Land at Blue Mountain Representations 51 to 1001

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Date: 29 October 2013 11:41:57

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 11:38 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain

Dear Sirs

I wish to put in writing my objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement by Bracknell Forest Borough Council. My reasons for this are:

- I consider the plans for Blue Mountain to be excessive - The Section 52 Agreement is specifically mentioned in the Deeds of my property - It will affect my quality of life

Yours faithfully

Head of Development Management Bracknell Forest Borough Council Environment, Culture and Communities Department Time Square Market Street Bracknell RG12 1JD

By E-mail: [email protected]

28th October 2013

Our Ref. BlueMountain-letter 1

Dear Sirs,

It has been brought to my attention that Bracknell Forest Borough Council is taking steps towards removing a formal legal covenant that protects land, currently used as Blue Mountain Golf Course, from being developed.

The covenant in question is I believe quite clear and put in place by the council as condition of the planning permission for Temple Park, to maintain the land that is occupied by Blue Mountain Golf course as an open space or sports facility for 125 years. The purpose was to provide a buffer between the village of Binfield and Bracknell to assist in maintaining the identity of each and to provide valuable amenity land and green space.

Apart from the plain and obvious objection that the Council is considering going back upon a legal commitment made for the benefit of the community with less than 1/5th of the time of the covenant expired, here are more specific objections:

- That the Agreement (dated 16th Feb 1990) was made between Berkshire County Council, Bracknell Town Council and Bracknell Forest Borough Council and the then (I believe) Seller Luff Farms Ltd gives weight that this was a serious undertaking. It was in effect put in place and signed by the Council on our behalf. Existing and future residents should be able to take confidence in such formal legal arrangements when making decisions as to choosing where to live. This confidence is important in building strong communities, maintaining trust between residents and the Council and for the benefit of all. To consider even applying for revocation significantly undermines this confidence.

- The Council has not contacted me that it is considering this action which affects the title documents, transfers of undertakings and covenants to my property.

- The legal title to my property includes the linkage to this document and covenants, summarised within in the legal handbook for the developer as ‘the construction of

recreational and other community facilities on adjacent land.’ It was part of our decision process that in choosing to purchase our current property that there was green space and a defined buffer between Bracknell and Binfield.

- I do personally use the facilities at Blue Mountain Golf Course on a regular basis, the golf course is a well-known landmark and its green space is appreciated by me and my family. As a local Scout leader I know the Scouts often use the facilities for activities and as part of walking routes. Its loss would certainly impact our family and many others

- I do not condone the use of taxpayer’s money by the Council on legal costs to break a legal agreement put in place by the Council in the first place.

I urge the Council to reconsider even tabling this motion as the disparity between the Council setting up a legal agreement to preserve open space to that of building significant numbers of houses, two schools, another football club, etc in such a short interval of time should deliver the answer that this step is wrong.

Yours faithfully

ISSUE REFERENCE: I043295

BlueMountain-letter 1 Page 2 From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to the development at Blue Mountain Date: 29 October 2013 14:53:15

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 14:47 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to the development at Blue Mountain

Dear sirs,

We have been informed that it is your intention to remove the Section 52 agreement which was put in place to protect the Blue Mountain Golf Course from development for a further 102 years. We strongly object to the removal of this legal agreement and our reasons are as follows:-

1. One of the principal reasons my partner and I bought our property in Binfield was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space along with the adjacent public footpaths.

2. The Borough Council and County Council at the time of the agreement were acting on behalf of the local residents and we can see no reason why this should change now.

3. We do not support the use of taxpayers money to break a legal agreement which was signed on the behalf of local residents to protect this green land from development.

4. It is abysmal that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses.

5. Building on the golf course will affect our enjoyment of open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views and tranquillity and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

6. Binfield is supposed to be a village but the current development plans at Amens Corner, Cabbage Hill, Church Lane/Tilehurst Lane and Blue mountain will make this village a suburb of Bracknell and more like a new build town.

Yours sincerely, very unhappy village residents.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement/planned housing development on Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 29 October 2013 13:19:56

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 13:00 To: Development Control; Alex Jack; Subject: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement/planned housing development on Blue Mountain Golf Course

FAO Vincent Haines - Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council

Dear Mr Haines,

I contact you to object most strongly to the council’s plans to concrete over the Blue Mountain Golf Course and surrounding countryside with a huge housing development, 2 schools and a football stadium.

As a resident on the Temple Park housing estate opposite the golf course -I bought my house in good faith, aware of the Section 52 Agreement between yourselves and Luff Developments Ltd in 1990 to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space/strategic gap for 125 years – which enabled you to proceed and build The Temple Park estate of almost 500 houses on the other side of the road at that time!

For you to consider reneging on this legal agreement and building on this green field site is shameless & scandalous. This agreement is referred to in the title deeds of my property as a covenant.

I have spoken to many friends, relatives, neighbours, residents about this hugely unpopular planned development who all live in the local area - and they are all in the process of objecting to you directly.

Building on this golf course and the surrounding countryside will have a huge detrimental effect on my quality of life on a number of levels, it will remove a hugely popular recreational area and green space enjoyed by thousands of people and alter the character of a quintessentially English village forever.

Please re-consider and look at other brown field sites within Bracknell, Binfield village does not have the infrastructure to cope with a development of a ridiculous size as this.

Regards

October 29th 2013

Head of Development Management Bracknell Forest Council Market Street BRACKNELL RG12 1JD

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the release of the covenant agreed with the landowners in 1990 to keep the Blue Mountain area in Binfield as a golf course and open space.

The existence of this covenant was a key factor in my decision to purchase a property on Temple Park in 1998. The local area of Binfield and Bracknell is already over populated and removal of the key open space at Blue Mountain will be of considerable detriment to the quality of life of all those living here.

The original covenant was agreed expressly to protect Blue Mountain from development for 125 years and any proposed release would effectively make a mockery of this and any similar agreements. I trust therefore that the council will not accede to the request from the landowners to be released from this important covenant.

Yours faithfully,

Cc: Alex Jack (Borough Solicitor), Adam Afriyie (MP)

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: PROPOSED REMOVAL OF SECTION 52 AGREEMENT from the Temple Park planning permission. Date: 30 October 2013 08:45:34

FYI

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 29 October 2013 17:40 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: PROPOSED REMOVAL OF SECTION 52 AGREEMENT from the Temple Park planning permission.

Dear Sirs,

I am writing this email to voice to you my strongest opposition of your proposed removal of an existing Section 52 agreement with regards to development adjacent to Temple Park, on the green space that is the Blue Mountain golf course.

Four years ago I moved to the area and reside in Temple Park, enjoying the open space that the green areas of Blue Mountain afford. It was the main reason I chose to buy the property I did, particularly knowing that the property had the benefit of a covenant that quite clearly states that the area of the golf course would not be used for any other purpose other than green space for the next 125 years (102 years remaining). I do not need to spell it out to you as I know you are fully aware of it and I now hear you think you have the right to just amend this and nullify it from any agreement.

I am totally aghast that you believe you have the right to change something with such monumental implications, without ever consulting the people with whom it will have the most impact. Apart from the very obvious loss of the green space I moved into the area to enjoy, the section 52 agreement is noted in my title deeds, so I would like to know how you think you have the right to simply amend this now just because it suits your needs.

I think it is absolutely scandalous that you think you can play with people's lives in this way - An agreement is exactly that and based on it, so many people have chosen to reside in Temple park knowing that they have green space to enjoy and that it was protected in such a way. Now you think you can just change that and it's not going to have any affect on anyone living here? How dare you is what I say to you.

We all know that there is a fundamental need for new homes and accept that development will take place, as is exactly what is going ahead just to the north of us on Cabbage Hill. What I don't accept is that you go ahead and break any agreements that stand in your way, particularly ones that brought people to the area in the first place. I also don't accept that you think you can use my money as a tax payer to break legal agreements and take the law into your own hands to simply get your way. I think it's utterly disgusting as a council that you are prepared to treat local residents in this abhorrent way, with absolutely no regard to the feelings and well being of those people who already live here.

Please listen to the objections of the residents here and do not brush them under the carpet to steam roll ahead with these outrageous plans.

Your faithfully Sent from my iPhone From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: objection to removal of section 52 agreement Date: 30 October 2013 08:44:07

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 16:07 To: Development Control; Alex Jack; Subject: objection to removal of section 52 agreement

To whom it may concern,

We would like to formally object to the proposal to remove section 52's agreement. As resident's of Temple Park we are absolutely disgusted to find that this agreement may be removed. One of the main reasons we purchased our house in Temple Park was its close proximity to Blue Mountain Golf course, our son has golf lessons every week and plays at Blue Mountain regularly with aspirations to be a proffesional golfer when he is older. It was also very important to us to have green space around our housing estate for air quality and personal enjoyment. I understand that the agreement is put in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any other purpose than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement. I feel very strongly that this should not be removed and the golf course is an important part of our community. Building on the Golf Course space would effect the views, tranquility, fresh air and recreational aspects of living in Temple Park and I feel that breaking this agreement should not even be an option.

Thankyou for taking our opinion's into consideration.

Regards From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course. Date: 30 October 2013 08:46:43

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 22:16 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

As a Resident of Binfield of many years, I am drawn to object most strongly to the proposed removal of the Section 52 Legal Agreement dated 16th February 1990.Protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course.

I understand that this agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development, that it remains an open space for recreational purposes, for the remainder of the agreement 102 yrs.

The Borough Council and County Council in 1990 drew up this agreement to protect this land for us The Residents, there is no reason for this to change.

Indeed I do not support that taxpayers money be used to break a legal agreement, which was signed on my behalf( as a Resident) to protect this land.

I enjoy this open space daily, which will be affected, its always been an open space its one of the reasons I moved to Binfield, the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell will be lost.

Its not fair that the same owner, (who originally signed this agreement), now wants to break it in order to build more houses.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement/planned housing development on Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 29 October 2013 13:20:17

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 12:47 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement/planned housing development on Blue Mountain Golf Course

FAO Vincent Haines - Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council

Dear Mr Haines,

For you to consider reneging on this legal agreement and building on this green field site is shameless & scandalous. This agreement is referred to in the title deeds of my property as a covenant.

Please re-consider and look at other brown field sites within Bracknell, Binfield village does not have the infrastructure to cope with a development of a ridiculous size as this.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to removal of Section 52 agreement Date: 29 October 2013 11:26:39

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 11:24 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to removal of Section 52 agreement

Dear Sir

I reside at Binfield, Berkshire and wish to object to Bracknell Forest Borough Council's intention to remove the Section 52 Agreement.

The reasons for my objection are that removal of the agreement will affect the Deeds of my property, which specifically refer to the Section 52 agreement. I further believe that Beneficiaries of this Agreement, namely the residents in Temple Park will be deprieved of their Human Rights in respect of deprivation of this amenity. Furthermore, there has been no consultation with the residents for development of this land which would adversely affect the value of our properties.

Yours faithfully From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Plans to develop Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield Date: 30 October 2013 08:44:40

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 17:17 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Plans to develop Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield

I am writing to express my concern at the proposed development of the Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield.

When planning permission was given to develop Temple Park in 1990, it was agreed that the golf course would not be developed for 125 years. I understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain Golf Course from development.

I strongly object to this agreement being broken after only 23 years - there is still 102 years remaining.

Building on the golf course will join Binfield to Bracknell, removing the green gap between the two towns, and add to the already over congested roads in the area.

Thank you

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Development Binfield Date: 30 October 2013 08:43:24

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 17:08 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Development Binfield

I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the development of Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield, Berkshire.

This development is in addition to substantial over development in the surrounding areas of Wokingham, Amen corner and Warfield. These developments are already changing the local environments for the worse with excessive additional load on the road system, water systems, increase in pollution, loss of green space, merging of urban conurbations and strain on employment.

The housing development of Temple Park was approved on the stipulation of a covenant on Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Bracknell Borough Forest Council believes that it is acceptable to break this covenant to further develop and change the local environment.

A section 52 agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space.

The council have no rights to ignore a legal covenant and have not requested or received my approval to legally challenge this covenant using finances gathered from local residents.

It is the responsibility of the council to provide a duty of care to the residents of the borough, this is a clear infraction of their rights. regards

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Removal of Section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain GC Date: 30 October 2013 08:44:55

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 17:32 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Removal of Section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain GC

To whom it may concern,

Please accept my extreme objection to the removal of Section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain GC on the following grounds: - I have not been consulted on the proposed change which may affect the legal title I hold. - My property was bought due its proximity to the golf course and the open space. As an avid golfer and former Captain of BMGC I think your proposed action is socially and environmentally criminal. - was sold to me with the covenant in place and I do not agree that a legally binding covenant should be changed on a whim to suit the incumbent council's agenda. - My understanding is that Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the tenancy which is 102 years. - The Borough Council signed an agreement with the best interests of the community in mind and these have not changed so there is no reason why this should change. - As a high rate tax payer I do not agree that my money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. I would support use of the money in to the local communities public infrastructure to make Binfield an even better place to live. - It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. - Finally, building on the golf course will negatively impact my enjoyment of living in Binfield - the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquillity and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. I hope you appreciate the depth of feeling and impact of your actions on the long term position of both this community and the council's position within it.

This is fundamentally wrong.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 29 October 2013 15:04:50

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 14:59 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to lodge my objection as to the removing of the Section 52 Agreement that was signed between Bracknell Forest Council and Luff Development Ltd in 1990.

I moved onto Temple Park in February 1996 into Wilstrode Avenue and I remember the the site being called "Fairways", and as being a golfer was the main reason I bought the property due to its proximity to the golf course and open space and being cleary advised at that time by the developer, Taylor Woodrow that the golf course land could not be built on and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed.

The council agreed this in 1990, and I don't agree that it is right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes break this agreement in order to build more houses.

Where is the trust, honesty & honour these day ??? the agreement was signed by Bracknell Forest Council to last 125 years and there is no reason why this should be changed.

Yours sincerely

From: Alex Jack To: Nigel Moore Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Date: 30 October 2013 13:46:45

From: Sent: 30 October 2013 13:33 To: Development Control Cc:

Subject: Blue Mountain

I am writing to object to the proposed development of Blue Mountain Golf Course. This development clearly conflicts with the spirit and letter of the 1990 Section 52 Agreement to retain the land as a golf course or open space for 125 years. The proposed development will do nothing to meet local needs for affordable housing, which would be better met using local brown field sites adjacent to Bracknell’s existing infrastructure and amenities. It would however destroy the countryside between Bracknell and Binfield, one of the main reasons I chose to buy a house in Temple Park 14 years ago. I do not approve of the use of taxpayer’s money to break a legal agreement made on my behalf, for the benefit of greedy developers rather than current or potential residents, and in the face of extensive local opposition.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of Section 52 Agreement (Blue Mountain) Date: 30 October 2013 08:47:08

FYI

From: Sent: 30 October 2013 08:07 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to the removal of Section 52 Agreement (Blue Mountain)

Dear Sirs,

I would like to raise my objection to the removal of Section 52 (Blue Mountain)

The reasons for my objection are listed below:

1. As a resident of Temple Park, I have not been consulted on the proposed change, which might affect the title deed I hold. 2. One of the main reasons I brought this property was due to its proximity to the golf course and surrounding open space. 3. The property was sold to me with the covenant in place and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed. 4. My understanding is that a Section 52 agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years). 5.The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on our behalf and there is no reason why this should change. 6. I do not support the notion that taxpayer's money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. 7. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. 8. Building on the golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquility and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. 9. The whole infrastructure around Bracknell is insufficient to handle yet another development; alternatives, which obviously aren't should be considered - not on green belt land - disused industrial centres/office blocks could easily be considered 10. I cannot agree with what appears to be underhand tactics that appear to be progressing; how can the council put in application for funding of schools on land that have NO approval for, for forthcoming years. It is absurd and unacceptable.

Please confirm receipt of email.

KInd Regards

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: To object to a removal of the Section 52 agreement of the Blue Mountain Golf Course at Binfield.Berkshire Date: 30 October 2013 12:17:38

FYI

From: Sent: 30 October 2013 09:19 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: To object to a removal of the Section 52 agreement of the Blue Mountain Golf Course at Binfield.Berkshire

Dear Sir, I have not been consulted on a proposed change,which may effect the legal title that I hold. One of the many reasons that we bought the property was due to the proximity to the golf course and open space .The property was sold on the understanding that the covenant was in place and it should NOT be removed. I understand that a Section 52 Agreements in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for ANY purpose other than a golf course or recreational space for the duration of the agreement(102 years). The Borough Council and County Council(at the time) signed the agreement and the is no reason why this should change. I do NOT support that taxpayers money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. Why does the practice of austerity measures apply to to local government when we over past years have been requested and have given our support and loss of income to balance the countries deficit? IT is morally wrong that this agreement should be broken. Building on established golf course and possibly others in the area will effect enjoyment of open spaces and the current green gap between Binfild and Bracknell. I believe that this is morally wrong as there are other alternatives which could be considered without effecting the environment and people, who in good faith purchased their e properties confident that we could trust the establishment,apparently ance again we have been let down by those we trust with our well being. Yours Faithfuuly

From: Alex Jack To: Nigel Moore Subject: FW: Save Blue Mountain! Date: 30 October 2013 09:48:43

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 30 October 2013 06:28 To: Alex Jack Subject: Save Blue Mountain!

Dear Sirs

I am writing to strongly object to the ludicrous plans to allow Blue Mountain to be developed on. The 1990 Planning Agreement relating to the land at the Blue Mountain Golf and Conference Centre is a 125 set lease and this must not be changed under any circumstances.

Bracknell Forest Council feel it is just to take all the lovely green space around Binfield and Warfield and line their pockets with the cash these greedy developers are promising them.

Enough is enough, the 1990 Agreement is a legal document and it should remain as it is.

I do not know one resident of Temple Park or Binfield who is in favour of this development. Start thinking with your heads rather than your pockets gentlemen!

Sent from my iPad From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Save Blue Mountain Date: 31 October 2013 08:16:10

FYI

From: Sent: 30 October 2013 17:54 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Fwd: Save Blue Mountain

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From:

I am writing to strongly oppose the development of Blue Mountain Golf Course. I have lived in and around Binfield all my life and have used this area for recreational purposes since childhood. In 1997 my husband and I purchased a property in Temple Park as we felt it was the perfect area for us to settle in. Plenty of trees, near enough to access shops but the main point was the fact that we knew the surrounding areas would be kept as they were - certainly within our life times. We regularly walk around the golf course and attend events at the club house, always delighting in the fact we chose to live in such a lovely area where so much wild life flourishes. I find it unbelievable that the Council deems it acceptable to waive the agreement made with Luff Developments in 1990 which stated the land at Blue Mountain would be kept as open space for 125 years. Our property was sold to us with this covenant in place and I have not or will not agree that it should be changed or removed. Building on Blue Mountain will effectively remove the green space that currently separates Binfield from Bracknell and will deprive myself and so many other residents of the outstanding recreational facilities the golf course provides. How can it be that the council that signed an agreement to protect the land now wishes to break it in order to build more houses? This will surely affect properties in the area by creating a huge increase in noise and traffic levels which can and will reduce the pleasure we have in living where we do. From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Removal of Section 52 agreement Date: 30 October 2013 12:20:19

FYI

From: Sent: 30 October 2013 12:12 To: Subject: Removal of Section 52 agreement

Dear Sirs

I would like to object to the removal of the 'Section 52 Agreement', I have not been contacted regarding this change Part of the reason for purchasing our home was because of the golf course, we not only use the facilities there but really enjoy the green space it offers & the country walks either side, the property was originally sold to us with this covenant in place & I cannot believe it can be legal to change this? & not just change it but use my taxes to cover the costs to do so?

A hugely disappointed

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Save Blue Mountain Date: 30 October 2013 12:19:59

FYI

From: Sent: 30 October 2013 10:57 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Save Blue Mountain

Sent from my iPad

Dear Sirs,

Please listen to the objections of the residents here and do not brush them under the carpet to steam roll ahead with these outrageous plans.

Your faithfully

Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Bracknell Forest - Blue Mountain Development Objection Date: 30 October 2013 16:25:34

From: Sent: 30 October 2013 16:11 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Bracknell Forest - Blue Mountain Development Objection

Please accept my apologies but it would appear that my original email contained no text. Hopefully you will be able to read this one.

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to you today to express my utter disbelief that you are considering the development of the land currently occupied by Blue Mountain Golf Course. We have been residents in Temple Park for 3 years and are opposed to this development on the following grounds:

1) There is I believe a Section 52 Agreement in place protecting the Blue Mountain land to the extent that it cannot be used for any other purpose than a golf course. I also understand that this was a condition for the planning permission for the Temple Park development.

2) I cannot see how the council can just change their minds on an agreement like this which is also a covenant on the deeds to my property

3) I have not been consulted on any change to the legal title I hold and do not support such a change

4) One of the prime reasons we chose to move to Temple Park was the proximity to the golf course and surrounding green belt land

5) The traffic issues which exist today between Temple Park and the A329M and surrounding areas will be made significantly worse by this development

6) The other sites at Coppid Beach and Cabbage Hill are I believe also being progressed and surely provide Bracknell with sufficient additional housing

7) If you travel around the Bracknell area it is littered with empty office accommodation(some of which has been unoccupied for years) which could surely be converted into residential housing.

8) You would be depriving hundreds of people of the use of the golf course as well as the other open spaces 9) The Temple Park estate will become a thoroughfare for people wanting to get into Bracknell by foot

10) The additional traffic and noise from a relocated Football Club is unacceptable

11) Given the current business trend to move out rather than into Bracknell why do we need so many additional houses in the area.

12) What impact will this have on the amenities e.g. local doctor’s surgery and the ability to get appointments

I thought a local council were elected to work on behalf of and for the benefit of local residents. How can you possibly explain this decision meets either of these.

I cannot express the level of disappointment, anger and frustration my wife and I feel that our local council think it is acceptable to sign an agreement that protects the site and then break that agreement without any formal consultation. It does not engender trust in our local councillors that they can make any decision on our behalf.

I urge you to reconsider your decision and look at other sites which are sitting idle and unused rather than destroying what is a beautiful piece of land that provides so much enjoyment to local residents.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to change of Scetion 52 agreement re Blue Mountain Date: 31 October 2013 10:36:11

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 10:35 To: Development Control Subject: FW: Objection to change of Scetion 52 agreement re Blue Mountain

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 10:31 To: '[email protected].' Subject: Objection to change of Scetion 52 agreement re Blue Mountain

Dear Head of Development Management

I am writing to strongly oppose the removal of the Section 52 agreement between Blue Mountain and Luff Developments which is to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space for 125 years from 1990.

This agreement was put into place and enforced by the Council to provide an open space and preserve a green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

One of the main reasons I bought my house in Binfield was its green gap and open space. I do not agree that the taxpayer's money should be used to break a legal agreement which was to protect this land from development. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses.

Building on the golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreational facilities, views, tranquillity and most importantly, the green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Yours sincerely,

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Proposed development on Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 31 October 2013 12:52:37

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 11:17 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Proposed development on Blue Mountain Golf Course

I wish to join many others in letting you know my feelings about the proposed development on Blue Mountain Golf Course. Although I realise that schools are needed I don’t agree that this is the best place for them – the houses could certainly go elsewhere and why do we need Bracknell Football Club ground in Binfield?

But mainly my objection is the removal of a legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course – and this agreement is referred to in the title deeds of my property as a covenant – I and other residents of Temple Park have not been consulted on a proposed change which may affect the legal title I hold.

I also understood that a Section 52 agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development for the remaining duration of the agreement which I think it about 102 years what has happened to that?

I just don’t think there is the infrastructure to take the amount of increased traffic which will be generated – it isn’t great coming out of Bolton’s Lane now – I normally have to queue to turn right but it will be a nightmare with increased cars from the proposed houses, additional traffic from the new Warfield estates, and children being dropped off at school, and then cars from Amen Corner estates! There are too many houses being built in such a condensed area.

You are closing the current gap between Binfield and Bracknell at the same time ruining the

"This e-mail and the information it contains are confidential and may be privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately. You should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person."

______This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/ From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Proposed development on Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 31 October 2013 12:52:45

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 11:26 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Proposed development on Blue Mountain Golf Course

You are closing the current gap between Binfield and Bracknell at the same time ruining the rural environment around Binfield.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Removal of Temple Park Section 52 Agreement Date: 01 November 2013 09:28:49

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 31 October 2013 22:01 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Removal of Temple Park Section 52 Agreement

Hello,

I would refer to the council's proposal to remove the Temple Park Section 52 Agreement.

I wish to place on record my firm objection to this proposal based on the following criteria:

The legal title I hold for my property may well change. Furthermore I have not been consulted on this. I have been a resident of Temple Park for 9 years and one of the main reasons for living on Temple Park was the close proximity to the golf course and open spaces to enjoy with my family and friends. My property was sold to me with a covenant in place and I firmly oppose it's amendment or removal. It is my understanding that The Section 52 agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space and recreational space for the 102 year duration of the agreement. The Borough Council and County council at the time signed the agreement on my behalf and all the residents of Temple Park and there is no reason to change this. What is done is done and should stay done, that was the intent and whole reason for,an agreement in the first place. I certainly do not support tax payer's money being used to break or try to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf to protect this land from development. It is certainly not right that the same owner who signed the agreement now wishes to rescind on the agreement to build more houses. This in reality is tantamount to breach of contract and if it goes ahead then myself and other residents should be suitably compensated. Building on the golf course will indeed affect my enjoyment of the whole vista including the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

In conclusion I would ask that you treat the above as a most serious objection to the removal of the section 52 agreement and request that any plans for the removal are withdrawn without further delay.

Regards

Sent from my iPad From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain - Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement Date: 31 October 2013 16:17:51

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 31 October 2013 16:11 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain - Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement

Sirs,

I would like to express my concern over the possible removal of the Section 52 Agreement with Luff Developments Ltd. Bracknell Forest Council entered into this Agreement in 1990 for very good reasons which are even more pertinent today. The congested roads and facilities of Binfield are already being threatened with overdevelopment both from the westerly Wokingham direction and Cabbage Hill and other Bracknell developments to the east. There is a pressing need to preserve the green spaces between Binfield and the encroaching neighbouring towns. A large housing development and the inclusion of two schools and a football stadium on the Blue Mountain site would seriously harm Binfield village. From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Removal of the section 52 agreement from Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 01 November 2013 09:29:43

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 17:56 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Removal of the section 52 agreement from Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sirs,

I object to the proposal by Bracknell Forrest Council to remove section 52 of the agreement between the council and Luff Developments.

I have not been consulted on a proposed change, which may affect the legal titles which I hold.

One of the main reasons we bought our property was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space.

The property was sold to us with the covenant in place and we do not agree that it should be changed or removed.

The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on our behalf and there is no reason why this should change.

I do not support that taxpayer’s money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on our behalf which was to protect this land from development.

It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses.

Building on the golf course will affect our enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquillity, and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Yours sincerely,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Development Date: 01 November 2013 09:29:02

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 19:10 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Development

To Head of development management

We object on the grounds that as a resident on the Temple Park estate we have not been consulted on any proposed change and believe that any change could affect the legal title on our house as it was sold to us with a covenant in place that keeps this land as open space or recreational facility and this has another 102 years to run.

I regularly use these facilities and actually bought the house because of its proximity to the golf course and because the views from the house are over open land.

We particularly object to the owners of the land and the council who signed this agreement to protect it from development and now want to have this changed. I guess they expect to make a lot of money from developing this land.

We also object to our (taxpayers) money being used to help you break this agreement.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Modification to Section 52 Date: 01 November 2013 09:28:54

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 20:17 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Modification to Section 52

Dear Sir,

FAO : Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council, Environment, Culture & Communities Department, Times Square, Market Street, Bracknell

Re : PLANNING NOTICE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT AGREEMENT REGULATING THE DEVELOPMENT OR USE OF LAND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO MODIFY AN AGREEMENT dated 16TH FEBRUARY 1990

I am writing to put forward my objection to the modification of the legal agreement, Section 52, protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course.

As a resident of Temple Park I am aware that the agreement is referred to as a Covenant in the Title Deeds for my property which states

"1. Not to use the Golf Course Land for any purpose other than as a golf course for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the Golf Course land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph"

Since the property was sold to me with the Covenant in place and I have not been consulted nor agree with the proposed changes I am writing to object to the removal of this agreement and the affect this has on the legal title to my property.

I originally moved to the area and particularly Temple Park due to its proximity to the open space and the environment that was created by Blue Mountain Golf Course. I feel that building on the Golf Course will affect not only my enjoyment of the local surroundings but also have a detrimental affect on the area by removing the much needed green space between the existing developments.

It is my understanding that the Borough Council and the County Council signed this agreement on behalf of the residents of Temple Park, and therefore myself, to protect the Blue Mountain Golf Course from development and to preserve open and recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement.

I do not understand how both the owner of the land and Bracknell Forest Council would wish to break this legal agreement and am against any such modifications or removal of the agreement.

Yours faithfully,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course : Modification to Section 52 Date: 01 November 2013 09:28:57

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 20:21 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course : Modification to Section 52

Dear Sir,

FAO : Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council, Environment, Culture & Communities Department, Times Square, Market Street, Bracknell

Re : PLANNING NOTICE

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT AGREEMENT REGULATING THE DEVELOPMENT OR USE OF LAND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO MODIFY AN AGREEMENT dated 16TH FEBRUARY 1990

I am writing to put forward my objection to the modification of the legal agreement, Section 52, protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course.

As a resident of Temple Park I am aware that the agreement is referred to as a Covenant in the Title Deeds for my property which states

I do not understand how both the owner of the land and Bracknell Forest Council would wish to break this legal agreement and am against any such modifications or removal of the agreement.

Yours faithfully,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Save " Blue Mountain " Date: 31 October 2013 13:01:29

From: Sent: 31 October 2013 12:56 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Save " Blue Mountain "

To the Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council

I would like to strongly object to any plans for the proposed building plans, schools and football stadium on the current Blue Mountain golf course. I am a golfer and personally live in the area and use Blue Mountain golf course regularly.

My main reasons for objection are as follows :

1/ It is my understanding that Section 52 Agreement was signed and is place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement ( 102 years ).

2/ The Borough Council and County Council signed an agreement on my behalf and there is no reason why this should change.

3/ I do not support that taxpayer's money should be spent to break this legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development.

4/ One of the reasons I bought my property was because of the thoughtful design and current layout of the present village's of Binfield and Warfield whilst still retaining some beautiful open spaces around.

I understand the need for a sustained housing development but surely this could be done else where, there is plenty of open spaces around for development, but the destruction of our golf course and increased traffic will not be good for residents and the local environment.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Proposed development at Blue Mountain golf course Date: 01 November 2013 16:00:19

From: Sent: 01 November 2013 15:59 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Proposed development at Blue Mountain golf course

To: Head of Development Management, BFBC

Dear Sir

I object to the removal of the current legal agreement protecting the site of the Blue Mountain golf course in Binfield. (Section 52 Agreement, 16th February 1990).

My grounds for objecting are:

1. The section 52 agreement lasts for 102 years from 1990 and clearly states that the land cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space. 2. BFBC signed this agreement in 1990 and there is no justification why this should change. 3. BFBC does not have the right to break this agreement just because it wants to now build more houses. 4. Building on the golf course will impact my enjoyment of the open space, views, tranquillity and the green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. 5. Taxpayer’s money should not be used to beak a legal agreement signed to protect this land from development.

Kind regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Section 52 Agreement-Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 04 November 2013 09:25:37

From: Sent: 01 November 2013 17:26 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Section 52 Agreement-Blue Mountain Golf Course

I am writing to advise that I object to the Section 52 agreement being removed from the Blue Mountain Golf Course for the following reasons:

When the house was purchased the location the golf course was an important factor that the helped make the decision. It provides a wonderful green space between Binfield and Bracknell which can be used for many things, not just for golf. I feel that the removal of this large open space would be detrimental to the area as there will be very little to replace it. The golf course is one of the few in the area that affordable for everyone to play and provides a great introduction to the game of golf for young people.

There are many houses in the Bracknell Forest area for sale at this time and I do not believe that there is enough infrastructure to support this development nor the facilities to encourage people to move to the area.

The Temple Way/Wokingham Road/London Road roundabout is already, at many times during the day, heavily congested. Adding more traffic to this would make any journey out of Temple Park very difficult.

There has been a lack of consultation from the Council regarding this matter, a notice was posted on a lamp post on Temple Way which would have made it difficult for residents to see it, perhaps a mail drop would have been more appropriate for such an important matter.

I really hope that the Council listen to the local residents and keep golf course as it was intended.

Some form of acknowledgement of my comments would be most appreciated.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield Date: 04 November 2013 09:25:24

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 01 November 2013 17:05 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield

Dear Sirs,

We are writing to lodge the strongest possible objection to the proposed removal of the Section 52 Agreement signed in 1990 by Luff Developments Ltd. and Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

We are aware of the fact that the Section 52 Agreement was originally put in place to protect an area of open space and to preserve the green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. It was intended that this should be upheld for 125 years. It was agreed on behalf of the residents of Binfield, including ourselves who have been resident since 1989, and we are convinced that both parties have a moral obligation to uphold the agreement. We are appalled that the Council should value our open space so little and be blithely prepared to sacrifice it for building when there are other options available within the borough.

Yours faithfully, From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to planning to remove section 52 agreement of Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield, Bracknell, Berkshire Date: 01 November 2013 13:33:24

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 01 November 2013 13:29 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to planning to remove section 52 agreement of Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield, Bracknell, Berkshire

'Not to use the golf course land for any other purpose than as a golf course for the provision of sporting it other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the golf course land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph'

I absolutely object to this request for the council to remove this covenant to enable builders to build on this land.

Firstly the covenant was put in place when they built Temple Park estate on glorious fields with deer and other wildlife which were forced to move on and of course to appease local residents who were in uproar about the development encroaching on the green space gap between Binfield and Bracknell and so it was an agreement made at that time 23 years ago to provide a community facility for residents, an open space and to preserve the gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Now the council who had enforced this condition, have decided to apply for this condition to be removed so that it can be built on.

All the residents who were informed that this protective covenant would be in place forever are now being mocked by this ridiculous request to have it quite simply removed.

What is the point in having conditions put in place to form part of planning agreement when they can be do easily removed??

What example does that set for others?

How is this fair?

This covenant should stand forever and never be changed on the basis that when it was set up 23 years ago it didn't say 'until we decide otherwise'.

I am a Binfield resident who will be affected by this proposed development following any removal of this covenant so I am appalled that it can be done.

It just says, yes builders you just promise a recreational space for residents as part of your planning application so we can approve your planning request and then later on we will just have it removed when we want to.

The last statement alone is enough to dismiss this ridiculous request.

If this gets approved you are sending a huge message to everyone with covenants on properties and land.

Dismiss this request please it is not right or moral.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection: SAVE BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE!!! Date: 04 November 2013 09:26:16

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 01 November 2013 23:01 To: Development Control Subject: Objection: SAVE BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE!!!

Please note that I am a resident and object to the removal of section 52 agreement protecting Blue Mountain from development.

Kind regards,

Sent from my iPhone From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 04 November 2013 09:25:44

From: Sent: 01 November 2013 18:45 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course

FAO HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

I understand an application has been lodged to remove a Section 52 agreement protecting the Blue Mountain Golf Course in Binfield, and wish to register my strong objection to this application. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

· I am aware that a Section 52 agreement is in place to protect the Blue Mountain Golf Course from development, and to ensure that it is only used as a golf course, open space or recreational space for the term of the agreement ie 125 years from 1990. There is clearly a considerable time left under this Agreement and I see no reason why the Agreement should be changed so significantly at this very early stage in its term. Aside of any other issues, rescinding such an important Agreement sets an unwelcome precedent and severely diminishes the value and status of such an Agreement. For Bracknell Forest Council to even consider changing the Agreeement they signed shows weakness and will be detrimental to the standing of the Council in the local community. We have to rely on the Council to represent us, and if this is agreed I will certainly lose all faith in the Council. · The other purpose of the Section 52 Agreement was to ensure that a gap was retained between Bracknell and Binfield, allowing the Parish to retain its character and not just become a ‘suburb’ to Bracknell. This gap is crucial if Binfield is to retain its character as a Parish and particularly a village, and as such the removal of the Agreement and potential development of the site will be severely detrimental. · While neither I or my family play golf, we appreciate the open space and views provided by the golf course, and the walking through and around it which we enjoy with our two dogs. We will be seriously affected by the loss of the golf course to housing development. · I do not see why my tax and council tax should be used to break this agreement which was put in place to protect residents such as myself. This is misuse of funds which we have to pay, but have no real control over their useage.

· It is very clear from current developments – underway, agreed, and proposed, that Bracknell, Wokingham, and Reading will ultimately be combined from east to west. If Parishes such as Binfield to the north are drawn into this, the whole area will become an urbanised sprawl, with insufficient infrastructure. Our quality of life is already affected by the current developments and will only become worse if Agreements such as the Section 52 protecting the Blue Mountain Golf Course are overridden.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Bracknell Date: 01 November 2013 14:10:00

From: Sent: 01 November 2013 14:09 To: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Bracknell

To Head of Development Management, BFBC

Dear Sir/Madam

Im writing regarding the proposed development of Blue Mountain Golf Course and therefore the proposed removal of the Section 52 Agreement.

Section 52 agreement dated 16th February 1990, was put in place and was a condition of the planning permission for Temple Park. The agreement was to ensure that the golf course land was an area of open space and to preserve a green gap between Bracknell and Binfield.

I am totally shocked and disgusted that BFBC are now set on removing this agreement and have allocated this site for a housing development, 2 schools as well as a football stadium.

The main reason why we bought our property in Binfield was due to its proximity to the golf course/open space and its extremely quiet, peaceful village location. We did NOT want to live in Bracknell and Binfield offered us the village location we so badly sought. Due to its village location Binfield is an extremley sought after area and the price of our property reflected this. We bought the property with this agreement in place, building on the golf course will devalue our property considerably.

I find it extremely upsetting and distressing that our dream house/lives will be totally changed but this decision. We have not been consulted on the proposed change and our property was sold to us with this covenant in place and we do not agree that it should be changed or removed.

The agreement was for 125 years, well passed our lifetime, and the remaining 102 years should be enforced. What is the point of putting a convenant in place if 20 years later you can then challenge it and remove it? It means that any legal agreement isn't worth the paper is agreed on!

Building on the golf course, adding two schools and the football stadium is going to totally ruin the tranquillity, views and quiet location of the surrounding area and Binfield. We love the fact we can sit in our garden and only hear birds sing! It is a wonderful, peaceful location and we do not want this to change. This development will mean that during the week noise pollution from schools will be heard and at the weekend noise from the football stadium.

The agreement was put in place to protect our open spaces and I want to ensure that these open spaces are preserved for our children's children. BFBC at the time made this agreement on our behalf and there is no reason why this should be changed.

I strongly object to using taxpayers (mine money) to break a legal agreement which I do not agree too. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break this agreement in order to build yet more houses, and probably making alot of money from this process! The owner is not thinking about the village and surrounding area, they are just thinking about money! If the owner wishes to challenge and remove the legal agreement then they should at least be made to pay for any legal costs involved in this, surely this is common sense during these tough economic times?

The current green open spaces divides Bracknell and Binfield, I do not wish for Binfield to join onto Bracknell. The removal of this covenant will destroy Binfield and the rural environment, we will lose the tranquillity, views and our wonderful village atmosphere.

I strongly oppose the loss of Blue Mountain and find it disgusting that a legal agreement that was put in place to preserve our green and open spaces is now being challenged, it shouldn't even be considered.

BFBC made and signed the agreement in the first place to protect the land, the covenant should remain in place and be extended to ensure future generations can enjoy these open spaces.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter and would appreciate an answer on the points Ive raised above!

Kind regards,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to Removal of Section 52 Agreement Date: 04 November 2013 09:26:33

From: Sent: 02 November 2013 10:19 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to Removal of Section 52 Agreement

Dear sirs,

I write with reference to the removal of section 52 agreement with Blue Mountain Gold Centre.

I must say in the strongest terms that the councils idea of changing this is totally unacceptable. When I moved to this area one of the points for me was that the golf course was their which helps bring employment and revenue to the town, it also meant that there is an area for wildlife to flourish and a major point was that there was no possibility of housing development which is very important to me.

I find it deplorable that the council feel they can “ move the goal posts” to suit there own needs, I am sure there is a covenant in place and I feel it morally wrong for the council to change this, at no point have I been consultant about this which shows total dis-regard by the council of my feelings and views.

It is also my understanding that the council signed the original agreement to protect the local residents and economy so why has this changed? I also do not agree that tax payers money should be used for this project, the money could and should be spent on more important issues that the borough has.

Given the issues that are present into todays society with the youths, this will increase the problems faced, not to mention the extra strain it will put on local services like police, fire and ambulance services.

I do hope to hear from you and I do hope that this course of action can be halted.

Regards,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: OBJECTION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SECTION 52 AGREEMENT Date: 04 November 2013 09:29:01

From: Sent: 02 November 2013 17:23 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: OBJECTION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SECTION 52 AGREEMENT

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Once again Temple Park residents ’OBJECTIONS’ to the proposed ‘NEW BUILD’ are under threat of being ‘TOTALLY IGNORED’ because of non-consultation with residents regarding the latest proposed removal of Section 52 Agreement protecting Blue Mountain as a golf course.

I understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years). The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an Agreement on my behalf and there is no reason why this should change. It is not right that the same owner who signed the Agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. One of the main attractions in purchasing my property was due to its proximity to Blue Mountain golf course and surrounding open space, and it was sold to me with the covenant in place and I am NOT IN AGREEMENT with any changes or its removal.

If I had wanted to move to a ‘concrete jungle’ I would have looked elsewhere. I find it so frustrating that residents do not seem to have any rights when it comes to changing the environment in which they wish to live. Consideration should also be given to the various varieties of wildlife in the area and how it would affect their habitat.

Building on this golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, recreation and community facilities, views, tranquillity and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell and will ruin Temple Park’s reputation as ‘well sort after area’ of Binfield. The roads around this area will become clogged with extra traffic and thus cause residents a great deal of frustration.

I feel very sad for future generations not being able to utilise open spaces because there just won’t be any. Why is it that all available green space will eventually have to disappear in what was once a ‘green and pleasant land’?

PLEASE LEAVE TEMPLE PARK AS A DELIGHTFUL AREA TO LIVE IN AND NOT AN EYE SORE.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: To strongly object to the removal of the section 52 agreement Blue Mountain Date: 04 November 2013 09:29:20

From: Sent: 02 November 2013 23:09 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: To strongly object to the removal of the section 52 agreement Blue Mountain

To Head of Development Management

Points of objection to the councils proposal

· You have not consulted on the proposed change which may affect the legal title you hold · One of the main reasons we brought the property was due to it ‘s proximity to the golf course and open space · The property was sold to us with the covenant in place and we did no agree that it should be changed or removed. · We understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a Golf Course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years) · The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on our behalf which was to protect this land from development · We do not support that taxpayers money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on our behalf which was to protect this land from development · It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses · Building on the golf course will affect our enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities , tranquillity , and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Proposed removal of legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course area Date: 04 November 2013 09:27:10

From: Sent: 02 November 2013 17:19 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Proposed removal of legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course area

Dear Addressees

I am a resident of Temple Park, Binfield, having chosen the location by reason of the quality of the natural environment and pleasant surroundings.

I have recently learned that the legal agreement entered into by Bracknell Forest Council in 1990 with Luff Developments for the express purpose of protecting the land comprising Blue Mountain Golf Course in Binfield from development for 125 years is being considered for removal by the Council on the basis that they have now allocated the site for the construction of a large housing estate, two schools and a football stadium.

The proposal is breath-taking in its high-handedness and arrogance, which I did not expect to come from a local authority generally known for its sensible stance on most issues. Since it also impacts on the terms of the legal title which my wife and I hold, there is naturally and added reason for us to object to its being pursued. I do so in the strongest possible terms.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Proposed changes to Blue Mountain planning agreement Date: 04 November 2013 09:27:02

From: Sent: 02 November 2013 15:58 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Proposed changes to Blue Mountain planning agreement

To the Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council

We are contacting you to object to the request by the land owners of Blue Mountain Golf Centre for the land to be released from the Planning Agreement 1990.

We understand that the Borough Council and County Council at the time signed a legal agreement that the land should only be used for recreational purposes for a period of 125 years in order to protect this land from development. It is extremely disappointing that the Bracknell Forest Council seems to have no intention of upholding the 1990 agreement having already made the decision to develop on this greenfield site - a decision that is at odds with its Service Plan priority to protect the environment.

One of the main reasons we bought our property in Temple Park, Binfield was the village environment and proximity to open space, with the understanding that there was a legal agreement that the space would not be developed in the foreseeable future.

In our opinon, Bracknell Forest Council has not listened to - or even responded to in any way - the concerns of residents about potential development on this land, for example the impact on local roads and health services or the strong objection to moving Bracknell Town Football Club into Binfield (which already has its own club).

It is difficult for us to have any confidence in our local council if legal agreements signed supposedly for the benefit of residents are so easily overturned when it is convenient for the Council or ambitious developers without consideration for the real needs or wishes of its residents.

From: To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain change of use Section 52 Date: 04 November 2013 09:09:14

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 03 November 2013 21:41 To: Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain change of use Section 52

Dear Sirs

I have seen your correspondence from of Bracknell Forest Borough Council (BFBC), regarding the use of the land at the Blue Mountain Golf a Centre in Wood Lane Binfield. Reference number to this letter is S52 - 614307.

The previous planing agreement from 16th February 1990, clearly states that this land, formerly known as Park Farm be dedicated to a number of uses including a golf course, balancing pond, hotel, distribution road and most importantly open space. The reference for this document is 614307.

Your recent letter advises of the land owners, the trustees of Luff pension schemes and Luff farms limited, having requested a modification to the section 52 planning agreement from the original 1990 tenth Schedule Part II, paragraph 1 and the request to change the use from a golf course.

I strongly object to the change of use of this land and would ask that BFBC objects and rejects this request for change of use for a number of reasons, which I have listed below

This land has been designated to be open space for the use and enjoyment of local residents for recreational and leisure activities.

The land is used as an open space which divides the development of Bracknell town and Binfield

The land offers a wide range of activities for locals including, amongst many others, golf, business and conference facilities, a social meeting place and a walking area for dogs and the local population

The area also offers wildlife a natural resource and refuge area and an opportunity to breed, and give natural habitat.

For these reasons, and many others, I would ask that the BFBC rejects this request to change the use of this land.

The original agreement was intended to be in place for 125 years and which was designed to protect the area for all of the reasons I have highlighted above, and should therefore remain in place.

For the council to make a complete U turn and overturn this legal document would make a mockery of this, and any similar documents some of which have been included in many local residents legal title for their properties.

The Borough council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on my behalf and there is no reason why this should change. Tax payers money should therefore NOT be used to break this legal agreement.

Please could you confirm the receipt of this email and also give me any details of decisions made following this application. Many thanks

Kind regards

Sent from my iPhone From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain proposed development objection Date: 04 November 2013 09:36:44

From: Sent: 03 November 2013 20:03 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain proposed development objection

I am writing to formally object to the removal of the Section 52 legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course and this important open space between Binfield and Bracknell.

I find it absolutely unacceptable that an agreement that was made in good faith to provide a community facility for residents and an area of open space enjoyed by hundreds of people should now be taken away because it has become convenient to build on it to satisfy a plan to deliver new housing. It makes a mockery of the whole planning process and if this agreement is removed, it will just show that any future written legal agreements made as part of any future developments are quite simply not worth the paper they are written on.

Furthermore it is absolutely unacceptable for the Council to accept this given the same owner who signed up to the protection of this land now wants to financially benefit from breaking the agreement.

Clearly the Borough Council signed the agreement to protect this land (for another 102 years) and if they can now do a u-turn and reverse this legal agreement, the trust that I and others put in the Borough Council will be reduced significantly and many people I know will vote with their feet by moving outside the Borough altogether as the very reasons for living in Binfield will be eliminated by this single action.

I will do everything I can both in terms of time and effort and also financially to protect this open space as was intended by all parties including the Council land owner, the very people now intent on removing the Section 52 agreement.

I trust and hope that the Council will listen to the hundreds of objections that have and are being made to stop this unacceptable and potentially very damaging u-turn on protecting this facility and open space.

Yours truly,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to removal of the Section 52 Agreement at Blue Mountain Date: 04 November 2013 09:36:54

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 03 November 2013 21:28 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to removal of the Section 52 Agreement at Blue Mountain

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been made aware of the above removal of Section 52 at Blue Mountain in Bracknell Berkshire and I have the following objections:

- I am appalled that the council can make this proposed change which affects the legal title many residents at Temple Park hold. - One of the main reasons I bought in Binfield and the surrounding area was due to its proximity to the golf course and the open space - I understand that properties in Temple Park were sold with the covenant in place and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed -I live on the other side of Temple Park and although I do not have the covenant on my house it was one of the reasons I bought my property. - A Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement - 102 years - what has changed? - The Borough Council and County Council signed an agreement on the behalf of the residents and I see no reason why this should change - I would like to know why this has now changed. - Why is my tax payers money busing used to break this legal agreement - which is in force to protect this land from development - I would like an explanation to this. - I understand that the same landowner, who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement, in order to build more houses - how is this possible- you should be protecting this land not in agreement of building on it - what are your reasons for now wanting to build on this land other than money? - I enjoy the space around the golf course (as I run around the golf course and walk my dogs) and my partner plays on the golf course - this will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreational facilities, views, tranquility and one of the few green gaps between Binfield and Bracknell - I am most definitely against this development and cannot understand why this is even being considered.

I look forward to hearing your response to the above.

Regards, From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement - Temple Park Date: 04 November 2013 09:37:03

From: Sent: 03 November 2013 23:34 To:

Subject: Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement - Temple Park

Dear Sir/Madam,

Ref: Removal of Section 52 Agreement Temple Park, Binfield , Bracknell, Berkshire

We wish to object to the proposed removal of Section 52 Agreement for Temple Park being made by Bracknell Forest Council.

We moved onto Temple Park over 5 years ago as we fell in love with Binfield, the surrounding countryside with open spaces & bridal paths.

To date, we, along with all the other residents on Temple Park, have not been consulted individually on the proposed change to the Section 52 Agreement which was in place when we purchased our property. With the covenant in place, we would not agree or expect it to be changed or removed by Bracknell Forest Council. We therefore definitely disagree to it being changed and object to its removal.

We understand that the Section 52 Agreement is in place now to protect Blue Mountain from any development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years).

We do not support the tax payers money being used to break a legal agreement which was signed on our behalf to protect this land from development. It is not right that the same owner who signed the original agreement to protect the land of Blue Mountain now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. They should NOT be allowed to do this. An agreement is an agreement & should not be broken.

Building on the golf course would be detrimental to our personal enjoyment of the open space as we regularly walk & cycle around this area. The views and tranquility of having this green area would be in serious jeopardy if building of these houses, two schools and Bracknell Town Football club were to go ahead. Also road congestion, pollution and noise would be a major factor to our lives being within such close proximity to Blue Mountain. I hope you will acknowledge our personal objection as outlined above to this ludicrous proposal.

Yours faithfully