Borough Local Plan (2013 – 2033)
Submission version Representation Form
Please use a separate sheet for each representation / Ref:
(For official use only)
Name of the Local Plan to which this representation relates: / Borough Local Plan (2013 – 2033) Submission version
Completed forms must be received at our offices by 17:00 Wednesday 27 September 2017
We would encourage you to respond online at www3.rbwm.gov.uk/blp
Scan and email to:
Post hard copy to: FREEPOST RBWM PLANNING POLICY
PART A – CONTACT DETAILSPlease note that representations must be attributable to named individuals or organisations. They will be available for public inspection and cannot be treated as confidential.
1. / Personal Details / 2. / Agent Details (if applicable)
Title / Mr
First Name / Jonathan
Last Name / Medlin
Job title (where relevant)
Organisation
(where relevant) / Oakley Green & Fifield Residents Association (OGFRA) / MPD Ltd
Address Line 1 / 90 Charlton Road
Address Line 2 / Keynsham
Address Line 3 / Bristol
Address Line 4
Post Code / BS31 2EU
Telephone number / 07931446260
Email address (where relevant) / /
PART B – YOUR REPRESENTATION
(Please use a separate sheet for each representation)
Name or Organisation / Oakley Green & Fifield Residents Association (OGFRA)
3. / To which part of the Borough Local Plan does this representation relate?
Paragraph / Policy / HO1/ HA11 / Policies Map
4. / Do you consider the Borough Local Plan is:
(please tick as appropriate)
4.1 / Legally Compliant / Yes / No / ü
4.2 / Sound / Yes / No / ü
4.3 / Complies with Duty to Cooperate / Yes / No / ü
5. / Please give details of why you consider the Borough Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the Borough Local Plan or its compliance with the duty to co-operate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
(Continue on separate sheet/expand box if necessary)
This submission to the RBWM Regulation 19 Consultation is made by Oakley Green & Fifield Residents Association (“OGFRA”). This submission is in addition to the submission that we have made with a number of other organisations (the “Group Submission”), the title page and contents page of which are attached for reference to this submission, as Appendix A. This submission deals with additional matters that are of particular concern to this organisation.
Oakley Green & Fifield Residents Association (see www.ogfra.org) was established over 40 years ago by the residents of Oakley Green and Fifield and is committed to protecting the local environment, with particular emphasis on protecting the Green Belt.
OGFRA has a constitution, a Committee of 8 members and over 200 registered members. Membership is available to residents in the Oakley Green and Fifield Ward of the Parish of Bray and to those who live close enough to be affected by action and development in that ward. OGFRA works with other bodies having similar or sympathetic aims where appropriate to achieve the wishes of the members of the Association.
OGFRA wishes to attend any future session at the Examination which covers this allocation.
This additional objection is in principle to the allocation of land at HA11 in the submission version Borough Local Plan (“BLP” or “Local Plan”), and other policies in the Local Plan which promote HA11 allocation. The allocation should be removed from the Local Plan for the reasons set out.
OGFRA objected to the allocation at the Regulation 18 consultation in January 2017 and in previous consultations. It strongly objects to the allocation and development of this site for housing and its removal from the Green Belt. At 450 dwellings, within a net developable area of around 11 hectares this would represent an overly-high density of development: around 41 to 46 dwellings per hectare, or greater. This is inappropriate for the context and character of the area.
OGFRA is a member of the RBWM Residents Action Group (“RRAG”) and together with RRAG and other organisations has made the Group Submission objecting to the BLP (for reference see Appendix A). In particular, the Group Submission demonstrates the following:
- RBWM has failed to carry out its Duty to Co-operate (DtC) with neighbouring LPAs and statutory consultees. In particular this undermines the OAN approach and the Local Plan is not legally compliant;
- There has been inadequate consultation and an inconsistent approach with the community and residents at all stages. As a consequence changes in policy direction and approaches to strategic issues are flawed and have not been properly communicated;
- The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sufficient infrastructure is available for the planned growth;
- Despite promotion of Neighbourhood Plans in the past, the RBWM approach in the Local Plan disregards and undermines much of the useful neighbourhood planning undertaken;
- Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated to justify the case for Green Belt allocations. There is a lack of evidence to support those sites being removed from the Green Belt, or that the sites can accommodate the numbers of dwellings proposed proposed.
The OGFRA objection in this submission reconfirms the Group Submission , and supplements this with the following points specifically relevant to OGFRA:
i. Objection to Green Belt removal, which is not sufficiently evidenced, and therefore unsound.
ii. Inaccuracies and absence of detail for such an allocation to be justified. It is not legally compliant.
iii. Inaccurate site assessment and inadequate assessment of alternatives and lack of exceptional circumstances. The Green Belt Purpose Analysis (2013), and site selection process is flawed. There has been a failure of a duty to co-operate sub-regionally to identify a reasonable alternative such as a new town or garden village approach to development.
iv. Conflict with emerging Neighbourhood Plan. The emerging Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan is at an advanced stage. It seeks to protect the ‘green gap’ between Windsor and Maidenhead which will be eroded if HA11 progresses.
v. It is based on an inadequate assessment of infrastructure, overall, and specifically of the impact on flooding and transport issues.
vi. Heritage, environment and other policy issues which do not reflect government policy. These are unjustified and fail the tests of soundness.
The objection is set out in the attachment to this Representation Form. It comprises:
- This summary within the prescribed forms;
- The objection (pages 7-14);
- Three appendices:
o Appendix A, as explained above, is the front cover and contents page of the Group Submission (pages 15-16)
o Appendix B is the site selection approach for HA11, extracted from Appendix E of the Group Submission and reproduced here for direct reference (pages 17-32)
o Appendix C sets out photographic evidence of the problems with flooding, road congestion and drainage and sewer capacity at and around site HA11 (pages 33-34).
OGFRA expects all of the objection as submitted to be available to the Inspector for the purposes of the Examination in Public.
6. / Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Borough Local Plan legally compliant or sound, having regard to the Matter you have identified at 5 above where this relates to soundness. (NB Please note that any non-compliance with the duty to co-operate is incapable of modification at examination).
You will need to say why this modification will make the Borough Local Plan legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
(Continue on separate sheet/expand box if necessary)
The deletion of HA11 in its entirety, with associated policy amendments.
An appropriate and justified development strategy is required. The approach in the submission BLP which includes HA11 is flawed. For example, potential sites in the Borough have been overlooked, such as previously developed land that has not yet been assessed, but is likely to become available within the life of the BLP e.g. Broom Farm Estate (where many properties are empty) and Crown Land.
There has not been an adequate assessment of the potential use of empty dwellings, nor a re-assessment, or a strategy for making more efficient use of sites already granted planning permission.
The Housing White Paper (Feb 2017) has set out the government view that the use of Green Belt land should be the last resort. Where it is justified to remove land from the Green Belt, it should be in a planned way - to be developed at later stages of the plan. This could be achieved through safeguarding, but reviewed over time. Monitoring would allow for more appropriate non-Green Belt sites to become available. This would give the Borough the best opportunity to honour its commitment to preserve the Green Belt.
Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested modification, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the original representation at publication stage.
After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination.
7. / If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?8. / If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:
HA11 will impact on the community represented by OGFRA. Many local people share these concerns, and OGFRA’s attendance will allow these views to be collectively made.
Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination.
Signature / / Date / 27/9/2017Objection to Green Belt removal of site allocation HA11.
The NPPF (Para. 83) requires that “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances…”. The Local Plan fails to justify the boundary alteration and is unable to demonstrate any “exceptional circumstances” which justify the large scale allocation here. It is therefore unjustified.
Given that the Royal Borough is 83% covered by Green Belt, the draft Local Plan fails to explain what ‘exceptional’ means in this context.
Para 89 of the NPPF suggests that where Green Belt land is used for development it should be of appropriate scale and limited which the allocation is not. The site is allocated for 450 dwellings, although the indicative masterplan presented at the Regulation 18 consultations suggests upwards of 510 dwellings. This would represent an overly-high density of development: around 41 to 46 dwellings per hectare which is inappropriate for the context and character of the area.
In fact, the developable area of HA11 is likely to be even lower, and the corresponding density would be greater because of obvious constraints within the site: established trees, including oaks, land drains, proximity to listed buildings, impact on existing businesses, and the inclusion of landowners unwilling to be included within any development. This suggests that the site capacity has not been adequately assessed.
The evidence suggests that the site’s contribution to preventing merger of settlements is classified as ‘moderate’. This should be classified as ‘very strong’ / ‘severe’. The allocation is based on these incorrect interpretations and is therefore flawed.
Appendix E of the Group Submission provides a detailed analysis of the housing site allocation examples – it covers a number of sites including HA11 at pages 45-62. This is reproduced in this OGFRA objection Appendix B, specifically for HA11. It demonstrates the inconsistent approach to site selection and the lack of justification. The poorly justified assumptions and assessment as to landscape and visual impact, and the boundaries of the allocation are explained in detail in this analysis. These errors, if corrected, would lead to the removal of HA11.
HA11 occupies a significant portion of the gap between Windsor and Maidenhead and is an essential component of the ‘Bray Green Gap’ set out in the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan (“BPNP”). The contribution to preventing urban sprawl and encroachment into the countryside are only listed as ‘moderate’. Objectively, the contribution should be nothing less than ‘strong’ or ‘very strong’.
Previously HA11 had been identified as W1 and W2 (edge of Windsor, along with a number of other sites surrounding Windsor). The impact of developing W1 and W2 is no different to that of developing W3, W4 or W5 (all edge of Windsor), all of which were classified by the same assessment as ‘strong’ or ‘very strong’. There are, therefore, a range of other more appropriate potential sites which according to the Edge of Settlement analysis meet less than three of the Green Belt criteria.
The allocation also fails to assess a range of reasonable alternatives. The Green Belt Purpose Analysis pre-dates the call for sites for satisfying OAN, and the two studies, which form part of the evidence base, are not linked.
There has been a failure by the Borough under the Duty to Co-operate, as the authority has not worked satisfactorily with other, neighbouring authorities to assess needs, and satisfy those needs strategically. There has been no co-operative working which has assessed as an option the development of a ‘new town’ or settlement which would accommodate the majority of strategic need, and RBWM strategic allocations in one location, together with necessary infrastructure.
Promotion of HA11 by Wates Developments Ltd
Boyer Planning, on behalf of Wates Developments Ltd, submitted a response to the Regulation 18 consultation in January 2017. Para 2.2 of states:
“As part of these representations, a detailed site assessment has been undertaken which supports the Council’s own findings and demonstrates that the site is suitable for new development”
The assessment is predicated on the BLP approach being sound and justified. The BLP approach is neither. The promotion of the site goes on to explain a vision and delivery strategy, with justification drawing from national and local planning policy. OGFRA does not accept the interpretation of the NPPF, and maintains that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the allocation of site HA11 and its removal from the Green Belt.