 vehicles per day, yet this Lodge Farm organisation thinks it safe to have children crossing back and forth from school to their play area situated close to an electrical transformer. They propose a pedestrian crossing - this has been rejected time and time again because it would be unsafe for children to use on their own. Instead, we currently have a lollipop person.
PARKING / DROP-OFF FOR HOLYPORT PRIMARY SCHOOL.
I cannot see where this would be. No-one is going to drive into a new road off Holyport Road leading to houses to drop off their children.
LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
No way does this provide any such - it adds more traffic and does nothing to help such traffic. All of the traffic too and from this site, and all of its construction traffic is constrained to enter and leave by a currently non-existing entry from Holyport Road. A previous planning application set a condition at appeal that if created that access would have to be for agricultural purposes only. We consider that a principle has been established that no access is permitted from Holyport road unless for agricultural purposes.
GIFTED LAND
I have added to the following clip from the Lodge Farm publicity to show in red the areas that have in the past been seen to be flooded. Below the "Masterplan" are some photos of the floods. The waterlogging along the existing pathway in Aysgarth just outside the boundary is due to the water from the higher ground seeping down to the pathway. The first and second photos are of the red area shown as 10.
The following link is to a PDF document;
The Assessment of Flood Risk for Proposed
Development Sites at Holyport
Dr Harvey J.E. Rodda FRGS
March 2014
available on this website as part of our submission to RBWM in 2014. It is a flood Report commissioned by the Holyport Preservation Society. It concludes that the site should be rejected as a potential development area.
www.holyportresidentsassociation.org/uploads/1/7/5/3/17536303/hps_rbwm_hydrology.pdf
IN CONCLUSION HOLYPORT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION SAYS NO, NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO TO THIS PROPOSAL.
Holyport Green Belt could be built upon!!
(FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN IN EARLY 2014)
The land between Aysgarth Park, Holyport Road, Ascot Road and Old Holyport is owned by a developer Beaulieu Homes, who has housing plans for that area.
See also http://www.facebook.com/beautifulholyport
In late 2012 until March 2013 planning permission was requested to create a gateway in the boundary along Holyport Road. RBWM rejected it, but the Government's Central Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol allowed it.
Agricultural Gateway proposal for Holyport Road (Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/A/12/2178113)
Comment by Andrew Cormie 31st March 2013
Approval given by the Government's Bristol based Planning Inspectorate is conditional that the gateway "shall only be used in connection with the agricultural use of the adjoining land". The Inspector stated further "Finally, a condition is required to prevent the access from being used for any purpose other than in connection with the agricultural use of the land, in the interests of highway safety and having regard to the justification for the access and its Green Belt location."
Central Government is continually applying pressure to Local Authorities to allow house building and in many instances, as evidenced by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Green Belt Land is used.
RBWM is creating a new Borough Local Plan. A consultation will begin on 10th January 2014, and residents will be invited to comment.
The consultation will include the aforementioned Holyport land as an area that could be built upon. Residents may wish to reject this. One reason for rejection could be the increased traffic that would result from it. Another is that according to the Environment Agency, much of the area is subject to a 1 in 30 flood risk as shown elsewhere on this site, (Topics - Holyport Area Flood Risk)
There is further coverage in my BLOG dated 6th December 2013, and below and please also see David Coppinger's Forum item of 5th December 2013.
The map below is from RBWM and in Andrew Cormie's view is incorrect as it does not show the settlements of Holyport and Bray. None of the maps in the RBWM document "Housing: Edge of Settlement Analysis 2013 NOV 2013" show the Holyport and Bray settlements. See my 6th December 2013 BLOG, third blue button to download a full copy of the latter document.
See also http://www.facebook.com/beautifulholyport
In late 2012 until March 2013 planning permission was requested to create a gateway in the boundary along Holyport Road. RBWM rejected it, but the Government's Central Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol allowed it.
Agricultural Gateway proposal for Holyport Road (Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/A/12/2178113)
Comment by Andrew Cormie 31st March 2013
Approval given by the Government's Bristol based Planning Inspectorate is conditional that the gateway "shall only be used in connection with the agricultural use of the adjoining land". The Inspector stated further "Finally, a condition is required to prevent the access from being used for any purpose other than in connection with the agricultural use of the land, in the interests of highway safety and having regard to the justification for the access and its Green Belt location."
Central Government is continually applying pressure to Local Authorities to allow house building and in many instances, as evidenced by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Green Belt Land is used.
RBWM is creating a new Borough Local Plan. A consultation will begin on 10th January 2014, and residents will be invited to comment.
The consultation will include the aforementioned Holyport land as an area that could be built upon. Residents may wish to reject this. One reason for rejection could be the increased traffic that would result from it. Another is that according to the Environment Agency, much of the area is subject to a 1 in 30 flood risk as shown elsewhere on this site, (Topics - Holyport Area Flood Risk)
There is further coverage in my BLOG dated 6th December 2013, and below and please also see David Coppinger's Forum item of 5th December 2013.
The map below is from RBWM and in Andrew Cormie's view is incorrect as it does not show the settlements of Holyport and Bray. None of the maps in the RBWM document "Housing: Edge of Settlement Analysis 2013 NOV 2013" show the Holyport and Bray settlements. See my 6th December 2013 BLOG, third blue button to download a full copy of the latter document.
